I don’t know about y’all, but if I grew up in a country that never has the news criticizing its leaders, I’d be very skepical and deduce that there is censorshop going on and the offical news could be exaggerated or entirely falsified. Do people in authoritarian countries actually just eat the propaganda? To what extent do they believe the propaganda?
Considering that critical thinking has to be thought to you, I think most people who skipped college may not have a good grasp on it.
Removed by mod
I would draw a distinct line between the critical thinking of engineering and the critical thinking of the humanities, but yes. Just in the sense that engineering alone is good, but definitely not sufficient.
There is a common archetype of person in stem who thinks that because they’re very good at programming that they’re also very good at everything, and so spends half of their college tenure in a fratboy flophouse reinventing basic philosophy ideas Isaac Asimov thought of 70 years ago as part of their mission to solve society’s problems with bitcoin.
My fiance has more critical thinking and political analysis of world events and history than anyone I’ve met, reads books just about every day, writes and communicates clearly. Just talking to him for a little bit you’ll get the impression that he’s very intelligent.
He’s a highschool dropout.
Everyone believes and agrees with propaganda to some extent because world is a lie. All rules are just rough aproximation of reality. All modern rules are man made and most of them are not real. They are just real in this moment of time we live in. The moment we agreed those rules are true. So people just agreed that this propaganda you’re seeing is ok for them right now. They can live with that. This doesn’t mean they have no critical thinking. This means they are fine with things as they are because it doesn’t touch directly major percentage of them.
I find way too many people talking about “common sense” as if that was even a thing. It frustrates me to no end.
“common sense”
A set of assumptions(usually false) acquired before age 12.
I’m wondering how you are measuring “common sense” that arrives at “usually false.” Are you ignoring obviously common sense things, like “the sky is up” – since that’s just common sense?
If you are in North America and you draw a line straight up, will you reach the sky in Australia?
Well I didn’t say the sky isn’t also down. (Begrudging upvote.)
You know, you are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.
I respect your technical smartass response to my technical smartass check attempt.
This can be controversial, but my opinion is that religious education normally is the opposite of critical thinking. If you teach the kids to accept beliefs just based on faith, you’re killing critical thinking.
It’s not religion that’s the problem but ideology and lazy thinking in general. How many people in the political parties we oppose just accept the lies being fed to them with no critical thought or investigation?
Shitlers base is evangelicals. Evangelicals are the biggest religion in the u.s. Evangelicals are the largest single voting bloc in the u.s. Christianity indoctrinates people from birth believe obvious lies. Shitler is an obvious liar.
Religion is the poisonous tree that has bore us this fruit. It is most definitely not a “both sides” (cringe) issue.
True People saying “im from the government and here to help are the scariest words ever”. Aren’t really any different then people that drill a religious phrase into their kids.
My point is that religious education trains the kids to believe things without verifying facts, even unbelievable fables. I’m just trying to point a potential source of what we know is a big problem.
No one, including you, is immune to propaganda.
I mean, honestly, I’m questioning if anything my parents told me is even real, or is it just exaggerated to make themselves seem like great parents in order to diminish my view on their toxicity.
It’s hard to distinguish between what’s a genuine doubt from a conspiracy theory.
That’s the thing with people.
Some have zero skepticism, and believe everything they see.
Others are overly skeptical and distrusts everything, including science.
It’s hard to find the right balance.
I find the right balance (for me) to be actively seeking out conversations that challenge my beliefs and worldview, being open to being wrong, and developing a good bullshit detector. I guess growing up during the Cold War helped instill in me a fair amount of distrust for authority of any kind helped. Even still I believed the propaganda about the US being a beacon of freedom and democracy until I was exposed to the truth of the matter, but still, I sought out counter-narratives and listened to the weight of evidence and was willing to admit to being wrong and changing my views, so… shrug
Yes, but, how does one actually develop “a good bullshit detector”? We all think we have one of those. Especially people who don’t. And thinking that when it’s not true is the hook, line and sinker that gets people deeply into dangerous conspiracies.
