SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the This-is-why-my-tribe-is-correct dept.
From Scientific American
Science literacy is important, but without the parallel trait of "science curiosity," it can lead us astray
What intellectual capacities—or if one prefers, cognitive virtues—should the citizens of a modern democratic society possess? For decades, one dominant answer has been the knowledge and reasoning abilities associated with science literacy. Scientific evidence is indispensable for effective policymaking. And for a self-governing society to reap the benefits of policy-relevant science, its citizens must be able to recognize the best available evidence and its implications for collective action.
This account definitely isn’t wrong. But the emerging science of science communication, which uses scientific methods to understand how people come to know what’s known by science, suggests that it is incomplete.
Indeed, it’s dangerously incomplete. Unless accompanied by another science-reasoning trait, the capacities associated with science literacy can actually impede public recognition of the best available evidence and deepen pernicious forms of cultural polarization.
The supplemental trait needed to make science literacy supportive rather than corrosive of enlightened self-government is science curiosity.
Simply put, as ordinary members of the public acquire more scientific knowledge and become more adept at scientific reasoning, they don’t converge on the best evidence relating to controversial policy-relevant facts. Instead they become even more culturally polarized.
This is one of the most robust findings associated with the science of science communication. It is a relationship observed, for example, in public perceptions of myriad societal risk sources—not just climate change but also nuclear power, gun control and fracking, among others.
In addition, this same pattern—the greater the proficiency, the more acute the polarization—characterizes multiple forms of reasoning essential to science comprehension: polarization increases in tandem not only with science literacy but also with numeracy (an ability to reason well with quantitative information) and with actively open-minded thinking—a tendency to revise one’s beliefs in light of new evidence.
The same goes for cognitive reflection. The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) measures how much people rely on two forms of information processing: “fast,” preconscious, emotion-driven forms of reasoning, often called “System 1”; or a conscious, deliberate, analytical, “slow” form, designated “System 2.”
[...] But given what positions on climate change have now come to signify about one’s group allegiances, adopting the “wrong” position in interactions with her peers could rupture bonds on which she depends heavily for emotional and material well-being. Under these pathological conditions, she will predictably use her reasoning not to discern the truth but to form and persist in beliefs characteristic of her group, a tendency known as “identity-protective cognition.”
[...] Conceptually, curiosity has properties directly opposed to those of identity-protective cognition. Whereas the latter evinces a hardened resistance to exploring evidence that could challenge one’s existing views, the former consists of a hunger for the unexpected, driven by the anticipated pleasure of surprise. In that state, the defensive sentries of existing opinion have necessarily been made to stand down. One could reasonably expect, then, that those disposed toward science curiosity would be more open-minded and as a result less polarized along cultural lines.
This is exactly what we see when we test this conjecture empirically. In general population surveys, diverse citizens who score high on the Science Curiosity Scale (SCS) are less divided than are their low-scoring peers.
[...] The findings on science curiosity also have implications for the practice of science communication. Merely imparting information is unlikely to be effective—and could even backfire—in a society that has failed to inculcate curiosity in its citizens and that doesn’t engage curiosity when communicating policy-relevant science.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Pav on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:05AM (36 children)
Socialism is tribalism at the expense of self? Piketty's three centuries of economic data have shown societies (or "tribes" if you like) with high inequalty LOSE economically... and yes, even relative elites suffer the consequences, though I guess if one is a social darwinist one might be willing to lose an arm if the competitors lose two.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @07:06AM (5 children)
Perhaps high inequalty is a predictor of impending failure, but that doesn't mean you can avert the failure by brutally enforcing a reduction in inequality. You're assuming high inequality is a cause of problems, not a symptom of problems.
Even if it were the cause, your cure may be worse than the disease. Maybe we haven't yet tried "real socialism" or "real communism", but why take the risk if we always get the "not real" kind with starvation and death camps?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday December 12 2018, @07:59AM (2 children)
Because if you don't try anything at all, you know you'll lose?
True, you don't necessary mean you need to try socialism, but starting with a 'my way or anything else is socialism' will surely get you nowhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday December 12 2018, @04:40PM (1 child)
Or, in other words, you can't win if you don't play.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1) by Gault.Drakkor on Thursday December 13 2018, @01:40AM
Umm. Pretty sure what was meant is that unless the rules change; we, the 95%, lose. The game is on going.
