memecon.info

In the dark ages, people talked to each other and thereby exchanged their thoughts. The listeners passed on what they had heard – perhaps with their evaluation of what was said. As more people join forces and specialized in what they did best, content experts also evolved. They build creation myths, cultures, economic systems, and subsequently societies with a common self-image. The increasing availability of books led to different and sometimes contradictory world views. Nowadays, anybody with access to the Internet can exchange ideas with anyone else – as long as they find each other. Who would ever have expected that such increasing availability of content could become a problem?

We are now in the midst of the clash of civilizations that Samuel Huntington described in the nineties. Today, it’s all about who is in control of the truth. As in the boiling frog syndrome, the discussions between different points of view are heating up more and more. For pacification, the competing parties should be aware of the following aspects.

We share OUR thoughts
Our brain predominantly controls our body functions and, quasi by the way, generates our consciousness. Before becoming conscious, the truths are hidden in latency. A Eureka draws our attention and the thoughts become our reality. Does the sea murmurs or do the trees rustle as long as there are no observers? Can the sea murmuring if we do not know the term murmur? Does it rustle if the trees are creaking?
Already with the choice of our words, we are moving away from the neutral position of the uninvolved observer. Whether we simply mean something or believe that we are familiar with it or entirely convinced that we know, it makes no difference to other people. In all cases, our thought is in the world. This is especially true for abstract concepts, which can only be grasped mentally. The communicated expressions can only be vaguely distinguished into knowledge, belief, or opinion. Nevertheless, we share OUR thinking – also now.
The arrogance of the bubbles
New content is added based on our existing ideas. Without the already latently available new things in our mental models, there are no points of contact and there will not be such a thing as “Oh, I see”. The often criticized filter and information bubbles contribute significantly to the preparation of new insights. The echo chamber effect that evolves by swelling the same data to a confirmatory reverberation creates a resonating space in our mind that, over time, aligns our attention to what is known and that is eventually accepted as true. These bubbles range from conspiracy theories to scientific disciplines. We welcome more easily what is acknowledged, value it more, and suppress what is alien. Eventually, dissenters are defamed to further support their views – as an ignoramus, false believers, and cranks. If demagogues then exploit these mechanisms, we are in the midst of the politics of opportunistic promises. When followers of a particular opinion arrogantly denigrate and exclude those who think differently, then it becomes hard to have a discourse – beware of dogmatists, demagogues, and agitators of all kinds.
For a permeability of the bubbles
To prevent the boundaries of the bubbles from becoming firmed up, we need mutually permeable borders that allow other perspectives. In the past, insights echoed in the closer environment – in the family, at work, in the village, or the region. Mass media and social networks allow like-minded people around the world to connect. Within the bubble, so many confirmations are found that a realization now quickly becomes a global “truth” that reinforces the sentiment of being right.
So that the conflicts arising from this self-centeredness can be avoided beforehand or subsequently resolved, we need a permeability of the bubble’s boundaries. For this purpose, first and foremost, the findings of others should not be accused as unqualified, superstitious, or unproven statements. Permeability increases through direct exchange of viewpoints across the boundaries of mental models – more neutral, cross-bubble opportunities for discussion than the use of echo amplifiers (e.g., fake news, denigration; scaremongering); more confrontation with contradictions than confirmatory backslapping; more inclusion than exclusion of dissenters. The collapse of the Iron Curtain in 1989 is an excellent example that impermeable borders are not viable – openness is an essential prerequisite for the next level of viability.
Thinking n.0
With the dissolution of geographical and temporal distances, when everything is just a click away, we need an appropriate way of dealing with the echo chambers and the simultaneously unmanageable availability of mental models – a Thinking n.0.
– Different and contradictory worlds of thought are at the same eye level.
– “Peaceful” discourses based on a straightforward problem/goal definition, separation of person and topic, consideration of message aspects, and a corresponding code of conduct (e.g., conclusive process, no killer phrases, active listening, summarizing, and appreciating statements) are essential.
– The mindset should be aware of its cognitive biases and other thinking traps.
– Improved computer and information skills are needed – e.g., appropriate use of available channels (such as email, forums, chats, etc.), data handling adapted to needs (e.g., in formulating, searching, evaluating, processing, and sharing), enhancement of one’s attention through mindfulness training, as well as a deliberately open and respectful exchange of ideas.
So far, the lack of regulation of the Internet has led to trial and error and the current VUCA world. As a result, we are going down with waving flags in the flood of information. Old and young need instructions in thinking n.0.

Bottom line: It is becoming more and more noticeable that right and wrong can no longer be distinguished. It is because everything is in motion, as Heraclitus put it (Panta rhei – Everything flows). The separation of statements into knowledge, belief, and opinion no longer fit. Knowledge is based on the belief in specific facts, and belief involves knowledge of something, and opinion is difficult to imagine without knowledge and belief. The bubble formation comes mainly from our inability to deal with the amount of data. The permeability of the bubbles is the prerequisite for “peaceful” interaction. To make this possible, we need to learn Thinking n.0, which sees everything imaginable as equal, provides the opportunity for fruitful discourse, makes us aware of our biases, and gives us the skills needed to deal with the info flood. Technical solutions increase the noise by adding even more difficult-to-understand data. The tendency to defame dissenters by calling them unqualified, superstitious, and speculative no longer fits the current situation. All insights arise within the framework of particular thought models and are influenced by political, economic, social, technological, legal, and ecological circumstances. And they only apply to the defined context, which makes it difficult to discuss. We develop further and find solutions as long as we can express and discuss opinions freely. It must be valid: Thoughts are free.

