Why has Audio (and maybe all hobbies) become so hostile?

[highpurityusbcable]

I don't feel like this is an audio problem. More like behavior on the internet problem in general.

 

[bigx5murf]

I think the biggest reason is the business model of social media companies. Data mining and targeted ads require maximizing engagement. It's unfortunate that tapping negative emotions is what maximizes engagement, and thus profits. The algorithms are continuously getting better at this.

 

[Robin L]

Because social networks are unfiltered and unedited.

 

[Benedium]

R U Serious? It's been thought of before soma and the feelies.

Most existing technologies and innovations are already removing the factors of human diversity or individualism. Take for example taxi meters. Imagine if we didn't have that technology. We would then be sometimes judging taxi drivers for being greedy or dishonest, and sometimes happy to meet an honest or generous one. Progressively, we are eliminating our unrealistic expectations and reliance on human individualism. Humans can live like animals and cavemen... Or we can create a whole new system that does not rely on, and does not encourage our belief in, our natural emotions and instincts.

 

[rdenney]

If you abolished Marriage and Religion, you would create the very thing you wish to destroy. Underground 'cults' would gather popularity in the shadows, and due to the lack of different tribal characters (large proportion of people who score low on openness and agreeableness) you would have a group of 'Heavens Gate' type extremists in no time.

Avoiding conflict is the wrong way to go. You want more meaningful conflict, to burst the 'bubbles' of echo chambers that people are now in. We need the mixed communities we have had for the last 2 million years, which means people need to get used to sitting next to people the disagree with, not sulking off to find someone who always agrees with them so they can all mutually masturbate one another's egos.

I agree with this perspective. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." It's not that we disagree, it's that we lack the means of disagreeing constructively, and we lack the cultural imperative to do so. Schools once taught debate, in "speech" class, where disagreement was part of the formula, and the tool for expressing it was wit. They taught it because the ability to disagree productively was culturally recognized. Kids who got in fights at school were pulled apart just long enough to don boxing gloves, because the conflict wasn't the problem, the injury it caused was. Society imposed norms of behavior (in all social classes, though it different measures) that taught that conflict was human, but modes of conflict had to be bounded by moral imperatives built into culture.

Nowadays, conflict is seen as a character flaw, and the tools for expressing and resolving conflict are rejected as enablement of behavior that is unacceptable at the outset. Culturally, we expect that people being nice to each other will make productive progress in whatever is being discussed, when prior generations would have believed that constructive but still vigorous contention is more likely to make productive progress. Disagreeing with those in power brooks no debate, so those who opposed the dominant paradigm are driven to disproportionate reaction, lacking any sense of proportion that comes from developing the skills of productive conflict.

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Conflict is inevitable. So, the proscription of conflict and the avoidance of learning the tools of productive conflict lead those who disagree to express it unproductively.

I do not believe any generation has the corner on the market of productive disagreement, or specially exemplifies its lack. Baby boomers are just as brittle and unbending as any of their forebears, they are just so on different topics. The generations that followed the baby boomers likewise. What has changed, though, is that the idea of conflict (and the idea of sin) has been rejected, in violation of our very nature.

I do agree that science is not taught well in schools, and that in part is a result of a false conflict between science and belief (even religious--or specifically anti-religious--belief) that is itself unscientific. Science has become a religion for many, but science in and of itself does not solve the same problems or form a basis for ethics or a standard of behavior. So, we see highly intelligent and scientifically trained individuals who still cannot tolerate disagreement, or respond to it productively with any degree of emotional maturity or wisdom. The most contentious meetings I have ever attended were academic faculty meetings. One math professor friend of mine explains this as the product of nothing of particular importance being discussed. But it means to me that re-establishing scientific education will not solve the problem of bad behavior. That requires a moral compass, and science is not good at providing such. Religion, for all that it is rejected by many (certainly not all) modern scientists, is.

We have to admit, though, that calm and witty debate usually changes nothing, which results in escalation for those who believe the topic to be truly important. Yet escalation doesn't work, either, for those who have tried it, and we see it so much because many lack alternative strategies. So, conflict festers finding no productive outlet. This does not turn out well.

Still, I come back to all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, so I'm reasonably sure that greater knowledge is not the answer.

