The Average Person Does Not Want To Think

[41_swish]

Here is another great video from one of my favorite YouTubers, Technology Connections.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJpZjg8GuA

Sorry, if it has already been posted.

The gist of the video is that the modern algorithm way that content is consumed is hurting your critical thinking skills and taking the human element out of the internet. One of the reasons that I like this forum so much is that it feels like a refreshing change of pace compared to what I was experiencing on X back in the day or Reddit and Instagram.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

The average person doesn't check their sources, but I do.  And I have no idea who made that video.  I can't find any information about him or his background from that YouTube channel.

[bill1827]

I don't know much about him but I've watched many of his videos which are about subjects I know about and I know that he is accurate, honest and well researched. He also has a dry sense of humour. One of the best youtube channels.

[twinstudy]

I didn't watch the video but I think it is beyond obvious that the average person can't think - otherwise slot machines, sports betting, most religious sects, all get-rich-quick schemes and half the products on the market wouldn't exist.

To use a simple example, slot machines have an easily understood mechanism (negative expected value frosted over by a fun variable ratio reinforcement schedule). If you really need the little dopamine hits that much you can go day trade or play some similar variable game that at least has a positive expected value.

The mechanics of life/finances are very easy if you apply any critical thinking skills to them at all. MMM's message is both easily understood and easily followed - yet people don't do it and then complain that their finances are bad.

[41_swish]

The MMM message and plan is actually relatively simple, live far below your means and invest your money in broad market funds. The devil is in the details.

The American lifestyle revolves around endless consumption and debt. Breaking this cycle and cutting against the grain is easier said than done.

On the contrary, when I really took being a mustache seriously about 5 months ago, there was a month of adjustment, but due to the hedonic treadmill effect I felt normal in a month. We adapt so quickly. It really made me realize how frivolous some of my spending was.

[LennStar]

Every human has a certain amount of decision power. If it's empty, it's empty. It is trainable, but most people A) do not like the training and B) don't get offered the chance on a silver tablet. They would need more decision power to make the dicision to increase it.
Today's society sucks that up and the addiction patterns of sociel media actually decrease that power, together with the power of concentration (both are related after all).

[ChpBstrd]

Here is a video on the same theme - reliance on technical tools is reducing our capacity to reason and solve problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtDWDWY_7Bc&t=795s

@MustacheAndaHalf you might prefer this one because it goes over published psychological research and provides references.

The originally mentioned video is from a channel that explains how various products work. The tie-in at the end is that the sort of reverse engineering the video helps people understand is a sort of training for how to figure things out and uncover new reasoning methods that solved problems in the past. The tinkering, disassembling, and logical analysis activity is sort of the opposite of asking an AI how problems are solved.

[twinstudy]

Every human has a certain amount of decision power. If it's empty, it's empty. It is trainable, but most people A) do not like the training and B) don't get offered the chance on a silver tablet. They would need more decision power to make the dicision to increase it.
Today's society sucks that up and the addiction patterns of sociel media actually decrease that power, together with the power of concentration (both are related after all).

Well, you reap what you sow. I agree with the above, and what I don't like is that people will blame external factors instead of acknowledging that a large part of their problem is their own inability or unwillingness to analyse their own actions.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Here is a video on the same theme - reliance on technical tools is reducing our capacity to reason and solve problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtDWDWY_7Bc&t=795s

@MustacheAndaHalf you might prefer this one because it goes over published psychological research and provides references.

Notice you refer to "it" rather than a specific person.  I can't find anyone associated with that channel.  That was my earlier point - I can't assess the person creating the content when they hide behind anonymity.

[EvenSteven]

Here is a video on the same theme - reliance on technical tools is reducing our capacity to reason and solve problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtDWDWY_7Bc&t=795s

@MustacheAndaHalf you might prefer this one because it goes over published psychological research and provides references.

Notice you refer to "it" rather than a specific person.  I can't find anyone associated with that channel.  That was my earlier point - I can't assess the person creating the content when they hide behind anonymity.

Exactly. ChpBstrd is committing the formal logical fallacy ad hominem uno reversio

[GilesMM]

If only the non thinkers would become non voters as well.

[PeteD01]

Here is a video on the same theme - reliance on technical tools is reducing our capacity to reason and solve problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtDWDWY_7Bc&t=795s

@MustacheAndaHalf you might prefer this one because it goes over published psychological research and provides references.

Notice you refer to "it" rather than a specific person.  I can't find anyone associated with that channel.  That was my earlier point - I can't assess the person creating the content when they hide behind anonymity.

Exactly. ChpBstrd is committing the formal logical fallacy ad hominem uno reversio

No, he doesn't.

The ad hominem uno reverso fallacy involves strengthening or weakening an argument based on the source/individual making the argument.
The former would be the fallacy of appeal to authority to strengthen an argument, the latter, for example, would be to dismiss an argument because it was made by Karl Marx.

Not knowing the source of an argument at all eliminates the possibility of an ad hominem uno reverso fallacy and forces evaluation of the argument on its own merit alone using the tools epistemology provides us with.

