What's actually being censored: misinformation or the truth?

[mr_engineer]

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

This again assumes that people value facts, truth and are open minded to be corrected and to be educated. This is not the case at all. People value echo chambers, people value shitting on the other side without making any good arguments, people value holding their current beliefs to the end, people are drawn to entertainment. and rationality is being overwritten by external stimuli. So in this case the 'best quality content' would mean posts that are the most stimulating , entertaining  - so for example hate posts, memes, circle jerk posts . (not posts that are about truth or facts or education)

Fair enough. 

Here's how it goes - the debaters like to 'pretend' that they're debating in good faith and the audience, because they have their own intellectual egos, like to 'pretend' that they're watching a debate happening in good faith. 

We even have different definitions of 'good faith'! And, every individual intellectual caters to their audience's definition of 'good faith'. That's why they have an image of an intellectual and that's why they have an audience. 

I'm talking about the bigger, fairly respected players here. The Sam Harris types, the Ben Shapiro types, the Jordan Peterson types. Controversial to the woke audience, but respected by their audience. Not trash-talkers who pop off huge today and are nowhere to be seen tomorrow. 

[John Paul]

Do you agree that more racists in numbers equals more danger to racial violence toward minority citizens?

[mr_engineer]

1 minute ago, John Paul said:

Do you agree that more racists in numbers equals more danger to racial violence toward minority citizens?

Yes. 

But, I don't think that having a debate-video about a racist talking-point creates more racists. I think it brings to the surface people's pre-existing racism and addresses it. 

I don't know much about the topic, to be honest. This was not a discussion about racism to begin with. I just gave an extreme example of a BS claim that people genuinely believe and rationalize to themselves and that those rationalizations should be directly addressed. 

[Consept]

30 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

The solution is to change the epistemic-structure of the education-system. Or, create a new education-system where the definition of 'knowledge' is not 'words', but 'awareness'. And, students will be expected to actively listen, or else they will miss out on what they need to pass exams. The bar of listening must be raised and the teaching must be made interesting and applicable to reality. 

I've worked on this new design of an education-system. I'm in the process of implementing it right now. I will be sure to get back to you once it's up and running, when I'm supporting myself off of it! 

I agree with you and would love to see how you implement your new education system. The problem is you would have to convince the parents because certain parents will be threatened by anything that could challenge their beliefs that they are trying to indoctrinate their kids with. For example a lot of christian fundamentalists dont want their kids taught sex education and protest to teach creationism in schools, these parents will strongly oppose any educational reformations that will change their kids beliefs. This is generally true with blue SD but also occurs higher on the spiral as well. 

[Consept]

8 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Fair enough. 

Here's how it goes - the debaters like to 'pretend' that they're debating in good faith and the audience, because they have their own intellectual egos, like to 'pretend' that they're watching a debate happening in good faith. 

We even have different definitions of 'good faith'! And, every individual intellectual caters to their audience's definition of 'good faith'. That's why they have an image of an intellectual and that's why they have an audience. 

I'm talking about the bigger, fairly respected players here. The Sam Harris types, the Ben Shapiro types, the Jordan Peterson types. Controversial to the woke audience, but respected by their audience. Not trash-talkers who pop off huge today and are nowhere to be seen tomorrow. 

This is pretty accurate actually, first time ive agreed with you. However, as good faith as say Sam Harris might be he does have blind spots, for example he really doesnt like Islam, Ben Shapiro is very conservative and Peterson has a strong dislike for the left. These are not bad examples and i get your point but its still very difficult. Also people get attracted to the extreme of whatever their belief is and the extremists get the most attention, so these are tough hurdles to get over 

[mr_engineer]

Just now, Consept said:

I agree with you and would love to see how you implement your new education system. The problem is you would have to convince the parents because certain parents will be threatened by anything that could challenge their beliefs that they are trying to indoctrinate their kids with. For example a lot of christian fundamentalists dont want their kids taught sex education and protest to teach creationism in schools, these parents will strongly oppose any educational reformations that will change their kids beliefs. This is generally true with blue SD but also occurs higher on the spiral as well. 

Here, in India, we have the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT). It's known as the best engineering-university in the country. They have a MCQ entrance-exam that's known as one of the hardest on the planet. Because it's ultra-tricky. And, I'm planning on coaching students to crack this exam. 

I'm able to take the freedom to experiment with a new model of education-system precisely because the exam is not a subjective test, in which they memorize stuff. They have to deeply understand the concepts and apply them to solve tricky, complex problems. 

And, there is a massive gap in the coaching-industry and I have found a way to meet this need because I watch Leo's videos and I understand some epistemology. This is where I get to convince the parents. Because, an education-system that believes that 'the map is the territory', fails miserably to help students think and deepen their conceptual understanding! 

Let's see what happens! 

[John Paul]

4 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Yes. 

But, I don't think that having a debate-video about a racist talking-point creates more racists. I think it brings to the surface people's pre-existing racism and addresses it. 

I don't know much about the topic, to be honest. This was not a discussion about racism to begin with. I just gave an extreme example of a BS claim that people genuinely believe and rationalize to themselves and that those rationalizations should be directly addressed. 

I think it does because I think the more exposure a child gets to something the more it is affected by it. These are the real repercussions of these “little” internet showdowns. Minorities being in increased physical danger in their own country.