Presumably with increased control of my reality, my ability to learn new things increases, since what I know is an aspect of my reality (and rather an important one).
The difficulty, if I’m understanding correctly, is not that I won’t learn new things, but that I won’t learn uncontrolled new things… that I’ll be able to choose what I will and won’t learn. The growth potential of my mind is limited, then, to what I choose for the growth potential of my mind to be.
Is this optimal? Probably not. But I suspect it’s an improvement over the situation most people are in right now.
This is a community of intellectuals who love learning, and who aren’t afraid of controversy. So for us, it wouldn’t be a disaster. But I think we’re a minority, and a lot of people will only see what they specifically want to see and won’t learn very much on a regular basis.
Sure, I agree. But that’s true today, too. Some people choose to live in echo chambers, etc. Heck, some people are raised in echo chambers without ever choosing to live there.
If people not learning very much is a bad thing, then surely the question to be asking is whether more or fewer people will end up not learning very much if we introduce a new factor into the system, right? That is, if giving me more control over what I learn makes me more likely to learn new things, it’s good; if it makes me less likely, it’s bad. (All else being equal, etc.)
What I’m not convinced of is that increasing our control over what we can learn will result in less learning.
That seems to depend on underestimating the existing chilling effect of it being difficult to learn what we want to learn.
Presumably with increased control of my reality, my ability to learn new things increases, since what I know is an aspect of my reality (and rather an important one).
The difficulty, if I’m understanding correctly, is not that I won’t learn new things, but that I won’t learn uncontrolled new things… that I’ll be able to choose what I will and won’t learn. The growth potential of my mind is limited, then, to what I choose for the growth potential of my mind to be.
Is this optimal? Probably not. But I suspect it’s an improvement over the situation most people are in right now.
This is a community of intellectuals who love learning, and who aren’t afraid of controversy. So for us, it wouldn’t be a disaster. But I think we’re a minority, and a lot of people will only see what they specifically want to see and won’t learn very much on a regular basis.
Sure, I agree.
But that’s true today, too. Some people choose to live in echo chambers, etc.
Heck, some people are raised in echo chambers without ever choosing to live there.
If people not learning very much is a bad thing, then surely the question to be asking is whether more or fewer people will end up not learning very much if we introduce a new factor into the system, right? That is, if giving me more control over what I learn makes me more likely to learn new things, it’s good; if it makes me less likely, it’s bad. (All else being equal, etc.)
What I’m not convinced of is that increasing our control over what we can learn will result in less learning.
That seems to depend on underestimating the existing chilling effect of it being difficult to learn what we want to learn.