Rick "who uses his own name online and always has, since the days of Usenet" Denney

 

[Benedium]

I agree with this perspective. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." It's not that we disagree, it's that we lack the means of disagreeing constructively, and we lack the cultural imperative to do so. Schools once taught debate, in "speech" class, where disagreement was part of the formula, and the tool for expressing it was wit. They taught it because the ability to disagree productively was culturally recognized. Kids who got in fights at school were pulled apart just long enough to don boxing gloves, because the conflict wasn't the problem, the injury it caused was. Society imposed norms of behavior (in all social classes, though it different measures) that taught that conflict was human, but modes of conflict had to be bounded by moral imperatives built into culture.

Nowadays, conflict is seen as a character flaw, and the tools for expressing and resolving conflict are rejected as enablement of behavior that is unacceptable at the outset. Culturally, we expect that people being nice to each other will make productive progress in whatever is being discussed, when prior generations would have believed the opposite. Disagreeing with those in power brooks no debate, so those who opposed the dominant paradigm are driven to disproportionate reaction, lacking any sense of proportion that comes from developing the skills of productive conflict.

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Conflict is inevitable. So, the proscription of conflict and the avoidance of learning the tools of productive conflict lead those who disagree to express it unproductively.

I do not believe any generation has the corner on the market of productive disagreement, or specially exemplifies its lack. Baby boomers are just as brittle and unbending as any of their forebears, they are just so on different topics. The generations that followed the baby boomers likewise. What has changed, though, is that the idea of conflict (and the idea of sin) has been rejected, in violation of our very nature.

I do agree that science is not taught well in schools, and that in part is a result of a false conflict between science and belief (even religious--or specifically anti-religious--belief) that is itself unscientific. Science has become a religion for many, but science in and of itself does not solve the same problems or form a basis for ethics or a standard of behavior. So, we see highly intelligent and scientifically trained individuals who still cannot tolerate disagreement, or respond to it productively with any degree of emotional maturity or wisdom. The most contentious meetings I have ever attended were academic faculty meetings. One math professor friend of mine explains this as the product of nothing of particular importance being discussed. But it means to me that re-establishing scientific education will not solve the problem of bad behavior. That requires a moral compass, and science is not good at providing such. Religion, for all that it is rejected by many (certainly not all) modern scientists, is.

We have to admit, though, that calm and witty debate usually changes nothing, which results in escalation for those who believe the topic to be truly important. Yet escalation doesn't work, either, for those who have tried it, and we see it so much because many lack alternative strategies. So, conflict festers finding no productive outlet. This does not turn out well.

Still, I come back to all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, so I'm reasonably sure that greater knowledge is not the answer.

Rick "who uses his own name online and always has, since the days of Usenet" Denney

If religion is such a source of ethics, why is the proportion of paedophiles higher among religious leaders than across the gen pop? Money has done a better job than religion to keep the majority of people in line.

Fear and insecurity is innate in all animals as a survival mechanism. But we don't live in the wild anymore. Religion is just a shortcut to solve emotional problems. It is unsustainable. Science should be the only way forward.

 

[rdenney]

If religion is such a source of ethics, why is the proportion of paedophiles higher among religious leaders than across the gen pop? Money has done a better job than religion to keep the majority of people in line.

Fear and insecurity is innate in all animals as a survival mechanism. But we don't live in the wild anymore. Religion is just a shortcut to solve emotional problems. It is unsustainable. Science should be the only way forward.

It is not my intent to provoke the anti-religious. And I am not talking about organized religions as institutions, which like all human institutions, are corrupted by sin. Furthermore, because the religious recognize the existence of sin so visibly, their lapses into it indeed seem all the more hypocritical.

But I was not talking about pedophilia, I was talking about the topic of the thread, which is conflict.

Rick "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Denney

 

[Benedium]

It is not my intent to provoke the anti-religious. And I am not talking about organized religions as institutions, which like all human institutions, are corrupted by sin. Furthermore, because the religious recognize the existence of sin so visibly, their lapses into it indeed seem all the more hypocritical.

But I was not talking about pedophilia, I was talking about the topic of the thread, which is conflict.

Rick "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Denney

I'm just saying it is unsustainable and unrealistic to indoctrinate people hoping they will obey the guides. In the end, science has still proven to be much more effective throughout history. And it's just gonna get better. Whereas religion has made absolutely no progress over thousands of years.

 

[beren777]

Some are dedicated to their beliefs. Others are dedicated to the discovery of what is worth believing.

 

[rdenney]

I dunno. I know lots of scientists, and I am a scientist (and engineer) myself. I don't think I could make the case that scientists are more moral than nonscientists, or that science isn't used to achieve immoral ends at least often as it is used to achieve moral ends. In fact, science doesn't really give me the language to distinguish between what is moral and immoral, unless morality is defined as an intellectual form of survival of the fittest.

