Platforms like X and TikTok are destroying our culture.

 I pass on most of a recent Sam Harris piece:

Charlie Kirk was a political prodigy on the Right and adored by a younger generation of Republicans...His murder was an especially terrible crime for several reasons—the fact that it occurred on a college campus in front of thousands of students, the manner in which it was immediately broadcast on social media, the presence of his wife and children at the scene, and the unavoidable sense that both the causes and consequences had to be political. Whatever the killer’s motives, he dropped a match onto an information landscape that was ready to burn.

...platforms like X and TikTok are destroying our culture. No metaphor does the problem justice. I’ve compared social media to a dangerous psychological experiment, a hallucination machine, a funhouse mirror, a digital sewer—but nothing captures the ludicrous insults, moral injuries, and delusions that millions of us avidly produce and consume online. If the medium is the message, the message is mass psychosis—and it will send us careening from one political emergency to the next. The fact that some of the most deranging and divisive content is being created (or amplified) by foreign adversaries—and that we have literally built and monetized their capacity to do this—beggars belief. We are poisoning ourselves and inviting others to poison us.

More disturbing still, the effects are self-reinforcing. Part of the reason for this is algorithmic—these platforms have been designed to raise the amplitude on our tribal hatreds, because this maximizes engagement. But the algorithms in our brains are little better: Seeing another person (or what appears to be another person) gleefully dance on a slain man’s grave, it is easy to conclude that they represent some significant faction of American society—and to feel the outrage appropriate to such a terrible discovery.

President Trump is a creature of social media, and his presidency would be unthinkable without it. Unfortunately, his address to the nation in response to Kirk’s murder evinced all the wisdom of an angry tweet. Rather than speak in a way that would be expected of a normal president, he produced a dangerous piece of gaslighting—suggesting that the threat of political violence in America came exclusively from the Left and ignoring recent examples of rightwing attacks, including those carried out in his name. Rather than calling for calm and unity, he accused his political opponents of being accessories to murder. And most ominously, he implied that the full power of the federal government would soon be turned against them.

It was the behavior of an arsonist, pretending to be a firefighter. Of course, some will insist that this observation just heaps more fuel on the fire. But serious criticism of President Trump and Trumpism isn’t part of the problem of hyperpolarization in America—no more than serious criticism of the far Left is.

When Elon Musk announced to his 225 million followers on X that “The Left is the party of murder,” he wasn’t describing our political reality, but he was greatly damaging it. And when he posted, “If they won’t leave us in peace, then our choice is fight or die,” he joined a deranged chorus of prominent people on the Right who seem committed to viewing Kirk’s murder as the first shot fired in a civil war.

And who, after all, are “they”?

No morally sane person, Left or Right, supports political assassination—or feels anything but horror over it.

Kirk’s killer is now in custody, and from the details that have been released, he doesn’t appear to be the far-Left golem conjured by the Right.1 He is a Utah native who grew up hunting with his Republican parents. We don’t yet know why he did what he did, but there is a very good chance that he represents no cause beyond his own mental illness. As for the frequency and character of political violence in America, we shouldn’t delude ourselves about it. It isn’t at all a common form of murder, nor is it more prevalent on the Left.

There is no “party of murder” in this country. And insisting that there is just adds energy to yet another moral panic. Social media amplifies extreme views as though they were representative of most Americans, and many of us are losing our sense of what other people are really like. Many seem completely unaware that their hold on reality is being steadily undermined by what they are seeing online, and that the business models of these platforms, as well as the livelihoods of countless “influencers,” depend on our continuing to gaze, and howl, into the digital abyss.

Get off social media.

Read good books and real journalism.

Find your friends.

And enjoy your life.

 

 

 

Evolved mental errors that underlie our current cultural and political malaise

I recently looked back at a book I read in 2019, “ Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think” written by Hans Rosling together with his son and daughter, and published in early 2018 

I did four MindBlog posts of clips from this book in April 2019 to encapsulate what he calls our 10 'basic instincts' - instinctual mental errors that we make - as an exercise to help imprint them in my memory and make me less likely to perform the errors described. I've refreshed by recall of these central drivers of our current contentious times by consolidating the contents of those 2019 MindBlog posts and repeat them here:

The Gap Instinct (Chapter 1) - the irresistible temptation we have to divide all kinds of things into two distinct and often conflicting groups, with an imagined gap—a huge chasm of injustice—in between (as in rich vs. poor, us vs. them). The reality is often not polarized at all. Usually the majority is right there in the middle, where the gap is supposed to be. To control the gap instinct, look for the majority.

