Yesterday, I saw an argument occur over Facebook. A friend of mine noted that Google would not yield any results for a particular search. Someone else responded with a simple statement: “I think Google suppresses”. When asked what his proof was for this, he simply said “I think there was a video leaked and I think they promised to be more open”. There’s your proof - “I think”. It is safe to assume that this person came to their conclusion through hearsay.
Things took a turn, however, when someone else provided a rebuttal. Their primary purpose was to note that this conclusion (“I think Google suppresses”) was unsatisfactory, because the methods for reaching said conclusion were inadequate. However, there was one sentence that caught my eye: “Google denied any favoritism, simply because there isn’t any”. This really got me thinking. The only way to know whether there is any favoritism at Google is to have an understanding of their product, their work culture, and their algorithms. I’m fairly certain no one in the conversation (myself included) had a technical understanding of what Google does and how they do it.
At first glance, this analysis may seem like overkill. The point was to note that someone’s claim was not backed up by credible evidence. But what constitutes credible evidence short of a breakdown of algorithmic structure? Most information wars I witness over Facebook are composed of people slinging news articles back and forth at each other - HuffPost vs Fox styled divisiveness. When the facts presented conflict, it usually comes down to “my authority is better than your authority”. Meanwhile, some of us are sitting here scratching our head saying “nobody here can actually explain how [insert noun] works.”
Later on in the Socialist vs. Capitalist debate, someone noted how the economies of Denmark, Germany, Sweden, etc. are all flourishing. These are, as they put it, “socialist countries”. I had to ask myself: are they really doing that well? I tried Googling some information on Denmark (praying the right information didn’t get suppressed) and found an article describing their economy. It relies heavily on the global economy. Next, I read an article about how Germany’s economic growth has shrunk to 1%. None of this made any sense to me, as I do not have a background in economics, so I just tried to piece together the parts that I could.
First instinct: turn to somebody who knows. Now, who’s that? If you want an understanding of the economy, go to economists. I try to cut through as much noise as possible by going around primary media outlets and to those with experience. I try to read as much as possible. Where do you think will learn more about what makes economies or nations thrive - economists and historians or the Washington Post? Fox News? For instance, when I heard that Martin Armstrong had made a number of successful predictions, I began paying attention. There was technical data and, most importantly, an understanding that phenomena cannot be broken down into simple, black-and-white explanations. This is part of what changed my mind about the idea that you can treat your resources (i.e. currency) like they’re unlimited.
“Well, YOUR source is fed by special interest groups”.
That’s one of the arguments we have now, and it’s easy to see that it’s a valid one; it’s hard to tell exactly where. And that’s precisely why having an understanding of the subject, and being able to demonstrate why something is true, is so vital. We have people taking strong positions that are based entirely on what they read every morning, unaware that their own bias could be reinforced by their own echo chamber. Unless you're totally aware of why you have your position, you will be led astray by those who will exploit you.
Oh yeah, and the intelligent people in each group know this, but they say it about others, and not about themselves. I have almost totally withdrawn from common circles of personal opinion, because there’s an inability to entertain different ideas or change course when learning something new.
So how's the economy in Sweden? I don't know! I've heard that it's doing great, I've heard that it's about to crash, I've heard that refugees have ruined the country, I've heard that Sweden's proof that you can care lovingly for everybody. Dunno. Guess I have some learning to do - from teachers, not from Reuters.