I’m skeptical that access to information plays that big of a role in practice. What we see is that people just form online bubbles along with other people who have similar beliefs. Take the whole flat earth movement as an example, clearly the abundance of information to the contrary isn’t preventing people from believing nonsense. And that’s one of the more extremely absurd beliefs, it’s much easier for people to believe things like immigrants stealing jobs, or that entrepreneurs are needed for innovation, and so on. Meanwhile, MAGA is basically a cult around Trump, his support hasn’t really fallen amongst them even despite the economic damage his trade war is doing.
It’d be interesting to see more perspectives on this from people who know history better, but I see a lot of the same mechanics playing out today as at the start of the 20th century.
Flat earthers are very few which not really escape but decide not to believe in science while palestine for example is something that would have and has gone differently just because the information wasnt as abundand. Now we have thousands upon thousands of websites, profiles, people, messages, etc that depict the genocide in 4k.
So our core audience for flat earth is enormously different from the palestine issue.
This means that on average people will definitely and massively benefit from the information abundance but of course some will - same as flat earthers - not be convinced, no matter the evidence.
But we cant discount the rule for the exception. It took me half an hour by the way to find the name of the fallacy that seems to be coming up rn. “Exception fallacy” is discounting a rule “abundance of information makes a huge difference to past situations of this nature” for its exceptions “the flat earthers still dont listen.”
My point is that people tend to pick and choose what they believe. A flat earther is not a unique kind of irrational actor, but simply the most visible example of a cognitive process we all engage in. The reason debates over Palestine, Ukraine, or China’s Xinjiang region persist despite overwhelming evidence isn’t a lack of information, but due to the fact that our minds have a tendency to protect our existing worldviews.
What we’re really talking about here are the fundamental mechanics of belief formation. I’d argue that it ultimately comes down to thermodynamics. Our minds are constantly bombarded with an infinite stream of contradictory information. To avoid cognitive overload, we use our existing belief system as a filter. Accepting a fact that fits neatly into our current model is energetically cheap. It slots right in. But accepting a fact that contradicts our core beliefs is metabolically expensive. It forces a painful restructuring of our entire mental framework which we’d rather not do.
Incidentally, this is precisely why the liberal ideal of “just educate people better” is a such a profound failure. It assumes people are empty vessels waiting to be filled with facts, when in reality, we are architects constantly fortifying the cognitive structures we already inhabit. Presenting contrary evidence often just makes people double down, because rebuilding the house is more costly than throwing out a single brick that doesn’t fit.
I’m skeptical that access to information plays that big of a role in practice. What we see is that people just form online bubbles along with other people who have similar beliefs. Take the whole flat earth movement as an example, clearly the abundance of information to the contrary isn’t preventing people from believing nonsense. And that’s one of the more extremely absurd beliefs, it’s much easier for people to believe things like immigrants stealing jobs, or that entrepreneurs are needed for innovation, and so on. Meanwhile, MAGA is basically a cult around Trump, his support hasn’t really fallen amongst them even despite the economic damage his trade war is doing.
It’d be interesting to see more perspectives on this from people who know history better, but I see a lot of the same mechanics playing out today as at the start of the 20th century.
I think there is a fallacy at play here.
Flat earthers are very few which not really escape but decide not to believe in science while palestine for example is something that would have and has gone differently just because the information wasnt as abundand. Now we have thousands upon thousands of websites, profiles, people, messages, etc that depict the genocide in 4k.
So our core audience for flat earth is enormously different from the palestine issue.
This means that on average people will definitely and massively benefit from the information abundance but of course some will - same as flat earthers - not be convinced, no matter the evidence.
But we cant discount the rule for the exception. It took me half an hour by the way to find the name of the fallacy that seems to be coming up rn. “Exception fallacy” is discounting a rule “abundance of information makes a huge difference to past situations of this nature” for its exceptions “the flat earthers still dont listen.”
My point is that people tend to pick and choose what they believe. A flat earther is not a unique kind of irrational actor, but simply the most visible example of a cognitive process we all engage in. The reason debates over Palestine, Ukraine, or China’s Xinjiang region persist despite overwhelming evidence isn’t a lack of information, but due to the fact that our minds have a tendency to protect our existing worldviews.
What we’re really talking about here are the fundamental mechanics of belief formation. I’d argue that it ultimately comes down to thermodynamics. Our minds are constantly bombarded with an infinite stream of contradictory information. To avoid cognitive overload, we use our existing belief system as a filter. Accepting a fact that fits neatly into our current model is energetically cheap. It slots right in. But accepting a fact that contradicts our core beliefs is metabolically expensive. It forces a painful restructuring of our entire mental framework which we’d rather not do.
Incidentally, this is precisely why the liberal ideal of “just educate people better” is a such a profound failure. It assumes people are empty vessels waiting to be filled with facts, when in reality, we are architects constantly fortifying the cognitive structures we already inhabit. Presenting contrary evidence often just makes people double down, because rebuilding the house is more costly than throwing out a single brick that doesn’t fit.