rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one, or recover it when possible. x


Once the Topic Is Set, Does the Narrative Matter?
#1

Once the Topic Is Set, Does the Narrative Matter?

I mentioned in another thread that I would come back to this article.

We've all seen this at this forum, which I consider to be a major step above any internet forum in that people here think and do things that most people would consider difficult. I respect guys who live a story they want to live and have the boldness to do so - it takes guts because there will be difficult times.

I've noticed even on this forum, though that some topic creations, regardless of how they turn out establish a focus for people to discuss, even if from the beginning it's false or unsubstantiated. The tactics that Greenwald discusses are disturbing, yet we can see this with any topic - if I bring up the political topic of abortion I've already set the topic for discussion. People begin to pour in and rant their views and debate the topic, but what I've essentially done is limit and control what's discussed.

As a case in point, how many posts do we see in this forum about this massive highway that's build that reduces traffic and how the construction workers hauled ass and built it quickly and now we save five extra minutes a day. Yet something like that impacts our life more than some random shooting in a state we've never set foot in, or some random politician who's saying something that catches attention, but amounts to nothing.

My two points here are:

1. We lose sight on things that impact us and improve our lives by letting other set the topic for discussion. By losing sight of these things, we miss on gratitude for those who actually help us, and miss on doing things that will improve others' lives around us.

2. Once the topic for discussion is set, regardless of the views that are presented, the narrative doesn't matter. Once the topic of homosexuality was set, it was only a matter of time before it became legal because people began discussing it and as people discussed it, they became desensitized to it to the point that they finally accepted it, or were "Ok, fine!" In other words, the topic being set matters more than the narrative that follows and I predict the same will happen with the trans and fat acceptance movements because both have already set the topic in motion.

I'm curious what your thoughts are of what I've been thinking about. I've been studying propaganda because I think conservatives have made the mistake of avoiding the topic instead of learning how people are being manipulated so that they can expose it.
Reply
#2

Once the Topic Is Set, Does the Narrative Matter?

The problem with humans is that we are biologically prone to chasing narratives, even when no narrative exists. We are programmed to seek a beginning, middle, and end.

I've realised that I bring in so much confirmation and narrative bias to my opinions that I no longer 100% trust my own opinions, nor the opinions of others. It's come to the point that I have the following heuristic:

"The likelihood of something being truthful is inversely proportional to how much logical sense it makes."

In other words, a clear logical story that makes sense is probably a false story. The real world is very messy, and truth can be chaotic and very counter-intuitive. A good example of this is the Monty-Hall problem, where intuitively the probability of finding the prize is 50% when it is actually 66%.

The thing is, the Monty-Hall problem is just one of the known situations where our narratives and biases fail us. How many of our narratives and biases are floating about lying to us that we don't know about? How many weird cognitive delusions are still awaiting discovery? People in the future could very well laugh at how people argued about politics the same way we laugh now at people that used to drown witches. In hindsight, it may all look very stupid.

The 'science' of economics is particularly prone to this - economists present these seductive narratives that are compelling not because they are truthful but because the human mind is biologically driven to crave a narrative rather than the truth.

I suppose one way to protect oneself is to always ask, "Who benefits?" For example, in the climate change discussions, all the thought leaders benefit. The academics who shout loudly that the end is nigh, well, they get name recognition and more funding for their research (in academia, funding is pretty much the be-all and end-all at this point, teaching is not important anymore). The oil companies benefit by keeping their product acceptable in the popular mind. The politicians benefit through votes or through 'legislation-for-pals' schemes. Everything takes one away from the essential point, which should not be 'Is there climate change?' but rather 'Should there be limits on pollution, knowing that it can affect human health and the environment, even if there is no climate change?' Except no one is benefiting from steering the discussion towards the last point - there is no money to be made in being sane.

Anyway, on a somewhat related note, I once wrote an article about consumerism which touches on this process of mind-control:
http://www.returnofkings.com/25063/you-d...-this-cult
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)