CharonY

I think both element amplify each other. If one stream does not entertain you, there are other sources to get your dopamine kick. And the algorithm makes sure to feed you from the well. I think it is also not necessarily specific sources that are an issue in isolation, but more that folks get access to virtually the same thing but from different directions, that solidifies their assumptions. Also, folks are strangely willing to scroll for a long time until they find something for their kick. But unwilling to spend a fraction of that time doing an assignment. Anything to avoid thinking.

I should clarify, with eroded I don't meant that they are lost per se. But they do not function as expected, i.e. inform and calibrate folks to a common baseline of reality. As I mentioned, I think even without hijacking, we would run into at least similar issues as we do not have mechanisms to deal with a couple elements. a) oversupply of information (in the broadest terms, includes cat videos), b) constant distraction by algorithms and related mechanisms, diminishing the time spent on sifting through the presented information, potentially related to that, c) diminishing role of folks trusted to sift through that and present a coherent analysis with explanation. Folks increasingly are not willing or able to read longer articles (much less, books) and even have not the patience (nor do they expect) folks to explain why certain conclusions are wrong or not, even things are even slightly complicated. The latter was always an issue with the broader populace, but the attention span has even further diminished. Also, the conventional wisdom to simplify things for e.g. science reporting has now become a liability.

Just my two cents. I think "lazy" is not very useful way to think about this situation, as it is not easily quantifiable and because of that, we will not know whether it is something new for this election or whether the level of laziness (whatever it may be) has been unchanged. However, the question of inept is more interesting, and while it is pretty useless as a broad statement, it is important to look how people adapt to the onslaught of information presented to them. Even without malicious players, the democratization of information requires some skills to be able to identify reliable information. This used to be the role of news, but their role (and ability) have been diminished. Add to that broader societal changes in education and (I think) we have a serious erosion of ability to, even identify facts (much less interpret them). The fact that there are malicious players are able to utilize it to their own benefit is, I think, just a symptom of the overall vulnerability we are facing. And so far, I have yet to see an approach beyond teaching medial literacy in school. And that does not seem to yield much benefits outside of limited tests, either. In part because the approach is still based on outdated assumptions. The way people think about information, the desire for instantaneous answers and all the other elements are changing how we think and what what information we trust. It mirrors in a way some themes in Orwell's 1984, only that it is not governmental mandated language, but rather an emergent property of information overload.

Why? Because of fewer immigrants? BTW, crime rate is always calculated on a population basis.

I am a bit wary to blame the specific post-COVID situation on everything, as many traditional parties were already losing ground before. However, major events (record asylum claims and then COVID) have accelerated things. What I am missing a bit is how the erosion of traditional information pipelines has contributed and more importantly, what it means going forward. Most papers I have seen in that regard are ultra-focused (understandably) but discussions on e.g. social media on education and politics are (in my biased opinion) too muted, relative to their impact. This is especially worrying as the pace of the change seems to outpace the speed of research on the matter.

I probably have mentioned it a couple of times (dangers of getting old, forgetful and repetitive) but it seems to me that because we are not able to establish a common reality, conventional wisdom gets out of the window in terms on how to appeal to folks. While there might be overarching themes, I suspect that as a whole folks increasingly uninformed.

Well, there were a big deal of casualties (e.g. COVID-19) the first time round. Plenty of chances to improve that record.

By ignoring those claims you mentioned and instead and collect data? The loss of manufacturing jobs is an almost certain trend given increased automation, as well as increases in salary. Ultimately, manufacturing has become more capital than labor intensive. The data also shows that China is not likely to blame, data from the US bureau of labor statistics has shown decline in manufacturing employment in sectors with as well as without competition with China, and a rough reading of journal papers suggest at most a contribution of 25% of the decline in manufacturing was affected by China. Essentially the labor market has changed and entry level jobs are fewer than the used to be and there is increasingly a requirement for higher education. https://www.nber.org/papers/w24468 The underlying issue is that finding real information takes work. Work that few folks are willing to do, unfortunately. That is why blaming has always been such an effective tool. Some elements of blame have, for a short period of time, become sufficiently distasteful that it has retreated (just a little bit) in modern politics. Over the last decade or so, it has become the de facto strategy for major parties.