Personally I don't need to win. I just really don't want society to lose (i.e. vast majority forced to live at near poverty level)
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pav on Wednesday December 12 2018, @01:00PM (1 child)
Marx's critique of capitalism was unquestioned, both in the east and the capitalist west. The easts answer was socialism, and the wests answer was democratic socialism in the form of the high taxing welfare state. Post WWII the USA payed its domestic welfare bill, as well as the welfare bills of Europe and Japan... all with its 90% top marginal tax rate, and ~50% company tax. This wasn't a disaster... this was a golden age - "Happy Days" America. The USSR went from feudalism to a world power... and the USA had the best standard of living in the world. The USSR suffered a quicker corruption than the USA... the bolsheviks somehow justified a dictatorship even though communism is by definition democratic - the rest is history. Corruption came later with the USA - Reagans tax cuts used the oil shock as justification. As a result untaxed cash failed to "trickle down" to mainstreet, and this caused investment to leave real production for Wallstreet because there was an ever shrinking amount of cash to be captured in the real economy. These days Americans live in a second rate society, and skilled migrants are gradually preferring to move to the more democratic socialist countries in Europe, and to Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc... even unskilled workers are showing up less leaving farms short staffed. How does it feel to prove Piketty correct?
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @07:54PM
There's about 10,000 unskilled Central Americans banging on our southern door demanding to be let in that contradict your assertion. The news has even reported that some are asking for $50,000 in blackmail money to go home.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by qzm on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:06AM (4 children)
Perhaps then you would care to give examples of socialist states that have been resounding successes?
No?
Perhaps some nice solid Marxist ones then? surely the purity should help...
That your false assertion is actually based on is that there is solid evidence that any successful system eventually leads to its own downfall.
The cause of that seems to generally be internal corruption, however that is not caused by 'high inequality', it is one cause of high inequality.
For reference: Ask a few people form communist Russia, Maoist China, The current Venezuela how well their 'equality' is working out..
The 200-300 year cycle of dynastic failure is VERY well established.. Socialist societies however seem to short circuit that period, and pretty much fail immediately.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Pav on Wednesday December 12 2018, @01:19PM (3 children)
The USSR wasn't "communist", just as the DPRK isn't "democratic". I can't blame you though because both the USSRs and the USAs propaganda arms were repeating for half a century that the USSR was the ultimate definition of communism (each country for different reasons) - what hope did you have? Venezuela would be fine if it wasn't for the smell of its oil drawing a complete economic blockade from the USA. The most democratic socialist countries in the world are currently handing the USA its ass... eg. Germany, with its universal health care, unions REQUIRED on company boards, free college (even for non Germans) etc... etc... etc... Sweden, famous not only for its huge welfare state, but for the highest number of multinationals per head in the world (Volvo, Husqvana, Ikea, FHM, H&M, Ericson, SAAB etc...), oh, and they can also build a fighter jet ahead of time and under budget unlike the USA... no wonder they're winning contracts from American companies in the 3rd world. Oh, and to add insult to injury they have a population slightly less than Georgia... What were you saying?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @01:46PM
> The USSR wasn't "communist", just as the DPRK isn't "democratic".
No. They were just run by evil people who believed in communism and socialism. They demonstrated that the adherents to communism and socialism have no morals, will kill dozens of millions (or more if given the chance).
