Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Aneristic Illusions => Topic started by: Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard on June 03, 2019, 08:43:47 am

Title: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard on June 03, 2019, 08:43:47 am
And do our offspring need information faster than us?
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Faust on June 03, 2019, 09:24:20 am
We need better quality information, if it was slower but less noise to signal that would be a good trade
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: The Johnny on June 03, 2019, 10:55:55 am

Speaking of noise, this is in the wrong sub-forum, which is a funny type of self-example.  :lulz:

What we need is quality and relevancy, which is of course, the opposite to quantity and irrelevancy.

Facebook, as an example of something that we love to hate: we can for the most part say that Facebook has never had quality content, because its just the landfill of what people like to share... and if the grand majority of people have bad taste, arent that smart, AND on top of that put zero to little effort on what they post/share, then of course the quality is little to null; but you know what? it used to be RELEVANT because the "newsfeed/wall" used to be only about what we chose to see, no ads, no stupid videos from websites we didnt even follow, nor ads... in short, it used to be RELEVANT even do it had no quality, but now it has neither so its a loss overall.

The news: for the most part it used to be relevant and with quality because thats what people paid for and wanted, but with the advent of "online newspapers" that hunted ad revenue it all went down the shitter. Why? Because to get ad revenue you need to make clickbait articles and IT WORKS. So now printed newspapers that got paid, have to compete with free online newspapers that get their revenue from ads, so they have to play their game, and thus, we have this article sweatshop war. Nothing is relevant, and nothing has quality, its all clickbait for ads.

We could go on and include science and politics: practically everyone wants to hear, not about the facts or some semblance of truth that actually requires effort to put out, they just want something that supports their fantasies and desires or ideology.

So it boils down to the lack of education of the commoner, which is the customer, which has an unfillable void that demands trash to be poured down into it like a black hole, while the good stuff gets out-yelled and since theres no demand for it, it doesnt even get produced as much either.
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Cramulus on June 03, 2019, 02:31:49 pm
interesting question


Those of us plugged into media are getting information in much larger volumes than any time in prior human history.

very little of it is survival-related, so it's probably not a "need", however,

aspects of our environment are competitive, and someone well-equipped to educate themselves has a big advantage. Really, what we're talking about is the ability to parse the vast amounts of data and separate noise from signal, which is a little different from just getting information faster.


All that being said, there are people out there in rural areas who still have an @aol.com e-mail address and are doing just fine without us. Different environments have different needs.




Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Doktor Howl on June 03, 2019, 03:20:08 pm
If I don't have 5G, broadband, WiFi everywhere, than what is the POINT of all the horrible shit my society has done to bring it to me?

I mean, if it's THERE but I don't USE it, that's like saying that all those people we've killed died for nothing.

Hell, in the 1600s you had to worry about being killed because Von Somewhere wanted to expand his tiny dynasty's holdings by a few acres in some miserable province in Germany.  Now you get offed so overweight Americans can surf the internet on the subway.  If that's not progress, I don't know what the fuck is.
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Frontside Back on June 04, 2019, 01:31:14 pm
we are flooded with so much information it has no time to form in our heads. not to say it doesn't crystallize somewhere else.

Cell phone is a lovely word.
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Cramulus on June 04, 2019, 03:44:33 pm
I think that's the part of the key to swimming in the 21st century.

I work in educational publishing, and we talk a lot about education strategies, learning methods.. but having been out of school for 15 years, I'm not sure how much students are taught "how to learn". And how reading a piece of info is not enough, it has to be received in the right conditions, elaborated on, felt internally, in order for it to become knowledge.

Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Cain on June 04, 2019, 04:52:48 pm
What they are taught is normally about learning methods (which I'm sure you know are methodologically dubious) as opposed to epistemology. Though I do remember history classes touching on the reliability and potential bias of a source very early on.
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Doktor Howl on June 04, 2019, 05:39:03 pm
I think that's the part of the key to swimming in the 21st century.

I work in educational publishing, and we talk a lot about education strategies, learning methods.. but having been out of school for 15 years, I'm not sure how much students are taught "how to learn". And how reading a piece of info is not enough, it has to be received in the right conditions, elaborated on, felt internally, in order for it to become knowledge.

That's how they did it in basic training in the army.  Shit worked, too.  I could still deploy an M16 antipersonnel mine with my eyes closed, and I haven't seen one since 1987.
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Frontside Back on June 05, 2019, 05:17:37 am
I think that's the part of the key to swimming in the 21st century.

I work in educational publishing, and we talk a lot about education strategies, learning methods.. but having been out of school for 15 years, I'm not sure how much students are taught "how to learn". And how reading a piece of info is not enough, it has to be received in the right conditions, elaborated on, felt internally, in order for it to become knowledge.

That's how they did it in basic training in the army.  Shit worked, too.  I could still deploy an M16 antipersonnel mine with my eyes closed, and I haven't seen one since 1987.
I think that's less about method and more about context. In army your lazy ass brains wouldn't probably go: "Hey those assholes who don't pay attention might be onto something" and shut themselves off.
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Doktor Howl on June 05, 2019, 05:21:20 am
I think that's the part of the key to swimming in the 21st century.

