On Friday, in response to a quote by Demosthenes on Skepticism, Glen (do not let him fool you, he is a man deep thought) posted the following:
"Common sense has a half life like radiation. My scepticism has decayed to cynicism...For most people today, I automatically assume they are lying to me or trying to use me. In public, I won't be caught alone with a woman or child. I don't believe a thing on TV or in the media, and I have learned to do my own thinking and fact checking. People seem to want a low trust society so I will just take my place in it - or as far out of it as I can, depending on circumstances."
The Low Trust Society. I have never heard a society defined in such terms before = but once I heard it, I could instantly point and say "Yes, that is it exactly".
No society is ever going to advertise itself as "The Low Trust Society". That comes across as a rather poor marketing scheme. However, I suspect that the Low Trust Society is known by everyone that lives in it.
Perhaps a more useful question would be "What characterizes the Low Trust Society?"
A primary factor, I suspect, is a very high degree of mistrust in one's government. There is an assumption that by default, the government may not directly lie about what it says, but it very seldom will speak the truth about everything. Additionally, the government is almost always assumed to act in its own best interests, not that of the people it purports to serve.
Another factor is that, in a Low Trust Society, the media is essentially understood to have an agenda, rather than the actual reporting of facts. It can be colored by beliefs or strongly held principles, but there is an understanding that the media will report on what the media feels to be important and will skew stories in such a way to support one side over another (If one wants an easy guide to how this works, understand the potential bias of any media source and then review how many times they call out or report embarrassing information on those that most closely hold their view. The failure rate will inform the degree to which they are biased).
But distrust of governments is probably as old as governments themselves. And governments are not a whole society.
A society is the interaction of all other factors of a group of people - businesses, social activities, religious gatherings, even personal interactions. It is (at least in this definition) the economic and social glue that holds a group of people together.
In the Low Trust Society, that glue is pretty sparse.
In the Low Trust Society, every interaction and every person is a potential risk. A business purchase - at the wrong business, of the wrong material - can put one on a list. A word purposely taken out of context, a conversation that everyone seems to be agreeable to at the time, can be turned against one later. Even in an atmosphere that is centered around a single and seemingly unified issue - a club, a religious gathering - where everyone in theory shares a same worldview can become the source of questions later. And heaven forfend one is in a situation where it is only two people involved - it is literally a "I said/they said" situation.
In other words, if what is coming to mind is the societies of the Soviet Union or modern China, you would not be particularly far from the truth.
We are assured - at least we in the West - that this is not at all what is being aimed for or tolerated. It is not the grounds of ideological purity that such things are being effectively countenanced, but because of "safety". Yet the end result is exactly the same.
I find myself in the same boat as Glen.
I have not watched the media outlets in a very long time, and am somewhat surprisingly variable in terms of the sources I review to form opinions or check facts (and especially for history, I will go back to the original documents where I can rather than an interpretation of them). I am almost never found alone with anyone who is not my family and certainly not with anyone that I have not known for a very long time. In almost all conversations - be they virtual or real life - the choice of subjects is rather bland and dry (on more than one occasion, it has been commented that I seem to not have very many opinions. For many things, that is actually true. For others, it is a careful choice). More often than not, I assume that those that are proposing things have a benefit in mind that is as much for them as it is for anything else that it will create.
One other funny thing about the Low Trust Society: ultimately, in the name of "freedom" and "safety" and "right thinking", they create societies which are neither free nor safe nor right thinking. They only create individual prisons that everyone carries around with them.
Which, of course, will eventually encase even those who fully believe in the society they have created.
Although I never trust politicians, I do trust the media (that I listen too anyway) to report truthfully. But I do know that while technically true, it is often overhyped and out of balance. One recent example was the hype on Asian hate violence rising 1900% based upon a report in New York City where Asian hate crimes happened once in 2019 and 20 times in 2020 out of the million Asians that live there. While the reported increase is technically true, it certainly isn't something I would worry about.
ReplyDeleteThere are certain people and places though where I usually trust absolutely until proven otherwise. Family and church is a great example. I should clarify by church I mean what a parishioner may tell me while chatting before or after church service. People tend to be more truthful about things in church for some reason. I also trust people like my lawyer or doctor to be truthful as well though in the case of the latter, there is some omissions that can occur.
Objective Truth v Subjective Belief?
DeleteWe don't have any shared definitions left in our society.
Language has been stripped of meaning.
Propaganda is the commodity of the empire.
Trust is impossible.
Ed - I think the media being truthful but also "Creative" is a legitimate comment. That is a great example - but comes back, I suppose to what the preferences and predilections are of those reporting the news. And that is sort of my problem, I suppose. Media traditionally reported with no filters.