Marxist Socialism and its derivatives are evil; the people who support it are evil. They put the state above all other interests and by design deny people basic human rights. They give no rights to common people and use an elite-driven ideological secular religion as an excuse to deny people of their life, liberty and property.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:04AM (1 child)
No true Scotsman?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @04:33AM
No true Runaway1956, but that is both offtopic, and redundant, no?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @10:05AM
Scheidel [theatlantic.com] thinks differently and his theory also supports the wealth leveling effects of communist states. Under communism, wealth inequality is achieved by transferring wealth to the ruling class while impoverishing and murdering citizens. This perfectly fits Scheidels's hypothesis, presenting communism as the murderous plague and human catastrophe it is.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 12 2018, @03:35PM (23 children)
You're asserting that it's not? You do understand the basic mechanics of socialism, yes? I mean, shit, the entire premise behind socialism and communism is that the needs of the tribe outweigh the needs of any individual.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Pav on Wednesday December 12 2018, @09:32PM (22 children)
Yes, exactly how it worked in the USA. The capitalists of the post-WWII era (in their suits and black rimmed glasses) had to struggle against the huge tax burden involved in supporting a socialist-inspired welfare state, and only the fittest survived keeping the economy healthy. Even the television of that era reflected that stereotype : the careful miserly penny-pinching banker... the workaholic captain of industry. Still, if they performed they were well rewarded. Since Reagan the US economy has slowly cast off its wealth-taxes and regulations, and gradually slid into the hands of entitled frat boys who never grew up and never had to work to maintain wealth... hell, they can snort coke and bang hookers, and the bank accounts look after themselves (and the social mobility numbers back this up). The flip side of this is of course that potentially more talented peoples lives are squandered in poverty, and the country as a whole isn't managed efficiently and slides into the toilet. "But if those born with nothing were truly talented they'd transcent their poverty!". Yes, and the truly talented boxers would win with one hand behind their backs.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 13 2018, @12:38AM (21 children)
Actual social mobility numbers say any given person has pretty good odds of being part of the one percent at some point in their life, though they're very unlikely to stay there, so anti-mobility arguments are kind of shit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Pav on Thursday December 13 2018, @01:05AM (20 children)
Actually Americans pay a hefty nepotism penalty compared to northern Europe and Canada for instance due to inequality. 30% more of your elites hold their social position simply by virtue of birth... that's quite a drag on your society, and why Trump with his past of hookers, blow and neoliberalism-enabled financial mismanagement is so perfectly emblematic. I'm glad you can wave away that tax on your own success so glibly.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:28AM (19 children)
Explain how it is a drag, please. I don't know about your economy but ours over here is not a zero-sum game. Even assuming there were a fixed number of dollars out there to be had (which isn't true), taking a lot of them out of circulation (which does not happen) would make the remaining ones worth more not less.
The only reason to complain that someone has more than you that can stand up to logical scrutiny is envy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday December 13 2018, @06:01AM (18 children)
Because currency that doesn't enable economic activity is pointless? Look up "velocity of money" for why your ever more unequal society is failing. Also, weak hegemons suck. The Europeans are anticipating a failing US, and this has made geopolitics potentially much more complicated and dangerous for them, both locally and globally. Even long term ally Britain has sided with Iran and China against the USA, along with France, Germany etc... My country (Australia) has fought more wars than America over the last century because we've deemed it necessary to support the global sea power of the day... this is the unfortunate consequence of being an exporter located on an island. The naval hegemon was once Britain before WWII, and for the moment it's the USA. We're the only US ally that has fought in all US conflicts, and during the 1950's we were fighting wars for BOTH Britain and the USA. We've done something out of character in recent decades... we've built a submarine fleet "just in case" things change in the intermediate future, and past prime ministers are now openly questioning the value of the US alliance. You guys are even getting trouced building cars these days, and are flagging as a trading partner... China imports almost six times as much of our stuff - their growing middle class is why we along with Europe (Germany in particular) are looking to China as the US sags. Maybe TPP2 will change things, but I doubt it... the only hope is the Chinese become worse nepotistic losers than the US (which certainly is possible).
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 13 2018, @10:23AM (17 children)
Currency cannot help but enable economic activity. That's its fundamental nature in any form ever. Even Venezuela's fucked up situation right now is better than barter. You're going to have to clarify what you mean.
The rest of it? None of that is in any way related to who has how many currency tokens within the US. You're also neglecting the fact that pretty much everyone is bigger trading partners with China now than with each other. China is sitting on the happy side of a very off-kilter currency exchange ratio (we made the rules and they exploited the fuck out of them) and doesn't give a happy damn about the quality of life of its workers relative to those of the western world. This means that they can produce anything a hell of a lot cheaper than we can, so we trade with them instead of each other or producing domestically.
You really need to brush up on picking out causes and effects. It would help if you could distinguish between value and tokens as well.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Friday December 14 2018, @02:17AM (16 children)
Money is like manure... if it's allowed to pile up it doesn't do much except stink, but if it's spread around it can do a lot of good.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday December 14 2018, @12:43PM (15 children)
The thing most people miss is how many tokens are in existence is irrelevant, so long as there are enough in circulation to fulfill their function as a thing to be traded for other things. That could genuinely be a problem back in the day with physical currencies. Today, with most currency being ones and zeroes, it can never become a problem.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Saturday December 15 2018, @02:03AM (12 children)
Hence the problem... the tokens accumulate into big sluggish underperforming piles without state intervention (Piketty's and Marx's observation).
