A better country (world)?

[scott]

A survey conducted in 2017 found between 15% and 20% of respondents on both sides thought the country would be better off if large numbers of the opposing party in the public today “just died.”

https://www.dannyhayes.org/uploads/6/9/ ... lmedit.pdf

Yodean, Astute, Budge, Scott, etc if any of you see fit do so, you can start a new thread on this super trend.

This survey was conducted in 2017 and based on the data we have looked at over the past year we would be willing to state that the number of individuals wishing that members of the other party just drop dead is now close to 30%

Apolitical individuals are what we need to start the thread. I am always starting things lol. And the focus in not the US but the world. Nothing ventured nothing gained lol. What is the worst-case scenario lol

Seems to be about contentious factions, of which there are many more than I can think of. How many fly fishermen polled would think the world would be better off if all the "stink bait" fishermen “just died.”

Got me to thinking which faction I think the world would be better off without, if they just died. My first thought, mouth breathing oxygen thieves. On further thought, they're not a faction, but a group (perhaps a semantic difference to some), and not particularly contentious. I think the world would be better off without them, but wouldn't want them to just die. Who's to say I'm not one of them anyway.

Also, how different would the poll be if it exchanged "never existed" for "just died". Well, I know someone who would be considered a mouth breathing oxygen thief named Matt, with Down's syndrome, son of my best friend. I don't consider him an oxygen thief and would rather he did exist, as do his mother and father.

I see factions have to do with egos, yes, they should be more like us, or just die/go away.

Just sayin'.

WTF? There's no such thing as a mouth breathing oxygen thief?

[AstuteShift]

It’s a nice dream but unfortunately the masses love their slavery

Is it worthwhile to wake them up? Cosmic forces do not allow everyone to be free.

The only step I see that makes sense which is the path of least resistance and does not disturb the laws of cosmos is just letting AI take over.

AI is going to F things up that even the shadow players can’t envision. This is one scenario I hope I get to see.

[scott]

It stands to reason (my reasoning anyway) a faction that thinks things would be better with the other faction dead, also thinks the other faction would not otherwise change it's position. No chance to appease each other without unacceptable repercussions, diplomacy failing, a precursor to war.

[harryg]

I think that this polarisation has been exacerbated by social media. I don't use it, (apart from this), so bear that in mind when I talk about it. I'll use Facebook as the example.

My understanding is that FB gets to know your likes/preferences over time, and then serves up only that content which it thinks will be of interest to you. Although that might sound like a good idea, it means that when you log in, every story / news piece / opinion that you read is likely to comfort you in your beliefs rather than to challenge them.

Now I know you might say that that is similar to buying the same newspaper every day, and in many respects it is. But the constant 'push' of social media means that you will see a far greater concentration of analogous articles in a much shorter time than by reading a newspaper. Added to that, complete strangers agreeing with you and telling you that you are right serves to convince you further.

This means that over time you can become more entrenched and polarised than ever in your opinions, which might have started out as quite mild. This is a fertile ground for extremism.

I say Hang All The Extremists.

Good acronym ?

[SOL]

I think that this polarisation has been exacerbated by social media. I don't use it, (apart from this), so bear that in mind when I talk about it. I'll use Facebook as the example.

My understanding is that FB gets to know your likes/preferences over time, and then serves up only that content which it thinks will be of interest to you. Although that might sound like a good idea, it means that when you log in, every story / news piece / opinion that you read is likely to comfort you in your beliefs rather than to challenge them.

Now I know you might say that that is similar to buying the same newspaper every day, and in many respects it is. But the constant 'push' of social media means that you will see a far greater concentration of analogous articles in a much shorter time than by reading a newspaper. Added to that, complete strangers agreeing with you and telling you that you are right serves to convince you further.

This means that over time you can become more entrenched and polarised than ever in your opinions, which might have started out as quite mild. This is a fertile ground for extremism.

I say Hang All The Extremists.

Good acronym ?

You are spot on. Social media uses Algo's to find stuff that makes you feel good and add that with people saying you are the champ, then you have a perfect recipe for a rise in stupidity as well as polarization. Polarization is in a super trend perhaps on par with AI.

Until then Merry Christmas and enjoy every day like it is your last

[Yodean]

I say Hang All The Extremists.

@CentreNinja: you know we are in polarizing times when somebody in the middle like yourself makes that kind of statement. Lmao.

