Culture, a brief history.

[atemporal]

T>(it's just shorthand, not meant to offend), well no, I do weigh up what people say, I read different viewpoints. But if you're referring to the so called expert on here, too desperate.

Who is that dig at? I can't see where I said I was an expert in abstract thinking, just that it fit the narrative. Also I can't see how my last post above was in anyway desperate so hopefull you're referring to somebody else.

[peterb]

Who is that dig at? I can't see where I said I was an expert in abstract thinking, just that it fit the narrative. Also I can't see how my last post above was in anyway desperate so hopefull you're referring to somebody else.

Cough - if you don't think it was a dig at you - let it go - no need to comment! If you do think it was a dig at you, then still no need to comment, just use the report post button and say why. That report will go to the moderators of the forum who will take such action as they see fit! (You may or may not get feedback, depending on how busy we are!

We (the admins and moderators) deprecate flame wars or tit-for-tat sniping, and that activity usually ends badly for all the parties concerned

[atemporal]

oh I'm not trying to start a flame war, I just don't see how that fits the previous posts in the thread so I'm confused. (or did I miss some deleted posts or something?)

edit: for that matter I'm also confused as to where the abstract thinking element has disappeared to.

[johnroe]

oh I'm not trying to start a flame war, I just don't see how that fits the previous posts in the thread so I'm confused. (or did I miss some deleted posts or something?)

edit: for that matter I'm also confused as to where the abstract thinking element has disappeared to.

I think you may have misunderstood several things which relate to other threads, like the reason I started this thread. It started on another thread, but because it was tangential I moved it here.

Also the 'expert' discussion relates to other threads. There seems to be a belief within this forum subculture that members are more reliable experts than those found online.(I was responding to something T said, why are other people interrupting our conversation?)

This is actually something I can't understand, which T just pointed out as well, and I've been accused of before. People say you should only state your own ideas, but where did those ideas come from; parents, teachers, experience, reading and thinking. So my response is, you have the greatest resource known at your fingertips, it's a hive mind type scenario. (listening to football, techno, while writing this, internet multitasking!)

[atemporal]

There's a forum subculture? So if the internet is a sub-culture and the forum a sub-set of that subculture, is that a sub-sub-sub-culture? Sounds like it needs its own name. How about a Trident? That's a good few subs right there. That or a foot long chicken teriyaki

As for interupting your conversation? Seriously? Last time I checked this is a public forum, you know, where multiple people get to posts things en-masse, and discuss topics as a group. How is making a post interrupting? If you want a private chat you can use the PM function. I've not really had need for it yet, but even a noob like me has managed to find it's there. Click on the poster name on the left and select "private message". That said this isn't my first forum so I guess I might be a bit more familiar with it. But I always say sucking eggs is always better than being left in the dark.

[johnroe]

I am thinking along those lines, a tech culture based on the WWW. I think politics here in UK is out of date, and all forms of centralised power are being challenged. I think the biggest challenge in any revolution is changing the mind set of the people away from hierarchical acceptance. I know personal PC's were created in an era of radical politics and psychoactive substances, but tech platforms have become the centres of power. I also know that Berners-Lee had idealistic radical hopes for the WWW. The CyberPunk manifesto although naive is anarchistic.

I did some lite research. With ideas around; decentralised autonomous organisation, auto enforceable contracts, liquid democracy. And I have more faith politically in this researcher Johann Gevers than politicians; decentralised communication and cryptography, decentralised law, decentralised production, and decentralised finance and contracts. He talks about how centralised political organisations dominated until 500 years ago, and a parallel can be drawn with internet platforms, but he sees those as transition phases to a real democracy.
Basically an open society, with complete freedom of information, suited to helping the many not the few, worldwide.



atemporal>I know but it's easy enough to misinterpret what someone is saying to you, it's even more difficult when you don't know the full context. The 'abstract' idea came about because I was reading about what it is that makes human intellect different to other animals and life in general(it came from a thread about life on mars). One of those was abstract thought, contemplation of things beyond what we can sense. Imaging being the hunter in the cave, or being a hunter in a PC game, or a bear in a game. It allows us to transcend our human limitations, imagine possibilities and have empathy.

