×
all 66 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]ucatione 121 points122 points  (38 children)

Jaron Lanier: “I’d like to hypothesize one civilizing force, which is the perception of multiple overlapping hierarchies of status. I’ve observed this to be helpful in work dealing with rehabilitating gang members in Oakland. When there are multiple overlapping hierarchies of status there is more of a chance of people not fighting their superior within the status chain. And the more severe the imposition of the single hierarchy in people’s lives, the more likely they are to engage in conflict with one another. Part of America’s success is the confusion factor of understanding how to assess somebody’s status.”

Steven Pinker: “That’s a profound observation. There are studies showing that violence is more common when people are confined to one pecking order, and all of their social worth depends on where they are in that hierarchy, whereas if they belong to multiple overlapping groups, they can always seek affirmations of worth elsewhere. For example, if I do something stupid when I’m driving, and someone gives me the finger and calls me an asshole, it’s not the end of the world: I think to myself, I’m a tenured professor at Harvard. On the other hand, if status among men in the street was my only source of worth in life, I might have road rage and pull out a gun. Modernity comprises a lot of things, and it’s hard to tease them apart. But I suspect that when you’re not confined to a village or a clan, and you can seek your fortunes in a wide world, that is a pacifying force for exactly that reason.”15

Goddamn, this is deep as fuck. It's something I have never realized, yet is so obvious in retrospect.

[–][deleted]  (13 children)

[deleted]

    [–]k5josh 15 points16 points  (5 children)

    Illustrated, 2005

    [–]slappymcnutface 24 points25 points  (4 children)

    This was also emphasized by Ta-Nehisi Coates, in a way. He talks about how when you have no physical wealth, all you have is your self-respect. And someone disrespecting you is an affront to your last bastion of personal worth. This often results in lashing out very defensively.

    [–]AlphaTerminal 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    Which book? I've been interested in reading some of his work and this sounds interesting.

    [–]Donogath 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Which Coates book or article?

    [–]slappymcnutface 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    It was from an NPR interview years ago. Not sure if it ever made it into his writing.

    [–]MohKohn 18 points19 points  (3 children)

    Academia is very much a filter for people who very much care about status above material wealth, so it's somewhat unsurprising when that's the lens they view things through.

    [–]Platypuss_In_Boots 8 points9 points  (2 children)

    Also a filter for very curious people who enjoy learning and thinking.

    Also bear in mind that material wealth is a form of status - most academics willingly choose to take a material status hit in order to work in academia

    [–]Haffrung 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    Do they? In Canada, at any rate, English and Sociology professors earn considerably more than the non-academic work most English and Sociology graduates engage in.

    [–]Platypuss_In_Boots 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    most academics

    I'd also wager that people who are able to get a PhD are more productive in the private sector than the average graduate.

    [–]Snoo-26158 3 points4 points  (2 children)

    I mean that's kind of the point, he's being self depreciating

    [–]AlphaTerminal 14 points15 points  (1 child)

    Self-deprecating is when you are publicly modest for humorous effect.

    Self-depreciating is when you publicly devalue yourself over time by gaining significant weight. (inflation)

    [–]Snoo-26158 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Damn ive been depreciating by about 5 pounds.

    [–]Snoo-26158 11 points12 points  (12 children)

    I also often wonder to what extent a legacy of not being able to go to the police to solve problems creates a situation in which machismo is kind of useful, which makes road rage and whatnot more common.

    Like it seems to certains ethnic/racial groups males are more sensitive to symbolic slights to their masculinity or just to themselves in general, specifically I'm thinking about racial minorities and hillbilly culture (Scott's Irish decendents) that on average don't like to use police if they can help it.

    [–]TheMonkus 15 points16 points  (10 children)

    In some cases it’s not even that they “don’t like to use” the police. It’s that the police won’t do anything to help them.

    If Henry Hill is to be believed, the Italian mafia was just a power structure for a society that couldn’t rely on the official power structure of the USA, and those types of men completely fit what you’re saying (which I completely agree with- lower class men that society doesn’t care about are highly prone to violent outbursts over what would seem like very minor infractions to those of us with rewarding careers, homes, some sort of social status…)

    [–]StringLiteral 3 points4 points  (5 children)

    lower class men that society doesn’t care about are highly prone to violent outbursts over what would seem like very minor infractions to those of us with rewarding careers, homes, some sort of social status…

    I think it may be really easy to mix up cause and effect when considering this.