The first step is not accepting everything you read at face value. Start investigating the claims you see on the news or social media and you will develop a sense for which ones tend to be bullshit and which ones tend not to be, you will learn to recognize the bullshit ideas not because they’re obviously bullshit at first, but because they’re surrounded by the kind of language that bullshit claims are often smuggled into. It’s just pattern-matching, it’s a skill like everything else and you can practice it and get better. One way to do this is to just find a news article, scroll to a random point in it, highlight a sentence that makes a truth claim about something, and go ‘That seems like bullshit, I’ll look for corroborating sources’ even if you’re sure it’s true. Then go do find 3-4 other sources that talk about the same thing and see how they shade things differently. Aside from learning to match the pattern you also learn which sources are more or less reliable, more or less biased, etc. A good tool for this specifically for news is GroundNews, every article they show includes ratings for how biased the source is, a list of other sources that also report on the same incident and what their biases are, etc. Plus it’s been my experience that looking at things from several angles is kind of like drawing a bunch of lines that pass near the point of truth - the more lines you draw, the narrower the space in which the truth must reside, so the easier it is to find the center.
The second and perhaps most important step is being willing to be wrong, especially in public. Be concerned not about whether or not you will look bad but whether or not you are putting good information out there. Develop the habit of stopping in the middle of your political rant or whatever and going ‘Wait, am I sure about this? I should check.’ In a similar vein, get into the habit of providing sources for your own claims, even if only because that reinforces the habit of checking yourself. I discuss politics a lot online and have often found myself going ‘Oh yeah, well <this> is how the world really works!’, then I go looking for a source to cite and discover that I was wrong. Don’t flee from that uncomfortable feeling, swallow your pride and embrace it. The more you get into the habit of checking yourself the easier it becomes to remember to check others too, and again, the more familiar you become with what truth and bullshit look like from the inside and from the outside. It will also help you develop a bit of humility, which is unrelated but still a good thing to have.
Also on the subject of sources, look for authoritative sources first. If you’re investigating a claim about vaccines making people sick, for example, don’t look for news articles about it; go straight to the CDC where they have data about adverse incident rates for vaccines that is publicly available. When you hear about something that happened in a particular place check the local newspapers first because they’re likely to have picked up the story before anyone else and are more committed to providing accurate information that’s relevant to locals than the national media, they tend to sensationalize stories less. This isolates you somewhat from some of the more egregious bias and spin out there.
I try and explain this to people all the time but many don’t want to believe it.
There are 2 types of people in this world; those who are influenced by propaganda, and those who don’t believe they are influenced by propaganda.
Most of hollywood is propaganda. It relies on getting revenue from other sources. If you’ve ever bought a star wars action figure or a marvel funko pop, you’ve fallen for the propaganda. Hollywood isn’t producing art for art’s sake. They’re producing commercials for merchandise.
There’s a third type. People like me see the propaganda everywhere, get a sad laugh out of it every time, and go about my day dodging rain drops and replacing alternators.
IDGAF
Bold of you to assume you recognize every piece of propaganda for what it truly is. And that you have a choice to just ignore it. It often feels like we are in control of what we give attention to and what we choose to retain as factual knowledge but we’re not.
The best we can do is try to recognize when some piece of information, or source, we believe may not be as valid as it once appeared and try to rectify our beliefs moving forward. It’s a never ending job. But if you want to actually have beliefs based in fact there’s no other option.
I believe in mathematics and schematics. I also believe in the right to repair.
I do not believe in invisible deities and I don’t trust most politicians.
Edit: And I damn sure don’t trust AI!
Those are like the most superficial layer of propaganda. The real danger of propaganda is that it doesn’t look like it, it looks like other regular people making you support their interests without you realizing it.
Do you like engines? Do you dislike electric vehicles? Do you like guns? If so, when and where did those ideas come from? You weren’t born with them.
The real propaganda is money.
Like, whoever designed the idea of rent (which is basically a safe place to perform the biological function of sleep and store your stuff).
You don’t own a damn thing anymore, nor do I. But for real, whoever invented the concept of rent, invented the concept of taxing humans for the right to sleep in a safe space.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I don’t have anything influencing me except my roommate and my mom, and that’s usually just helping keep their vehicles running, carrying groceries, taking the trash out, and bathing the dog.
I see the politics and propaganda every day, I just don’t give a fuck. Nothing I can do about it anyways.