[Ttaskmaster]

T>(it's just shorthand, not meant to offend),

Find a better way.

well no, I do weigh up what people say, I read different viewpoints. But if you're referring to the so called expert on here, too desperate.

1/. Which expert? We have several experts here in numerous different subjects.
2/. And if I'm not referring to them?

(If someone is confident of their opinion, then they state it, they don't have to resort to....well you know!).

To what?
Quoting sources? Explaining themselves to those who do not understand?

But he said that basically 'logical' people and creative people will not understand each other at all, they think in completely different ways.

And is he the one and only source upon which you base your beliefs?
What do all the other experts say?

I find young people to be incredibly smart, and quite capable of accessing any information they need. They know everything I know, and everything from their generation.

That would suggest that you don't know very much, as I find most of the young and even the not so young to be decidedly unaware of quite significant cultural events, even as recent as the last decade... and I'm not exactly a champion of Trivial Pursuit, either!

They are also because of the dynamic nature of culture, very sophisticated in their background knowledge, and understanding.

Like knowing that great song that Madonna wrote, called American Pie, yes?

I think in a way culture moves forward, but it isn't easy to see, but just look at a film from the eighties, or music from the fifties, to realise the rate of change.

"I've been listening to the new 'DJ'
What's all this 'original' con?
We all live in the same museum
We all rearrange the same old song"

Why the obsession with Google?

Why the obssession with a massive corporate entity that hoards control over personal data, you ask?
You really don't understand the price you're paying for the life you're not getting, do you.....?

But we have to forget the idea of privacy, in terms of data.

And with that, all individuality. You are now just a nameless cog in the corporate machine. A resource. A number. A reference. You are cattle, you are meat. YOU are nothing.

I think you are cynical about humanity, human culture could envelop this planet, and natural culture could become redundant.

And at that point, the planet is rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbished.

So we see cases like revenge porn, or embarrassing photos, blackmail, to insults, stalking; all behaviour being decided somewhere between culture and emerging tech possibilities.

And yet you want to open all that to the whole world - 7 billion people all lining up to command a piece of you, as a result of you gaily forgetting the idea of privacy...

There seems to be a belief within this forum subculture that members are more reliable experts than those found online.

Some members here are also the very same experts that you'd find online and elsewhere in the world. A few are quite eminent in their fields, and not just technology. That's what puts HEXUS above a good many other tech forums - The calibre of its membership.

I was responding to something T said, why are other people interrupting our conversation?

Because it's a public forum and anyone is free to chip in.

People say you should only state your own ideas, but where did those ideas come from; parents, teachers, experience, reading and thinking.

Doesn't matter where they came from and that can be supplied if requested.
What matters is what you think. If it didn't then you wouldn't need to look anything up. You'd have been told what to think already.
If I just needed to hear from you that the truth was XYZ because Doctor Jordan Peterson said it, I'd have already heard Doctor Jordan Peterson say it.

If you have spent so long considering all the information, reading all the reports and coming to the ultimate conclusion, then teh ultimate conclusion is what we're waiting to hear - Not some half-baked recipe missing four fifths of the ingredients, with only a quick soundbite of no context badly quoted from one single, supposedly expert, source seemingly submitted as definitive proof.

Notice how I rarely submit any reports, stats or anything to substantiate my assertions - If that was all that mattered, I'd just post my browser history and there'd be nothing to discuss.

[johnroe]

Yes I get it, and how you think. You are obviously entitled to your stereotypes of young people, and your dated understanding of culture, and your deference to the views of other forum members. Like I say I look at all views, only the most sensible do I incorporate. (I do find it funny when 'yes men' line up though). That is why there has been a shift in culture away from deference to hierarchies, experts, etc. (ie: experts have an agenda of their own, or their patrons). Anyway have fun, you're not really saying anything, just repeating the same stuff.

