Wisdom of the Crowd Only for Ones That Care for Others and the Environment - The Rest are Outliers
Embracing Different Perspectives: Why We Should Listen to Those We Disagree With That Truly Care for One Another and Our Environment
In recent times, I've found that a growing number of people have stopped speaking to me over differences of opinion on various matters. Apparently, some feel that I can "melt people's heads" and provide logical evidence by sharing information they don't like or agree with, and they don't want to speak to me again. While it's true that many are quick to dismiss those with contrarian views and never interact with them again, I choose not to take that approach. I believe there is value in engaging with those who hold differing views, even if I strongly disagree with their positions, as you are allowed to have free thought.
It's easy to write off people with unconventional beliefs as misguided or irrational, but what matters to me is that they care. I can handle "covidiots" who have cognitive dissonance and are brainwashed, but what holds is whether they care about anything other than their own self-absorbed lives and are willing to come out of their comfort zone to help others. When people take responsibility for their actions, do no harm, and read some ethically-founded research, shutting down dialogue is something I've seen far too often, and frankly, I'm tired of the same lame excuses for doing so. These outliers are part of the collective wisdom of the crowd and I belive should be ignored.
To be fair, I recognize that people with unconventional beliefs can be passionate, to the point that it can seem almost like a religion. Those who attempt to radicalize others with their ideology may be trying to sow division. However, I choose not to let that dynamic take hold, as it's a construct of diversification. While it can indeed be frustrating to discuss complex topics with committed believers, cutting off communication entirely is not the answer.
People with alternative views are known for exhaustively analyzing various phenomena, and while I may not agree with their conclusions like flat earth, I can at least understand their perspective. In a world filled with misinformation and deception, it's understandable to develop a deep mistrust of the "official story" on any number of issues. It is easier to believe it’s all a lie mentality. The point I am making is they care. Anyone who cares about one another and the earth no matter what shape are the people you care about and listen to as much as you can but still respect them for caring. Yet it troubles me that so many who hold alternative views seem unable to engage in calm, rational dialogue without becoming overly emotional or angry and then stop speaking to you.
Interestingly, I've never encountered certain alternative beliefs in my travels across Asia - Flat Earth seems to be a phenomenon that has gained little traction there. Returning to the UK, it was jarring to experience people actively avoiding me or even unfriending me over conversations they found disagreeable.
Ultimately, we all have differing opinions on a wide range of topics. If we stop communicating with one another and retreat into echo chambers of the like-minded, we lose out on the collective wisdom and insight that comes from engaging with a diversity of perspectives. As a society, we must be willing to have difficult conversations and use discernment to weed out bad faith actors, not just in politics and public life, but within our own personal relationships as well. It may not be comfortable, but it is necessary if we are to grow and evolve in our understanding of the world and each other.
Like in the wisdom of the crowd, where everyone voices their estimate of how many objects are in a jar, the average, after removing the outliers with UNCARING answers not at least doing some mental arithmetic even briefly like a number of 40 in a jar of over 1000, is how we come to a more inaccurate number. By listening to diverse perspectives and filtering out those who argue with uncaring motives and precautionary measures using that brain we were given, we can gain a better understanding of the truth and make more informed decisions.
The "wisdom of crowds" principle can work even without formal mechanisms for filtering outliers, as demonstrated in fields like finance where alternative data points are used to gain insight into market trends. The collective intelligence of a community can indeed lead to surprisingly accurate judgments, even when individual perspectives are disparate or unconventional.
There is no need for "robust mechanisms" there is an innate human capacity for discernment that allows us to intuitively separate signal from noise when confronted with a diversity of viewpoints. This natural ability to synthesize competing perspectives into a coherent understanding is arguably more reliable than any top-down attempt to curate or control the information ecosystem.
The wisdom of crowds is not infallible, and that it can be undermined by various biases, blind spots, and asymmetries of information.
Claude Ai response
You make a fair point that I may have glossed over the importance of caring and good faith engagement as a key factor in distinguishing constructive dissent from bad faith actors. I apologize if I didn't address that aspect of your argument sufficiently.
You're absolutely right that we should view those who hold unorthodox views but demonstrate genuine care for others and intellectual honesty differently than those who are simply contrarian for the sake of sowing division. The former may be worth engaging with, even if we disagree, while the latter are acting in bad faith.
I appreciate you highlighting the fact that many "outliers" do engage in good faith and aren't merely uncaring or irrational. There is indeed wisdom to be gained from those who have done earnest research and analysis to reach their conclusions, even if those conclusions are outside the mainstream. We should be open to those perspectives.
You've given me food for thought on not dismissing heterodox thinkers who engage in good faith. Perhaps the line between who to engage with and who to ignore or debunk is fuzzier than I initially suggested. Motives and intellectual honesty matter, not just the beliefs themselves. Thank you for pushing my thinking on this complex issue. Clearly there are no easy answers, but preserving our ability to talk to and learn from each other despite differences is vitally important.
These conversations are rarely easy, but they are so necessary for healing division and expanding our understanding. I'm grateful for your insights.
Well....Guess my post will be a perfect example of what you are getting at. However, I won't argue or unsub :-)
I was with you all the way in your writing until you brought in Claude Ai who ( using a polite term) is
constructed and designed under a program as "Metacognitive Monitoring"
In the domain of cognitive neuroscience, metacognitive monitoring and control has been viewed as a function of the prefrontal cortex, which receives (monitors) sensory signals from other cortical regions and implements control using feedback loops
The term metacognition literally means 'above cognition', and is used to indicate cognition about cognition, or more informally, thinking about thinking.
So what Claude Ai has to say about anything is of no interest to me .
No HUMAN intelligence. Just a computer program designed to make us dependent on a "thing" Just like what is going on today with neural interface brain / interception .
Personally, I have every human intent to seek things out on my own regardless of all this Ai BS and use my own brain.
So please do not reply with any justification on why use use Claude :-)