what happens when "facts" differ between 2 sets of people? facts don't have pro's or con's

you go with what can be confirmed

Indoctrination is not teaching, it is ramming a particular mindset into someone.

what it is

Is teaching people what to think, instead of teaching them how to think.

The future dystopia is not that books are banned but that they are restricted from the common person and the common person must hear the interpretation from some higher figure,

I had a report that dealt with the Catholic Church during WWII. One of the claims was that they purposely smuggled Nazis to South America. I didnt find sufficient evidence to comfortably conclude that this was the case in the amount of time I had, so I left it out
Contrary to what some people in here might think, my report on the Pope was actually relatively neutral

A-bombs were dropped on Japan. Hydrogen bombs were not. Just a note

In a very black/white dichotomy it would look like this:
-Person A was taught what to think
-Person B was taught how to think

Both people get confronted with new evidence for something that changes things.
Person A would become impossible to adjust to this
Person B would be able to reason and take on board this new information

@Beemann If ripping structured apart without replacing what needed to replace is the issue then I'd put the blame on the pace of our advancement over the past 200 years. Previously advancement was slow which meant it would take a while before having a truly noticeable impact on the average person's day to day or institutions in general. Society had time to adapt to those changes because of it, making small tweaks here and there. As advancement occurred more rapidly however that meant institutions were more quickly put in a place where they could be questioned and may even be obsolete. There wasn't an adequate amount of time though to really see how those advancements would impact a society so you couldn't really build appropriate replacements for what needed to say. That isn't to mention an underlying question of how you can tailor or manipulate a society into adopting other structures if say, the traditional family, was removed. It isn't something easily done particularly in an information age where literacy and education are universal.

Most people dont function like this mind you, hence its a very black/white dichotomy.

how often do anyone who "teaches" someone else actually teach how to think, rather than what to think?

@Grenade123 Indeed, I just wanted to play good games with reliable sources for information - though I never found any games journalism to be such.

no one did

@MetGreDKo That's been my conclusion yes, and it was Hayek's conclusion as well in '88

hence the side of gamergate complaining about ethics in game journalism

not all the effects of the insititution you're questioning are readily apparent, and so change ought to happen slowly wrt social structures

and then they went and validated everyone's criticism

@Grenade123 Any half-decent teacher teaches kids how to think

Especially with the game journopros list

@Beemann Irony is the family and community responsibility you mention may be making a return in one respect. With the loss of wages relative to inflation you have a greater dependence on family and community for personal sustainability where as during a time where wages were higher you could more practically turn your back on others.

oh absolutely. Doesnt help that saving is fucked either

but yeah I do want to work on family and community once I settle down, which is hopefully shortly after getting the rest of my certs in the pipeline

Well it has become rather apparent in recent years that family is not something to be put aside as a thing from the past if you ask me.

oh absolutely

this is where Peterson's philosophy and mine meet- Community, Family and The Overhuman. It's pretty great that he's so successful at exporting it

I think part of the issue there though is that societal views on family have changed and not in a way many recognize. A lot of people mention money when it comes to having kids and while it's true that they are expensive it's been shown that financial incentives don't actually lead to higher birth rates. Parenting now is tremendously different from decades or centuries ago in time committment though. I feel parents now are essentially expected to spend far more time with their kids than they used to. This time can be beneficial to kids but also problematic where they don't fully develop the ability to operate independently and become sheltered. That isn't all though but society used to have an attitude of parents first and now it's kids first. Just makes it seem more taxing than rewarding.

I think part of the issue too is that it's not quality time. A lot of it is driving their kids around to sports and shit

It's like downtime

We used to have downtime, now that gets eaten by phones

i totally recognize that

But there's uses for downtime

as much as i couldnt stand my mother for years

the ubermensch

I am GLAD now, that im older

xd

Aye

she just told me to go wherever i wanna go

as long as i managed to get there myself

she never drove me to anything

ive been following peterson since 2016, loving the majority of his material