When the Information Age brought us the Internet and its possibilities for sharing what we know on a wide scale, the expectation of positive dividends for humanity was repeated often. But, like a lot of expectations, the actual result has been quite different.
Along with the much greater access to quality information that has certainly been achieved via the Information Superhighway, the advancement has been largely eclipsed by propagation of bullshit that has also been given an accessible method of delivery. Getting good with the bad is a common and expected human experience, but in this case the good is losing big time, in my opinion.
Of course there are a lot of examples of improvements where the good outweighs the bad, but when looking in a larger sense at the overall change to our lives and how we interact with one another, I think the victory (so far) goes to the bad.
I think the reason in play has to do with the human need for training in order to overcome the many weaknesses and biases we all endure as part of the homo sapien package of existence. We are not knowledgeable and wise by default. It takes work--a lot of work--and the passing on of information from sources where human failings have been filtered out as much as possible. People don't generally deploy a valid method of checks and balances on their own. Adopting error-filled conclusions as credible is the much more likely result. But the effort will still be made to not only share damaged conclusions, but impose them on others, which is where the bad comes into play in a big way. When enough people sharing bad information reaches a number that appears to award legitimacy, those in the group become hardened in an act of self-defense and "the good" corrective information that is also available is shunned.
It's certainly true that it can be detrimental to have gatekeepers over the information that gets shared. But our current experience of being able to flood the world with open nonsense shows us the pernicious side of downplaying the value of chaperones and editors who use knowledge of our weaknesses to share the verifiable best we have to offer.
I don't have high hopes of our descendants reaching a workable balance anytime soon. But I do hope that the problem gets openly recognized and efforts for improvement based on that recognition are eventually undertaken.
Along with the much greater access to quality information that has certainly been achieved via the Information Superhighway, the advancement has been largely eclipsed by propagation of bullshit that has also been given an accessible method of delivery. Getting good with the bad is a common and expected human experience, but in this case the good is losing big time, in my opinion.
Of course there are a lot of examples of improvements where the good outweighs the bad, but when looking in a larger sense at the overall change to our lives and how we interact with one another, I think the victory (so far) goes to the bad.
I think the reason in play has to do with the human need for training in order to overcome the many weaknesses and biases we all endure as part of the homo sapien package of existence. We are not knowledgeable and wise by default. It takes work--a lot of work--and the passing on of information from sources where human failings have been filtered out as much as possible. People don't generally deploy a valid method of checks and balances on their own. Adopting error-filled conclusions as credible is the much more likely result. But the effort will still be made to not only share damaged conclusions, but impose them on others, which is where the bad comes into play in a big way. When enough people sharing bad information reaches a number that appears to award legitimacy, those in the group become hardened in an act of self-defense and "the good" corrective information that is also available is shunned.
It's certainly true that it can be detrimental to have gatekeepers over the information that gets shared. But our current experience of being able to flood the world with open nonsense shows us the pernicious side of downplaying the value of chaperones and editors who use knowledge of our weaknesses to share the verifiable best we have to offer.
I don't have high hopes of our descendants reaching a workable balance anytime soon. But I do hope that the problem gets openly recognized and efforts for improvement based on that recognition are eventually undertaken.
No comments:
Post a Comment