Conspiracies

Post Reply New Topic

Thanks

yes i get russell in the feed , agree mostly but don't like him too much, only listening is ok though
maybe a little bit 20 years late, but with a modern-er spin


yes that was discussed also way back, (reuters: taxevasion to fund fundamentalism around the world?)

Trevor is clever.

*tsk*

People are letting YouTube do their thinking for them.

Things were much better back when people let TV do their thinking for them.

The problem isn't where people source their information, it's how much critical thinking they apply to the information.

So the more correct thing to say is, "People are letting others do their thinking for them."

I have no children and therefore had none in school in the 1990s, so I will relay what my brother said and what a some other parents who were friends and acquaintances in 3 different cities where I lived said to me during that decade; "I'm not finding where the school is teaching anything which even looks like critical thinking/deductive reasoning, and that really bothers me."

A few went further and added commentary along the lines of, "I'll do what I can, but I'm not sure I can win against what they get in school, especially after the kids hit their teens and I suddenly become the stupidest person on earth".

I do not recall any critical thinking skills being taught from the early 1960s through the mid-1970s.  Even my Philosophy courses in the late 1970s were less about critical thought than the latest version of Existentialism.

Instead, we were taught to memorize facts and formulas, to repeat whatever the instructors said, and to obey instructions without question.

Our educational system was never geared toward producing creative thinkers; but toward producing obedient robots.

Definitely.

I don't believe newspapers vs. TV vs. internet makes any real difference, but failing to think about what you're being exposed to most certainly does.

Yes, there's lots of misinformation and disinformation available online, but if one checks sources against each other they should be able to start to see what's credible and what's not. Having lots of sources can mean there's more work to do, but it's not like 'credible' news never falls prey to disinformation. Remember the lead-up to the Iraq War 2? Lazy people bought the BS hook, line and sinker because they didn't question the narrative being beamed into their living rooms.

The trouble is (as was pointed out above) that people are not taught critical thinking skills.  They are taught instead to memorize whatever they are told, and to repeat it back without questioning it first.

I don't disagree.
Unfortunately I worry those in charge see that as a feature and not as a bug.

It would be really nice if those who like to use YouTube videos as arguments could:

1, Provide a summary of the video(s), so one does not have to watch 47 minutes and 6 seconds just to figure out what the message is really about

2. Provide an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the argument in the video and the expertise/credibility of the person(s) presenting the argument.

3. And - if unable to do (1) and (2) - stop using YouTube videos as arguments.