    [–]TheMonkus 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    Meaning that such individuals lack these things (careers, etc.) because of their violent nature?

    That’s absolutely the case to some degree. Plenty of “lower class” men do quite well for themselves by becoming skilled tradesmen, transition to managing and running companies, going to school, etc. And many remain violent alcoholics.

    But it’s absolutely true that the lower you go in society, the more these minor infractions can have violent repercussions. It’s cultural. You are correct though that it can be transcended. I have unfortunately seen rather intelligent men totally fail in life because they were unable to transcend the culture of ignorance they were born into.

    [–]StringLiteral 5 points6 points  (3 children)

    Meaning that such individuals lack these things (careers, etc.) because of their violent nature?

    That's a part of it, but I think the greater confounder here is that I (and maybe you) would not consider a man "lower class" in this context if he were not, among other things, prone to aggression and machismo. So, to some extent, the tendency of lower-class men to retaliate violently against minor provocations is a tautology.

    [–]TheMonkus 4 points5 points  (2 children)

    I get what you’re saying, but I certainly don’t think of it that way. But it really depends on how you define class.

    If we mean socioeconomic, it’s absolutely untrue. But if we use a more British definition, in which class is more of a reflection of upbringing and behavior, than it is almost a tautology.

    I am using the word in the American sociological sense in which class refers to the amount of prestige your job gives you, although in this sense we can have low class jobs that actually pay quite well (plumber) or high class jobs that don’t (teacher). Typically low class and low pay correlates more strongly to violence.

    It’s probably helpful to say that men prone to violent outbursts, rather than being high class or low class, simply tend to lack any sort of social standing outside of their small in-group.

    [–]StringLiteral 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    I'm not sure we actually disagree, so I'm posting just to clarify.

    The way I see it, there are certain subcultures in which men are taught to resort to violence with little provocation. In present-day America, this behavior is generally incompatible with significant financial success, so the members of these subcultures tend to lack social standing outside of their small in-group.

    But that's a contingent fact - my impression is that in much of the pre-modern world, the wealthy ruling class were the ones more prone to ostentatious displays of violence. (And even now the truly destitute generally aren't particularly violent.) So the minor criminal who gets into fights a lot now could have been a wealthy and respected Viking (or died trying) in a different place and time. Or he might have shot Alexander Hamilton.

    That's why I'm hesitant to accept claims that low social status causes violent behavior, except if "violent behavior" is part of the definition of "low social status", and why I'm also hesitant to think that violent behavior causing low social status is a general rule.

    (Edit: With that said, I admit I wouldn't be surprised if low social status caused violence to some extent, simply because in certain games, if you're likely to lose on average then you want to choose the more high-variance strategy.)

    [–]TheMonkus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    I think we do basically agree and I appreciate the clarification.

    It’s a learned behavior. I don’t think lack of prestige makes it happen, I think it’s correlated with a low-prestige culture in the modern USA. As you correctly point out, really poor people are too busy trying to eat to worry about people stepping on their sneakers or such “slights.”

    I’ve met plenty of upper class, well off men with violent tempers as well. Another confounding factor is that such men are usually able to pay their way out of legal trouble and their violence is seen in a different light.

    [–]mcsalmonlegs 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    Considering that the mafia began in Italy and continues to be powerful there, and that the Irish don't have such a powerful criminal organization, though they once had street gangs, I wouldn't use the word 'just' to describe why the Italian mafia exists.

    [–]TheMonkus 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    I’m paraphrasing Henry Hill, famous mafioso informant. He said the mafia was just an organization for people that couldn’t go to the regular cops. Of course there’s more to it - stealing and selling drugs- but even in Italy it began as an extension of the feudal pact. Which is essential just good old extortion- pay me to protect you or I won’t protect you from these bad guys who may or may not work for me.

    As to why Italy remains so horribly corrupt, I can’t even speculate. As for Ireland, I’ve heard Irish people suggest that the IRA was little more than an organized crime gang masquerading as freedom fighters.

