Is the political field more radical than ever before?

We get more information than ever before. But we have a new ability that was impossible before the internet. We can select the information that we read. And we must not read anything that supports our opinions. This thing causes polarization in the information that we get.

If we are reading only things that please us. That thing distorts information. And we might believe that all people we see are members of some kind of street gang or are working in some kind of political movement.  

Our change to select the information that we get makes it possible that we can avoid discussions about that thing. We might see only things that support our opinions. And if somebody criticizes our opinions, we can just close that person out of our social environment. 

The political field is more polarized and radical than ever before. Or this is the thing that many of us believe. Many people saw this when Donald Trump refused to accept the result of the elections. 

And then Trump called his supporters to the streets. The media is full of stories about the problems foreigners are causing and many pictures of armed protesters attacking Congress houses in the USA. But are those things that we see only virtual effects? 

Are things like street gangs a new problem? Those things are been here a long time before us. The only information that is delivered about those things was in crime stories and crime magazines. 

But social media brought that thing in front of our eyes. The fact is that there is a new thing called social media. Social media brought things like political radicalism to common knowledge. And another thing is that the political parties are closer to each other than ever before.

So the only differences between political movements are the attitudes toward weapon-carrying and foreigners. The thing is that the political field is closer to the center than ever before.  

That means the things that brought votes for candidates in the last elections escalated over the entire political field. So the only differences in party programs are highlighted. And that thing feeds the vision of political polarization. Things like an attack on Congress are frightening, and those things seem very dramatic. And dramatic things interested people. 

The price of political campaigns is enormous. And that's why nobody can confess that they have no change. Nobody can leave the game, because the price of those campaigns is so high. So candidates must go to the end even if they see that they have no chance to win. 

When we are thinking about the American election system the candidate who wins the state gets all electors behind the winner. And that means differences in the votes are always artificial. There could be only a couple of votes that resolve the election. And that thing is one of the things, that people should understand when they talk about the American election system. 

When George W. Bush won the campaign in 2001, he won with five votes. Because the presidential campaigns are campaigns for electors there is the possibility that a person who gets fewer natural votes will be elected to president. 

The thing, that makes this possible is that. If the candidate gets more electors that candidate will be elected to president. The reason for that kind of system is that it denies that the president will not turn too strong. But when we are thinking about change. And especially with the internet and social media, we must realize that dramatic things are interesting. Professional journalists require money. 

So from the point of view of earning logic, the newspaper wants something that brings money to them. Even if we see some free newspapers or free media, we must understand that there is somebody who pays the price of that media. If that price is not collected from readers there must be some other thing that brings money to the cash of that newspaper. 

And one thing that brings money is commercials. But the problem with commercials is that people should see them and buy products. If nobody reads articles those advertisers are going to find some other platform for their marketing materials. 

And newspapers publish articles that are interesting to readers. If nobody reads the magazine it will face bankruptcy. So we might think that dramatic things are interesting things and dramatism grow sales. When virtual magazines are marketed people should always ask, "why somebody wants to buy the right to read that thing"?. 

Virtual workspaces are the thing that makes the space that publishers can use unlimited. In modern network-based publishing, the paper is not limiting the work or the writing's length.

 So virtual magazines have not limited anymore how many articles they publish. Virtual workspaces are the tool that allows writing things more freely than ever before. That means the people who are writing to the media must have more interesting stories than before. And that thing sometimes causes overstating in writing. 

https://fromplatoscavetoreality.blogspot.com/

We all live in some kind of Plato's cave.

Plato's cave is the symbol of selective information. When those people sat on the floor of that cave, they saw shadows on the wall. And because those people had no other information than shadows on the wall. They believed that those shadows were the only reality that exists. 

But we are living in metaverses and the internet. How can we say that we are living in Plato's cave? We are searching the internet and looking for information that supports our ideology. Or we are searching for information that makes us friends with somebody we respect. 

So if we are using large data masses we can say that we are using multiple sources. But the problem is that all information that we are looking supporting one kind of agenda. And we have no ability or will to search for the things that are against the opinions that we want to hear. We don't want to hear or see things. 

That is against something that we used to think of as one truth. When we must not hear or see things that are not pleasing us we can pass those things. Willing to use the internet is voluntary. So who wants to hear or see things that force them to change their opinions? 

People must just find things that please them. And that means even a large number of data will not cover the entirety of that data and involves only one side view of things. When people are willing to get the information there is only one side which means that the person is in Plato's cave. 

A large number of one-sided information makes only a larger version of Plato's cave than the smaller number of information sources. So we have more information than ever before. But we use that opportunity to make larger caves where are more shadows. Or maybe somebody brings some tree to some corner of our cave. And that thing tells that there is some kind of plant. Maybe that plant is a juniper. 

But the fact is that one juniper is not all plants. And that one plant does not give the full image of the entire forest. If we want to make research about the entirety of the forests we should not make our conclusions by using some special tree that lives in a special place. 

Junipers do not grow in all forests. And that means one special case can turn the research upside down. We can believe that all forests are full of junipers. This is one thing that causes problems with the research. They are full of unique things. 

Avenue of Juniperus chinensis (Wikipedia)

But they are not showing the entirety. If some people are talking about forests they should not select one certain tree to the point of observation. Or if those trees are in some park, can we say that the park is the typical environment for that tree? 

Same way if the researchers are searching for things like magnetars that are super fast rotating neutron stars they can, of course, focus on one certain magnetar. That research gives very interesting data about the behavior of one magnetar. 

But that thing will not tell about what kind of magnetars usually are. And then we must ask one question: is that magnetar the typical representative of the magnetars? Or is that magnetar some kind of special case like the creator of the FRBs:s (Fast Radio Bursts)? Or are all magnetars create the FRBs? 

Well, we always select the information that we want to see. One of the reasons for that is that we are so busy. If we want to get information and deep analysis of that thing. We must use multiple sources. And that thing takes time. So we are looking at one source or maybe we trust that the article's writer checked sources and that's it. We have no time to spend all the time for checking sources. 

Sometimes we all write things that sources are not checked as they should. One of the reasons for that is public opinion. That's why we don't dare to write some things by using a critical writing style. We are afraid that public opinion turns against us. Or maybe we have no time to check the information that feels meaningless. 

When we are at work we read and select the information. That is useful for our work. But does that thing take us away from everyday problems? Or maybe that thing means that there is a dead sector in our life. That means there are always sectors that involve information that could help us, or involves important things. 

If we are thinking situation where we are sitting in our home. And see virtual images of some tropical lands. We can see multiple things in those images and films. But we cannot feel temperatures and other kinds of things that are involved in real experiences. 

https://fromplatoscavetoreality.blogspot.com/