DeleteLawyers and doctors yes (although as you say, there may be errors of omission or just plain not knowing. With TB the Elder, we have heard that a lot). To be fair, I do think my circle of fellow parishioners and family are also truthful. It is just that sometimes we do not agree.
Just So - Language is a big thing. The fact that we are rapidly losing the ability to share meaning is a big thing. And once we cannot communicate, we are effectively different nations.
DeleteIs it a case of “can not” or “will not”, TB?
DeleteBoth, it seems to me. Yes, there is a sense that more and more, we cannot communicate with each other because even though we may share a common language, we do not share common understandings (anymore) of the words or phrases. But yes, I do think there is merit to your idea of the fact that more and more, there is this sense that we will not communicate with each other as well.
DeleteI did not coin the term, TB. It is in common usage among crime thinkers, dissidents, heretics and other lost souls that dwell on the doorstep of the Dark Web as I do. It is a dismal testament to how far we have fallen, where free speech can only be furtively done below the radar, virtually in secret.
ReplyDeleteAll that you discussed are aspects of the low trust society but it doesn't stop with gov't or the institutions. It manifests itself right in our own neighbourhoods. Imagine being able to leave the keys in the ignition of your car overnight. A neighbourhood where your children could play outside late at night and be trusted not to go vandalize a school or other public property. Where you can leave your doors unlocked at night or during the day while you are at work. Where you don't have to carry a gun.
The dissidents that originated the term often use it in conjunction with race based counter-narratives, saying that coloured people and predominantly blacks are responsible for such culture. While it is true to a certain extent - there are plenty of whites actively involved in creating and maintaining low trust societies. Most are corrupt neoliberals IMHO, although conservatives and even Christians are involved in creating these cultures. Like everything else, it becomes very political very fast.
For what it's worth, my (unpopular) perspective on it is that this culture is produced exclusively by politics, and the only remedy is spiritual. God rejects people that reject Him, and without Him... we are nothing more than killer apes with no restraint, no morals, and no impulse control. But... whadda I know?
All I know is that you can't run a country like this. If you want to delete this for breaking the house rules on politics - go ahead, and think nothing of it. For me, the low trust society is also a Godless society where literally anything goes, right on up to and including child sacrifice and murder.
Glen - The Dark Web. I have finally arrived at Neuromancer/Hacker status. Huzzah.
DeleteI remember those times of which you speak. We locked our doors but honestly, we did not have to. We walked 3 miles to school. We ran around all day. No-one thought a thing of it.
I do not believe it is tied to any race or religion. It is across every segment of human existence (at least now, anyway). And yes, it does become political very quickly - because it can bring power.
I do not disagree with you that this is a sign of a Godless society. If nothing is forbidden, then everything is allowed. Everyone thinks this is a fine concept in principle until something happens to them.
Those places still do exist. They are now called family farms. The farm is still a place full of doors that are never locked, vehicles that never have the keys taken out of the ignition slot and my kids are still free to roam as they please without worry by me. But I do realize that these are just remnants of a society now passed and will also dry up someday. I'm just fortunate that my kids get to experience some of it before it is gone.
DeleteHi TB. I'm sorry you have such a view of society. I don't have a great outlook myself, but I don't see where I live as a low trust society. I see it as a selfish society where everything and everyone is now considered replaceable and disposable. Maybe it's because I don't interact with society, at least I only interact rarely that I don't think about stuff like this too often.
ReplyDeleteRain - A Selfish Society. That is not a bad moniker either. It does seem like most people are looking for what they can get of everything - and, also, that people are very disposable.
DeleteIf I could interact with society less, I would. I envy you that.
Take today's "woke" requirements. The essential requirement is that anyone who isn't "of color" must kiss the butt of anyone who IS "of color." The "colorless" person feigns friendship and cooperation because, well, if he doesn't, he might just lose his job or get "weeded out" if he's in the military. Behind the façade though, there is resentment and anger in the mind of the "colorless," as they're forced to choose skin color over content of character. Time comes when the anger and resentment of the "colorless" boils over. The "person of color" responds with "I thought you really liked me!!! You were faking it all the time!!! You really HATE "people of color!!! YOU'RE RACIST!!!" The "colorless" person responds; "I never liked you, and it had nothing to do with your color. It had EVERYTHING to do with your CHARACTER!" I was just forced to deal with you because you were "of color." ...Talk about a self-fulfilling prophesy... Trust dies. Conflict is inevitable. When trust dies, so does the society... ...And this is just scratching the surface of what's going in America now...
ReplyDeletePete, one often reads now of the fact that many people are as unhappy as they have ever been at any number of things. When asked, it is because they realize that they can no longer be honest about communication in many different environments. And yes, we have made it impossible to reject people based on character because we have decided that, effectively, character does not matter.
Delete