The Death of Critical Thinking Will Kill Us Long Before AI (1 Viewer)

[Loulit01]

Clickbait headlines and social media posts appeal to our emotions rather than intellect, making us susceptible to misinformation. We share articles without reading them, simply reacting to provocative titles and abstracts. The context, nuance, and accuracy no longer matter. Objective truth has become secondary to subjective feelings and base impulses.

The drop in reading comprehension is a complex phenomenon. It cannot be reduced to simplistic explanations like “technology ruined our attention spans.” And throwing blame at GenZ ignores the mass vulnerabilities to poorly structured misinformation demonstrated by older users who have flocked to Qanon in droves.

Meanwhile, lengthy texts full of substantive information struggle to compete. Their interfaces are not designed for addiction but for illuminating discourse. They respect readers’ agency instead of algorithmically ensnaring them. Their creators are more concerned with truth than clicks. But these oases of deep reading feel increasingly foreign to modern minds accustomed to constant sensory stimulation. Their depth requires patience and analytical effort that feels unnatural after years of skimming and scrolling.


Ms. Westenberg might well be writing about this forum.

 

[Bodi]

Expect to be attacked ... my Weakest Generation thread set off uncontrollable rage in people...

 

[Individual]

Who among us, believe themselves to be critical thinkers?
I've been attempting to draw them into a discussion on changing our tax code in a way that would reduce, if not eliminate many long existing economic issues.
Basically it is little more than an algorithmic method by which the progressive tax tables would be adjusted each year, in a way that would permanently provide for Social Security, with rare exception provide for a balanced budget, greatly reduce the need for inflation, and produce little or no additional burden upon the lowest income earners.

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

I mean...I've had people who gulp horse wormer and try their damndest to have their kids help reintroduce polio into the populace tell me I lack critical thinking skills because I don't "research" by "listening to real people" on X. So yeah...we're fuqt.

A chunk of the populace has been coached into believing anything even mildly official is not to be trusted. The U.S. is now a nation of perpetual angry adolescents trying to give their finger to The Man no matter what. Middle schoolers.

I don't know about the rest of the globe, can only speak for my country.

 

[Sven Karma]

I blame Jacques Derrida and 'deconstruction' for (unintentionally) encouraging people to atomize language into a pick'n'mix mush of things meaning whatever you want them to mean.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Who among us, believe themselves to be critical thinkers?
I've been attempting to draw them into a discussion on changing our tax code in a way that would reduce, if not eliminate many long existing economic issues.
Basically it is little more than an algorithmic method by which the progressive tax tables would be adjusted each year, in a way that would permanently provide for Social Security, with rare exception provide for a balanced budget, greatly reduce the need for inflation, and produce little or no additional burden upon the lowest income earners.

I (mostly) understand your efforts, but having a FIT code which automagically raises individual income tax rates if (actually when) congress critters (annually?) increase federal spending would simply encourage the continuous expansion of the power and expense of the federal government.

 

[Hypothetical]

If the progressive agenda is the best we can do, bring on the AI.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

If the progressive agenda is the best we can do, bring on the AI.

There you go folks An example of critical thinking.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Critical thinking is NOT dead, we just have to ask the Right for examples, such as............

Proof that the 2020 election was rigged
Proof that Covid vaccines are more harmful than Covid
Proof that Trump crowd sizes are as high as 150,000
Proof that climate change is naturally occurring, that man's activities have nothing to do with it
Proof that Drag Queens are grooming kids
Proof that the Great Replacement Theory is actually a thing
Proof that the FBI and BLM staged the Jan. 6 riots
AND OF COURSE............ everything is the fault of "progressives" as per comment #7

Mind you, they do get their critical thinking from Fox and Rightwing media, so there is that.

 

[ataraxia]

I blame Jacques Derrida and 'deconstruction' for (unintentionally) encouraging people to atomize language into a pick'n'mix mush of things meaning whatever you want them to mean.

I’m not sure it’s that deep.

 

[Individual]

I (mostly) understand your efforts, but having a FIT code which automagically raises individual income tax rates if (actually when) congress critters (annually?) increase federal spending would simply encourage the continuous expansion of the power and expense of the federal government.

The 5 progressive tax rates are 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, and 37%, and they would be applied to income of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 times the GNI per capita each year.
Eliminating all deductions and taxing all income regardless of source would apply the Federal income tax to an individuals gross income, which would greatly increase the income tax revenue, primarily paid by the highest income earners with the lowest income earners paying about the same as what the FICA tax cost them.
Any Federal spending increase would affect ALL taxpayers by application of a surtax multiplier, which would also be paid primarily by the highest income earners.

