An introduction to disinformation:
Generally, sometimes we can find evidence to reveal that we live in an "age of ignorance". The phenomenon of this ignorance relates to how people understand the nature of the world that they live in. Any time a study is conducted, a person is assigned to censor the validity of certain information, or that funding has been supplied to a research group, is it ever a question whether the source of funding can influence the decisive interpretation in regard to the validity of the data? Is it ever a question of why the data had produced a certain result? Is it ever a question of how the study was even done? Are people being deceived by inaccurate information? Are people being deceived by some kind of information bias? All of the typing below gives some explanation of what I have learned in regard to what information bias is. It also reveals a different perspective than the bias we may hear in regard to both the habits and significant influences of our culture.
An example of this relates to the apocalyptic scenarios described in the number one religion of America: Christianity. (Of course, there's' always been evangelists out there promising meaning in ones life if they declare themselves as truly devout. With this in mind, typical human thought may seem to us as usually biased in its nature.) Over the decades, telephonic and paper surveys were given out. These surveys were for to record information answered by a sample population. The questions of these surveys were about the nature of the lifestyle and beliefs of people who are either Christians or other. However, I want to mention that recent polls have been evaluated. They have been discussed by writers whom have their articles available on google news. It turns out that the recent past survey polls that reveal the approximate percentage of Christian believers in America can be misleading since the questions asked by the survey has to be correctly interpreted: Its been revealed that Christians whom are nominal(i.e Christian nominal) are answering questions on a survey and that they are being more honest about their convictions. On the other hand, sometimes information gets broadcast through other sources which would reveal differently interpreted data. This is called information bias.
The digital age: Perhaps, throughout history, knowledge was always popular in the form of ideological convictions. (As an example, the ideological conviction of one nations importance over another still haunts the world with threats of war today.) The kinds of ideologies that I am thinking of manifest themselves through the media, educational institutions, and our families etc. Their validity is mostly driven by fear; Well, that is if its even a question of what that really means anymore. How I would like to explain how some of this manifests in our world, in summary, is that biased and emotional journalists can flood the internet with their rants on political and religious ideologies. Meanwhile, the media on the television or radio has its power to entice viewers with its emotionality(or threaten us with it, if that's a more correct definition). What's all over in the media?: I'm talking about stuff like global warming, (obesity) the junk food industries, terrorism, racism, and a volatile economy. Unless our conscience breaks through these barriers of emotionality, we should be able to be encouraged to proceed with rational discourse on a subject. As an example of being deterred from this encouragement, its understandable that we don't learn to be righteous by being threatened by our labeled inferiority in our ability to apprehend what righteousness is. At that, perhaps in an imaginary classroom etc, in that situation where political goals defeat the search for any other possibilities which may be because of the edicts religious convictions, we are either just being threatened or we are being ignored. In relation to this idea, throughout a period of recent history, perhaps meaningful subjects in a typical public school have always been shunned at for one reason or another. I don't know for sure how to trace this vague phenomenon to any source. I just understand that it has an existence in this world. Ethics and philosophy, for example, are meaningful academic subjects. Relating to some of the principles of philosophy, making arguments for or against either the truth or identity of something is the mental process of in-depth reasoning. Rationality should be known as a way of analyzing as in to not just mean to defend only one opinion - unless its really not much of an opinion and its more based on fact etc. Sometimes collecting facts is about contrasting one idea with another. Another example of meaningful learning situations is learning from experience (which teaches wisdom) - certainly, we can have a limited view of the world without useful conversations but, sometimes, this is another significant mental faculty that seems, at large, lost in our current American culture.
Other than that people are using their brains to quickly scan information rather than grasping the meaning of information (as in certain phenomenon or data) through their arriving to their own conclusion by some chain of reasoning, I think that, as a significant contributor to mindlessness(a symptom of trusting disinformation), there may also be the element of being distracted by so much information as it is - not just any of the obvious information commonly known but also in the form of entertainment.
(Aside from wondering if my confidence in my ability to potentially interact with other people through writing all of this is worth it anyways, I thought of myself as "fact-finding", rationalizing vague theories about the world, and integrating some useful information into a coherent whole. In spite of that, even I wonder how much I was affected by the mindlessness of scanning for information and then repeating facts in a slightly different voice. Is this all that I am doing?)
There are certain studies that have been done in the neurosciences that show how the human brain can change in response to playing video games/computer games - well, as in data coming from a sample size of people. Some studies say positive things such as referring to a strengthening of concentration ability(I wouldn't know how long those effects last, though) - with this being said, keep in mind, perhaps it is depending on how old the person is and what video game is being played in the study - other data shows negative things such as decreased connectivity in the brain center that is known to be involved in the formation of memories (which is probably not a good thing): the hippocampus. I will not go into the details of this information in this introduction to disinformation, however.