That is not to say that knowing the source of an argument cannot help in establishing its validity by, for example, supporting the suspicion of motivated reasoning - however, care must be actively exercised to not commit the ad hominem uno reverso fallacy.

For practical purposes, one is well advised to first evaluate an argument on its own merits and then to consider the source, if only to situate the argument in the broader discourse/context, which can be identified for about every argument of practical relevance, in order to elucidate the function of the argument in this broader context.

[EvenSteven]

Here is a video on the same theme - reliance on technical tools is reducing our capacity to reason and solve problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtDWDWY_7Bc&t=795s

@MustacheAndaHalf you might prefer this one because it goes over published psychological research and provides references.

Notice you refer to "it" rather than a specific person.  I can't find anyone associated with that channel.  That was my earlier point - I can't assess the person creating the content when they hide behind anonymity.

Exactly. ChpBstrd is committing the formal logical fallacy ad hominem uno reversio

No, he doesn't.

The ad hominem uno reverso fallacy involves strengthening or weakening an argument based on the source/individual making the argument.
The former would be the fallacy of appeal to authority to strengthen an argument, the latter, for example, would be to dismiss an argument because it was made by Karl Marx.

Not knowing the source of an argument at all eliminates the possibility of an ad hominem uno reverso fallacy and forces evaluation of the argument on its own merit alone using the tools epistemology provides us with.

That is not to say that knowing the source of an argument cannot help in establishing its validity by, for example, supporting the suspicion of motivated reasoning - however, care must be actively exercised to not commit the ad hominem uno reverso fallacy.

For practical purposes, one is well advised to first evaluate an argument on its own merits and then to consider the source, if only to situate the argument in the broader discourse/context, which can be identified for about every argument of practical relevance, in order to elucidate the function of the argument in this broader context.

Lol, Whooosh.

[bill1827]

Here is a video on the same theme - reliance on technical tools is reducing our capacity to reason and solve problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtDWDWY_7Bc&t=795s

@MustacheAndaHalf you might prefer this one because it goes over published psychological research and provides references.

Notice you refer to "it" rather than a specific person.  I can't find anyone associated with that channel.  That was my earlier point - I can't assess the person creating the content when they hide behind anonymity.

Apparently his name is Alec Watson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_Connections

"Watson is a resident of the Chicago metropolitan area[8] and originally graduated in hotel management.[17] He is an enthusiast of electric cars, a topic covered repeatedly on his channel, with his first electric vehicle being a Chevrolet Volt purchased in 2015 to commute to his first day job. In 2022, he upgraded to a Hyundai Ioniq 5."

I really don't understand the suspicion about him. You only have to watch a few of his videos to realise that he isn't some sort of conspiracy theorist acting as a front to some sort of mysterious propaganda organisation.

[41_swish]

I don't know why you are getting a conspiracy theorist vibe from him. He is just a dork who likes tinkering with stuff

[ChpBstrd]

Here is a video on the same theme - reliance on technical tools is reducing our capacity to reason and solve problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtDWDWY_7Bc&t=795s

@MustacheAndaHalf you might prefer this one because it goes over published psychological research and provides references.

Notice you refer to "it" rather than a specific person.  I can't find anyone associated with that channel.  That was my earlier point - I can't assess the person creating the content when they hide behind anonymity.

Apparently his name is Alec Watson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_Connections

"Watson is a resident of the Chicago metropolitan area[8] and originally graduated in hotel management.[17] He is an enthusiast of electric cars, a topic covered repeatedly on his channel, with his first electric vehicle being a Chevrolet Volt purchased in 2015 to commute to his first day job. In 2022, he upgraded to a Hyundai Ioniq 5."

I really don't understand the suspicion about him. You only have to watch a few of his videos to realise that he isn't some sort of conspiracy theorist acting as a front to some sort of mysterious propaganda organisation.

Personally, I wouldn't care if a sock puppet delivered the dialogue as long as they referenced external sources, addressed the other side of the argument in an honest way, and went deeper than just rhetoric.

YouTube and podcasts are shit information sources, I agree. That's why uncle Bob believes conspiracy theories. But for thinking people the value lies in the videos' references to externally verifiable sources, not the characteristics of the influencer.

[RetiredAt63]

I think part of it is most people want certainty and consistency.  They are very uncomfortable with uncertainty or change.  It means they do not have a solid foundation.

This is why so many don't like science.  Because science doesn't deal in certainty, it deals with lack of certainty, things can change with new information.  And this drives some people crazy, because they want answers, damn it, and science doesn't give definite answers. 

I also think part of it is fatigue. I know when I was severely overworked it was all I could do to go home, cook dinner and veg out until bed time.  If that were my whole life I wouldn't have been doing a lot of extra thinking.

[41_swish]

I think part of it is most people want certainty and consistency.  They are very uncomfortable with uncertainty or change.  It means they do not have a solid foundation.