    [–]mcsalmonlegs 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    I was talking about the Irish in America, another Catholic ethnic group that settled in similar areas and didn't have the same dynamic. I'm guessing Henry Hill wanted to present the things he himself had done in the best possible light.

    How much of the inability for the police to help other Italians was due to intimidation of Italians and the police by the mafia; and, how much was discrimination from the police themselves?

    [–]TheMonkus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    It definitely becomes a vicious cycle, but in the case of Italians, or Irish, or (as it remains to this day) black people, I think it usually begins with the police ignoring these groups or even scapegoating them. Which quickly leads to an antagonistic relationship that either side can use as an excuse to behave badly.

    Hill definitely needs to be taken with a grain of salt; the mafia terrorized Italian Americans and robbed them, but there is some truth to them offering a benefit in some cases. It’s much like the police; I can honestly say if I balance out the traffic citations I’ve received vs. the times the police have actually helped me when I needed it, it would be easy to say they’re just extortionist bullies. At the same time, I’m sure they have a deterrent effect that has benefited me without being directly apparent.

    Just because these power structures are toxic and shitty doesn’t mean they don’t have genuine authority.

    [–]Platypuss_In_Boots 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Also probably connected to status. In areas where it's hard to gain status through a career it makes sense to be explicitly socially dominant/macho, since at the very least many women find it attractive.

    [–]writing_spruce 28 points29 points  (4 children)

    This is an idea I've been toying about in the context of New York City.

    This place is a huge mishmash of cultures. Dozens of big ones, hundreds of small ones. If you go by just clothing, it's impossible to figure out status. Too many cultural groups multiplied by class and age groups, each one having their own hierarchy.

    If you sport a suit and tie, you could be the top dog in a dozen of these groups, but be a bottom feeder in a dozen others. Take any style and the same dynamic will apply.

    And the only way to navigate this maze of other tribes is to show a baseline amount of respect to everyone, equally: making space for them in the subway, standing to the side on the sidewalk when you've stopped, being quick when you order coffee, etc. I suspect that's why New Yorkers complain about tourists. These temporary residents don't know the baseline code and end up implying their status hierarchy on other people, which pisses everyone off.

    I attribute the relatively low amount of violence in this place to this sort of status illegibility. Anecdotally, I've never felt as safe around people in any other city I've lived in.

    [–]TheMonkus 25 points26 points  (1 child)

    I live in St. Louis, MO, statistically the most violent city in North America. And yet I have no fear whatsoever of violent crime, because it happens within a particular subculture in this city, within its own norms. (These are predominantly black, and involved in crime. This subculture by no means encompasses the majority of Black people in this city, most of whom like me, a white guy, are excluded from the violent subculture’s standards).

    Even if I were to commit an infraction against a member of that group, it’s unlikely they would hold me to their own standards; they would recognize that I’m just a regular guy, and that by holding me to their standards, they in turn would be held to mine. That is, while they can kill other members of their own group with near impunity, if they murder or assault me, they will probably be punished for it.

    The only people I actually fear in this regard are young teenagers who have yet to “learn the rules” but might be physically large enough or armed enough to cause me harm. But most of them are too busy with their own teenage hierarchy games to care about me; assaulting a 40 something regular guy would earn them no status.

    My real fear of violence would come from being mistaken for a member of another violent subculture, lower class white males. Indeed when I was younger and would sometimes find myself in unfamiliar bars, dressed as I usually am in jeans and a t shirt, making my social status quite vague, I would occasionally come close to getting into fights with these guys. Typically the male power display would begin, they would recognized that I didn’t seem to care about their standards, they would call me some sort of schoolyard slur, and go away.

    Of course I wouldn’t go back to such bars because I was like a tourist in NYC; I didn’t fit in.

    [–]PelicanInImpiety 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I had a conversation with a homeless guy recently that fits in with your theory. I was walking my infant in a stroller and the guy came up and was pretty conversationally aggressive (not in a violent way but much more in-your-face than I'd usually expect from a stranger). And there was, to my untrained ear, a bit of acquisitiveness to his conversation, like "look at all this good stuff you've got!". As soon as he realized there was a baby in my stroller he backed off and basically bid me good day. I think he thought I was another homeless person with a bunch of stuff in a stroller and was interacting with me on that basis. As soon as he realized I was in a different world he saw me as non-interactive and disengaged.