For what reasons should we believe that reality is different from what we perceive? We see the coastline in the evening light. We hear the sounds of the seagulls. We feel the wind and the swaying ship deck. We smell the scents of the sea and taste the flavor of the ocean. When we understand that we perceive the environment differently, because we are stuck in the situation with our experience, then we realize that reality is not as real as we think it is. Heinz von Foerster put this in a nutshell: ‘Objectivity is the delusion that observations could be made without an observer.’ This insight makes reality relocatable.

When we consider this idea to the end, we notice that the messenger always consciously or unconsciously coins all the factual descriptions. Experienced communicators make use of this fact. They put their subject matter in a more acceptable light for the receiver by cleverly priming it, a kind of Trojan horse of meaning. For this purpose, they hide their intentions behind the wishes of the recipient. A current example is the pretended welfare of animals, by virtue of which the subsidies are intended to be increased for mass producers of livestock. The following relocated topics put social interaction to the test.

Stock shares
The share is originally a financial means to increase equity. Stock corporations allow investors to buy parts of the company and to participate in its success. Originally a means to an end, shares have evolved into a means of its own – to make money.
The perspective is relocated. It is no longer a matter of the companies’ well-being, but only about the share price as an object of speculation. It is not the performance of the company that determines this value, but the regular price development of the share. Thus, the actual purpose of the stock has been lost. And the real companies with their social contributions and employees lose their significance in favor of the wealthiest tenth of the world population, who increase their 85% of global assets.
Parliamentarian
The representatives, who are elected to the parliaments by the people, represent millions of voters in the social decision-making process. They are supposed to bring the people’s opinion into the political process. At the same time, however, they are members of a political party and, therefore, subject to line whip, which is forbidden in Germany since everyone is only bound to his conscience – or the voters?
The perspective is relocated when the party committees determine the direction and an army of professional politicians turn their mandate into repeating temporary employments. They align themselves to the results of the polls – not for understanding what has to be done but to orient their public statements on them. They keep their jobs with the re-election – afterwards, the promises do not oblige them to the execution. In the end, the political opportunists herd the voters into the arms of the supposed commoners.
Leaders
The managers of a company or part of it determine the fate of all those involved. Just as employees perform in the interests of the company, managers should ensure the viability of the company through effective leadership. Survival requires uncomfortable measures – closing obsolete operations, alliances with partners on the other side of the world, and cost-cutting means of all kinds. As a reward, the management receives a multi-digit multiple of an employee’s income.
The perspective is relocated, when the well-being of the company slips out of focus, in favor of the personal career. While companies survive on average for at least nine years and sometimes much longer, managers remain in their positions for three to five years. After that, they save themselves into new tasks and thus avoid the consequences of their decisions. The crucial factor for renumeration is not the long-term development of the company, but the fulfillment of intentions in the current year. With the existing conditions, it is hardly surprising that companies are losing their ability to face the future. The bill must be paid by those affected, who are powerlessly exposed to this form of individual “entrepreneurship.”
Social services
The deliverables that had always been in the care of the authorities, e.g., health, safety, information, and transport services, were gradually privatized and subjected to market laws (e.g., supply and demand, competition, pricing). It means that an empty bed in a hospital is an unproductive asset since it cannot be charged. A chemical ingredient that is cheap in one medical application and twenty times more expensive in another leads to the compelling conclusion that, given the same production costs, the cheaper medicine should be taken off the market – artificially created a shortage of supply as well as the notions of unlimited growth and the constantly increased earnings of the owners determine the achievable value. After the metamorphosis into companies, our networks (e.g., ICT, transport, energy) no longer ensure the supply of the population, but alternatively, the interests of the investors. They limit their activities to profitable regions – mobile phone networks, as well as train stations and bus lines are only worthwhile where lucrative capacity utilization is guaranteed. The rest is supplied less or not at all.
The perspective is relocated if the utility services for the community are only aligned to economic aspects. This is the case, for example, when common goods such as water are sold for pennies at the expense of the general public. Subsequently, the water is gilded as bottled water, and the exploited springs are exhausted. Money governs the world – also the society?

The situation becomes particularly visible when those responsible justify their actions by citing systemic importance. This happens when the decision-makers no longer have the situation under control – the banks, the airlines, the automobile companies, the energy companies, and the mass producers in agriculture are only the tip of the iceberg. Mismanagement and lack of future orientation that burden the subsequent generations are the reasons for the foreseeable dystopias. Successes are privatized in such circumstances, and failures are socialized. There is no other way to express it.

Bottom line: It is crazy how our everyday life changes. The functionaries have learned to package even the most unpleasant decisions in such a way that the majority accepts them as inevitable. At the same time, minorities have learned to assert their personal interests according to the principle: “Whoever shouts the loudest is right” – nobody wants a power plant nearby, the important bypass road besides its property, power cables or wind turbines that disturb the view and make unpleasant noises, or radiant mobile phone transmitter masts right in front of the house. But nobody wants to give up the corresponding services. Our opinions are prepared in such a way that we always agree, although we know that everyone has to contribute to our prosperity – of course only the others. To deal smarter with these everyday manipulations, we should get into the habit of questioning: Who benefits? The answer is often provided by the indirect beneficiaries – not animal welfare, but factory farming. This will uncover most of the communicational relocations.