This is why so many don't like science.  Because science doesn't deal in certainty, it deals with lack of certainty, things can change with new information.  And this drives some people crazy, because they want answers, damn it, and science doesn't give definite answers. 

I also think part of it is fatigue. I know when I was severely overworked it was all I could do to go home, cook dinner and veg out until bed time.  If that were my whole life I wouldn't have been doing a lot of extra thinking.

Good points all around. Change is scary no matter what it is, so people are very reluctant to it. I do think you have a good point about being tired and exhausted from life and just wanting something to do stuff for you.

[dragoncar]

Here is a video on the same theme - reliance on technical tools is reducing our capacity to reason and solve problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtDWDWY_7Bc&t=795s

@MustacheAndaHalf you might prefer this one because it goes over published psychological research and provides references.

Notice you refer to "it" rather than a specific person.  I can't find anyone associated with that channel.  That was my earlier point - I can't assess the person creating the content when they hide behind anonymity.

Uhhhh who are you again?

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Here is a video on the same theme - reliance on technical tools is reducing our capacity to reason and solve problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtDWDWY_7Bc&t=795s

@MustacheAndaHalf you might prefer this one because it goes over published psychological research and provides references.

Notice you refer to "it" rather than a specific person.  I can't find anyone associated with that channel.  That was my earlier point - I can't assess the person creating the content when they hide behind anonymity.

Apparently his name is Alec Watson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_Connections

"Watson is a resident of the Chicago metropolitan area[8] and originally graduated in hotel management.[17] He is an enthusiast of electric cars, a topic covered repeatedly on his channel, with his first electric vehicle being a Chevrolet Volt purchased in 2015 to commute to his first day job. In 2022, he upgraded to a Hyundai Ioniq 5."

I really don't understand the suspicion about him. You only have to watch a few of his videos to realise that he isn't some sort of conspiracy theorist acting as a front to some sort of mysterious propaganda organisation.

Quote where I called anyone a conspiracy theorist in this thread.

I've seen articles by non-experts about investing that cited graphs and sources, but still made flawed logical leaps because of their lack of understanding.  Trusting a non-expert invites mistakes that an expert wouldn't make.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Here is a video on the same theme - reliance on technical tools is reducing our capacity to reason and solve problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtDWDWY_7Bc&t=795s

@MustacheAndaHalf you might prefer this one because it goes over published psychological research and provides references.

Notice you refer to "it" rather than a specific person.  I can't find anyone associated with that channel.  That was my earlier point - I can't assess the person creating the content when they hide behind anonymity.

Apparently his name is Alec Watson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_Connections

"Watson is a resident of the Chicago metropolitan area[8] and originally graduated in hotel management.[17] He is an enthusiast of electric cars, a topic covered repeatedly on his channel, with his first electric vehicle being a Chevrolet Volt purchased in 2015 to commute to his first day job. In 2022, he upgraded to a Hyundai Ioniq 5."

I really don't understand the suspicion about him. You only have to watch a few of his videos to realise that he isn't some sort of conspiracy theorist acting as a front to some sort of mysterious propaganda organisation.

Personally, I wouldn't care if a sock puppet delivered the dialogue as long as they referenced external sources, addressed the other side of the argument in an honest way, and went deeper than just rhetoric.

YouTube and podcasts are shit information sources, I agree. That's why uncle Bob believes conspiracy theories. But for thinking people the value lies in the videos' references to externally verifiable sources, not the characteristics of the influencer.

People can quote sources out of context, where I'll find a contradictory quote from the same link.  Can the average person evaluate the quality of sources?  I'm not so sure.

People may select sources in a biased manner, failing to account for the range of expert views on a topic.  They can selectively combine sources to arrive at a conclusion neither source intended.  There are many errors available, and experts tend to make few of those types of errors.

[Ron Scott]

Here is a video on the same theme - reliance on technical tools is reducing our capacity to reason and solve problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtDWDWY_7Bc&t=795s

@MustacheAndaHalf you might prefer this one because it goes over published psychological research and provides references.

Notice you refer to "it" rather than a specific person.  I can't find anyone associated with that channel.  That was my earlier point - I can't assess the person creating the content when they hide behind anonymity.

Uhhhh who are you again?

LOL and touché.

I get all the individual commentary about life I need from friends and a few forums like this one and avoid all the some-guy-with-perspective YouTube/podcast stuff out there.

I also try to avoid watching channels like Fox, CNN, MSNBC et al because I’m so sick of the partisan point of view in America. The left and right here have become elites that vie for position by trying to convince those who live paycheck-to-paycheck they’ve got their back when they don’t—and the TV channels have decided picking a side makes more money.

99% of the time a half hour of “news” from a generic source like CBSNBCABC covers the day. I don’t need to hear 1000 angles on every topic all day long.

When I want a deeper dive on subjects I try to hand select my sources and deliberately research and listen to a different perspectives. You have to drive these days, and not let algorithms lead you by the nose, and even then it’s not so easy.

The worst thing you can do is watch or listen to shit that is “recommended” for you. Then you’re over.