    [–]Freilingme smart dis many 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Have you read The Gervais Principle? It's an interesting read, might be up your alley.

    [–]writing_spruce 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Yes! But a few years back. I think I will re-read it now to pick up all the threads younger-me missed.

    [–]BaronAleksei 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    Reminds me of Ribbonfarm’s Gervais Theorem - among groups of Losers (people who are in jobs just for the 9-5 paycheck, who have “lost” the capitalist game by not really playing it), status in one hierarchy is precisely dependent on not knowing your status in it. If you’re in the comfortable mean, you’re accepted. Someone who’s at the top may leave for another, higher hierarchy, and someone at the bottom may be cast out to raise the entire group.

    [–]WTFwhatthehell 8 points9 points  (2 children)

    It has always seemed to me like the people I know personally who shout the most about "respect" always seemed to be the people with the least for anyone else to respect.

    People who weren't good at anything in particular and had no notable achievements or expertise.

    [–]MajusculeMiniscule 8 points9 points  (1 child)

    I come from an American ethnic subculture that’s relatively into shouting about “respect”, and it was always a huge red flag to me, because it meant either a) you had nothing going on in your life or b) what you had going on was illegal.

    [–]WTFwhatthehell 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    In the UK I shared a house with some guys obsessed with "respect".

    Both were middle aged middle-englander types who'd constantly boast about how much money they made while seemingly perpetually broke and deeply in debt, boast about how important they were at work when they apparently weren't, both with a tendency to get into fights while on nights out etc

    I wouldn't be surprised if they were near the bottom of ever totem pole they were associated with leaving nothing but the general concept of "respect".

    [–]callmesalticidae 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    One of the best kinds of insight.

    [–]FieryBlake 27 points28 points  (17 children)

    I rarely say this, but that website is goddamned beautiful. I love the aesthetic.

    [–]pinkiedash417 15 points16 points  (13 children)

    Gwern is great, easily on my top authors list.

    [–]WTFwhatthehell 11 points12 points  (0 children)

    I find I can only read him in small doses, he has some amazing articles but they tend to make scot's articles look short.

    [–]FieryBlake -1 points0 points  (11 children)

    I had only ever read his rotten encyclopaedia before, never his articles.

    [–]Benthamite 1 point2 points  (10 children)

    What encyclopedia?

    [–]FieryBlake 2 points3 points  (9 children)

    I meant the Rotten Library, sorry.

    [–]SullenLookingBurger 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    Looks to me like that’s a mirror of a defunct site — not Gwern’s own creation.

    [–]Benthamite 2 points3 points  (5 children)

    That's just a website Gwern archived. It is not "his".

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]SullenLookingBurger 0 points1 point  (3 children)

      Interesting, but odd if true. How can you identify the additions?

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]Benthamite 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        As I have already explained, this is an archive of an old website, originally hosted at rotten.com, that has absolutely nothing to do with Gwern. I mean, you can just do a quick Google search, find the Internet Archive version and see for yourself that it's identical to what you find on gwern.net, including the "what's new" section.

        [–]AlphaTerminal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Holy shit this statement from one of its pages is friggin' HILARIOUS:

        A lot of nerds who graduated from AD&D and couldn't get their fix probably moved on to Scientology. It provides a lot of the same attractions. Geekiness, advancement levels, psionics, continued financial investment.

        [–]HomarusSimpsonSomewhat wrong 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        Funny, I find I can't even look at it, it offends my eyes.

        It's as if we are all different!

        [–]UnicornLock 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        Had turn on night light but the design is amazing. You can fall into a wikipedia rabbit hole just by hovering links!

        [–]FieryBlake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Exactly!!1111!

        It's just ripe for rabbithole diving, man. I had to close that tab to get any work done.

        [–]Sinity 10 points11 points  (0 children)

        Meshes well together with Scott's How The West Was Won

        [–]YeezyMode 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        My favorite piece from Gwern.