I work in educational publishing, and we talk a lot about education strategies, learning methods.. but having been out of school for 15 years, I'm not sure how much students are taught "how to learn". And how reading a piece of info is not enough, it has to be received in the right conditions, elaborated on, felt internally, in order for it to become knowledge.

That's how they did it in basic training in the army.  Shit worked, too.  I could still deploy an M16 antipersonnel mine with my eyes closed, and I haven't seen one since 1987.
I think that's less about method and more about context. In army your lazy ass brains wouldn't probably go: "Hey those assholes who don't pay attention might be onto something" and shut themselves off.

My brain didn't work at all in basic.  It was muscle memory, fatigue, and screaming drill sergeants.

In short, the perfect learning environment.  As evidenced that I can still do that task.
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Frontside Back on June 05, 2019, 05:31:35 am
So... back to victorian schoolin?
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Doktor Howl on June 05, 2019, 05:54:21 am
So... back to victorian schoolin?

Well, no, I wouldn't suggest that method for chemistry or calculus.

Different skill sets require different environments.
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Frontside Back on June 05, 2019, 07:29:01 am
Personally I would find it refreshing if I could make nerds to to pushups just by answering incorrectly.
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: chaotic neutral observer on June 06, 2019, 05:10:30 am
Personally I would find it refreshing if I could make nerds to to pushups just by answering incorrectly.
Oh, you're one of those people, huh.  I remember your type from high-school.

Well, I just so happen to be a nerd who now does push-ups for fun.  I'll accept your challenge any day of the week.

Anyway, outside of a large scale emergency (tornado, flash flood, alien invasion), or a military operation, I can't think of many situations where a few minutes delay in getting information could mean the difference between life and death.

Now drop and give me thirty, you noodle-armed spag.
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Doktor Howl on June 06, 2019, 05:30:27 am
Personally I would find it refreshing if I could make nerds to to pushups just by answering incorrectly.

Then all you gotta do is enlist and spend 3-6 years getting some stripes.  It's easy.
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Frontside Back on June 06, 2019, 10:19:33 am
Personally I would find it refreshing if I could make nerds to to pushups just by answering incorrectly.
Oh, you're one of those people, huh.  I remember your type from high-school.
If you mean by that I'm posturing to hide my own nerdiness you are absolutely correct.
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: LMNO on June 06, 2019, 06:33:19 pm
Possibly relevant.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/3/18624687/conservatism-liberals-internet-activism-jen-schradie
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 10, 2019, 10:43:02 pm
To the initial question, the answer is "no". We've always needed information this fast, it just hasn't been available this fast until now. That's why technology advanced so slowly for most of history. It's also why we have racism; for thousands of years most people were reliant on unreliable fifth-hand information for their information about other cultures, and cultures were more different from one another because different cultures would solve the same problems at different times and in different ways. Most of the instances where the native americans got shit on wouldn't have happened if european technology had reached them before the europeans did, instead of at the same time.

Regarding news specifically, there are definitely some historical battles that happened due to one or both sides not knowing that the war had ended, and faster communication would have prevented these (Sir Henry Morgan's assault on Panama, for example)

EDIT:
Slight correction to the end of the first paragraph, I mentioned "european technology" but was also thinking of firearms and those are technically a chinese and korean technology
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Pergamos on June 12, 2019, 11:54:27 pm
Possibly relevant.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/3/18624687/conservatism-liberals-internet-activism-jen-schradie

She mentions, at the end of the article, that we need an open source social media network.  That already exists and it seems a shame to me that she's unaware of it.  It's still coalescing from a plethora of options, but they, mostly, share with each other.  It's called the federation, or the fediverse, depending on how you center it.
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on June 13, 2019, 12:22:57 am
Can it still be defined as "information" if it's bullshit?
It's not the speed that's problematic. Getting an Amber alert or a tornado warning on your phone instead of maybe eventually hearing about it from somebody who heard it on the radio is a good thing.
It's the shit. So. Much. SHIT.
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: The Johnny on June 18, 2019, 01:10:19 pm

Im reading some book, and it like, directly spoke to me about this thread, but only in a single sentence :lulz: :

"We are drowning in information, but without the power to understand, select, and analyse we cannot use that information well."
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard on June 19, 2019, 02:54:24 am
very little of it is survival-related, so it's probably not a "need"

What happens when information becomes integral to the survival mechanism?
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard on June 19, 2019, 03:02:31 am
I'm not sure how much students are taught "how to learn". And how reading a piece of info is not enough, it has to be received in the right conditions, elaborated on, felt internally, in order for it to become knowledge.

The ideal environment is one that allows the request of information "on demand", provided the information is subject to public scrutiny. The basic rules of logic and the guidelines of critical thinking should be a part of the learning process much earlier than they are. You can never be disinformation-free, but you can learn to know that it's okay to not always know anything for certain.
Title: Re: Do we need information faster than our predecessors?
Post by: Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard on June 19, 2019, 03:05:10 am
Can it still be defined as "information" if it's bullshit?
It's not the speed that's problematic.

There is information, misinformation, and disinformation. It's all data; data can be bad. And you're right.