• Num10ck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    138
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    i think actual information is way too difficult to suss out these days with the misinformation campaigns and the paywalls and the trolling, etc.

    shit try to do some comparison shopping today and try to figure out which reviews are real and if the thing you’re buying is really the thing you think you’re buying.

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      People don’t do their own research past the most cursory google searches at best of times, and now google is absolute garbage and the links that are relevant mostly go to massive SEO whale sites written by AI.

      That’s all before you get to the actual mainstream media sites that spout the same commercial news cycle stories, or spread sensationalized headlines and absolute nonsense. I have managed teams of people and on daily calls people talk about news stories they read like “Did you hear they found another spaceship on mars?” and “They found proof that covid was a Chinese bio-weapon!” and similar statements from working, middle-class people who just browse the websites and social media before work. Most people have very little time to dig into things they see, and now once-reputable sites are just cashing in on clickbait and lies.

      This is how most people get their news and information, and it’s absolute garbage now. Browse a major news site like MSN and it’s worse than grocery store tabloids from the 1980’s. And don’t even get started about social media like twitter and facebook.

      Something happened in the last couple decades that has made people literally just stop caring what’s real or not. I feel like it was an attitude deliberately seeded into our culture, and it’s now maturing as a society that has lost belief in everything and accepts anything.

      • Citizen@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Agreed: “I feel like it was an attitude deliberately seeded into our culture, and it’s now maturing as a society that has lost belief in everything and accepts anything.”

        That is the “feature” and the dead end… The full compliance on anything! No thoughts, no free speech!

    • hydroptic@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      Definitely doesn’t help, and modern machine learning models are only going to make this problem worse.

    • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      That’s kind of the point.

      We now have access to the information, and we’ve discovered that all along it was our inability to distinguish between misinformation and real information that was causing the stupidity.

    • Signtist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Another issue is that information is easy enough to find that people don’t bother to remember things as much anymore, since they can just look up the majority of stuff on Wikipedia or something if they ever need to know it. It leads to people having a smaller pool of background knowledge, which makes them easier to mislead.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        I question whether or not this is true. People will remember things if they find them interesting, so incurious people didn’t know much in the past, either.

      • Citizen@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        But most people don’t know how bullshit smells in the first place… Check the downvotes…

  • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 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

  • Armok: God of Blood@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 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.

  • rozodru@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    dumb people still had access to bullshit information prior to the internet. remember grocery store tabloids? papers with “Bat Boy” on them or how Jesus was constantly coming back, etc? I knew a couple adults that firmly believed and bought that shit.

    • hydroptic@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Sure, but before the internet somebody had to actually print a magazine or a book etc. to spread it wider than word-of-mouth

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    4 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.

  • menas@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 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.

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 days ago

    Stupid, ignorant, misinformed, and gullible are all different things.

    Access to information helps with ignorance, and even then only if the ignorant person isn’t too dumb to understand or hear had their mind poisoned with falsehood.

    • GorGor@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 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
        ·
        4 days ago

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

  • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    4 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.

  • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    4 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.

  • Veticia@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    5 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
      12
      ·
      4 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.

  • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 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.
    • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

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

      cheaper workers tend to be less intelligent, ergo: prevent children from being expensive by preventing them becoming intelligent see:“a brave new world”

  • snooggums@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    5 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
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 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
        5
        ·
        5 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
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 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
        ·
        4 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
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 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
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 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
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 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
      3 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