-agree with your previous points regarding the polarizing effects of social media, and potentially contributing to echochamber formation;

With that said, and the following is certainly not meant as a direct attack on yourself, but simply based on my direct experience:

-most who claim to be "balanced" or "moderate" in their views are simply too afraid to take a specific stand on an issue, and also afraid to be "wrong," so they default to a "middle-of-the-road" perspective on whatever issue is at hand; to me, this perspective is synonymous with cowardice, masquerading as "balance" - in essence, a subtle manifestation of Sheep-Thinking;

-now, some degree of balance in certain sectors of one's life is appropriate at different times, but in general, all the mainstream conceptions of "success" that I've enjoyed - whether it's accumulating many millions of dollars in the markets, having a satisfying medical career, dating a litany of amazing women before stumbling upon a high-quality strategic partner that is my current common law wife, pushing the mental and physical limits of my health, etc. (for more painful details, one may do a search of my previous "Al Bundy" posts) - all occurred when I disregarded the whole idea of being "balanced," or "moderate"; of course, most of my fairly epic "fails" also happened when I ignored the concept of being "balanced"; the most brilliant move, whether in chess, the financial markets, or in approaching beautiful women, generally lies right next to a terrible blunder;

-on a superficial level of analysis, if one wants to be a "B-" or "C+" Student of Life (SOL), then by all means, be "balanced" or "moderate" or whatever; if one wants to be an "A+++" SOL, be Extreme, but at the right moments, in the right areas of one's life, in the right way; of course, this opens one up to being a "D-" SOL, but at its core, life = risk; in my world, there is certainly nothing wrong with being "extremely" healthy, for example;

-in the last two years, I've done my best to "prune" my extraneous human relations to a minimum level possible, depending on practical constraints (i.e. I still need to interact with my dentist and accountant at times), with those who are "moderate," or "balanced" in their views and actions; for one, I find them quite boring, and for another, they have nothing to offer me intellectually; they just "parrot-speak" whatever the "moderate" perspective is;

-never felt better since doing the above; almost as good as the "coffee + shilajit + crypto" combination!

[SOL]

-in the last two years, I've done my best to "prune" my extraneous human relations to a minimum level possible, depending on practical constraints (i.e. I still need to interact with my dentist and accountant at times), with those who are "moderate," or "balanced" in their views and actions; for one, I find them quite boring, and for another, they have nothing to offer me intellectually; they just "parrot-speak" whatever the "moderate" perspective is;

-never felt better since doing the above; almost as good as the "coffee + shilajit + crypto" combination!

Try voluntary isolation. Here you try not to talk or meet no one for as long as possible. It forces you to look deep within and initially, you might not like what you see, but when you persist with it, you start to see all sorts of possibilities to improve without having to put too much effort. The longest I managed to do this for was a month. it was quite hard. Start with a few days, then 1 two weeks and so on.

I have modified this now to something like this. I won't meet the same person more than once a week and some are pushing to once in two or three weeks. Vacations are the exception because you are sometimes put in a position where you can't put the above into play. Minus the vacation factor I have been doing this I think for nigh on two years (need to check my notebook) and I feel immensely better.

[scott]

You are spot on. Social media uses Algo's to find stuff that makes you feel good and add that with people saying you are the champ, then you have a perfect recipe for a rise in stupidity as well as polarization. Polarization is in a super trend perhaps on par with AI.

FB/social media uses AI recipe to find and group together like minded people. They deem it a service to give people what they want. Whether they realized initially or not, groups would polarize (the pendulum swings both ways) people, that is whats happening. Mark *uckerburg had to go to Congress to explain, censorship ensued.

Begs the question is AI polarizing at this point, and who can/will implement AI that makes a better world? Or, is the interim goal to polarize idiot partisans that rub each other out? Ohshit! Ладно, не важно

[chippermon]

Some of you may find this interesting. Some of are already well aware of this. Watch "The Social Dilemma" by Tristan Harris. He is an American technology ethicists and former Google employee. It will give you an idea of what Scott, Sol and others are talking about.

Not to mention the fact that journalism in general has gone down the toilet. But social media is part of that too. It's all about clicks that drive the advertising money machine. The more sensational and outrageous the photo or headline is, the more clicks therefore the more money.

[harryg]

Some of you may find this interesting. Some of are already well aware of this. Watch "The Social Dilemma" by Tristan Harris. He is an American technology ethicists and former Google employee. It will give you an idea of what Scott, Sol and others are talking about.

Not to mention the fact that journalism in general has gone down the toilet. But social media is part of that too. It's all about clicks that drive the advertising money machine. The more sensational and outrageous the photo or headline is, the more clicks therefore the more money.

Fascinating, thanks for heads-up.