The Negativity Instinct (Chapter 2) - ...information about bad events is much more likely to reach us. When things are getting better we often don’t hear about them, gradual improvement is not news. This gives us a systematically too-negative impression of the world around us, which is very stressful. To control the negativity instinct, expect bad news. More bad news is sometimes due to better surveillance of suffering, not a worsening world. Beware of rosy pasts. People often glorify their early experiences, and nations often glorify their histories.

The Straight Line Instinct (Chapter 3) - ..straight lines are rare in reality, remember that curves come in different shapes, many trends do not follow straight lines but are S-bends, slides, humps, or doubling lines. Not child ever kept up the rate of growth it achieved in its first six months, and no parents would expect it to. World population will be stabilizing in the next 50-100 years as birth and death rates become equal. 

The Fear Instinct (Chapter 4) - Frightening things get our attention, but remember that these are not necessarily the most risky. Our natural fears of violence, captivity, and contamination make us systematically overestimate these risks. To control the fear instinct, calculate the risks. The world seems scarier than it is because what you hear about it has been selected—by your own attention filter or by the media—precisely because it is scary. The risk something poses to you depends not on how scared it makes you feel, but on a combination of two things. How dangerous is it? And how much are you exposed to it? Get calm before you carry on. When you are afraid, you see the world differently. Make as few decisions as possible until the panic has subsided.

The Size Instinct (Chapter 5) - When a lonely number seems impressive (small or large), remember that you could get the opposite impression if it were compared with or divided by some other relevant number. To control the size instinct, get things in proportion. Single numbers on their own are misleading and should make you suspicious. Always look for comparisons. Ideally, divide by something. The 80/20 rule. Have you been given a long list? Look for the few largest items and deal with those first. They are quite likely more important than all the others put together. Divide: Amounts and rates can tell very different stories. Rates are more meaningful, especially when comparing between different-sized groups. In particular, look for rates per person when comparing between countries or regions.

The Generalization Instinct (chapter 6) Remember that categories can be misleading. We can’t stop generalization and we shouldn’t even try. What we should try to do is to avoid generalizing incorrectly. To control the generalization instinct, question your categories. Look for differences within groups. Especially when the groups are large, look for ways to split them into smaller, more precise categories. And, look for similarities across groups. If you find striking similarities between different groups, consider whether your categories are relevant. But also, look for differences across groups. Do not assume that what applies for one group (e.g., you and other people living on income Level 4 or unconscious soldiers) applies for another (e.g., people not living on income Level 4 or sleeping babies). Beware of “the majority.” The majority just means more than half. Ask whether it means 51 percent, 99 percent, or something in between. Beware of vivid examples. Vivid images are easier to recall but they might be the exception rather than the rule. Assume people are not idiots. When something looks strange, be curious and humble, and think, In what way is this a smart solution?

The Destiny Instinct (Chapter 7) - Many things (including people, countries, religions, and cultures) appear to be constant just because the change is happening slowly. Remember that even small, slow changes gradually add up to big changes. To control the destiny instinct, remember slow change is still change. Keep track of gradual improvements. A small change every year can translate to a huge change over decades. Update your knowledge. Some knowledge goes out of date quickly. Technology, countries, societies, cultures, and religions are constantly changing. Talk to Grandpa. If you want to be reminded of how values have changed, think about your grandparents’ values and how they differ from yours. Collect examples of cultural change. Challenge the idea that today’s culture must also have been yesterday’s, and will also be tomorrow’s.

The Single Perspective Instinct (Chapter 8) - Recognize that a single perspective can limit your imagination, and remember that it is better to look at problems from many angles to get a more accurate understanding and find practical solutions. To control the single perspective instinct, get a toolbox, not a hammer. Test your ideas. Don’t only collect examples that show how excellent your favorite ideas are. Have people who disagree with you test your ideas and find their weaknesses. Don’t claim expertise beyond your field: be humble about what you don’t know. Be aware too of the limits of the expertise of others. If you are good with a tool, you may want to use it too often. If your favorite idea is a hammer, look for colleagues with screwdrivers, wrenches, and tape measures. Be open to ideas from other fields. The world cannot be understood without numbers, and it cannot be understood with numbers alone. Love numbers for what they tell you about real lives. Beware of simple ideas and simple solutions. History is full of visionaries who used simple utopian visions to justify terrible actions. Welcome complexity. Combine ideas. Compromise. Solve problems on a case-by-case basis.