Using my 2024 example, if there was no budget deficit projected by the CBO:
Lowest income earners would pay 15% of their income.
Someone with $400,000 gross income would pay 25.4% of their income.
Someone with $2,000,000 gross income would pay 34.7% of their income.
Someone with $10,000,000 gross income would pay 36.5% of their income.

If a 30% budget deficit was projected by the CBO:
The Lowest income earners would pay a tax of 19.5% of their income.
Someone with $400,000 gross income would pay 33.2% of their income.
Someone with $2,000,000 gross income would pay 45.1% of their income.
Someone with $10,000,000 gross income would pay 47.5% of their income.

 

[Sven Karma]

I’m not sure it’s that deep.

It's like trickle down economics, except with literary theory. From the ivory tower to the gutter.

 

[Geoist]

Expect to be attacked ... my Weakest Generation thread set off uncontrollable rage in people...

If by 'uncontrollable rage' you mean your tired cliches and anecdotes were easily slapped down with facts and logic then sure.

 

[ataraxia]

It's like trickle down economics, except with literary theory. From the ivory tower to the gutter.

If you want to get philosophical, you can trace this even further back than Derrida:

“There are no facts. Only interpretation”.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

But again, I’m not sure it’s that deep. These people are just uneducated and therefore easily manipulated, that’s all. It’s really just that simple.

 

[Sven Karma]

If you want to get philosophical, you can trace this even further back than Derrida:

“There are no facts. Only interpretation”.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

But again, I’m not sure it’s that deep. These people are just uneducated and therefore easily manipulated, that’s all. It’s really just that simple.

With a new tool at their disposal. So, for instance, this article I would file under 'every accusation is a confession':

Understanding Woke Tactics Pt. 4: What is Deconstruction?

It is time to talk about “Deconstruction.”

wokaldistance.substack.com

 

[ataraxia]

With a new tool at their disposal. So, for instance, this article I would file under 'every accusation is a confession':

Understanding Woke Tactics Pt. 4: What is Deconstruction?

It is time to talk about “Deconstruction.”

wokaldistance.substack.com

Maybe. I always thought that the Trump presidency could perhaps be considered the first postmodern presidency.

“Alternative facts”, anyone?

 

[ttwtt78640]

The 5 progressive tax rates are 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, and 37%, and they would be applied to income of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 times the GNI per capita each year.
Eliminating all deductions and taxing all income regardless of source would apply the Federal income tax to an individuals gross income, which would greatly increase the income tax revenue, primarily paid by the highest income earners with the lowest income earners paying about the same as what the FICA tax cost them.
Any Federal spending increase would affect ALL taxpayers by application of a surtax multiplier, which would also be paid primarily by the highest income earners.

Using my 2024 example, if there was no budget deficit projected by the CBO:
Lowest income earners would pay 15% of their income.
Someone with $400,000 gross income would pay 25.4% of their income.
Someone with $2,000,000 gross income would pay 34.7% of their income.
Someone with $10,000,000 gross income would pay 36.5% of their income.

If a 30% budget deficit was projected by the CBO:
The Lowest income earners would pay a tax of 19.5% of their income.
Someone with $400,000 gross income would pay 33.2% of their income.
Someone with $2,000,000 gross income would pay 45.1% of their income.
Someone with $10,000,000 gross income would pay 47.45% of their income.

The “surtax multiplier” idea is what makes that system dangerous, thus allowing (requiring?) individual FIT bracket rates to automagically increase to whatever annual federal spending level congress critters agreed to impose.

Another major impact on retirees would result from replacing the FICA ‘payroll’ taxes (currently not paid on SS retirement benefits) with an income tax (which would be paid on SS retirement benefits). You pretend that would be a wash (and mostly would be for most current workers - unless the “surtax multiplier” is counted), but it clearly results in at least a 15% SS retirement benefit cut (for retirees).

 

[Napoleon]

This is not a new phenomenon. The masses have always been profoundly stupid and easily entertained. Even free education for the masses hasn’t solved that problem.

 

[Individual]

The “surtax multiplier” idea is what makes that idea dangerous, thus allowing (requiring?) individual FIT bracket rates to automagically increase to whatever annual federal spending level congress critters agreed to impose.

Another major impact on retirees would result from replacing the FICA ‘payroll’ taxes (currently not paid on SS retirement benefits) with an income tax (which would be paid on SS retirement benefits). You pretend that would be a wash (and mostly would be for most current workers - unless the “surtax multiplier” is counted), but it clearly results in at least a 15% SS retirement benefit cut (for retirees).

The option would be to continue growing the debt, and inflation, dollar devaluation. Do you find that preferable?

I agreed with your earlier post about that and offered to only add SS benefits if all other sources of income exceeded $80,000.
The surtax multiplier would apply after the tax bill has been determined. SS benefits would not have anything to do with the surtax, if needed to be applied, for low income earners.
Currently, depending on your income some of your SS benefits can be taxed. I would simply make it where none or all SS benefits would be taxed at some income point. Do you feel the $80,000 decision point too high or too low?