Ah so you’ve fallen for the propaganda that says you don’t have the power to change anything, that’s just what the small number of elites want the large number of masses to think
I’ve helped the NSA return stolen laptops, and risked my life putting out a forest fire with my hoodie before it got a chance to reach the dead grass field.
Of course there’s things I can and have done to help change the world, but politics ain’t quite my thing.
You’re contradicting yourself my dude. You give enough of a fuck to help people. Doing things for your community is a political action. Maybe you just haven’t gotten the chance to understand your political leanings
So you’ve been propagandized into thinking there’s nothing you can do, so you shouldn’t care.
Nah, I just don’t have the means to do anything.
I’m a repair tech, not a politician.
It’s working.
If you see propaganda everywhere, the it was successful on you. One purpose of propaganda is to erode the fundamental trust in society and sow distrust about anything and anyone, that way people become politically ineffective and easy to manipulate.
I don’t have any significant distrust in society in general, just a heavy distrust of the greedy oligarchs in positions of power.
Meanwhile, the orange turd posted an AI generated image of himself as the next pope…
https://youtube.com/watch?v=5AvLxeTvivY
Go ahead and read some comments there, he done offended even the atheists out there!
I’m not a governor, attorney, judge, senator, etc in any position to directly do anything about the crooked powers in charge, but as a citizen, I guess this is the best I can do, share the news.
Up until recently, I thought carrots were good for seeing in the dark. It’s something my mother told me over and over as a kid. I never bothered to research it - I liked carrots after all.
How would a carrot help with seeing in the dark? All my carrots emit zero light not even a faint glow.
A lot of people don’t think. But a lot of people do think critically, and they just think differently from you or me.
If we believe nobody thinks critically, how can we even begin to effect change?
The average person has lots of critical thinking.
It’s just not a life hack to truth. You can critical think yourself into any conclusion. The average person uses critical thinking to reinforce their biased instead of challenge them.
That’s not critical thinking at all. Critical thinking is process that questions assertions and sources, and approaches them subjectively. If it is ultimately just confirming your own bias, you haven’t used critical thinking.
This is a no true scottsman on critical thinking.
I’m going to copy my reply to Barney above.
We have all sorts of evidence for conflicting conclusions. Most of us do not have the time or resources get a lock on which evidence is truly trustworthy.
If you talk to a flat earther, or a dedicated follower of the oppossing political team, you will see they understand faulty sources, chains of logic, and deductive reasoning, they just only apply them in support of their position.
You can teach a person about bias in research or media and they will use that knowledge to discredit positions they don’t agree with.
You can say “that’s not critical thinking” and on one hand I agree, but teaching more thourough critical thinking skills won’t have the result we want: for people to make evidence based decisions about their life and society.
In my experience, Getting people to change their minds requires engaging their emotions. Decisions are made on the basis or shame, fear, anger, and more rarely, love, hope, and empathy.
The evidence needs to be there to support the emotion, but nobody ever changes their behavior on the strength of the evidence alone.
nobody ever changes their behavior on the strength of the evidence alone.
Simply not true, at all. People change behavior based on evidence all the time.
Critical Thinking requires a totally objective perspective, and emotion has no place in it.
But what if i started with something true?
Example I was raised being told the earth was round. After watching some flat earth debates i did learn a lot about old experiments the show the earth is round. All critical thinking could do os just re confirm my starting belief
The Scientific Method includes a step in which you state your Hypothesis - an educated guess, based on information you already know. There is nothing wrong with that, because it means you are already familiar the established science.
The issue comes when the experiment uncovers unexpected data and/or conclusions. The proper scientific response is to adjust, or even reject, the hypothesis based on the new data. Someone with good Critical Thinking Skills would have no problem doing that, because a subjective approach, coming up with a truthful conclusion, supported by the data, is always the objective.
Unfortunately, too many people have a personal desire to make their original hypothesis the truth, either because of their ego, or because they have some sort of personal or economic investment in that hypothesis, etc. These are people who are only using the promise of Critical Thinking to add credibility to their conclusions, when in reality, they were always looking to confirm their own bias.