The Blame Instinct (Chapter 9) - Recognize when a scapegoat is being used and remember that blaming an individual often steals the focus from other possible explanations and blocks our ability to prevent similar problems in the future. To control the blame instinct, resist finding a scapegoat. Look for causes, not villains. When something goes wrong don’t look for an individual or a group to blame. Accept that bad things can happen without anyone intending them to. Instead spend your energy on understanding the multiple interacting causes, or system, that created the situation. Look for systems, not heroes. When someone claims to have caused something good, ask whether the outcome might have happened anyway, even if that individual had done nothing. Give the system some credit.

The Urgency Instinct (Chapter 10) - Recognize when a situation feels urgent and remember that it rarely is. To control the urgency instinct, take small steps. Take a breath. When your urgency instinct is triggered, your other instincts kick in and your analysis shuts down. Ask for more time and more information. It’s rarely now or never and it’s rarely either/or. Insist on the data. If something is urgent and important, it should be measured. Beware of data that is relevant but inaccurate, or accurate but irrelevant. Only relevant and accurate data is useful. Beware of fortune-tellers. Any prediction about the future is uncertain. Be wary of predictions that fail to acknowledge that. Insist on a full range of scenarios, never just the best or worst case. Ask how often such predictions have been right before. Be wary of drastic action. Ask what the side effects will be. Ask how the idea has been tested. Step-by-step practical improvements, and evaluation of their impact, are less dramatic but usually more effective.

Could humans and AI become a new evolutionary individual?

This PNAS opinion piece (open source) by Rainey and Hochberg is well worth a read.  It suggests that as different AI implementations suffuse into cultures, current competition between different cultures could evolve into accelerating competition between different culture - AI hybrids.  I pass on the introductory paragraphs to their arguments:

Artificial intelligence (AI)—broadly defined as the capacity of engineered systems to perform tasks that would require intelligence if done by humans—is increasingly embedded in the infrastructure of human life. From personalized recommendation systems to large-scale decision-making frameworks, AI shapes what humans see, choose, believe, and do (1, 2). Much of the current concern about AI centers on its understanding, safety, and alignment with human values (3–5). But alongside these immediate challenges lies a broader, more speculative, and potentially more profound question: could the deepening interdependence between humans and AI give rise to a new kind of evolutionary individual? We argue that as interdependencies grow, humans and AI could come to function not merely as interacting agents, but as an integrated evolutionary individual subject to selection at the collective level.

Lessons from the History of Life

The theory of major evolutionary transitions (METs) provides a framework for understanding this possibility (6). METs have punctuated the history of life. Those of particular relevance to our thesis here are those involving transitions in individuality. Such transitions are defined by events in which lower-level autonomous units—such as genes, cells, or organisms—become components of a higher-level individual subject to selection as a whole (7). Examples include the evolution of chromosomes from independent genes, multicellular organisms from single cells, and eusocial colonies from solitary ancestors (8). A particularly instructive case for our purposes is the eukaryotic cell, which arose from the integration of two ancient microbes—an archaeon and a eubacterium (9).^*

 

To better understand the evolution of human–AI interactions, consider a globally embedded system: diffuse in structure, nonreplicating, yet unified in function. Such a system might emerge not by design alone, but via competitive, economic, or ecological pressures (10), selected for its capacity to integrate, persist, and coordinate across human networks. Initially shaped by human design and deployment, this AI could become embedded across societal and cultural infrastructures—advising, mediating, and responding. This would entail a persistent informational presence that learns from humanity and, in turn, comes to shape it. Importantly, even if yet incapable of autonomous replication, such an AI is likely to modify its own code in response to environmental feedback.

 

Enlightenment, Habituation, and Renewal - non-dual awareness as the opiate of the thinking classes.

Enlightenment traditions in Abrahamic, Buddhist, Hindu, or other schools of meditative insight have a common issue. How can the central canon or dogma of the way things are be renewed and kept fresh? The usual practice is to repeat a liturgy set down by gurus or priests of a given tradition. The problem is that with each repetition the message  begins to loose its force. The transforming clarity of the initial enlightenment fades as the habituation and desensitization associated with all repetitive activities begins to set in. Temporary resets can sometimes be found by turning to different vendors of the central message who  deliver their respective theory or practice sessions in sonorous and calming voices, in person or online. Longer lectures from workshops or retreats have yielded audience share to increasingly  brief presentations that accommodate the diminished attention spans of those under 30 who have never known a world without social media. They can prefer to absorb information in transient instances of tik-tok mind, X/twitter mind, or instagram mind seconds to a few minutes in duration.