To bring this notion even further, the constant distraction driven by mobile devices (perhaps, mainly android devices) has been declared as accountable for creating a negative brain alteration in some people - its called "digital dementia". This disorder has been revealed to have its manifestation in its effects on the impairment of the many structures that play a role in the optimal functioning of the right hemisphere of the brain. This "disorder" of some kind is characterized by forgetfulness, poor concentration, and poor ability to understand peoples feelings etc..
All of this indicates that, on some level, our influences of the 21'st century are not always good. The dependence on computer technology does not always foster good habits in people. What if the manifestation of this digital dementia is, for example, repetitively going online into Facebook and then posting trivial gossip about, as an example, the person that you saw riding his skateboard and crashing into a garbage can? Do you intuit that, in some ways, when you know that people react towards dating apps, Facebook, news feeds, and public forums as them being virtually real communities, it can lead you into thinking the idea that the conditions of the real world perhaps aren't so great? (I wish that I had more info in regard to how the online world influences positively or negatively the outside world.)
No matter what the debate about this "inadequacy" actually proves, its still important to merely prove that our conscience and our intuition are both significant - that, ultimately, they should be cherished faculties of the mind.
A rise in narcissism?:
At the extreme end, narcissism can be a personality disorder which has some clinical symptoms that can be found in the DSM manual of psychiatry. Look this up on a popular search engine or in a public library if you want to know about it in detail.
You may think that narcissism people are usually viewed as successful by some definition of success. Perhaps in many cases they are. Perhaps even you - the reader - likes having narcissistic tendencies. However, that's one view of things.
What do I mean by narcissism though? I'm talking about inadequacies in empathy, compassion, and consideration for others as part of a long-term problem in our culture - not any one person in particular.
I'm also referring to someone whom chronically feels hopeless or stressed by trying to meet a standard. What standard am I talking about may you ask? I know that I'm being vague right now in this writing, however, later on you will know what I mean in my writing. These particular standards could be as simple as their level of physical attractiveness which is, of course, a natural inclination in their unconscious desire for just dignity.
(Some interesting findings)
-Published in the year 2006, by administering the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) to 200 celebrities from across the entertainment, Dr. Drew Pinksy had compiled data and then published his findings in a journal of psychology. "Reality television stars -- the least talented or skilled group in the study -- are the most narcissistic." These people are commonly known as famous-for-being-famous celebrities.
-SYZYGY did a nation-wide survey in the year 2016 using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory test(NPI-16): "SYZYGY, a full service-digital agency, partially owned by WPP, today released the results of a new survey that found adult Millennials are 16% more narcissistic than other generations and remain narcissistic as they age" The findings reveal how the questions answered which relate to technology usage is interconnected with a higher score on that test; You may find this through many popular search engines.
-There's a strong correlation between the children of high-income parents and narcissism compared to the ones that are of lower income.: This connects with ideas that these narcissistic children are that these people are usually the ones that live in conditions that foster their sense of entitlement. They are more likely to adopt the ideas of being independent - that they don't need any outside assistance from other people.
(Now consider the conclusion)
So now we are grasping that narcissism is interconnected to some of the effect of economics and technology. Its also interconnected to our families, educational institutions, and our friends or the lacking thereof (of that safety-net), of course.
I believe that I was also mentioning indirectly that there are different kinds of narcissism. One that relates to ones social standing(The grandiose types), of one that relates to level of material satisfaction, and also of another vague kind of polarity (vulnerable) of narcissistic people - people that grow up with "depressed, emotionally unavailable mothers" etc.
Narcissism as in being defined as "children being taught that they are to be overvalued" in the parenting scheme generally should not be considered to result in good things such as them growing up to be a leader. Failures are much more difficult to endure later in life if too much importance is attached to certain tasks which are believed to offer the real rewards in life.
Of course, the educational system teaches kids to be self-focused; Yes, that's right - that's what they really teach: mortification. The assignments do not teach patience in the learning process and these assignments are not character building. In this system, its not really about learning. Its just about graduating. This relates to what I wrote(actually, typed on a computer) earlier in regard to the educational system not teaching meaningful subjects - subjects that either relate more to ones character such as working with others or that which appeals to their thinking skills.
So it makes sense when a conclusion reached by a researcher of psychology will show that there is some kind of connection between times of prosperity - mainly economic prosperity, and that of peoples focus on themselves which can lead to narcissism. (When we are talking about the effects of economic turmoil, its ironic that this is thought of as being "something good came out of that situation. It had some meaningful purpose in its effect on (some) people".) With this in mind, generally, when there is someone growing up during times of war, surviving a natural disaster, and, more specifically, just being in situations that foster ones attention towards others, it is virtually the same in principle in its effects as it is as other things being under the classification of some environmental stimuli of influence such as being influenced by socio-economic status or the much more advanced technological developments in those times - keep in mind, this current mobile device revolution is a significant tech development.
"Jean M. Twenge and W. Keith Campbell show that narcissism has increased as quickly as obesity has since the 1980s."
With this last reference to someone's ideas about something, with this in mind, it is now time to transition to the other subject - a subject that relates, in many ways, to this narcissism - this intense focus on ones self. Its called "Meeting the standard".