What say you? Is this the era of the Third World ("era of undeveloped, impoverished, unstable and violent nations"). — Ciceronianus

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt says this is the era of stupid and he blames it on social media elevating the political fringes, which thereby bully everyone else into submission. Thus, cancel culture and Trumpism rule.

WHY THE PAST 10 YEARS OF AMERICAN LIFE HAVE BEEN UNIQUELY STUPID:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/

Hey thanks for setting me straight on that lyric. Always thought it was a reference to a 'latter day' someone or other. (BTW, for bonus points, I know what the Crimson Tide reference means, ask if you're curious.)

What say you? — Ciceronianus

Stupid people plainly have too much say, in America, in particular. Probably because there's a lot of them, and pandering to them is highly profitable. Trump was leader of a 'cult of the stupid', and his followers and boosters are all extraordinarily stupid (that simian son of his looks like an extra from Planet of the Apes). A lot of it started with the Tea Party, many of the most stupid came in on that wave.

But I don't want to believe that America is heading for third-world status. There's too much at stake, and besides, apart from stupid people, there are very large numbers of really smart people. There's not much more that can be done, other than what the few sane Republicans are able to do (count 'em on one hand) and the Democrats and Jan 6th Commission can manage. Let's hope they prevail.

excellent article. I pay the subscription to The Atlantic there's a lot of quality analysis on it.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt says this is the era of stupid and he blames it on social media elevating the political fringes, which thereby bully everyone else into submission. Thus, cancel culture and Trumpism rule. — Joshs

Recently watched an exchange between Jonathan Haidt, Steven Pinker and Jordan Peterson, titled Enlightenment and the righteous mind. I think it relates to some of the issues raised in the OP. see below:
They discuss the rise in social media and the effects it has had on all of us.
JP suggests that social media creates even more 'factionalisation,' than we have had in the past. He also suggests we need 'truths that unite us,' and he tries to compare some of the aspects of social media with a need to fill 'the god hole in our lives.'
SP talks a lot more about the progress that has been made since the 60's and 70's.
He said 'progressives don't seem to like progress,' as they don't talk about what progress has been made they are too busy arguing about what progress is required. They need to concentrate on talking about was has been achieved and THEN suggest that progress will continue.
JH calls one of the main problems 'moralisation.' He talks about youth not doing the background study and instead, taking their social education from online groups, who often have their own agenda.
It's over 2 hours long but worth a viewing. I watched it twice:

My feeling is that social media, email, text messages; the technology of the Internet and communications, discourages thought (and other things as well, such as prudence, consideration, patience). The emphasis is on responding, quickly and emotionally. Little or no effort is involved. The inhibitions imposed by face-to-face contact are absent. There's no need to verify or justify claims, and challenges may be ignored. There's no need to think, and no reward for thinking. The desire is to be the equivalent of the loudest know-it-all at the nearest bar.

Hey thanks for setting me straight on that lyric. Always thought it was a reference to a 'latter day' someone or other. (BTW, for bonus points, I know what the Crimson Tide reference means, ask if you're curious.) — Wayfarer

I'm a big fan of Steely Dan, and the solo work of Donald Fagen. Part of the fun for me is figuring out the various references in the lyrics. They managed to insert certain phrases into popular culture, like "Gentleman Loser" (the name of a bar featured in William Gibson's cyberpunk novels). I think they reintroduced "gaslighting" into popular discourse with Gaslighting Abbie from the Two Against Nature album put out in 2000.

My feeling is that social media, email, text messages; the technology of the Internet and communications, discourages thought (and other things as well, such as prudence, consideration, patience). The emphasis is on responding, quickly and emotionally. Little or no effort is involved. The inhibitions imposed by face-to-face contact are absent. There's no need to verify or justify claims, and challenges may be ignored. There's no need to think, and no reward for thinking. The desire is to be the equivalent of the loudest know-it-all at the nearest bar — Ciceronianus

I think all you say here is valid, as some of the negatives associated with social media. I think there are many positives as well and that overall, the positives and negatives are pretty close to balancing the scale. Social media is still a fairly new phenomena, we are bound to investigate all the bad things that can be done with it as well as the good. We have had the same approach to 'new knowledge' or 'new tech,' since we learned to use fire to heat ourselves. One of us will always want to know what happens when you shove someone's face in it as well.
We eventually try to legislate/monitor/set guidelines to push the positives and restrict or defeat the negatives. It's true that we don't always succeed, however. 10,000 years of tears and we still can't prevent autocracies for example. It was a bad idea when it was called the divine right of kings and it's still a bad idea as manifested in King Putin.
Social media can help creatures like King Putin but it also could help to destroy him and his regime.

