• Armok: God of Blood@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    22 days ago

    To the people saying that this is because of “laziness” or “lack of curiosity”:

    I’m bombarded with so much information every day that it’s not feasible to fact-check it all. I have to pick my battles and take things I care less about at face value until I have a reason not to.

    • GorGor@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      22 days ago

      I have to admit, even while finding the crooked corners of the internet with rotten and CJ, I did hold onto the belief that access to information was going to lift the masses up out of ignorance. I knew about flamewars since the BBS days. I knew about trolls since rm -rf advice was given. I, in my naivete, seriously underestimated the effects of these phenomenon on society writ large.

      • OsaErisXero@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        22 days ago

        As with many things, I think the point where it all started to go down hill was once facebook became a thing.

  • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 days ago

    It’s still the problem. Information is widely available but misinformation is easier to find and the ones that need information are the ones that find the misinformation

  • Veticia@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    22 days ago

    The problem with internet was always that access to bullshit is way easier than access to information. Except now the difference gets exponentially bigger, and bullshit is indistinguishable from truth.

    • rayyy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      22 days ago

      Good information isn’t everywhere. You have to work at finding it or pay for it
      Bullshit is everywhere. You have to be careful you don’t step in.

  • snooggums@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 days ago

    I remember seeing a lot of people expand their horizons on all kinds of topics when the internet first started catching on.

    Now I think it was because they were actively looking for understanding something new, and did not represent the general population.

    • hydroptic@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      Now I think it was because they were actively looking for understanding something new, and did not represent the general population.

      Assuming that intelligence (and I don’t mean IQ or any other psychometric “proxy” for intelligence, but intelligence as an abstract trait) is normally distributed like most other traits, 50% of people are going to be dumber than average because in normal distributions the mean is the median. The “general population” is not smart by any definition.

      And anyone trying to claim that intelligence as a concept is completely socially constructed and that there is no difference in intelligence between people, or tries to conflate IQ etc psychometric measures and intelligence, can shove it up their ass.

      • snooggums@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 days ago

        I wasn’t even commenting on IQ, just the general population’s interest in even trying to understand new things.

        A lot of otherwise smart people I know just can’t get past the indoctrination of bigotry from their youth that is reinforced by conservative media.

        • hydroptic@sopuli.xyzOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          22 days ago

          Oh I know you weren’t, it was just a disclaimer because a lot of people seem to think that any references to intelligence specifically mean IQ and go into frankly incredibly tedious tirades on IQ’s faults

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        22 days ago

        50% of people are going to be dumber than average because in normal distributions the mean is the median. The “general population” is not smart by any definition.

        What if “smart” begins at the 35th percentile, rather than the 50th? What if “gifted” is anything above the 50th percentile?

        • hydroptic@sopuli.xyzOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          22 days ago

          What if “smart” begins at the 35th percentile, rather than the 50th?

          I didn’t mean that the 50th is where “smart” begins, just that 50% are going to be below average in intelligence.

      • gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        22 days ago

        intelligence as an abstract trait

        I read something about this two days ago, it’s called “g factor” or something. And yes, it follows a normal distribution.

        Apparently, it’s very similar in animals than it is in humans.

        • hydroptic@sopuli.xyzOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          22 days ago

          The g factor is actually a psychometric construct to an extent, and its distribution isn’t known but it’s generally thought that it’s probably normally distributed. Basically the g factor just summarizes how results on a bunch of different cognitive tasks tend to correlate.

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      21 days ago

      i think its more about deliberate disinformation than about it being just a subset of people.

      i remember everyone was in awe that they could just type out a question and get the best information we had

  • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    22 days ago

    I truly believe it’s a lack of curiosity, people simply are not interested in learning more than they have to.

    That’s why I see curiosity as a gift. Friends think I am intelligent, but I’m simply curious enough to learn things.

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    22 days ago

    Yes and no. If people had access to correct information, rather than every passing thought anyone has ever had ever, including complete fabrications and things that were never meant to be taken seriously, then they’d probably be okay.

    Even making a claim about what is true and factual seems to be a point to be argued on the internet lately.

    We’ve given everyone a voice and access to everyone else’s voice as well as access to all information. Most are lost in the noise, and can’t find the signal.

  • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    22 days ago

    People here seem to be mistaking stupidity as a measure of intelligence. Stupidity is a measure of wisdom.

    An abundance of information doesn’t fix stupidity in the same way that shoveling water out of a boat with a leak won’t stop it from sinking.

    You have to address the leak before shoveling water becomes productive. Or to circle back around, you have to address how someone learns, parses, and applies information before feeding them more information becomes productive.

  • ofcourse@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    22 days ago

    Late 90s to 2000s was the decade of internet glory. Then social media and big tech took over. Now with personalized feeds and searches, along with conflict promoting engagement metrics, many people spend their time within echo chambers and those chambers keep getting more partisan. On top of that, rampant misinformation has made it all the more difficult to separate fact from fiction.

    • hydroptic@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      Then social media and big tech took over.

      Things like BBSs, Usenet and IRC are all social media. So is Lemmy for that matter.

      I don’t think social media itself is the problem, it’s the big tech / purposefully biased algorithmic content selection part that screws it up.

      • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        22 days ago

        Lemmy can have its fair share of echo chamber syndrome. For example, almost nobody here vocally likes Reddit, and if you post anything pro-Reddit, it’s likely to be met with a lot of negativity. I’m anti-Reddit too, for the record, but it’s good to acknowledge tribalism even when you agree with the tribe. But the nice part is Lemmy can’t have competing echo chambers nearly as easily as Reddit can because we’re so much smaller.

  • menas@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 days ago

    We shall not confuse data and information. With internet we have access to a lot of data, but information is hard to find. Furthermore information are structured by the institution that made it : university, TV, newspaper, and social network Those dominant institution are not very interested in homelessness or other class struggle in your neighborhood. So relevant information for your social and geographical position is even more rare.

  • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    22 days ago

    We’ve had libraries since long before the Internet. I don’t think lack of access to information is as much to blame as lack of time and/or willingness to make an effort.

    Also, we live in a culture that celebrates, glorifies and rewards stupidity to an insane degree. There is simply very little incentive for people to try and improve themselves.

  • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    21 days ago

    Kinda? I figured that there’s some portion of the population that’s not smart - bell-curve statistical distribution and all that. But I always thought that the problem was education, or rather, access to a good1 education and all the socio-economic and political boundaries around that.

    To be blunt: modest to insanely powerful people have something invested in keeping such barriers high, and it’s worrysome.

    1. Good = a program that teaches critical thinking and has access to liberal arts, trades, traditional arts, libraries, and information technology.