undefined | Better HN

0 pointscarapace3y ago0 comments

They don't make educated choices, they don't make choices at all.

Human societies can be broadly categorized into three groups:

1) The largest group (typically more than half) don't know what's going on.

2) The second group sees what's going on but doesn't do anything about it.

3) The third group (which is really tiny, like 1-in-10000) sees what's going on and does things, or they try to.

The open secret among groups 2 and 3 is that group 1 has to be managed (otherwise they go off the rails and crash civilization pretty quickly. It's happened before.)

So you get things like Religion, Sports, War, etc. all more-or-less to keep "the masses" on the tracks. The invention of the TV was a huge advance for this purpose. Suddenly people are staying inside and not causing trouble! You can even sort of program them: en mass people behave with statistical predictability. (E.g. you can get women to start smoking cigarettes. True example.)

Anyway, from this POV (I read "Manufacturing Consent" at a tender age) the masses have no agency. Democracy is a side-show, part of the management API for the masses.

What we're seeing now (from my POV) is the Internet ripping the lid off of the propaganda control system. "How Ya Gonna Keep 'em Down on the Farm (After They've Seen Paree)?"

0 comments

rewilding3y ago

Can you support your claims as for these ratios? I can't support my claim well, but I picture people to be more equally-distributed among those 3 groups.

Also, I'd state it more starkly: 1) 1/3 don't know or care about the suffering of people in general. 2) 1/3 wish harm on others or care so little about others that they'll seek even small personal gains at others' great expense. 3) 1/3 at least feel compassion for others, but might not have the ability or resolve to make substantial change.

Why do you think that group 1 is the one that needs to be controlled? Why not the ones seeking harm? I encourage apathetic people to become more politically-conscious, but I don't blame people for wanting to live their own lives.

I do agree that a lot of institutions are just toys: certain religions which talk about peace but whose followers openly and proudly support policies which harm others, political parties which offer team identities but no real change, etc.

Please don't take anything here as a blanket statement against any particular group.

carapaceOP3y ago

> Can you support your claims as for these ratios?

I think the article we're commenting on is just that, no?

> Half of Americans in a recent survey indicated they believe national news organizations intend to mislead, misinform or persuade the public to adopt a particular point of view through their reporting.

That would seem to imply that more than half of Americans didn't realize that until recently, eh?

> I'd state it more starkly: 1) 1/3 don't know or care about the suffering of people in general. 2) 1/3 wish harm on others or care so little about others that they'll seek even small personal gains at others' great expense. 3) 1/3 at least feel compassion for others, but might not have the ability or resolve to make substantial change.

I think you're talking about something else than I am. You seem to be talking about motivation, I'm talking about political power. The OP's question was, "how can then this democracy function" if "people [can't] make educated choices?"

FWIW, your second group reminds me of Carlo M. Cipolla's "The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity": https://web.archive.org/web/20130216132858/http://www.cantri...

> Why do you think that group 1 is the one that needs to be controlled?

Do you mean my group 1 or your group 1? My group 1 needs to be controlled if you want a complex society. Otherwise they'll destroy it without malice through entropy.

If you mean your group 1 then I don't think they should be controlled, but I would encourage them to try to develop compassion.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse