Is the Internet making us stupid?

[Argus]

Argus, I don't agree with your view on homeopathic views.

There is no scientific case for homeopathy. It is undiluted quackery.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/were-aiding-and-abetting-homeopathic-quackery/article23701139/

[Argus]

Research by students, professionals and others educates individuals so they are less ignorant

Are they less ignorant? I haven't seen any evidence to suggest people are less ignorant if they spend a lot of time on the internet. What information you generally get on the internet is summaries written by someone else. Someone else reads the information, and encapslates their view and presents that to you as 'the information'. It's not. Oh I know the media does the same sort of thing, but at least you have some confidence they're not being too blatantly dishonest in how they present it to you. You have no such confidence on the internet.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

Neither do I.

Nothing wrong with homeopathic medicine. Homeopathy is more than vitamins.

It's quackery, as the Globe says. Or, for another view:

In fact, the core principles of homeopathy – namely, that infinitesimal amounts of something that may cause symptoms similar to those a patient is experiencing will make that patient well; that diluting that infinitesimal amount will make it stronger; and that shaking it a lot will make it stronger still – are fundamentally ridiculous.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/columnists/homeopathy-should-make-my-column-100-per-cent-more-compelling/article23787723/

[Argus]

Mistrusting the Government is not inherently stupid.

I agree. The problem lies in the assumption some guy on the internet you've never met is any more trustworthy. At least we know the government can be held responsible for outright lies. Not so the guy on the internet.

[GostHacked]

There's actually zero evidence that what you're talkinga bout is a problem, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. Without GMO, the world starves.

So why would Monsanto push back against GMO labeling if they think it's the best? I don't buy the notion that it will make things more expensive because of the new labels when manufacturers change their labels regularly. That was the angle they ran with. Seems kind of odd.

But this goes back to what you consider trusted sources. Am I stupid for thinking that Monsanto is not saying all that they would about their GMOs, glyphosate ect?

It's the inconsistencies that make one question the narrative. But that is viewed as being stupid for not going along with the authority narrative.

http://www.aganytime.com/dekalb/featured/Pages/Silage-Proven.aspx

They say the product is awesome, but there is a caveat. A big one.

Certain statements contained in this presentation are "forward-looking statements," such as statements concerning the company's anticipated financial results, current and future product performance, regulatory approvals, business and financial plans and other non-historical facts. These statements are based on current expectations and currently available information. However, since these statements are based on factors that involve risks and uncertainties, the company's actual performance and results may differ materially from those described or implied by such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, among others: continued competition in seeds, traits and agricultural chemicals; the company's exposure to various contingencies, including those related to intellectual property protection, regulatory compliance and the speed with which approvals are received, and public acceptance of biotechnology products; the success of the company's research and development activities; the outcomes of major lawsuits and the previously-announced SEC investigation; developments related to foreign currencies and economies; successful operation of recent acquisitions; fluctuations in commodity prices; compliance with regulations affecting our manufacturing; the accuracy of the company's estimates related to distribution inventory levels; the recent increases in and expected higher levels of indebtedness; the company's ability to obtain payment for the products that it sells; the effect of weather conditions, natural disasters and accidents on the agriculture business or the company's facilities; and other risks and factors detailed in the company's most recent periodic report to the SEC. Undue reliance should not be placed on these forward-looking statements, which are current only as of the date of this presentation. The company disclaims any current intention or obligation to update any forward-looking statements or any of the factors that may affect actual results.

[Smallc]

They're against labelling because many, such as yourself, are under the false assumption that it's harmful. It's pretty simple.

[Argus]

I use the internet a lot and I quite enjoy having such a bulk of information available at my fingertips. As has been

discussed on a different thread here that is hot right now (WTC building collapse) there is also a lot of bad info available

so sometimes you have to do research on the research or you could be sucked into some stupid ideas.

