The Knowledge Illusion

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
So, what do you do ? Are you going to learn enough to diagnose and treat cancer ? To repair a car ? To plan policies for a government ? To create a just legal system ? To decide every question on every issue ? No one lives long enough to even try.
You stop trying to control or even understand every little thing ... you do your best (by using common sense and research when necessary) to control and understand what really matters (to you) and you relax and enjoy the life you have created.
 

programmer_guy

True ex-Scientologist
@Mockingbird

It seems like you are trying to reform the pieces of your worldview after leaving your involvement in Scientology (i.e. "the tech").

Just pick a few items that are important to you in your everyday life then make a short list of those items on this thread.
 

La La Lou Lou

Well-known member
All this explains a lot about current politics. Britain is one example. The population pretty much divides down the middle. One side wants to leave the EU and one side wants to stay. Neither side is capable of listening or reading any idea that backs the opposite side. Everyone KNOWS the truth but no one is able to read 'facts' without a biased view. The result is a mess. Similarly in the US on the Trump is good Trump is bad divide.

Democracy can be wonderful if the people actually have facts to make decisions on, and are able to see the facts without bias.

I see so many times Americans saying things like 'socialism creates poverty', who refuse to see that Scandinavian countries have been socialist since WW2 and are happy prosperous countries without extremes of wealth and poverty while the USA has enormous gaps between the lifestyles of the Billionaires and many who sleep on the streets. The American anti-socialist propaganda has been swallowed whole. Reliance on hand outs can in the long run make people incapable of supporting themselves, that's not socialism, it's removing someone's responsibility for their own survival, and has been done to demoralise, weaken and destroy minorities under many different political systems. Help when you are down in order to get you back in control is one thing, medical care for people when they need it is considered a right by most people who do not live in America. I have slowly come to the conclusion that the USA is completely different to the rest of the world. Perhaps that difference is simply is the 'facts' that you lot have been exposed to.

What yo post is very interesting I wish I had the power of concentration to read it all, I simply don't. Scanning through though was informative, and it's a subject that needs to be addressed in this very poorly informed democratic world.
 

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
So, what do you do ? Are you going to learn enough to diagnose and treat cancer ? To repair a car ? To plan policies for a government ? To create a just legal system ? To decide every question on every issue ? No one lives long enough to even try.
We also have the situation, familiar to most people on this board, of the "experts on the mind" (Scientology) who turned out to be complete con-men, and where the field they were "expert" in was complete bullshit.
 

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
The population pretty much divides down the middle. One side wants to leave the EU and one side wants to stay. Neither side is capable of listening or reading any idea that backs the opposite side.
Also take into account that you have some who feel they would personally benefit by remaining, and others who feel they would personally benefit by BRexit. Since everyone is in a different circumstance, that results in different viewpoints as to the personal desirability of BRexit.

These days, we have a whole industry of "influencers" (LRH would call them "opinion leaders"), people who have a significant following on social media, who marketers approach to promote their particular brand. These "influencers" need not be globally famous. They just need to have enough followers to be worth offering a few bucks or free product to push a particular product or viewpoint.


We now have the concept of "micro-celebrity": somebody who is an opinion-leader among a small group of followers may still be worth approaching by a marketing firm.


At least some people on the Internet are unpersuadable because they are being paid to market a particular viewpoint.
 
Last edited:

La La Lou Lou

Well-known member
Also take into account that you have some who feel they would personally benefit by remaining, and others who feel they would personally benefit by BRexit. Since everyone is in a different circumstance, that results in different viewpoints as to the personal desirability of BRexit.

These days, we have a whole industry of "influencers" (LRH would call them "opinion leaders"), people who have a significant following on social media, who marketers approach to promote their particular brand. These "influencers" need not be globally famous. They just need to have enough followers to be worth offering a few bucks or free product to push a particular product or viewpoint.


We now have the concept of "micro-celebrity": somebody who is an opinion-leader among a small group of followers may still be worth approaching by a marketing firm.


At least some people on the Internet are unpersuadable because they are being paid to market a particular viewpoint.
I don't know how they'll vote now but there were a lot of British expats living in Spain etc who voted for Britain to leave, perhaps they'll have second thoughts now (and if) they can see how it might effect them. If there's a no deal then all the pensioners may have to come home, with the pound's value going down and with no medical treatment available without private medical insurance many of those people will be on the first bus home and going down to the council begging for a council house, no more warm winters, cheap food and wine.
 

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
Also take into account that you have some who feel they would personally benefit by remaining, and others who feel they would personally benefit by BRexit. Since everyone is in a different circumstance, that results in different viewpoints as to the personal desirability of BRexit.

These days, we have a whole industry of "influencers" (LRH would call them "opinion leaders"), people who have a significant following on social media, who marketers approach to promote their particular brand. These "influencers" need not be globally famous. They just need to have enough followers to be worth offering a few bucks or free product to push a particular product or viewpoint.


We now have the concept of "micro-celebrity": somebody who is an opinion-leader among a small group of followers may still be worth approaching by a marketing firm.