        [–]Aqwis 21 points22 points  (9 children)

        I admittedly haven't finished reading this yet, but I think gwern (and DFW as quoted) is being a little too dramatic in the introduction regarding the way being part of a subculture necessarily excludes you from the mainstream culture.

        I have an acquaintance, a friend of several friends of mine, who is in the world elite (one of the top 3 performers) in... let's call it a non-athletic sport, just to be sufficiently vague. This guy has dedicated a large part of this time to the sport since an early age. He's obviously very dedicated, and has spent more time on it each day since an early age than most of us spend (actually) working in adulthood. However, unlike how gwern predicts he would have to be to excel in a internationally popular sport, his life isn't exactly empty outside the sport. He hangs out with friends/girlfriend, goes to parties and has (if I recall correctly) taken part-time studies in the past. He can converse intelligently. In a way, his life doesn't seem too different from those of the rest of us, with three major exceptions: 1) he's been doing this since a young age, 2) he travels a lot, which means he can't make plans with others in the same way as anyone else and 3) his "job" matches his main interest to a greater degree than for most of us (but not that unique, it seems to be common in a lot of programmers, for example). Of course, there are probably top sportsmen who are more dedicated than this. It's possible that someone like Usain Bolt is considerably more single-minded than this and that you can't have a conversation with him on other topics than sprinting. But I think more than anything else the idea of a top athlete as this single-minded and otherwise ignorant creature is based on incorrect stereotypes more than anything else.

        Since gwern mentions EVE it's also worth mentioning that I used to play it. I don't have a full overview of the personal details of the top corp/alliance officers, but I remember that several of them were older (35+) guys who either had this as their main pastime next to an ordinary career and possibly family, or who used to have a career and/or family and took up EVE (and often seemed to utilize the skills gained earlier in life to succeed). Not exactly hikikomoris!

        [–]ZurrgabDaVinci758 10 points11 points  (1 child)

        Re EVE there was an American diplomat who was a very successful player iirc.

        Speaking personally, one of my major hobbies right now is magic the gathering. I also have a fairly normal reasonably high status job. As do most of the people I play with. I don't talk about mtg at work because I don't think anyone there would be interested, and I like to keep my work and personal life seperate. I suspect there true for most people.

        There are probably lots of CEOs and lawyers who spend their free time on furry art, world if Warcraft, etc. But aren't associated with it. You get a selection bias effect where the people who are most visible in their non mainstream hobbies are the ones who are least able to fit into the mainstream

        [–]tinbuddychrist 6 points7 points  (0 children)

        Re EVE there was an American diplomat who was a very successful player iirc.

        That would be Sean Smith, a.k.a. Vile rat - a eulogy of him is quoted in the linked article (he was killed in the Benghazi consulate attack).

        [–]Humble_Shoulder 2 points3 points  (3 children)

        Side note I guess but: I have always hated that DFW profile, even since the days when everyone on Twitter thought he was profound (although now everyone on Twitter pretends they always hated him).

        First of all, in my experience, athletes are significantly more personally charismatic than the average person. Great athletes may give boring responses in press conferences, but so would everyone else, because press conferences are pointless. Second of all, they may not have hobbies outside of their sport -- but that leaves them with one more serious hobby and interest than the vast majority of people, myself included, who are knowledgeable about zero things besides TV back when DFW was writing/Netflix shows or Instagram or whatever now. Third of all, the "basketball geniuses who cannot read" are not illiterate BECAUSE of basketball.

        Still an enjoyable non-fiction writer but never agreed with his arguments.

        [–]sixfourch 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        but that leaves them with one more serious hobby and interest than the vast majority of people, myself included, who are knowledgeable about zero things besides TV back when DFW was writing/Netflix shows or Instagram or whatever now.

        Does it? They have their career and nothing else. Presumably most people have their career and TV, even though I think that's not actually accurate.

        [–]Humble_Shoulder 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        Fair enough on the careers/hobby distinction, I guess I meant in part that these people are at least experts in the subject of their careers, while tons of people just have bullshit jobs or uninteresting jobs or both and are experts in nothing.