This is actually a good example of what's wrong with the internet. You have to first realize that aside from major media and government, few people have the motivation to devote extensive amounts of time and effort to discussing a fourteen year old terrorist attack. So who would be running web sites and spewing out piles of information about it? Well, for the most part, the conspiracy nuts. If you actually try to research 9/11 you'll find the internet is absolutely filled with them, some trying to sound scientific, others along the Alex Jones type of crazy. So I pity some junior high school kid assigned to do research on the internet on this subject, because he's almost certainly going to be exposed to a ton of pseudoscience nonsense he isn't equipped to properly process or deny.

[GostHacked]

They're against labelling because many, such as yourself, are under the false assumption that it's harmful. It's pretty simple.

Why can't I have a choice? HOW can I even make a choice?

[kimmy]

Yes, it did. Instead of reading a politician's words from a speech, we would get chunks of it as selected by the TV news. Then that shrank and shrank until we basically just get a quick summary in the reporter's words. How can that not make us dumb? With the advent of TV it became more important how a politician looks than what he or she had to say, since most people would never get to hear them anyway.

Something you see a lot nowadays is politicians giving speeches from a podium that's been decorated with their talking points, in front of a wall full of posters with the same talking points. They know that on the news, people are only going to see 10 seconds of the speech, so they put up a Cole's Notes of the speech so that people can see from their 10 seconds what he was actually talking about.

-k

[GostHacked]

This is actually a good example of what's wrong with the internet. You have to first realize that aside from major media and government, few people have the motivation to devote extensive amounts of time and effort to discussing a fourteen year old terrorist attack. So who would be running web sites and spewing out piles of information about it? Well, for the most part, the conspiracy nuts. If you actually try to research 9/11 you'll find the internet is absolutely filled with them, some trying to sound scientific, others along the Alex Jones type of crazy. So I pity some junior high school kid assigned to do research on the internet on this subject, because he's almost certainly going to be exposed to a ton of pseudoscience nonsense he isn't equipped to properly process or deny.

We talk about a terror attack that happened 15 years ago simply because it is part of what brings us to where we are now. You cannot talk about the current situation in Iraq without talking about 9/11.

There is good stuff and bad stuff regarding 9/11, there is a lot of material out about 9/11 and most of it is junk. But there are some good ones that will make you question things.

[GostHacked]

Something you see a lot nowadays is politicians giving speeches from a podium that's been decorated with their talking points, in front of a wall full of posters with the same talking points. They know that on the news, people are only going to see 10 seconds of the speech, so they put up a Cole's Notes of the speech so that people can see from their 10 seconds what he was actually talking about.

-k

Media operates on soundbytes and short clips to make a point. It's the ADHD of news. Throw in fluff stuff like 'entertainment' and you wonder why people are stupid? Many cannot think for themselves these days, and lets the net/tube do it all for them.

I'll talk briefly about geo-engineering. When I started into this I was not convinced what I saw on the net was true. But through my own research, and observations I can say that something is up. Cloud seeding started even before the airplane was invented. The mentality for that was there since the early 1800s. So given the technological advancements of today, they have gotten much better at it.

Even US government documents talk about owning the weather. Should I take that as a sign that it is not happening?

[GostHacked]

I think there is some work that needs to be done to separate fact from fiction.

http://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/media/hpropaganda.html

The previous picture and poem is a clear example of propaganda which is a form of persuasion used to influence people's attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. A working definition of propaganda is the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. While propaganda has been around for almost a thousand years, only recently (last 100 years) with the advent of technologies that allow us to spread information to a mass group has it evolved to a scientific process capable of influencing a whole nation of people. While propaganda is most evident in times of war as in the poster, it is constantly being used as a political and social means in even less obvious ways to influence peoples attitudes. This is currently evident with all the election commercials on TV, where the candidates are using propaganda techniques to elevate themselves above their competitor. Another place propaganda is being exploited is by the use of the media in its portrayal of countries that have nuclear technology.

Modern propaganda uses all the media available to spread its message, including: press, radio, television, film, computers, fax machines, posters, meetings, door-to-door canvassing, handbills, buttons, billboards, speeches, flags, street names, monuments, coins, stamps, books, plays, comic strips, poetry, music, sporting events, cultural events, company reports, libraries, and awards and prizes. It is most likely that some of these media uses are surprising, but that only serves to show how easy it is to not even recognize propaganda as such. For the purpose of our paper we will focus on mainly the usage of the press in their tactics of shaping people's opinions. The press (newspapers and magazines) is important because the most current news and issues are spread every day through them. The Dune affect is a term we coined--after the movie Dune--which explains that those who control and have access to media have access to and potential control of public opinion.

