Years ago the book _Future Shock_ posited that--even back THEN, BI (Before-Internet)--moderns were suffering from the assault on their consciousnesses by the explosion in the number of simple choices to be made, every day, all day, without respite.
The author, Toffler, concluded, if I recall correctly, that the human mind responded by tak…
Years ago the book _Future Shock_ posited that--even back THEN, BI (Before-Internet)--moderns were suffering from the assault on their consciousnesses by the explosion in the number of simple choices to be made, every day, all day, without respite.
The author, Toffler, concluded, if I recall correctly, that the human mind responded by taking defensive action: by making a choice at a high level, untold infinities of choices could be taken off the table at lower levels. For example, by choosing to be a biker dude, one would never have to face the millions of choices afflicting button-down guys, and v.v. If "I'm a stock-car fan, I don't have to break my head picking stock portfolios." (meant with no aspersions intended).
Toffler's analysis probably best explains why the country has divided itself into a handful of voter-blocs, most of whom seem to feel relieved of the pressure to think critically. By it I can easily understand people dismissing entire critical presentations with "our group doesn't do that." (I don't know if Toffler addressed how to "break through" these hardened, protective shells. TLDR. Plus, something shinier came up and "my group doesn't read to the end." I'll guess that the best time, like a good ol' democrat uses 'crisis', is when something earth-shaking shakes the prevailing view.)
Years ago the book _Future Shock_ posited that--even back THEN, BI (Before-Internet)--moderns were suffering from the assault on their consciousnesses by the explosion in the number of simple choices to be made, every day, all day, without respite.
The author, Toffler, concluded, if I recall correctly, that the human mind responded by taking defensive action: by making a choice at a high level, untold infinities of choices could be taken off the table at lower levels. For example, by choosing to be a biker dude, one would never have to face the millions of choices afflicting button-down guys, and v.v. If "I'm a stock-car fan, I don't have to break my head picking stock portfolios." (meant with no aspersions intended).
Toffler's analysis probably best explains why the country has divided itself into a handful of voter-blocs, most of whom seem to feel relieved of the pressure to think critically. By it I can easily understand people dismissing entire critical presentations with "our group doesn't do that." (I don't know if Toffler addressed how to "break through" these hardened, protective shells. TLDR. Plus, something shinier came up and "my group doesn't read to the end." I'll guess that the best time, like a good ol' democrat uses 'crisis', is when something earth-shaking shakes the prevailing view.)
Oh yeah, Toffler - good point!