        And I'm also thinking in terms of strained "up close and personal" profiles, as DFW does. Because in those, most people wouldn't have anything particularly interesting about themselves at all, let alone a secondary interesting characteristic after their most interesting -- I follow tons of athletes on Twitter and they all seem to like music and video games just like everyone else. If we're comparing athletes to the average person who they would be in an alternate universe without the extensive training in their skill, what have they been deprived of? They would probably just play more video games.

        ETA: I don't mean anything against "normal people" with all this. I am a normal person. Normal people are fun to hang out with and get drunk and watch sports and all that. It's just that I don't have anything to me that Michael Joyce had to give up.

        [–]sixfourch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I follow tons of athletes on Twitter and they all seem to like music and video games just like everyone else.

        But they can only pursue these to a very casual level because they are professional athletes and by being excellent at something they have sacrificed being even mediocre at most other things. To the music example, probably most pro athletes don't know very much if anything about the music scene in their home city, because they travel constantly and couldn't go out if they wanted to because they have to be up at 4 to train.

        I think this is typical of anyone playing at a high level in any career or field. If you get to the top 0.1% of anything, it probably dominates your entire life and there is probably very little else meaningful in your life beyond that. Some people are generalists, some people are specialists.

        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]WikiSummarizerBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Exception that proves the rule

          "The exception that proves the rule" is a saying whose meaning is contested. Henry Watson Fowler's Modern English Usage identifies five ways in which the phrase has been used, and each use makes some sort of reference to the role that a particular case or event takes in relation to a more general rule. Two original meanings of the phrase are usually cited. The first, preferred by Fowler, is that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists.

          [ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5

          [–]matejcik 4 points5 points  (1 child)

          I don't understand the melancholy part?

          Admittedly my own opinion is that mainstream = bad, niches = good, and that one bad thing today's internet is doing is creating an "artificial mainstream" out of niches.*

          But as I'm reading it, the article makes zero claims to the opposite? It asks the question "good? bad? a little sad", but I'm only seeing arguments for the "good", and definitely not for the "sad".

          Am I missing something?

          *) The problem I see is that due to Algorithms, even niche content creators need to aim for as wide an audience as possible, which results in genericisation and, in many cases, dumbing down of the content.

          [–]I_Eat_Pork 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          The main reason I see with modern niches is precisely not niche enough. For example, I am active as a hobby level Chess player. I started as a kid at an offline chess club around where I live, and still attend my club weekly. But I am also active in chess online. Due to a number of factors more poeple have been finding chess recently. This is great but compare my introduction to chess as a hobby to theirs. I joined the chess club of my local town. Where I knew all the other kids, made friends with them, developed rivalries with them.

          Those entering the hobby through the internet get quite a different eperience. They play chess games online with poeple they will never see, or likely play with again. They discuss chess not with their acquantences but with complete strangers on forums. Or they watch videos. It is not all gloom becuase some of them manage to find their local lub as well (some even joined the club I intent). But mostly the internet allows only for culutral expressions that are quite crowd-based. And in a crowd you never get to know anyone.

          The only situation online that gets close to the experience of playing chess at my local club is when I play at twixtlive.com. Purely because the game we're paying is so niche that the community that formed there is small enough that everyone knows eachother. The internet desperately needs more of those. The worrying trend I see is precisely the opposite trend that Gwerns warns for. That the internet destroys small intemate communities, and creates big unpersonal communities in its place.

          [–]Haffrung 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          Odd that the article doesn’t address the fact that most sub-cultures today are virtual, and don’t provide the sort of social ballast that face-to-face bonds provide.

          [–]Javlington 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          "Under the circumstances, all persons do, and indeed must, accept a great number of things on faith…Their way of understanding is basically religious, rather than scientific; only a small portion of one’s everyday experience in the technological society can be made scientific…The plight of members of the technological society can be compared to that of a newborn child. Much of the data that enters its sense does not form coherent wholes. There are many things the child cannot understand or, after it has learned to speak, cannot successfully explain to anyone…Citizens of the modern age in this respect are less fortunate than children. They never escape a fundamental bewilderment in the face of the complex world that their senses report. They are not able to organize all or even very much of this into sensible wholes…."13"

          This kind of threw me off since that isn't anything special about the technology age. You could make the very same "world is too complex" statement about 100.000 years ago with people unable to explain many things and even attribute entire natural forces to divine powers with mysterious ways!