Indeed, propaganda is so powerful because everyone is susceptible to it. This is true as explained by Robert Cialdini, an expert in influence, because people exist in a rapidly moving and complex world. In order to deal with it, we need shortcuts. We cannot be expected to recognize and analyze all the aspects in each person, event, and situation we encounter in even one day. We do not have the time, energy, or capacity to process the information; and instead we must very often use our stereotypes, our rules of thumb, to classify things according to a few key features and then to respond without thinking when one or another of these trigger feature are present (Cialdini 6). While this makes people highly susceptible to a propagandist who understands persuasion, in general it is the most efficient for of behaving, and in other cases it is simply necessary. Additionally, propaganda includes the reinforcement of societal myths and stereotypes that are so deeply embedded within a culture that it is often difficult to recognize the message as propaganda.

[guyser]

The internet makes some people smarter insofar as they can expand their knowledge readily and easily.

The internet makes some people dumber than they already were. And they can broadcast their stupidity to more peole than Mom and Dad having to listen to you.

It makes both more obvious thus seemingly more popular.

People were always dumb.

People were always smart.**

**Maybe not when religion ruled but some sure tried.

[Michael Hardner]

While propaganda has been around for almost a thousand years, only recently (last 100 years) with the advent of technologies that allow us to spread information to a mass group has it evolved to a scientific process capable of influencing a whole nation of people.

Counter example: Martin Luther.

[Michael Hardner]

But there are some good ones that will make you question things.

You can question things, you can even question everything but at a point asking questions turns away from a serious inquiry and towards something else. Influence is just that - influence, not a prescription of what people will do. You can influence the news, but the people are not under control... nothing is that predictable.

[GostHacked]

You can question things, you can even question everything but at a point asking questions turns away from a serious inquiry and towards something else. Influence is just that - influence, not a prescription of what people will do. You can influence the news, but the people are not under control... nothing is that predictable.

Unlike most here I am willing to venture into things that seem crazy. People are that predictable too. Marketing proves overall we are predictable and easily influenced.

Remember when doctors promoted certain brands of smokes? Why don't they do it now?

[On Guard for Thee]

This is actually a good example of what's wrong with the internet. You have to first realize that aside from major media and government, few people have the motivation to devote extensive amounts of time and effort to discussing a fourteen year old terrorist attack. So who would be running web sites and spewing out piles of information about it? Well, for the most part, the conspiracy nuts. If you actually try to research 9/11 you'll find the internet is absolutely filled with them, some trying to sound scientific, others along the Alex Jones type of crazy. So I pity some junior high school kid assigned to do research on the internet on this subject, because he's almost certainly going to be exposed to a ton of pseudoscience nonsense he isn't equipped to properly process or deny.

Yes indeed. The overwhelming amount of junk science available especially on this subject would be a daunting task for anyone to sift through, and I would hazard a guess that that high school student you speak of may be a little easier swayed into the conspiracy theory camp because its perhaps a little more exciting and the anti establishment angle might also be appealing.

[Michael Hardner]

Unlike most here I am willing to venture into things that seem crazy. People are that predictable too. Marketing proves overall we are predictable and easily influenced.

See "New Coke". If you can't sell them "New Coke" how are you going to sell them mass genocide ? If you can't sell "New Coke", how can you bet your life that a conspiracy would work.

Remember when doctors promoted certain brands of smokes? Why don't they do it now?

Right, but we know more then we knew then... including the limits of propaganda, advertising and so on. Remember subliminal advertising ? The Manchurian Candidate ? It's exciting stuff, but fiction...

[GostHacked]

Counter example: Martin Luther.

Now are you talking about Martin Luther (King Jr) of the 60's black movement? Or the Martin Luther of the 1400s?