And sometimes the research DOES confirm your hypothesis. That’s not necessarily confirmation bias, as long as your hypothesis was always based on accepted scientific principles. Scientists often have a pretty good idea of the outcome of an experiment. A person looking for confirmation bias goes into an experiment hoping to prove their hypothesis correct, while a true scientist goes in hoping that something unexpected will happen, because that gives them something new and interesting to study.
Removed by mod
All of that can be done, badly. Which is how people do it. See the discourse around any popular drama, people have the skills, they just use them in service of their own pre conceived notions.
Then they arent using critical thinking skills, they just think they are. With proper use of critical thinking, the conclusion arises from the evidence, it doesnt confirm “pre conceived notions.”
We have all sorts of evidence for conflicting conclusions. Most of us do not have the time or resources get a lock on which evidence is truly trustworthy.
If you talk to a flat earther, or a dedicated follower of the oppossing political team, you will see they understand faulty sources, chains of logic, and deductive reasoning, they just only apply them in support of their position.
You can teach a person about bias in research or media and they will use that knowledge to discredit positions they don’t agree with.
You can say “that’s not critical thinking” and on one hand I agree, but teaching more thourough critical thinking skills won’t have the result we want: for people to make evidence based decisions about their life and society.
In my experience, Getting people to change their minds requires engaging their emotions. Decisions are made on the basis or shame, fear, anger, and more rarely, love, hope, and empathy.
The evidence needs to be there to support the emotion, but nobody ever changes their behavior on the strength of the evidence alone.
I haven’t thought about it like that, but now that you’ve made me, it makes a lot of sense.
It’s bleak, but if you want to persuade a large number of people to think differently, you don’t challenge their worldview, you create new biases that they will then defend in their own.
See: trump’s constant repetition of blatant lies.
Propaganda doesn’t necessarily need to convince people, but can instead attack the peoples ability to differentiate truth and lie by sowing mistrust about the most mundane and conventional things. When people stop believing their own eyes or following logic, they become easier to manipulate. A bit like gas-lighting, where you sort of turn the critical thinking against them, but on a large scale.
Do you believe that your media isn’t propaganda? Just because it seems less extreme doesn’t mean you’ve not been duped too.
There’s too much lies in the world, I kinda developed a sort of “solipcistic” view of the world.
If I never witnessed it, I categorize it as “potentially false”.
Of course, the entire news could be just fabricated. Nobody can tell for sure.
Anything beyond my immediate sorroundings could just be a stage. I could be in a truman show with everything I see being a deception, or in other terms “propaganda”.
I’m not saying that everything isn’t real, I just feel like that possibility should be entertained, to keep in mind as a potential possible explanation of what appears to be reality. Just as how a nation can lie to its people about reality, even the people closest to you, your parents, could also just be liars as well.
People never question if they are, in fact, the biological children of their parents, and just assume they are. That is another form of “propaganda”. People just accept their parent’s words as truth.
Propaganda is certainly everywhere. You cannot be sure what is real, other than the fact that “you” exist, in some form.
“Think twice? I don’t even thinks once.”
Do people in authoritarian countries actually just eat the propaganda?
They surely do in the USia, why wouldn’t they do it in other countries. It is only takes to convince third of a population but it has to be the loud third to maintain power in a modern “Democracy”
Removed by mod
Completely agree.
People are tribal - they tend to conform to what the group thinks and does. We’re also primed with strong us vs. them tendencies, that is you want your team to win whatever happens.
As you say, if you believe that (for example) your friends and neighbours think democrats are radical socialists out to destroy American life, it would be highly dangerous to vote democrat let alone be on team democrat.
I’ve learnt this the hard way, but ALWAYS (LITERALLY FUCKING ALWAYS) assume you’re the smartest in the room. People are dumb as fuck on average.
I encounter a lot of assholes who think that way.
It’s so nice of you to tell us what would you do and how you’d behave in an hypothetical situation that you have never been nurtured and raised on, and how good you’d do facing it under your current morals and mental framework that may or may not be available during that situation
Good times, critical thinking was had by all
Intelligent people in those countries do realize though…
Critical thinking is a skill that requires teaching and practice. If children are not given that preparation they won’t have that skill in adulthood. That’s why authoritarian governments care so much about controlling and/or limiting access to proper education.
