The Search for a Fair Society: Journalism (2)
November 4. Welcome. Grab a coffee and let’s talk about a realistic utopia of a fair society as a fair society is our only chance to banish violence and war from our lives.
With the wars going on and election day in the US coming up tomorrow, I’m still thinking about the role of journalism in a fair society. Journalists are only humans like everyone else. As all humans self-generate their model of the world, all journalists can only see the reality they create for themselves including information that their body and mind allow them to compute. Under normal circumstances that means they will not even notice or accept any information that might put the integrity of the framework of their previous model in question. Hence, any journalist’s report will always reflect the limits of the individual model of the world. Their reality, and not the reality.
What does it mean in the context of the creation of a fair society?
A fair society is a cooperation in which even the least advantaged of the cooperators sees the shared motivations for cooperation of the group fulfilled for themselves. At a minimum, this means that even they along with everyone else in the group experience a sustained increase in their ability to execute random searches (discover, develop, and employ natural skills and abilities, try themselves out, explore their surroundings, gather new information instead of exploiting existing knowledge etc.) Any cooperation requires at least a sliver of common ground – of shared reality. Humans must actively create it by implementing a shared replacement dataset into their individual world generation processes; a replacement dataset which contains the shared motivations to cooperate, the shared goals of the cooperation, and the by all cooperators agreed upon rules and structures of the cooperation.
For starters this means for the cooperation to work that the replacement dataset must be constantly repeated between the members of the cooperation to remain relevant in the individual world generation processes which happen like all thinking to 98% at least unconsciously. But also, to reassure each other that all of them are still on the same page when it comes to their shared motivations to remain in this cooperation, their shared goals they want to achieve via the cooperation, and their agreed upon rules and structures governing their cooperation. In cooperations where this can’t happen face to face, this is the job of a journalist: repeat the replacement dataset as it has been agreed to by all cooperators.
Then it means for the cooperation to work that the replacement dataset must be constantly maintained and updated to allow for the continuously updated models of the worlds of the cooperators – the large part that must remain free for the individual to generate as they think best. In a fair society everyone must be able to suggest changes e.g. how best the risk of random searches is offset for every cooperator considering the payoff the cooperation generates by enabling everyone to execute these searches or what shared motivations or possible goals to add, just as every cooperator must agree to any change that is made. People have a right to be convinced and a duty to be willing to be convinced. In cooperations where this can’t happen face to face between all members, this again is a job for a journalist: report on suggested changes and the arguments for and against them so that the debate can be shared.
Lastly, not all cooperators will be convinced because what is suggested isn’t compatible with the part of their model of the world for which they select the information as they think best. This means they will not implement the updated replacement dataset what will result in a lack of the necessary shared reality to cooperate. The cooperation stops. These members must have a right (a realistic ability) to leave the cooperation and seek a better fitting cooperation for themselves. But they also have a duty to leave because their remainder and participation in the risk-offset system without the same input would influence other cooperators to demand the same for themselves. Slowly but surely the whole cooperation would fall apart – or force would need to be introduced so that all at least act as if they implement the replacement dataset. The society would become unfree. In cooperations where the promulgation of a final decision can’t happen face to face between all members, this again is a job for a journalist: inform about a majority decision about an update and name options for dissenters, making clear that remainder in the cooperation is coupled to the implementation of the full updated replacement dataset.
Finally, it is vital to stick to one level of cooperation in the reporting. There will always be smaller cooperating groups that come together to form larger cooperating groups. They all have their own replacement datasets. The replacement datasets all members of a cooperation agree to will get larger the smaller the group is as the replacement datasets of lower-level groups contain everything inside the upper-level group’s replacement dataset plus whatever additional motivations and goals that brought the cooperators together in the smaller group and the necessary additional rules and structures. Not every information is pertinent to all replacement datasets. It’s a journalist’s job to know on which level an information belongs and not drown out what’s important and thus sow confusion by flooding the higher-level conversation with things only pertinent to lower-level replacement datasets.
Any thoughts? Tell me. Tell all. Since our models of the world change with every new information we gather and the models are only accessible to others when we communicate them, we are part of never-ending negotiations that require constant conversation and debate.
To watch this post as a video, go here.
#science #history #reality #society #philosophy #WorldGeneration #fairness #information #journalism #Rawls #OriginalPosition #DifferencePrinciple #mind #self #brain #thinking #exploring
