I completely agree with the stated goal, but wonder how you see social media (and news media) fit into the equation.
In the current incentive structure only the distribution of your viewpoint is valued (more clicks, views, and monetization), not the truthfulness of this viewpoint. The more extreme you make your position the more likely it is to spread — this is true on both the Left and the Right.
So given these dynamics, you get "popular" views that are based on fictitious narratives and "elite" views that are more grounded in reality but ultimately play an increasingly marginal role in a democracy.
It seems to me then that the way to fix it is by designing a social media environment where the incentives align with truth seeking.
But other than that I’m curious what is your theory of change to move toward this “Second Enlightenment”?
I am focused as usual on addressing culture. I want to address the issue where people are more likely to click on the extreme views and urge them to think carefully about doing this and instead to try to amplify careful, evidence-based and consistent thinkers.
You should add a buy me a coffee option. For those of us retired on fixed income those subscriptions quickly add up, and we like to at least put something your way in support . I'll have to do the subscribe for a month and then cancel thing.
OK, so I presently have no choice but to subscribe for a month and then cancel. Don't take it personal when that happens. Will show up as E.W. as payee and should have just gone through.
"The ideological bias of academia, especially during Covid, when public health rules bent for political protest, has badly damaged trust."
May I request a retelling of what happened behind the statement above? My apologies because I am from Southeast Asia and we dealt with Covid simply as a disease and not as an ideological/political thing as the West (the USA in particular) appears to have done; so I'm not quite sure what the statement refers to.
Excellently thoughtful article as always, I very much enjoyed it, though the challenge of championing for truth is daunting!
There was a lot of anger when health officials and politicians on the left, who had said lockdowns were extremely important for infection control and people had been unable to see family members even when they were dying, then seemed to be OK with the Black Lives Matter protests. They were perceived as seeing that political movement as important enough to break the distancing rules but not people’s closest relationships and bonds.
In hindsight it is incredible how American doctors believed in 2020 that racism was deadlier than Covid -- In the USA, where, I understand, one cannot even openly criticize black gangsta rap, without being cancelled in some way.
"the standards to determine that someone lacks the mental capacity to make their own health decisions have to remain very high."
Agreed, but it made me wonder how such a standard should be set. When is someone unfit to make their own decisions? I wouldn't deny the right to make health decisions for people in assisted living arrangements, but I would deny it for people suffering with dementia. Is that a reasonable line?
I happen to have given this quite a lot of thought and be familiar with the law in the UK due to working with people with learning disability, disease and brain injury. It really has to be very specific. Someone with dementia would only be considered to lack mental capacity if you could demonstrate that they did not understand the situation they were being asked to make a decision about or the ramifications of that decision.
For example, my mother had the onset of dementia when she signed Power of Attorney over to me, but, while she might forget whether she'd taken her pills and call me six times about it, she could read and understand the form and say that she wanted me to have power of attorney to make health and financial decisions for her if she became unable to do so.
But it gets really fine-grained. Someone could have the mental capacity to manage their own finances but not to decide how to dress to go out in the cold, for example. The assumption must always be that they do have mental capacity and the burden on the people who say they have not to demonstrate this
that “make X Y again” has become such a tired rhetorical template. Reminds me of years ago when everyone had to make a poster for the football game that said " x entity a dollars y entity B dollars z entity priceless!"
Cool, great title! I’ll check it out properly in the next few days…
I completely agree with the stated goal, but wonder how you see social media (and news media) fit into the equation.
In the current incentive structure only the distribution of your viewpoint is valued (more clicks, views, and monetization), not the truthfulness of this viewpoint. The more extreme you make your position the more likely it is to spread — this is true on both the Left and the Right.
So given these dynamics, you get "popular" views that are based on fictitious narratives and "elite" views that are more grounded in reality but ultimately play an increasingly marginal role in a democracy.
It seems to me then that the way to fix it is by designing a social media environment where the incentives align with truth seeking.
But other than that I’m curious what is your theory of change to move toward this “Second Enlightenment”?
I am focused as usual on addressing culture. I want to address the issue where people are more likely to click on the extreme views and urge them to think carefully about doing this and instead to try to amplify careful, evidence-based and consistent thinkers.
You should add a buy me a coffee option. For those of us retired on fixed income those subscriptions quickly add up, and we like to at least put something your way in support . I'll have to do the subscribe for a month and then cancel thing.
Sorry, missed the bit where you said you'd like to put something my way. I will consider the 'buy me a coffee' option!
OK, so I presently have no choice but to subscribe for a month and then cancel. Don't take it personal when that happens. Will show up as E.W. as payee and should have just gone through.
Thank you! I shall endeavour not to be captured by loonies!
All my writing is free!
"The ideological bias of academia, especially during Covid, when public health rules bent for political protest, has badly damaged trust."
May I request a retelling of what happened behind the statement above? My apologies because I am from Southeast Asia and we dealt with Covid simply as a disease and not as an ideological/political thing as the West (the USA in particular) appears to have done; so I'm not quite sure what the statement refers to.
Excellently thoughtful article as always, I very much enjoyed it, though the challenge of championing for truth is daunting!
There was a lot of anger when health officials and politicians on the left, who had said lockdowns were extremely important for infection control and people had been unable to see family members even when they were dying, then seemed to be OK with the Black Lives Matter protests. They were perceived as seeing that political movement as important enough to break the distancing rules but not people’s closest relationships and bonds.
Thanks for the explanation, Helen. I did a search and indeed I found this:
https://time.com/5848212/doctors-supporting-protests/
In hindsight it is incredible how American doctors believed in 2020 that racism was deadlier than Covid -- In the USA, where, I understand, one cannot even openly criticize black gangsta rap, without being cancelled in some way.
"the standards to determine that someone lacks the mental capacity to make their own health decisions have to remain very high."
Agreed, but it made me wonder how such a standard should be set. When is someone unfit to make their own decisions? I wouldn't deny the right to make health decisions for people in assisted living arrangements, but I would deny it for people suffering with dementia. Is that a reasonable line?
I happen to have given this quite a lot of thought and be familiar with the law in the UK due to working with people with learning disability, disease and brain injury. It really has to be very specific. Someone with dementia would only be considered to lack mental capacity if you could demonstrate that they did not understand the situation they were being asked to make a decision about or the ramifications of that decision.
For example, my mother had the onset of dementia when she signed Power of Attorney over to me, but, while she might forget whether she'd taken her pills and call me six times about it, she could read and understand the form and say that she wanted me to have power of attorney to make health and financial decisions for her if she became unable to do so.
But it gets really fine-grained. Someone could have the mental capacity to manage their own finances but not to decide how to dress to go out in the cold, for example. The assumption must always be that they do have mental capacity and the burden on the people who say they have not to demonstrate this
that “make X Y again” has become such a tired rhetorical template. Reminds me of years ago when everyone had to make a poster for the football game that said " x entity a dollars y entity B dollars z entity priceless!"