/32/ - Psychopolitics

If we imagine that the two previous factors can be ignored, we run into the final and most complex one. Our perception and interpretation of reality is limited, and sometimes outright flawed. The most obvious evidence of this is the existence of optical and auditory illusions and stage magicians. Both are capable of making us perceive things which are not there, or ignore things that are. Other limitations become more obvious when we compare our species to others, and realize the capacity that some animals have to hear frequencies much higher our lower than those we can, or see colors and other details that we cannot even imagine. Our senses, despite being the most "honest" of our sources of information, are still limited and somewhat easily fooled. The other part of our perception is the processing ability of our brains, which must select what part of the sensory input is perceived consciously and what is perceived subconsciously. That “decision” is made based on individual brain architecture, child development and cultural biases, among other factors. Our own thoughts can be traced to environmental input and similar factors beyond our control.

This bias on thought processes, as well as the fundamental economic problem, influences the two previous points. Firstly, a perfectly unbiased system of information acquirement and transmission would be developed according to a human definition of “perfection” and “unbiased”. Secondly, the development of language is also based on the ideas of how data ‘’should’’ be transmitted.

Thus, I propose that while economy has a single fundamental problem around which the science develops, the field of psychopolitics must deal with three fundamental problems, them being:

1- The inescapable partiality of information sources.

2- The simplicity of language.

3- The inherent limitations of human perception.

I would very much like to know your opinions on this matter, as well as possible changes to this theory.

OP, I have no criticisms, observations or suggestions regarding your posts.

I would like to ask a question that arose upon reflection over your theory:

What is the closest that human beings can get to the truth?

I suppose one's definition of truth may vary, but for the purpose of this question let's define it as raw data about reality, the most basic level of information that is subjected to the least amount of filters. Would it be our own thoughts?

>>2085

>1- The inescapable partiality of information sources.

This is only a problem if you have a single or one-sided source of information. The simplest solution is to not trust anything and try to interpret information for yourself. Or better yet, seek out information independently.

>2- The simplicity of language.

This is the most interesting point part of your post. I've heard the idea that human language is fundamentally incapable of correctly communicating some information before. I can't remember where I read this, but it was proposed that describing qualia is the prime example of the failure of human language, since it simply cannot be communicated, and perhaps if our language was more "advanced" this wouldn't be an issue.

How to fix this? Besides the utopian dream of telepathy, I really see two options:

1. Create a new language from scratch that describes things with more precision than we thought was possible.

2. Stop using words to communicate altogether and instead utilize other ways to get information across, like body language or symbolism.

Both of these of course, are extreme, but so is the problem.

>3- The inherent limitations of human perception.

I don't think we can really fight our biology (unless posthumanism becomes a thing), not to mention the deeper questions of whether our reality exists at all. So realistically, until we can do something about this, we must rely on our perceptions, because that's all we have for now.

>>2114

>This is only a problem if you have a single or one-sided source of information. The simplest solution is to not trust anything and try to interpret information for yourself. Or better yet, seek out information independently.

The problem arises because most people don't have the time or access to all of the possible sources of information. Let's say an individual wants to learn about an ongoing conflict in a foreign land. They would initially seek information on the news outlets of their country, and then on other outlets on languages which they spoke. Even if they managed to watch, read and listen to every report by every one of those news outlets, there would still be the possibility that the combination of their reports amounted to the whole "truth". Let us assume this individuals is extremely drive to learning more about this situation, so they learn the language of the country and begin communicating with individuals who reside there and have direct experience with the situation. Even then, these individuals (who we are assuming are transmitting every bit on information without leaving anything out or altering it) will only be able to transmit the information to which they have access. Even if the individual goes to said country and has complete freedom of movement and can observe and interview as they please, they can only be at one place at a time, which forces them to rely on second-hand accounts. Thus, the mere fact that several events occur simultaneously is enough to prevent anyone from seeking direct information about any mildly complex event.

> Create a new language from scratch that describes things with more precision than we thought was possible.

A perfect simulation becomes that which it simulates, thus rendering the practicality of such a language moot.

I probably didn't express myself well enough. Like scarcity, these are problems which do not have a solution. In the same way that economics looks for ways to deal with the problem it can't fix, we must deal with these problems as best we can. One of the ways to deal with them is to do what you mentioned, which is seek multiple sources of information.

>>2084

As always the devil is on the details

The press has gone downhill worldwide because of the internet. The other day I was ready a NYT article from the 80s regarding the coldwar and its amazing how devoid of bullshit opinions it was. It was just "situation in russia, declaration of DC, economic numbers". No ifs, maybes, perhaps, no weasel words, and it was just one page. Same with other sections like science or movie critics. As it turns out all this could be maintained only through the artificially high prices of classified ads. These days nobody wants to be a pro-journalist because the pay is shit so you only get the famewhores at the bottom of barrel who will work for free. At the same time there was an increase in the number of regular ads. Now classified ads clients don't give two shits about the content of the paper, but regular advertisers do. The guy placing an ad to sell a camaro car doesn't cares that the cars sections says camaros suck, but chevy does, and chevy is not going to pay for a full-page spread unless camaros are declared to be awesome.

And that's without even getting into interest groups and the like, and because all the press workers are now expendable nobody dares to have a different opinion because they'll get fired immediately.

As for politicians I try to use the "think like the enemy" approach: these people are not the brightest but they don't know it, they are also absurdly entitled and crave attention, and they move in a morally ambiguous environment thats rife with corruption

My opinion is that anyone who gets into politics as a career and stays there past their 30s usually doesn't gives a shit about the general populace anymore and is on an ego-trip trying to get as much money and power as they can, even if that means playing the puppet for someone else's interests

>>2189

>all the planets rotate in a counter-clockwise direction

not so fast

it depends on your viewpoint; if you're above the plane of rotation, then they orbit counter-clockwise; but if you're below the plane of rotation, they orbit clockwise!