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday December 15 2018, @11:39AM (11 children)
You did read the last sentence of my previous reply, yes? It's not actually possible for this to be a problem anymore with how we manage the economy nowadays. If you're using a fixed amount of physical gold as currency, this is a legitimate but quite uncommon worry. If your money largely only exists only on paper or in computers and can be (and is every day) created from nothing, it's really not possible to reproduce this as a legitimate issue.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Sunday December 16 2018, @09:17PM (10 children)
It's certainly true they can print money, and due to the nature of todays economy it won't cause inflation... but they won't spin the presses near enough. It's the same reason they don't raise taxes - it would require actual work in the real economy which the US capital class isn't up to anymore. They'd lose to "new money" and foreigners. Military spending is an exception - it's socialism for the wealthy that can be dropped directly into contractors pockets.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday December 17 2018, @11:41AM (9 children)
You're absolutely correct except that not remotely all large capital holders are incapable or unwilling to compete. Even for those who don't wish to compete though, simply investing their money means it is back in circulation. Sticking it in a bank even means that many times its face value enters back into circulation in the form of loans. It has to or the banks wouldn't be able to pay interest on it.
Military spending is pretty fucked up, yes. Not because we shouldn't spend enough to have the most powerful military on the planet but because of the corruption within the current system. If you have wealth as a nation, you must protect said wealth or you will not long have it. We don't however have any need of billions of dollars worth of boondoggles or massively overpriced staples.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Monday December 17 2018, @10:00PM (8 children)
But there's a worldwide debt bubble... both governments and the middle class have been making up for low taxes and stagnant wages with borrowing for decades in the hope that things would change. And what's the point in real economy investment if customers disposable income is mostly captured in debt repayments?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday December 17 2018, @11:12PM (7 children)
This I do not disagree with but you cannot and should not try to legislate away stupidity. It would help if we taught children how to think for themselves and how not to be a bloody moron in everyday life still but this is no longer legally allowed apparently. Sometime between when I was in school and the present we decided to raise children instead of raising adults. This is both bloody stupid and sad. Children already know how to be self-absorbed little shitheads. What they don't know is how to be a productive and responsible adult and they're going to have to learn the very, very hard way unless their parents and schools start teaching them again.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday December 18 2018, @03:12AM (6 children)
Soo... you're saying you shouldn't legistlate away... ... ... a problem caused by legislating away taxes on capital? Which resulted in capital lending those untaxed dollars to those that needed to fill the shortfall caused by lowered taxes? You're saying the problem is instead the fault of "lazy people" failing in a system that, without tax-and-transfer state intervention GENERATES failure as a mathematical certainty... failure that climbs from the bottom to the top REPEATEDLY over time.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 18 2018, @01:43PM (5 children)
No, I'm saying you can't legislate away human stupidity. Getting rid of taxes on capital doesn't cause a problem, it only exposes one that was solved improperly in the first place.
That's not just a bold claim, that's an insane claim. History hasn't just proven it false once, it's done so so many times they can't be counted.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:47PM (4 children)
Piketty HAS those statistics on historical data - distilled : wealth grows faster than economic output.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 19 2018, @11:26AM (3 children)
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt there and assume you spoke before you thought that out. You sound like a pretty smart guy who should understand that economics is not a single function with only one variable and no calls to other functions. The complexity of the feedback sources and a constantly changing tax code alone make that data unfit even for use in a top shelf video game.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday December 20 2018, @06:59AM (2 children)
I could have said "the house always wins" about casinos, and what you said would have been equally true, but...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 20 2018, @12:27PM (1 child)
Yup, you're saying "In practice, foo..." while I'm saying "Yes, so let's change the practice.".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday December 20 2018, @10:13PM
"I've got this system"! Granted, if people gamble hard enough some will come out ahead, but...
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday December 15 2018, @04:14PM (1 child)
Until the logarithm of the amounts of currency become too large for floating-point calculations....
Not to mention that floating-point currency calculations are problematic in themselves.
Can the poor sustain themselves on the rounding errors in the bank accounts of the rich?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday December 15 2018, @04:33PM
You raise a good point. It's technically possible for the numbers to grow to the point that it would cost more in energy to keep track of them than they're earning.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.