I have listened to several hundred instructional lectures. As I see the same basic points reframed in many different ways, it is clear that the fundamental axioms of enlightenment that are expressible in language are being repetitively rediscovered throughout history and repeatedly archived.  I feel like their verbal messages are as ingrained in my consciousness as the language of the mathematical and chemical structures I have known most of my life.

My flippant 'non-dual awareness as the opiate of the thinking classes’ phrase in the title of this post is meaning to point to the fact that the market for vendors of enlightenment is a distinctive one. Existential angst, or worrying about value, purpose, and meaning seem most pressing to a relatively small number of highly urbanized and literate humans. I can’t imagine that my two Abyssinian cats, who I sometimes takes to be my best role models, spend a significant fraction of their time worrying about the meaning of it all, or pondering the subtleties of epistemology and ontology. 

So...what beyond words? A space or perspective that doesn’t contain them can only be pointed at by using them in the dualistic linguistic context of a sender and receiver. I can, for example, try to use words to give a crude voice to the mute homeostatic generative visceral organic axes of valence and arousal that underlie and generate everything that I am and experience right now: “Dude, get a grip, I (the visceral one) am the one who is actually running this show, deciding where it goes and whether it works or shuts down. The sooner the “I” you imagine yourself to be realizes this and lets go, the sooner some kind of sane space is attained. All of the surface behaviors acted out for others to see - Deric the family man, the professor, the pianist - are shadow play shimmering on the surface of this basic organic substrate, like water insects skittering around on the surface of a pond. What is writing these words is just another one of the contents of consciousness flitting past. Just turn yourself around to look quickly for the writer…what do you see? What do you see as you imagine being first born into this world? The brief glimpses of expanded naive awareness sometimes elicited by questions such as these have the potential of permitting a scrubbing, refreshing, or renewal of consciousness in a way that permits more choice in selecting which prior individual selves and self habits rise to compose current self conscious life. 

Different iterations of these sentiments, different vendings of the sort mentioned in the first paragraph above, can be found in two previous MindBlog posts. One from Nov. 25, 2022:  

Perhaps an increasing number of people who engage techniques for facilitating non-dual awareness find themselves seeing and experiencing the "I" or self that feels threatened by our anxious times from a more useful perspective - an inclusive expanded awareness that includes the reporting "I" or self as just one of its many contents that include passing thoughts, perceptions, actions, and feelings.  A calm can be found in this expanded awareness that permits a  dis-association of the experienced breathing visceral center of gravity of our animal body from the emotional and linguistic veneer of politics and conflict. This does not remove the necessity of facing various societal dysfunctions, but offers the prospect of doing so without debilitating the organic physiological core from which everything we experience rises.  

And the other from Oct. 26, 2022, , passing on a masterful exposition from James Low that I can not improve on.

If you want stability, if you want real peace, you already have that in the nature of awareness. But if you look to manifestation, to patterning of yourself, to thinking you could establish a stable personalty, to live a life in which you were happy all the time, or in which you were your own person, that way madness lies. To find our original face, to find the ground of our primordial being, we need to release our fixation on the dialogic movement of subject and object, and allow ourselves to be the space within which the movement of experience is occurring. Awareness means being aware that we are present without being something as such. This is a great mystery. When we look at phenomena the world, things exist as something. A car is not a cow, an apple is not an orange, compare and contrast, category allocation. That’s how our cognition, our conceptual elaboration functions to give a seemingly enduring structure to identifications. But awareness can’t be caught. It’s not a thing. You can’t pin a tail on the donkey, there is no donkey there. The mind is not an object for itself, it is self luminous awareness, but you can’t catch it. You can never know your mind but you can be your mind. We are awareness and that’s a very important distinction. 

(The above is an updated,  revised and edited version of my Jan. 2, 2023 post.) 

Value, Purpose, Meaning, Futures

Value, purpose, and meaning vary between  religions and cultures, and are best viewed as emergent properties supporting altruistic behaviors bonding us into groups that have proven to be more successful at sustaining themselves over multiple generations.   I take the value, purpose, and meaning of my life as being to exist as an expanded present centered awareness that encompasses all of this - the space in which thoughts, feelings, selves appear and disappear. 

Our transient Anthropocene era is a brief moment in the vast history of this planet and the cosmos. The disappearance of our human species as we know it is a certainty, a transition either to extinction or to a further evolved trans-human form. Understanding and accepting this can be a source of serenity that enables us to live fully in the present moment as grateful witnesses to what is unfolding.