Recently watched an exchange between Jonathan Haidt, Steven Pinker and Jordan Peterson, titled Enlightenment and the righteous mind. I think it relates to some of the issues raised in the OP. — universeness

It certainly does. Unfortunately I strongly disagree with the positions of all three of those thinkers. None of them have a grasp of what I consider to be the most important ideas in 20th and 21st century philosophy.

My feeling is that social media, email, text messages; the technology of the Internet and communications, discourages thought (and other things as well, such as prudence, consideration, patience). — Ciceronianus

I agree with you. It’s all about instantaneous gratification, no effort required, simply the satisfaction of immediate impulses.

so, what about ‘they call Alabama the Crimson Tide, call me Deacon Blues’? You know what that’s about?

Bonus point: Third World Man is Joni Mitchell’s favourite Dan song.

It certainly does. Unfortunately I strongly disagree with the positions of all three of those thinkers. None of them have a grasp of what I consider to be the most important ideas in 20th and 21st century philosophy — Joshs

Fair enough but I assumed that you used the Jonathan Haidt paraphrase below because you agreed with it. You may still 'strongly disagree,' with them on other points they make of course.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt says this is the era of stupid and he blames it on social media elevating the political fringes, which thereby bully everyone else into submission. Thus, cancel culture and Trumpism rule — Joshs

They discuss the rise in social media and the effects it has had on all of us. — universeness

If I was discussing social media on social media, (which I am), I would not care to divide the world into stupid and smart, remaining of course on the smart side. Rather, I would want to look at what the huge increase in communication does in general. One might think that it is divisive, but I think rather that it exposes division. It is a medium and therefore one needs to look carefully at what features of the human world are exposed. And that is, I would say, the lack of superior wisdom or morality of the ruling elite, the corruption, violence, and self-centredness of mankind, along with our gullibility, irrationality, greed and short-sightedness. But to call all this 'stupid', and assign it to others is, ahem, stupid. We don't listen to serous debates by people with good insight, but to youtube debates between self-appointed pundits, more concerned with their own media image than anything else - just like the rest of us.

I would say, the lack of superior wisdom or morality of the ruling elite — unenlightened

I would say that this has been getting exposure since the divine right of kings was suggested and even long before that. The ancient elite tried to peddle acceptance of supernatural authority delivered through them as the only authority we must comply with but many early individuals found the natural to be more super than the proposed supernatural omni's. I think social media does indeed allow the majority to discuss such ideas a lot more now than with the nonelectronic mediums of the past but another consequence is that if you don't have adequate background knowledge then you may be easily duped by those who peddle fake news and sophistry even more now than in the past. Perhaps it is harsh to call such individuals 'stupid,' but the issue of increased dupability (I may have just invented that word or spelling) remains.

We don't listen to serous debates by people with good insight, but to youtube debates between self-appointed pundits, more concerned with their own media image than anything else - just like the rest of us. — unenlightened

I think there are many such 'pundits' as you describe, present online, including YouTube.
Those who you would describe as such will most likely differ from those who I or others might describe as such.
I watch debates on youtube between many individuals dead and still living. I could provide a large list of those that I would describe as 'worth listening to' and of those who I would describe to the contrary. Same with you I suspect.