And yet another danger is that Trump aims to replace at least some taxes with tariffs. Simple calculations show that even ignoring the downsides, such as price increases, this is not feasible. I.e. either more debts have to made or the government's operating budget will decrease (based on how much is cut in taxes). Other issues are nicely summarized here https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/can-trump-replace-income-taxes-tariffs. I think economics universally agree that this is not a great policy. However, the one reason why it might be implemented after all is because it actually provide benefits to rich folks (somewhere around the 5th top quintile) at the cost of lower income. And luckily we learned that those are so much easier to fool.

And especially as helping the working class form the Trump campaign was a) trust us bro, and b) we'll deport everyone taking your jobs.

The Republicans have frequently proposed budget cuts to especially basic research (e.g. NSF-funded projects). So it is a likely outcome. They appear also to be on war path with public health now, apparently because they suck at it.

Yeah sorry, I think meant to compare it to total shooting homicides in other countries (exempting suicide). I am not sure which table I was looking at at that time, but I am guessing it might have been Germany or UK.

And what I am really afraid of is that even with college education, critical thinking skills are diminishing. Still better than no education, but the effect by be lower (or I might be wrong, and just disillusioned).

I think it is the reverse, folks think that already. There is no need to link the ideas up really, just support and leverage it. And this is the only thing that Trump actually can do shamelessly. You can't afford to start a business because the elites are overregulating everything. I am going to fix it so that you can afford it. Houses are so expensive because foreigners are taken them all. I will fight them and you will be able to afford beautiful houses. I will make such a great economy, the best economy where your wife can stay home and does a woman's true job. And you will be able to support them. I will protect you from the evil elites who will screw you over and the foreigners who are taking all the good jobs (if you want to appears smart you can also claim that foreigners are suppressing all your wages, but be careful with those big words).

I don't think that specific solutions even presented clearly will help if it does not address what the voter think it should address. And it is not the economy as such. Most folks have no idea how the economy is. And studies have shown that the worries of folks regarding the economy can even be disconnected to their actual own economic situation. There is a reason why folks are more worried about the border than anything else, regardless of the actual impact on economy and crime. And folks want their fears validated and addressed. And that is the issue. The Democrats actually went there and addressed border issues. But that again was not the point. If they wanted those "undecided" voters, they would had to be punitive and cruel about it. It doesn't even matter if it solves the issue, but if they saw that someone punished those undesirables, that might have been enough. But of course, that would have alienated a vast segment of Democratic voters. It is a lose-lose situation.

I am not sure that most would understand- even if they understand the mechanism, they might not feel that they relate to their situation and their worries. At least not without educating folks regarding the links. Simpler (untrue) stories resonate more with folks. For example, for many folks struggling with money there is a simple narrative that has worked almost every time: - You are struggling because the elites are screwing you. - They steal your money and divert the money that is yours to [undeserving group] - The elites are also dissolving the fabric of our society by promoting [feminism, LGBTQ issues, anything that you don't like or are at least suspicious about] - I will fight for you against the elites by and punish the elites and [undeserving group]. Highlight the punishing part. Sharing and intensifying fears of folks validates them and they feel seen. It doesn't help if folks say, look, it isn't immigrants, it is weak unions. That is too abstract. A horde of brown people stealing their money, food and women? Now that is tangible. I am sorry to say, but it seems that best target that folks can successfully cater to with minima effort is: The only prerequisite is that you have no shame and are willing to lie. And that does not seem to be much of a burden nowadays.