 

[Torus34]

Who among us, believe themselves to be critical thinkers?
I've been attempting to draw them into a discussion on changing our tax code in a way that would reduce, if not eliminate many long existing economic issues.
Basically it is little more than an algorithmic method by which the progressive tax tables would be adjusted each year, in a way that would permanently provide for Social Security, with rare exception provide for a balanced budget, greatly reduce the need for inflation, and produce little or no additional burden upon the lowest income earners.

Hi, Individual.

In response to the question in the first sentence of the quote, I try.

I self-identify as a secular humanist. That puts me outside both the 'red' and 'blue' tribes in the US. Note 'outside' as opposed to, say, 'above'.

I deal with issues one at a time and try to dig deep. This means looking up peer-reviewed papers, etc. as opposed to accepting something said by someone [reference to authority].

It's not easy, and requires a willingness to suspend judgment and recognize emotional responses in myself.

Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . informed.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The option would be to continue growing the debt, and inflation, dollar devaluation. Do you find that preferable?

I agreed with your earlier post about that and offered to only add SS benefits if all other sources of income exceeded $80,000.
The surtax multiplier would apply after the tax bill has been determined. SS benefits would not have anything to do with the surtax, if needed to be applied, for low income earners.
Currently, depending on your income some of your SS benefits can be taxed. I would simply make it where none or all SS benefits would be taxed at some income point. Do you feel the $80,000 decision point too high or too low?

Even with that ‘means testing’ adjustment, it increases the cost of SS for those with higher incomes while reducing their SS retirement benefits. Many (including you?) seem to want “the rich” to pay far more of the cost of the federal government than they currently do, but ignore the tendency of congress critters to constantly increase the power and expense of the federal government, which would be far easier to do with your proposed “surtax multiplier” system.

 

[Ishm]

The 5 progressive tax rates are 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, and 37%, and they would be applied to income of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 times the GNI per capita each year.
Eliminating all deductions and taxing all income regardless of source would apply the Federal income tax to an individuals gross income, which would greatly increase the income tax revenue, primarily paid by the highest income earners with the lowest income earners paying about the same as what the FICA tax cost them.
Any Federal spending increase would affect ALL taxpayers by application of a surtax multiplier, which would also be paid primarily by the highest income earners.

Using my 2024 example, if there was no budget deficit projected by the CBO:
Lowest income earners would pay 15% of their income.
Someone with $400,000 gross income would pay 25.4% of their income.
Someone with $2,000,000 gross income would pay 34.7% of their income.
Someone with $10,000,000 gross income would pay 36.5% of their income.

If a 30% budget deficit was projected by the CBO:
The Lowest income earners would pay a tax of 19.5% of their income.
Someone with $400,000 gross income would pay 33.2% of their income.
Someone with $2,000,000 gross income would pay 45.1% of their income.
Someone with $10,000,000 gross income would pay 47.5% of their income.

I am not completely against this type of concept, but can think of some pretty straightforward problems if I have understood your idea properly. Say for instance you have a mortgage, or other loan, where your loan approval is linked to your ability to pay as assessed against your disposable income. Suddenly a year into your mortgage your tax bill increases unexpectedly and you can either no longer make your payments, or even if you can, you no longer meet the disposable income assessment used to get your mortgage approved. The reality is that most people can't live with no idea what their disposable income will be because the govt can arbitrarily change it by deciding to spend more. I also think your salary brackets are too far apart, Realistically the people in the ~$200k income bracket will need to contribute more than ~15% and the same thought for those above $400k but below $2,000,000 etc. By international norms those bracket limits would be much too high.

 

[eohrnberger]

With a new tool at their disposal. So, for instance, this article I would file under 'every accusation is a confession':

Understanding Woke Tactics Pt. 4: What is Deconstruction?

It is time to talk about “Deconstruction.”

wokaldistance.substack.com

Interesting article.
It does call out the woke, the political correct, and the left in general and their deconstructing (changing) the meaning of words to suit their political ambitions.
Something that is inherently dishonest.
It would be a lack of critical thinking not to observe, and not to be aware of, that tactic, which they are using.

 

[Hypothetical]

There you go folks An example of critical thinking.

It's extremely critical thinking. There is a chance that AI could save us from stupidity, instead of killing us.

Think about where we are now. Do you think the status quo is ever going to change things for the better, without a severe shake up?

 

[eohrnberger]

It's extremely critical thinking. There is a chance that AI could save us from stupidity, instead of killing us.

Think about where we are now. Do you think the status quo is ever going to change things for the better, without a severe shake up?

That's a good point.
Which presidential candidate do you think would give the status quo the severe shake up that it needs?