Noam Chomsky's comment on understanding of important affairs

This quite discusses the understanding of world affairs by Americans, but I think it certainly applies to many other countries as well, particularly the UK.

Quote:

---

CHOMSKY: Well, let me give an example. When I'm driving, I sometimes turn on the radio and I find very often that what I'm listening to is a discussion of sports. These are telephone conversations. People call in and have long and intricate discussions, and it's plain that quite a high degree of thought and analysis is going into that. People know a tremendous amount. They know all sorts of complicated details and enter into far-reaching discussion about whether the coach made the right decision yesterday and so on. These are ordinary people, not professionals, who are applying their intelligence and analytic skills in these areas and accumulating quite a lot of knowledge and, for all I know, understanding. On the other hand, when I hear people talk about, say, international affairs or domestic problems, it's at a level of superficiality that's beyond belief.

In part, this reaction may be due to my own areas of interest, but I think it's quite accurate, basically. And I think that this concentration on such topics as sports makes a certain degree of sense. The way the system is set up, there is virtually nothing people can do anyway, without a degree of organization that's far beyond anything that exists now, to influence the real world. They might as well live in a fantasy world, and that's in fact what they do. I'm sure they are using their common sense and intellectual skills, but in an area which has no meaning and probably thrives because it has no meaning, as a displacement from the serious problems which one cannot influence and affect because the power happens to lie elsewhere.

Now it seems to me that the same intellectual skill and capacity for understanding and for accumulating evidence and gaining information and thinking through problems could be used -- would be used -- under different systems of governance which involve popular participation in important decision-making, in areas that really matter to human life.

There are questions that are hard. There are areas where you need specialized knowledge. I'm not suggesting a kind of anti-intellectualism. But the point is that many things can be understood quite well without a very far-reaching, specialized knowledge. And in fact even a specialized knowledge in these areas is not beyond the reach of people who happen to be interested.

Noam Chomsky: Why Americans Know So Much About Sports But So Little About World Affairs | Alternet

---

I'm going to think about this myself. But, I thought it was a very interesting quote and I would like to hear what others think.

"The way the system is set up, there is virtually nothing people can do anyway, without a degree of organization that's far beyond anything that exists now, to influence the real world. They might as well live in a fantasy world, and that's in fact what they do."

There's some truth in that surely, but Mr. Chomsky would probably say the same about us, obsessing over rock bands - their internal squabbles, management machinations, legacy, etc.

That's not to say that we cede our everyday or larger responsibilities in the "real" world. I've already mentioned that I'm actively involved in environmental causes, which frankly is often a disheartening experience and proof of Chomsky's theorem that "there is virtually nothing people can do anyway." I have to remind myself sometimes that I'm not in charge and I have to let it go.

OK, now I'm depressed.

We've seen cases recently where concerted action by people has made a difference. E.g. The Arab Spring. Unfortunately, in those countries it appears to be fundamentalists who were organised enough to take advantage of the disruption caused by those actions. But, people were organised and informed by social media. Chomsky says some interesting things, but I wonder if he's not fully up with what is possible with social media. However, nowdays it does seem that social media tends to amplfy ignorance as much as it amplifies knowledge.

Nowdays there are various groups in the UK who coordinate the signing of petitions. They claim effectiveness, but I'm not sure how many of the results would have happened anyhow. In any case, speaking personally, it's made me more politically active in a small way, in that at least I'm expressing a public opinion more often.

In terms of environmental causes, some things seem overwhelming to the indiividual, such as reducing CO2 emissions. A single person is a drop in the ocean, but doing our bit is still important if anything is to happen.

In terms of environmental issues other things can be easier to do alone. E.g. I feel weird when I'm doing it, but I do work on clearing invasive plant species near where I live. Just from what I've done, there are miles of riverbank which are now clear of a particular weed due to my action, and I plan more action this year. It's not a huge change overall, but very visible which makes me think I've done something.

I do individual actions, like cleaning up litter in natural areas - especially along waterways - which is a huge problem where I live. I was also part of a volunteer movement that got an amendment on the state ballot to allocate money for the purchase of conservation lands. Voters approved it by an overwhelming 75% majority. However, the legislature has chosen to play games and subvert the will of the people. "Vote them out" is the easy response, but there's not an easy solution. It takes a lot of money to get elected to office in the U.S. and then those people are beholden to the folks who gave them that money, i.e. usually "bad" people from an environmentalist's perspective.

I saw a lecture very similar to this.. He implies that regular people have the skills, and if they geared it towards universal issues (as opposed to sports) knowledge can be power.

I think it's an interesting point of view and worth discussion.

To address NMB's point, it is a problem that money is necessary to access public office. However, there are some politicians who do seem to act in a less self-interested way. (I don't want to cause arguments by naming some.)

Another thing is that votes are important. If people are sufficiently educated, then they won't be so easily fooled by propaganda. However, at the moment, the public resistance to propaganda appears too low. If, e.g., newspaper comments are something to go on. If people were more informed, then money would have less effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Annoying Twit

Another thing is that votes are important.

---

In my (limited) experience, politicians - even local politicians - have become far less responsive to constituents. Maybe it's the money thing again.

No one has really come up with an answer for this. I still go to environmental group meetings where the call for action is always "write to this official" and "call your senator" as if that's going to accomplish anything. Maybe it's because of the development pressure in Florida being so intense, but I have a feeling we (and the endangered species and remaining wild lands) are utterly doomed.

P.S. sorry to keep injecting the environmental perspective. Let's open the discussion to people who love sports and would like to talk about it all the live-long day.

Environmentalism works fine for me. It's difficult to dance around giving opinions in an attempt to keep the conversation separate from various political and other agendas.

One problem with the internet is that there is now so much BS available that someone can spend huge amounts of time and effort on 'research' that won't actually increase their actual factual knowledge, but fill their heads up with misinformation.

OK, I'll take a risk. Claims that we never went to the moon. It is easier to find and easier to 'understand' claims that humans can't survive a trip through the van Allen belts than to find the true information of exactly how much of a radiation dose would be received by Apollo astronauts and how much of a risk that would be (almost none.)

But when I look at (e.g.) motorsport forums, they are full of people who know how racing cars and engines work in extensive detail. I wonder if these are the same people who will believe any old rubbish in their more mainstream life, or if they are a different group of people.

Whatever is said about Trump, it shows that in the US someone can come from outside the political mainstream and be voted in. OK, he's rich, but he's not a career politician.

I'm reminded of a line from Yeats "the center will not hold." There is no Truth Central anymore, no authoritative news anchor beyond reproach (a la Walter Cronkite), no trustworthy institution, no newspapers of unshakeable integrity on which everyone can agree. So individuals are looking for their own truth, and the results are decidedly mixed.

I think that there are reliable sources of information. However, part of

E.g. in terms of whether or not we went to the moon, NASA is a reliable and truthful source of information. However, those who wish to deny we went to the moon have to, of course, portray NASA as liars and unreliable. That's part of the general BS that, in my opinion, people believe too easily.

I've seen it said that some people fall for conspiracy theories as it makes them feel special: that they know secret information and have a better understanding than 'sheeple'.