I think Johann Gevers ideas are possible, he refers to it as Society3, but they are also working on Web3, redisigning the net and computers. So I can see how the infra structure can restructure itself. But I'm still not sure how production can be decentralised, but there are many signs of small tech businesses being successful. I saw one which offered a device so that phones could interconnect out in the wilds, so some reliance on service industries could be reduced. If all phones had the device, it would create a peer to peer network.

I was thinking about our human ability to imagine, to project ourselves into other worlds. The first sci fi novel was apparently written by Lucian of Samosata, (second cent AD) 'True History'. But in more modern times it is the idea being put in our heads that has made us believe it's possible. I was wondering in pop cultural terms; how were sharks perceived before Jaws. They aid evolution, by removing the weak and stupid animals from the gene pool. But since the film some species have been decimated by 70-90%.

[atemporal]

That is why there has been a shift in culture away from deference to hierarchies, experts, etc. (ie: experts have an agenda of their own, or their patrons).

Really? Isn't the point of an expert to have better knowledge than the average person so they can better advise on the sensible cause of action? I mean the whole brexit ignoring experts thing has hardly been a good idea so far has it? To assume that everyone has a hidden agenda is a bit machiovellian. It can sound wise at first glance, but at some point you have to decide who to listen to, and therefore what their agenda is (if you want to go that far).

Most experts I know have little agenda other than a desire to ensure people understand things properly even if that is not what they want to hear. Especially when they have no direct gain from the situation otherwise. I know people who do expert witness in law cases. They hate it, it's a burden to them, they barely cover costs, and in some cases lose money. It's not a financial thing. They have no agenda being there other than to explain complicated facts to a jury of common people in a way they can understand - and often that means educating them about reality vs the BS poorly trained journalists and lame news articles on the internet spout about. They are keen convictions/rulings are not made based on BS misunderstanding. Doesn't matter what the case is, or the rights and wrongs of it. They just want to make sure the facts are what gets weighed.

Not all sources should be weighted equally. Agendas? Sure. Some people more than most, but we must all be very very careful about dismissing experts just because. That is surely reckless.

[atemporal]

They aid evolution, by removing the weak and stupid animals from the gene pool. But since the film some species have been decimated by 70-90%.

So, as a purely theoretical exercise, should we extrapolate that argument to say that doing so for the human species would be beneficial? I mean if they're so stupid and agenda biased, and prone to such drastic overreaction as to destroy other species....

[Galant]

If I may jump in the thread and ask a question - Johnroe - there seem to be two focal points or ideas in your thinking, one seems to be wonder at the power of the human mind and the other seems to be a pondering over how culture affects behaviour. Is either one of those the primary thing you're wanting to consider, or if not, what's the primary consideration you'd like to raise/promote?

Thanks.

[Disturbedguy]

My question is more why does Johnroe start threads / join threads with ongoing discussions, then instantly dismiss or try to belittle anyone that has an opinion that doesn't match...if you don't actually want a discussion...go talk to a wall..

[Ttaskmaster]

You are obviously entitled to your stereotypes of young people, and your dated understanding of culture, and your deference to the views of other forum members.

Stereotypes exist for a reason and it's a sad but true situation that many young people, by their very nature of being young, lack the life experience, breadth of knowledge, context and general background to actually understand, comprehend and appreciate much of what you attribute to them. Just because they know more than you about using a VCR does not mean they are your equal. Many know what they've got, but they don't know why they've got it, where it came from, what the alternatives are and why theirs is so good. They are naive in the extreme and it damn well shows!!

As for the views of other forum members - The first step toward enlightenment is to realise that you know nothing. I'm pretty good at spotting when someone knows more than me... and when someone tries to pretend they know more.

Like I say I look at all views, only the most sensible do I incorporate.

So you disregard the semi-sensible and less-sensible, more creative ones, that are more likely to be thinking outside the box and far further on their way to discovering a solution, then.... yeah, OK.

That is why there has been a shift in culture away from deference to hierarchies, experts, etc. (ie: experts have an agenda of their own, or their patrons).