It's pretty good at solving the physical problems that have plagued the world, and those who are not in extremis are less apt to kill each other. But even that is debatable--the worst wars in history have taken place in the last little over a century, using the tools of science to be all the more effective at killing each other. We certainly live more comfortably than past generations because of science, but I'm not sure I see evidence that morality has bloomed over the face of the earth as a result.

Rick "not offering religious belief as an excuse to be anti-scientific--yet a different corruption also be opposed" Denney

 

[Benedium]

I dunno. I know lots of scientists, and I am a scientist (and engineer) myself. I don't think I could make the case that scientists are more moral than nonscientists, or that science isn't used to achieve immoral ends at least often as it is used to achieve moral ends. In fact, science doesn't really give me the language to distinguish between what is moral and immoral, unless morality is defined as an intellectual form of survival of the fittest.

It's pretty good at solving the physical problems that have plagued the world, and those who are not in extremis are less apt to kill each other. But even that is debatable--the worst wars in history have taken place in the last little over a century, using the tools of science to be all the more effective at killing each other. We certainly live more comfortably than past generations because of science, but I'm not sure I see evidence that morality has bloomed over the face of the earth as a result.

Rick "not offering religious belief as an excuse to be anti-scientific--yet a different corruption also be opposed" Denney

The concept of morality was probably introduced as an ancient solution, or 'technology' even, to solve some problems of less than ideal living conditions in the past. It is also yet another avenue for humans to compete.

If today's science and technology can solve problems, and if budget allows, we should not place unrealistic expectations on people's nature especially before we have considered every scientific and technological possibility. This is because always falling back to morality and fear of god, is going to impede the advancement of the human race.

 

[Killingbeans]

Progressively, we are eliminating our unrealistic expectations and reliance on human individualism.

Unrealistic expectations and delusions of grandeur are what drives society, and has had the technology of today as a side effect. We'd might all be nothing but drones in the grander scheme of things, but if you force people to face that fact, they'll lose the will to do anything productive.

You simply cannot tame biology with technology.

 

[Lbstyling]

I agree with this perspective. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." It's not that we disagree, it's that we lack the means of disagreeing constructively, and we lack the cultural imperative to do so. Schools once taught debate, in "speech" class, where disagreement was part of the formula, and the tool for expressing it was wit. They taught it because the ability to disagree productively was culturally recognized. Kids who got in fights at school were pulled apart just long enough to don boxing gloves, because the conflict wasn't the problem, the injury it caused was. Society imposed norms of behavior (in all social classes, though it different measures) that taught that conflict was human, but modes of conflict had to be bounded by moral imperatives built into culture.

Nowadays, conflict is seen as a character flaw, and the tools for expressing and resolving conflict are rejected as enablement of behavior that is unacceptable at the outset. Culturally, we expect that people being nice to each other will make productive progress in whatever is being discussed, when prior generations would have believed that constructive but still vigorous contention is more likely to make productive progress. Disagreeing with those in power brooks no debate, so those who opposed the dominant paradigm are driven to disproportionate reaction, lacking any sense of proportion that comes from developing the skills of productive conflict.

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Conflict is inevitable. So, the proscription of conflict and the avoidance of learning the tools of productive conflict lead those who disagree to express it unproductively.

I do not believe any generation has the corner on the market of productive disagreement, or specially exemplifies its lack. Baby boomers are just as brittle and unbending as any of their forebears, they are just so on different topics. The generations that followed the baby boomers likewise. What has changed, though, is that the idea of conflict (and the idea of sin) has been rejected, in violation of our very nature.

I do agree that science is not taught well in schools, and that in part is a result of a false conflict between science and belief (even religious--or specifically anti-religious--belief) that is itself unscientific. Science has become a religion for many, but science in and of itself does not solve the same problems or form a basis for ethics or a standard of behavior. So, we see highly intelligent and scientifically trained individuals who still cannot tolerate disagreement, or respond to it productively with any degree of emotional maturity or wisdom. The most contentious meetings I have ever attended were academic faculty meetings. One math professor friend of mine explains this as the product of nothing of particular importance being discussed. But it means to me that re-establishing scientific education will not solve the problem of bad behavior. That requires a moral compass, and science is not good at providing such. Religion, for all that it is rejected by many (certainly not all) modern scientists, is.

We have to admit, though, that calm and witty debate usually changes nothing, which results in escalation for those who believe the topic to be truly important. Yet escalation doesn't work, either, for those who have tried it, and we see it so much because many lack alternative strategies. So, conflict festers finding no productive outlet. This does not turn out well.

