Originally Posted by Caenis
I might misunderstand, but I believe this is the connection: the impatience to read another's opinion reveals how little value people put in others' opinions, and how highly they think of their own thoughts. 'My thoughts are more important and original than yours, your opinion will bore me, so I'm not going to read about your ideas.' The lack of desire to spend time reading and considering others opinions implies that people are not truly accepting of others' ideas, and thus not open minded.
If my interpretation is correct, then I do not entirely agree with the point Omnis Dei is making. People are adjusting to absorbing information in short and concise paragraphs, and like skimming to pick out the main points. That does not imply a closed mind, but merely a change in how people read and absorb information.
I feel Omnis Dei would be happier if I had posted my favorite animal instead of responding to a portion of his wall of text. As such, my favorite animal is a hippo. It's fat and aggressive. It is beautifully round and powerful.
Try to skim manly p hall for the raw information. I understand perfectly well how people attempt to pull information out and that's mainly what I have a problem with, this way we regard information as essentially separate from the format it is presented. Pulling the raw information out, you may as well ignore that gibberish that is the body of text and answer the thread's title question. Everything is taken at face value.
There is a connection we have grown accustomed to utterly ignoring, and this is the connection between the information we receive and the process through which we receive it. There is something to be said about finding trustworthy voices to absorb information, but there is also something to be said about our own filters on information, which dramatically change the shape of the information we are receiving and can unfairly discredit particular sources while unjustly substantiating others. For instance we know well to trust information from a textbook, even though they repeat obvious misconceptions to such an extent we may as well be reading about phrenology sometimes. We also know well enough to ignore the babbling street preacher, and of course everyone knew at the time to ignore that nigger Martin Luther King Jr. Even though he has since been regarded as saying some of the most profoundly enlightening things to come out of someone's lips in the last 50 years. We know Stephen Hawking is worth listening to, but his Holiness the Dalai Lama is simply the spokesperson for another one of those dreadful religions.
So bias does effect information. One of the worst biases that emerges from "scanning" for raw information is the distaste for anything that might come off slightly repetitive. We think once we obtain information once, we've got it forever. But there is a connection between the process of learning and the information itself. For instance, the quality through which you learn something is directly related to the amount of neurons participating in the learning. This means writing something down by hand is much more effective than typing it, because so many more neurons are involved. It's not merely a matter of remembering information, either, but being able to utilize it because you expand the information's role in the neural network. When information is learned by swallowing the entire process through which the information is presented, you are mapping out whole networks with which to utilize it, and strengthening every level of practical intelligence in a synergistic way rather than merely storing information.
|
|
Bookmarks