Yes, away from experts and on to the completely unqualified opinions of whoever can sell their BS best... Twitter and YouTube, usually... But GUESS WHAT - All of them still have their own agenda and their patrons, particularly Patreon and the like. The difference is they don't know what they're talking about, because they're not the experts.

I think Johann Gevers ideas are possible, he refers to it as Society3, but they are also working on Web3, redisigning the net and computers.

I find him a delectable bourgeois fairy idiot, with no concept of how badly humanity will choose to abuse the freedoms he'd so carelessly foist upon them. He will be among the first to fall... and since you're still letting other people do your thinking for you, you'll be in the handbasket with him.

But I'm still not sure how production can be decentralised, but there are many signs of small tech businesses being successful.

It cannot be decentralised. There are too many of those pesky human beings, now. Demand far exceeds the capability of cottage industry. This is pretty obvious to anyone who does their own thinking.

I saw one which offered a device so that phones could interconnect out in the wilds, so some reliance on service industries could be reduced. If all phones had the device, it would create a peer to peer network.

The last thing the wilds need is more human technology spoiling it.

But in more modern times it is the idea being put in our heads that has made us believe it's possible.

Stop letting other people put ideas in your head. Think for yourself.

I was wondering in pop cultural terms; how were sharks perceived before Jaws.

As nasty sea dwellers that sometimes attacked ships and killed anyone unlucky enough to be caught in the water. It hasn't changed since the 1600s.
Plenty of poems and ballads, all depicting sharks as monstrous killing machines. Bryan and Pereene is a very good example, but history is full of Jaws-like incidents and depictions. Sharks were the badass killers of the sea... and you'll always want a bigger boat.

John Copley once painted Watson And The Shark, a depiction of a real-life incident of the 1740s, in which a shark preyed upon a young boy. The work was actually comissioned by the shark's victim, who went on to become Lord Mayor of London.
But the accounts of contemporary naturalists do little to debunk or even disagree with the poets' and painters' artistic depictions and interpretations. Supposedly Copley had never even seen a shark, and as a result it was depicted as this massive monster. The best they could offer in criticism was minor quibbles over the appearance of the shark and its exact dimensions. The monstrosity and ferocity of the attacks were generally not regarded as over exaggerated!!

The Whitetip was the most notable and as recently as WW2 several ships lost men to shark swarms, the worst being a sinking ship that lost about 150 men in the subsequent shark attack.

They aid evolution, by removing the weak and stupid animals from the gene pool.

I can recommend some lovely spots if you want to go swimming.....

So, as a purely theoretical exercise, should we extrapolate that argument to say that doing so for the human species would be beneficial? I mean if they're so stupid and agenda biased, and prone to such drastic overreaction as to destroy other species....

Nah, just lock them up in culturally segregated cities - They're doing it overseas already, so it's bound to work!!

[atemporal]

So, as a purely theoretical exercise, should we extrapolate that argument to say that doing so for the human species would be beneficial? I mean if they're so stupid and agenda biased, and prone to such drastic overreaction as to destroy other species....

Nah, just lock them up in culturally segregated cities - They're doing it overseas already, so it's bound to work!!

Just to check, are you an expert? (trying to work out if I should listen to you or not)

edit: same goes for the other people on here? Is anyone on here trained in this topic?

[stevie lee]

The Whitetip was the most notable and as recently as WW2 several ships lost men to shark swarms, the worst being a sinking ship that lost about 150 men in the subsequent shark attack.

that was even mentioned in the Jaws film by Quint https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073195...?ref_=tt_cl_t2 (first quote chain on page)
who was onboard the USS Indianapolis

[Ttaskmaster]

Just to check, are you an expert? (trying to work out if I should listen to you or not)

No, but I am essentially paraphrasing the idea from someone else on this forum, who might be an expert...

that was even mentioned in the Jaws film by Quint

Cool, I was not immediately aware of that... It's been a while (measured in decades) since I saw the film.