Lets go with the 1400s since you are hinting at technology being a factor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

Martin Luther (/ˈluːθər/;[1] German: [ˈmaɐ̯tiːn ˈlʊtɐ] ( listen); 10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546) was a German friar, priest and professor of theology who was a seminal figure in the Protestant Reformation.[2] Initially an Augustinian friar, Luther came to reject several teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. He strongly disputed the claim that freedom from God's punishment for sin could be purchased with money. He confronted indulgence salesman Johann Tetzel, a Dominican friar, with his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517. His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the Pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Emperor.

Luther taught that salvation and subsequently eternity in heaven is not earned by good deeds but is received only as a free gift of God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ as redeemer from sin and subsequently eternity in Hell. His theology challenged the authority and office of the Pope by teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge from God[3] and opposed sacerdotalism by considering all baptized Christians to be a holy priesthood.[4] Those who identify with these, and all of Luther's wider teachings, are called Lutherans even though Luther insisted on Christian as the only acceptable name for individuals who professed Christ. Today, Lutheranism constitutes a major branch of Protestantism and overall Christianity with some 80 million adherents.[5]

Now, consider this. Luther was one of those 'crazies' as he had an ideology that was different from the authoritative narrative via the Church. Ridiculed, outlawed and marginalized by the Catholic Church. Today that does not seem like such a crazy thing. But it was out of the norm and really considered blasphemous by Catholic church leaders. He is right, you cannot buy your way into heaven via money.

You'd throw him into the tinfoil hat crowd as he was a person with unique views that questioned authority. He was right about some things. Also seems he did not care for the Jews at all.

Technology at the time, was the printing press. It allowed the Church to spread their propaganda as much as any 'crazy'.

From 1510 to 1520, Luther lectured on the Psalms, the books of Hebrews, Romans, and Galatians. As he studied these portions of the Bible, he came to view the use of terms such as penance and righteousness by the Catholic Church in new ways. He became convinced that the church was corrupt in its ways and had lost sight of what he saw as several of the central truths of Christianity. The most important for Luther was the doctrine of justification – God's act of declaring a sinner righteous – by faith alone through God's grace. He began to teach that salvation or redemption is a gift of God's grace, attainable only through faith in Jesus as the Messiah.[41] "This one and firm rock, which we call the doctrine of justification," he wrote, "is the chief article of the whole Christian doctrine, which comprehends the understanding of all godliness."[42]

The Catholic Church is still dealing with corruption and other things like child abuse scandals to this day. 500 years after Luther died. He was right.

He was contesting the organized religion angle and seemed to hint that religion and a relationship with god is your own personal thing. Not something that someone else can tell you what IS and what is not.

Edited April 6, 2015 by GostHacked

[GostHacked]

See "New Coke". If you can't sell them "New Coke" how are you going to sell them mass genocide ? If you can't sell "New Coke", how can you bet your life that a conspiracy would work.

Right, but we know more then we knew then... including the limits of propaganda, advertising and so on. Remember subliminal advertising ? The Manchurian Candidate ? It's exciting stuff, but fiction...

Coke is still a best seller. People are easily influenced. But to answer the conspiracy question, go look for it yourself. And don't take it as a brush off, GO LOOK for yourself and make up your own mind. That's the route I took, and I am quite convinced weather manipulation occurs regularly.

But if you are not willing to do some of the research yourself then you are susceptible to whatever official story is put forth that you and others will take at face value.

You think you are not exposed to subliminal messaging today? Do you understand marketing and advertising?

Edited April 6, 2015 by GostHacked

[Michael Hardner]

Now, consider this. Luther was one of those 'crazies' as he had an ideology that was different from the authoritative narrative via the Church. Ridiculed, outlawed and marginalized by the Catholic Church. Today that does not seem like such a crazy thing. But it was out of the norm and really considered blasphemous by Catholic church leaders. He is right, you cannot buy your way into heaven via money.

He had enough people following him to start wars and create a schism with the church, so his views weren't that crazy. Especially when you consider the state of the church at that time.

Nobody is starting a revolution over the 9/11 conspiracy ideas. Nobody.

There are lots of people called 'crazy'. Some actually are crazy.

Technology at the time, was the printing press. It allowed the Church to spread their propaganda as much as any 'crazy'.