That is the point, though. Folks with influence and money have long realized that instead of playing the game, it is far more effective to play the system and make the rules. Media used to have a sort of check on it (but the Murdoch empire also has shown how vulnerable traditional media is). However this check relies on two things: One, the quality of reporting with the intent to force accountability and two, having the electorate actually act on this information. Both mechanisms have been successfully eroded, not for the first time in modern history. So you can just claim things. As we have discussed already the last time around, traditional norms have virtually vanished and we have not created any new structures to adapt. So folks either went all in (as the GOP) into an accountability-free space where you can just say whatever you think folks like. Even if you are directly responsible for deaths due to your misinformation, you can just blame some random things except yourself. Alternatively, you can go the traditional route, try to garner the reasonable populace and think that this is enough. Rater unfortunately that does not seem like a winning strategy, whereas the free-wheeling accountability-free space is a scary winner. They did and it made little inroads. As I said, that would still be the assumption that you can reason things out. I have worked through the pandemic with a broadish segment of the population and the level of things they believe you cannot address in a handful of meetings. Not even in many. And once you make inroads, others have invented 200 new conspiracy theories. It is a losing proposition in the long run as it takes time, training and effort to discuss facts. Lying is effortless and every idiot is doing it. Also to add, it is almost impossible to talk policy over feels. If folks think their economic issue is because of immigration and that mass deportation magically will solve it, discussing policies that would actually help them will not register with the masses. You can convince individuals, if you take the time, but that won't be enough to sway elections. And the alternative is basically stoking their fears and then offer cheap (and nonsensical) solution.

The downside to that is that I believe NPR listeners skews to the older age bracket. I.e. young folks, the traditional drivers for societal change are more likely getting more misinformed (not just uninformed). Just recently there was a Leger poll in Canada, suggesting that the largest group doubting the holocaust are in the youngest segment. Nah, don't you worry. The pathogen does not have to be something prehistoric. We just stop vaccinating and enjoy all the diseases we had 50ish years ago. You'll make a killing selling iron lungs, I tell ya.

I suspect as much, but I was hoping for someone to tell me I am wrong. We are doomed, aren't we?

I do wonder how much weight traditional media still have, especially among the younger electorate.

It looks like that. You need narratives, not policies. The simpler the better. As some have put it: Trump's message was clear. Bad people want to do bad stuff to you. I make all better for you. This translates to the average voter to a clear message. Whereas Harris had details and numbers and stuff and that point they suddenly do not understand what she stands for. Also important: being vague. If you are specific folks on the internet hammer you on it (either legitimately or just by spreading misinformation) and folks repeating the nonsense for some reasons feel smug about it. Be vague and no one can meme you (or whatever young people say). Having a concept of a plan is apparently a genius thing.

And folks are really not very good in attributing the economic situation to the right folks. I think the concept of time eludes a lot if people.

The way I describe them are dopamine machines. If folks feel bored, anxious or just not entertained, their reflex is to go to the device (if they are not already on it) and basically find something that makes them feel better. It is a constant distraction and they are barely able to sit through boredom in order to get a job done. It saps a lot, if not all of the mental capacity of folks and also colors their expectation of training and learning. The fact that many of the younger generation are simply not equipped to learn anymore (as I mentioned in another thread) is the biggest issue as that limits potential remedies. Edit: A couple of articles suggest that one big issue is that the GOP was successful because they played heavily on predominantly white identity politics, whereas Dems tried to avoid identity and tried to focus on policies.

This is just boring old dogwhistling, isn't it? Oh no, it is not xenophobia, it is just economic/immigration concerns. It just so happens that folks evoke fears of replacement murder, rape and stealing the women. One has to be oh so careful not to upset the folks that call others derogatory terms on a routine basis. Also I forgot to add that Trump himself is also a convicted rapists, suggesting a fair amount of projection. But maybe that is what Harris should have done. Demonize some group (but turn around and play nice with them when they are around). Air grievances about how people feel about the current situation and instead of solutions should blame the other party. While there might not even be a need to lie, the point is to induce fear and hatred. After all, it seems to be a winning strategy even if the rest is pretty much brain dead.

Honestly, I think that even if they did more, their influence is largely gone (except for a smallish segment of the population). I suspect that many traditional political entities across the world might be losing ground, because they still assume that certain principles, including the role of media, is still valid. Meanwhile, my students quote TikTok as scientific sources. If that is any indication, the only thing that moves the needle is clickbait. The more outrageous, the better.