The root problem is: the 90% of people who are not inherently driven by curiosity want to contribute/validate their viewpoint/seek peer confirmation.
This, left alone, leads to nothing good, which is why we came up with this funny concept of "culture".
But culture is dead, courtesy of
* the social-laissez-faire-boogaloo of the US' concept of "total freedom"
* the decay of stability-providing social structures
* existential dread/people trapped in the lower levels of Maslows pyramid
Imagine how smart the smartest people out of one million are. Pretty smart, huh? We have 7000 of them, and they have lots of things to say, but nobody gives a fuck, because people don't actually seek to understand. They seek validation, righteousness and stability. And you don't have to be the smartest out of a million to be worth listening to, but the simple fact that our "culture" (which is decayed to complete archaic groupthink) sets up the wrong reward incentives should paint a clear picture and be accessible to understand for everyone. Its not that stupid people get famous, its that people who are not curious get famous. That is where we fail.
The answer to this must be culture, again. But this time one that matches the world we've built since the last one collapsed, namely one that provides the stability people seek across the board. When the framework for that stability was religion, critically relevant people could not find social stability when they questioned god. That's why religion as a framework sucks, it doesn't capture the entire group.
The solution is easy: curiosity. Curious people are worth listening to, everyone else is not. This is something we have to cement in every piece of art and work we create. Literally: show the people who's minds are trapped in a simpler place their limits, very gently, and offer salvation: man, there are lots of intelligent people out there who try to make the world a better place. You don't have to understand it all, and you wont anyway, so don't stress yourself. We can do this, together. This, roughly, is the rhetoric picture we'll have to paint over the last decades. That, and only that, fixes the problem at its root.
>Curious people are worth listening to, everyone else is not
Exhibit B:
>The answer to this must be culture
>The solution is easy: curiosity.
It's an interesting model, but there's a serious contradiction here. You're claiming curiosity to be the 1-to-1 justification for being given an audience, yet making dogmatic assertions and setting out a viewpoint-driven agenda - you are not curious about curiosity, you dive right into how to . Therefore there must be a value that makes a non-curious person with a viewpoint-driven agenda (in this case, you) worth listening to.
For brevity, the "90% of people who... want to contribute/validate their viewpoint/seek peer confirmation" can be more or less labelled "vainglorious".
I think you're right about vainglory leading to nothing good. But, the hope of enacting that "something good" that there should be instead is the real reason to listen to non-curious people. And most everyone hopes to enact "something good", so now we're back where we started, listening to ideologues, be they curious or not.
My suggestion is to modify the model by instead seeking to listen to people who are not vainglorious. I think finding people who aren't vainglorious to listen to, and finding out how to not be vainglorious myself is the right direction to point my curiosity.
The root problem is: the 90% of people who are not inherently driven by curiosity want to contribute/validate their viewpoint/seek peer confirmation.
This, left alone, leads to nothing good, which is why we came up with this funny concept of "culture".
But culture is dead, courtesy of
* the social-laissez-faire-boogaloo of the US' concept of "total freedom"
* the decay of stability-providing social structures
* existential dread/people trapped in the lower levels of Maslows pyramid
Imagine how smart the smartest people out of one million are. Pretty smart, huh? We have 7000 of them, and they have lots of things to say, but nobody gives a fuck, because people don't actually seek to understand. They seek validation, righteousness and stability. And you don't have to be the smartest out of a million to be worth listening to, but the simple fact that our "culture" (which is decayed to complete archaic groupthink) sets up the wrong reward incentives should paint a clear picture and be accessible to understand for everyone. Its not that stupid people get famous, its that people who are not curious get famous. That is where we fail.
The answer to this must be culture, again. But this time one that matches the world we've built since the last one collapsed, namely one that provides the stability people seek across the board. When the framework for that stability was religion, critically relevant people could not find social stability when they questioned god. That's why religion as a framework sucks, it doesn't capture the entire group.
The solution is easy: curiosity. Curious people are worth listening to, everyone else is not. This is something we have to cement in every piece of art and work we create. Literally: show the people who's minds are trapped in a simpler place their limits, very gently, and offer salvation: man, there are lots of intelligent people out there who try to make the world a better place. You don't have to understand it all, and you wont anyway, so don't stress yourself. We can do this, together. This, roughly, is the rhetoric picture we'll have to paint over the last decades. That, and only that, fixes the problem at its root.