At least some people on the Internet are unpersuadable because they are being paid to market a particular viewpoint.
Adding a bit on the concept of "social media influencer", one thing which promotes the rise of them, is increased computing power and Artificial Intelligence.

Once you have a group of influencers, all you need to do is give them some talking points to push. Software can then monitor their postings, and the amount of "chatter" those postings result in, and payment can be automatically calculated as a result.
 

Bill

Well-known member
<snip>
I see so many times Americans saying things like 'socialism creates poverty', who refuse to see that Scandinavian countries have been socialist since WW2 and are happy prosperous countries without extremes of wealth and poverty while the USA has enormous gaps between the lifestyles of the Billionaires and many who sleep on the streets.
<snip>
This supports my theory that people who like socialism don't actually know what socialism is.
By definition socialism is government ownership or control of the means of production.

Scandinavian countries are not practicing socialism. Where they might have been more socialist in the past, they found socialism caused economic distress and they backed away from it.

In response to Americans frequently referring to his country as socialist, the prime minister of Denmark recently remarked in a lecture at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government,
I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.
 

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
This supports my theory that people who like socialism don't actually know what socialism is.
By definition socialism is government ownership or control of the means of production.

Scandinavian countries are not practicing socialism. Where they might have been more socialist in the past, they found socialism caused economic distress and they backed away from it.

In response to Americans frequently referring to his country as socialist, the prime minister of Denmark recently remarked in a lecture at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government,
Yes,


Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

At most, the Scandinavian countries have a robust welfare state combined with a market economy
 

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
So there we have it, two completely differing ideas about what socialism is.

Denmark has a very good Heath Service. Last I looked it was not publicly owned. I don't think market forces have anything to do with it.

This article is written better than I could and it's talking American...
No, there's what the dictionary says socialism is, and what you consider socialism to be. If we are to have a discussion on socialism, we have to first agree on a common definition of what we're talking about.

In actual socialism, the State owns and operates the means of production. Having some aspects of the economy operated by the government does not make it socialism.

The US also has a robust welfare state. Perhaps too robust. If it was less robust, perhaps we would have fewer illegal aliens trying to get onto it.



The meat of the article:

The average bottom-quintile household earns only $4,908, while the average top-quintile one earns $295,904, or 60 times as much. But using official government data sources on taxes and all transfer payments to compute net income produces the more complete comparison displayed in the nearby chart.

The average bottom-quintile household receives $45,389 in government transfers. Private transfers from charitable and family sources provide another $3,313. The average household in the bottom quintile pays $2,709 in taxes, mostly sales, property and excise taxes. The net result is that the average household in the bottom quintile has $50,901 of available resources.

Government transfers go mostly to low-income households. The average bottom-quintile household and the average second-quintile household receive government transfers of some $17 and $4 respectively for every dollar of taxes they pay. The average middle-income household receives $17,850 in government transfers and pays an almost identical $17,737 in taxes, while the fourth and top quintiles of households receive government transfers of only 29 cents and 6 cents respectively for every dollar paid in taxes. (In the chart, transfers received minus taxes paid are shown as net government transfers for low-income households and net taxes for high income households.)


The average top-quintile household pays on average $109,125 in taxes and is left, after taxes and transfer payments, with only 3.8 times as much as the bottom quintile: $194,906 compared with $50,901. No matter how much income you think government in a free society should redistribute, it is much harder to argue that the bottom quintile is getting too little or the top quintile is getting too much when the ratio of net resources available to them is 3.8 to 1 rather than 60 to 1 (the ratio of what they earn) or the Census number of 17 to 1 (which excludes taxes and most transfers).
 

Bill

Well-known member
So there we have it, two completely differing ideas about what socialism is.

Denmark has a very good Heath Service. Last I looked it was not publicly owned. I don't think market forces have anything to do with it.
Exactly my point. Those who "like socialism" don't know what the actual definition of socialism is. You seem to think there are many definitions of socialism... :duh:

And, I really do think that the Prime Minister of Denmark knows better than you whether Denmark is socialist or not.
 

BTW

Active member
Exactly my point. Those who "like socialism" don't know what the actual definition of socialism is. You seem to think there are many definitions of socialism... :duh:

And, I really do think that the Prime Minister of Denmark knows better than you whether Denmark is socialist or not.
Can you share what the actual definition of "socialism" is!?
 

BTW

Active member
Quote was already posted, above. Pay attention.
Which one of them is actual, in your view?
 

Bill

Well-known member
Which one of them is actual, in your view?
Those are the definitions. What is so hard to understand? What is not a real definition is what seems to be some people's idea it's "sugar and spice and everything nice."
 

BTW

Active member
Those are the definitions. What is so hard to understand? What is not a real definition is what seems to be some people's idea it's "sugar and spice and everything nice."
And you, Bill, seem to view it only as "bitter, garlic and everything bad", No?
 

BTW

Active member
And, Bill, if you want to ask me "What's good about it?" - let me ask you "What's bad about it?"
 
Top