The inhibitions imposed by face-to-face contact are absent. — Ciceronianus

I am in general agreement regarding social media, but in the universe of discourse, most of our intellectual history has not been face-to-face, but rather through books, letters, essays. Time is certainly a factor. A response that takes days of weeks or more to arrive tends to favor considered, more substantive responses. Another important factor is that in an open forum not only can anyone, usually anonymously, make accusations, but others can pile on, creating an ideational infection that can grow rapidly.

so, what about ‘they call Alabama the Crimson Tide, call me Deacon Blues’? You know what that’s about? — Wayfarer

I don't, beyond the fact that Alabama, the Crimson Tide, is one of the winners in the world, and the voice of the lyrics has chosen "Deacon Blues" as his name when he loses.

but in the universe of discourse, most of our intellectual history has not been face-to-face, but rather through books, letters, essays. — Fooloso4

True. So far, in any case. I wonder if communication via social media will come to be face-to-face communication through Zoom or holographs or images in virtual reality or some other device. it will be interesting to learn whether the lack of thought and inhibition will persist when that takes place.

Third World Man is Joni Mitchell’s favourite Dan song. — Wayfarer

I read that. She's a perceptive sort. I agree with her that Gaucho isn't given the credit it's due.

I wonder if communication via social media will come to be face-to-face communication through Zoom or holographs or images in virtual reality or some other device. — Ciceronianus

I think there will always be a need for carefully crafted, well thought out arguments. It may be, however, that there will come a time when thinking through writing will become a rarity or lost art.

The other side of the coin is that although the written word has certain advantages, it also has disadvantages. The same is likely to be true of whatever modes of communication develop. Real time face to face encounters may become one mode of virtual face to face encounters. Another mode might be face to face encounters with response times that are much longer and are then edited or ones that return to comments and tie things together in ways that are not possible in the moment.

"Thinking with a pen" never worked well for me, but "thinking with a word processor" certainly has. Asynchronous virtual face to face discussion which allows the participants to edit before posting, to think out loud and revise statements might work well, at least for some.

I don't, beyond the fact that Alabama, the Crimson Tide, is one of the winners in the world... — Ciceronianus

Yes! That is the one piece of information I never possessed, up until a very late interview with Walter and Donald, where they kindly explained it. Until then, I could never figure out the reference.

What say you? Is this the era of the Third World ("era of undeveloped, impoverished, unstable and violent nations"). — Ciceronianus

From a slightly more positive perspective, I might label this "era" as the birth pangs of the Fifth World. The "fourth world" label is already taken, in reference to the almost extinct indigenous peoples, left behind even by the Third World banana farmers. In my sideline sociological myth, the "Second World" was the land of conquistadors & colonizers, who had the power to exploit Nature and older cultures via technology : machines, communication & transportation (or Guns, Germs & Steel).

But we are now entering the era of political & informational Globalization. Of course, while this jostling & merging of cultures is leveling the field of technology & communication, at the same time it is distressing ancient traditions, and conservative minds (generally, those on top of the power pyramid) who are defending the status quo. Hegel called this dance of oppositions, the do-si-do "Dialectic".

Human Culture is different from the rest of Nature, in the sense that it changes too fast for natural processes to keep up. So, we now find ourselves faced with the challenges of defending both vulnerable Nature (first world) and lower-level (third & fourth world) cultures, from our predatory (capitalist & oligarchic) successes & excesses. In other words, humanity is coping with the inner conflicts of cognitive dissociation (go-go vs no-go). This is not new though. Despite the warnings of Cicero, the decline & fall of the Roman Empire went through the same over-reach & internal divisions, that made them vulnerable to invading third-world Barbarians.

The invaders today are the same former colonists & indigenists, who are escaping (migrating) from third & fourth worlds into the settled (developed) second world -- which likes to think of itself as the rightful First World. In the process of migrating, they are shifting the balance of power in the whole world. Hopefully, the current destabilizing civil wars & emigrations will eventually settle-down into a new stability. But we may have to endure a dismal Dark Age in the meantime. Lets hope the invaders are smart enough not to kill the goose who lays the tide of golden eggs of technology, which in theory raises all ships. :cool:

BARBARIANS INSIDE THE GATES

But we may have to endure a dismal Dark Age in the meantime. — Gnomon

That age may have begun, at least here is God's favorite country. Already we see Yahoo-like behavior in state and local government, which matches or exceeds that of the federal government (politicians at the federal level being too absorbed in the pursuit of money and pandering to those who have it to concentrate fully on resurrecting the Eisenhower era).