Still, I come back to all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, so I'm reasonably sure that greater knowledge is not the answer.

Rick "who uses his own name online and always has, since the days of Usenet" Denney

That's was beautiful to read. Thank you. If the words of a rambling stranger on the internet are of any value, I feel you have a book in you to write.

On the point of religion. At one time sapiens became self aware. It was a gradual process. But with it came the other things. Projecting the future, and so fearing the future. To continue in the now with the knowledge of some of what the future will certainly bring, we created stories that eased us of our pain. This is no revelation.

The surprise to me is that so many think that after two million years of that crutch so deeply embedded in our culture and lives- intertwined with every lesson tribes of the past learned throughout the lives they lived, and given that of all the tribes that tried every different way did not survive for one reason or another.

Ten thousand lives spent trying to iterate better.

how we bring up children, what values we were given is more than just a story, it's intertwined with our genes.

I'm afraid the idea of thinking we figured out a better way without all that religious stuff as 'we can prove the science part' is missing the wood for the trees. The value of the ancient religions was in the structures.

I prescribe an evening of either 'once upon a time in the west' or 'the good the bad and the ugly', along with a slightly overpriced bottle of whisky. Not because the whisky tastes better, but because you know it doesn't, and so it will.

 

[scott wurcer]

Where do the shape shifting lizard aliens fit into all this?

 

[BDWoody]

Where do the shape shifting lizard aliens fit into all this?

I think that's around Easter.

 

[RealityCheck18]

So there I was....

Lived in the country of Turkey for a few years, hung out with a Kurdish guy and he helped me with the mine fields of traditions, beliefs and other cultural oddities. I did notice the Turks made very ornate shot guns, a work of art if you will. Asked him what they did with all those shot guns, he replied "Protect flocks and hunting". Curious, I inquired what animal is popular to hunt and he answered wild boar.

For those of you that don't know, in the Muslim religion it is a sin to waste food so...I had to ask! What do you do with the wild boar after you shoot them? He told me they eat them of course! Makes sense but...uuuuhhh...correct me if I'm wrong but...ya know, wild boars are related to pigs, are they not? He replied "No, wild boars are not pigs because they have horns".

I pondered this, he is both correct and wrong at the same time--depends on how you view it. Scientifically, he is 100% wrong because a wild boar is a pig but he was not talking about it on a scientific angle. Ya see, religions are belief systems so one must go back in time to figure out why Jews and Muslims consider domesticated pigs "dirty". Basically, thousands of years ago before their present religions, they figured out if you ate domesticated pigs you'd get worms, waste away and die. So, to prevent people from eating the mystery animals that gave you worms, they passed around the story that they are "dirty" as a way to protect people. Other peoples in the region were aware of this, it was part of their belief system so the concept stuck.

Now look at a wild boar, they generally are a solitary creature, running around in the woods, eating stuff and generally don't suffer from trichinosis naturally so they are safe to eat. Yes, they look quite different with horns, fur and so on so--I understand. The belief system part was to protect people so the domesticated pig was bad and the wild pig was good. It actually makes sense once you understand where these beliefs originate. So when dealing with belief systems, don't look at them with a scientific slant, look backwards, sometimes waaaay back in time to find out the original belief then it all makes sense. Religions by nature are always adding or taking away something (fish on Friday, don't buy anything on Sunday, can't eat certain foods, no caffiene etc.)

Yes, other religious people would go nuts if I said that wild boar was not pork....so it all depends on location, local traditions and so on. I've always been somewhat of a history buff, it really helped in my world travels.

Belief systems are weird, to some that is a religion thing, others it's all about brand names, fashion and still others....sports teams. Logically, none of it makes sense but humans are emotional creatures full of bias that think they are logical. Alas, thinking we are logical when you are an emotional creature makes it the wierdest belief system of all.

Dogs rule, cats drool.... believe it!

 

[Benedium]

Interesting what beliefs will look like in the future when baby making and child rearing are no longer left to random people but completely state managed from factories/laboratories to nurseries according to best practices for whatever future societies need.

 

[scott wurcer]

Come on Woody even you must have had enough of this BS.

 

[StefaanE]

Interesting what beliefs will look like in the future when baby making and child rearing are no longer left to random people but completely state managed from factories/laboratories to nurseries according to best practices for whatever future societies need.

Brave New World.
One can only hope your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek.

 

[Benedium]

Brave New World.
One can only hope your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek.

At least I'm not hostile