When I look back at my telecom years, I note the huge regulatory debate around network "neutrality". No such thing exists (there never has been a "neutral" packet network with emergent performance), but real power exists in being able to conjure a divisive issue out of thin air.
I did once sit in the office of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who seemed genuinely interested in the science. But apart from that one honourable exception, most people just wanted to "win" arguments at which they were unconsciously incompetent.
Similarly, election fraud can be made to disappear entirely, and all controversial issues can be pre-determined by labelling them "QAnon". Mind control is a thing, and my conclusion is that it is so effective because people actually like it. It gives them the addictive "feeling of knowing", versus the pain of dissent from critical thinking.
1/ I realized this at a young age.
Humans get a buzz when things "click together" nicely. This includes ideas. In this sense, it's not far fetched to claim that humans are problem-solvers in nature. A down side to this is that we focus on problems or "negative things", sometimes even obsess over them if they are hard to solve.
Without going too deeply into philosophy, society, because it consists of humans, offers an amazing test ground for validation where your personal ideations can be tested against the personal filters and reason of others.
This is why having others agree with us is pleasurable. As in the mind, as in society.
2/ This is where humanity splits in 4 general categories:
- those who fear being rejected and will cultivate acceptance by upholding mediocre social opinions while maybe keeping their own genuine thoughts to themselves
- those who accept the temporary rejection as a signal to embetter themselves, knowing that they will be even happier later. These enjoy challenges
- those who are addicted to the feeling of success and will voluntarilly bypass the functional role of this pain/pleasure system (ie. to refine your current understanding of the world through ideation) and perform it *only* to get the buzz. These are socialites and are training themselves to be dumb unbeknownst to them
- those who will generate or portray an illusion of popularity or alternatively generate dogmas based on basic current assumptions in order to control and influence others not on the merit of veracity but at the measure of their intentions.
Thank you for making the same observation I did a long time ago.
For me, it's the first time that I hear it being corroborated in public
I should probably learn to chose my friends more wisely.
