History vs real world en concious vs unconcious knowledge

Op het moment dat je ergens van overtuigd wil raken in je bewuste brein word dat meestal gecreeerd via woorden die iemand je verteld. Like you’d happen to read a bunch of history online to contextualize your way of thinking. Autistic people tend be good at establishing a content like this due to their singleminded thinking. Most people are not single minded enough to do enough reading on any topic to be able to convince anyone of the unconcious knowledge they possess.

 

See the thing is when you read any past accounts by people you are getting an incomplete picture of what the world was and especially of what it will be then. You are missing every perspective or side of it you haven’t read. Also the flawed causal chains people make in any of their writing (correlation is not causation). Also most people who have lived in the world tend to trust people of high credits because they orient towards authority instead of logic.

so some jackass who barely knows anything about humans can get away with a flawed idea about actual people because he’s the only one with enough of a grind to be able to establish enough context to argue his point.

However he will lack all the other sides of the story because he attained them from reading other peoples accounts without experiencing the situation firsthand. Which makes his view of the world lack even more nuance.

 

this shit really needs a timeline bar of context over time. Another problem is that  you can’t express unconscious wokeness properly in language. Because words are absolute instead of indicating a ness (0 to 100%) of something. The world itself is inherintly chaotic and every factor in existance contributes to how things are to some extent. So any historical context you create in your mind will be flawed.

The purpose of history is too realize that the way anything is today is not because of some eternal balance but just because some jackass happened to think something a few hundred years ago and some other things happening. Like that jackass made some conclusion based on his context and know you experience the results in one of two ways:

Thinking it was always like this and the way it is right know was always this way.

Reading a flawed account of what the jackass did without knowing all the surrounding factors that led from then to today. Second one is better because while you don’t know the details you at least realize the thing you though was natural is just some social construct. Even though you don’t know how it got like this exactly.

In that sense the limited knowledge you have is good enough.

 

The problem know is that every average person who doesnt have the same context as you. You can’t communicate all the nuance that is inherent because you will just sound uncertain. Because while the average person learns from experience with more nuance through words, they only listen to dogmatic accounts because their experience with the nuance of translating the world into words is just too limited.

 

Digi’s video made me realize though that some people with our genes were able to do smart shit while being kinda isolated from most of society which made them propagate their genes. This nuanced context seeking through language is an invaluable skill cuz it makes you really self aware about what the fuck the context actually is. Which with anything that requires nuance like true human progress will be paramount.

Some degree of elitism is justified as long as you keep the elitism contained to what you’re actually knowledgeable about.

And sometimes you have to spout some kinda dogmatic bullshit so people will atleast not believe the even more dogmatic bullshit they were fed by an malicious party. (Read: sophists vs philosophers plato)

You shouldn’t ever be as self absorbed as a guy like plato however cuz then you will turn into fucking academia. Which means your thinking might eventually get translated into meaningful progress but it’ll take an eternity.