Yes, I think that is what I was saying above.

[Michael Hardner]

Coke is still a best seller.

My point is that people are only influenced so much. You keep coming up with points like:

- Martin Luther was called 'crazy' too

- New Coke died but Coke still sells

...that simply add nuance to the point I was making.

GO LOOK for yourself and make up your own mind.

Yes, I have done that. I even posted it here.

There are ways to convince people to fight a war. Blowing up your own assets, your own SYMBOLS of power even makes no sense as a strategy.

But if you are not willing to do some of the research yourself then you are susceptible to whatever official story is put forth that you and others will take at face value.

Yes, I have looked into it and decided it was incorrect.

[GostHacked]

My point is that people are only influenced so much. You keep coming up with points like:

- Martin Luther was called 'crazy' too

- New Coke died but Coke still sells

...that simply add nuance to the point I was making.

Yes, I have done that. I even posted it here.

There are ways to convince people to fight a war. Blowing up your own assets, your own SYMBOLS of power even makes no sense as a strategy.

Yes, I have looked into it and decided it was incorrect.

Quoting is broken on the site AGAIN. So I cannot address the single points properly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

Parallels 9/11. Government wanted more power, suspend liberties, but could not do it without some tragedy to help make the case.

It makes perfect sense as a strategy. It was a public building and not a military installation. Attacking the civilians is going to get the answer you were looking for. The wave of indignation that some talked about. PNAC and their new Pearl Harbour scenario. These are their words, not mine.

But in terms of Geo-engineering, there is NO way I am going to convince you or change your mind, that is all up to you. If you want to believe the tripe put forth, then eat up.

New Coke still sells. That's a fact. In fact, NEW COKES are happening all the time. The recent with Zero. You just don't realize it is a NEW Coke.

[Michael Hardner]

Quoting is broken on the site AGAIN. So I cannot address the single points properly.

I quoted you fine.

Parallels 9/11. Government wanted more power, suspend liberties, but could not do it without some tragedy to help make the case.

So this is a new point you're making. What does it have to do with the internet making us stupid ?

For the record, I don't think "parallels 9/11" is the best way to describe this event.

But in terms of Geo-engineering, there is NO way I am going to convince you or change your mind, that is all up to you. If you want to believe the tripe put forth, then eat up.

You have stated on here that you will never change your mind about 9/11. I haven't made that claim, so you're wrong.

New Coke still sells. That's a fact. In fact, NEW COKES are happening all the time. The recent with Zero. You just don't realize it is a NEW Coke.

And again... you accept my point and say AND THIS...

[dre]

There is no scientific case for homeopathy. It is undiluted quackery.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/were-aiding-and-abetting-homeopathic-quackery/article23701139/

I dont know anything about homeopathy so Ill defer to your judgement there.

As for the internet making people stupid? I dunno...

Throughout history a huge majority of people believed that a magic man in the sky was their personal god.

They threw women into wells as witches for having dreams.

They believed the world was made in 6 days 3000 years ago.

They believed the world was a flat platform in the center of the universe.

As for medicine? You mention homeopathy but...

­In 1905, there were more than 28,000 -- and possibly nearly twice that number -- patent medicines produced or marketed in the United States [source: Young]. These mixtures, potions and concoctions were generally useless but cost a pretty penny. There were a lot of ineffective medicines on the market, and behind each one was a silver-tongued scam artist.

One managed to establish brand-name recognition that lasts to this day. Clark Stanley billed himself as the "Rattlesnake King," gathering crowds by killing rattlesnakes while delivering his pitch. For 50 cents a bottle, you could cure your toothaches, neuralgia, ankle sprains and pretty much everything else. Stanley claimed his snake-oil medicine came straight from an Indian medicine man and that his blend of snake oils worked miracles.

Homeopathy has nothing on the hucksters that sold literally thousands of different useless medicines before.... Or witch doctors, and Shaman for that matter either, or evangelists that claimed to cure the blind though prayer. Humans have tried just about ANYTHING over the years to cure what ails them.

People were "stupid" a long long long time before the internet existed, and if anything they believed in MORE nonsense before.