Hamlet has an article about those that think Linden Lab® stopped updating Second Life™ and that the recent announcement of ‘millions’ being invested in Second Life this coming year is proof Sansar is failing and the Lab is ‘desperately’ returning to support SL. (Reference)
If you follow Second Life’s development news, this probably sounds ridiculous. It is.
But, I see this idea, that development of Second Life has stopped, coming up in several places. August 1, Cindy Kraai posted Will LL have any plans upgrading SL after Sansar beta? Cindy has been around since May 2010, that’s 7+ years. Yet, she has no clue what is happening with Second Life development. Reading through the thread I find the amount of misinformation and ignorance amazing, not surprising.
Then there are those that are so sorry for poor newbies that have no money ($L). (Reference) They feel these newbies should somehow be helped. You see people quickly divide into the victim (or the ‘they’ are victims you [, not me] have to do something) versus self-reliant (DIY) groups on this subject.
Then there are those that read only the opening post of a thread and respond with a post that ignores content in the thread that completely negates what they write. (Reference) Oblivious is the word that comes to my mind.
Unfortunately, there are no good or easy ways to counter ignorance, hate, or stupidity. There is a tedious and simple counter measure. Keep repeating accurate information. It eventually soaks in, unless the information challenges one’s ego… makes one wrong on a point they cherish.
Contagion of Ideas
Few people understand how ideas spread or why especially those based on erroneous information. A current extreme example is Antifa. This is an organization using the idea of being anti-fascist as its foundation. A noble enough idea. But, how does that justify their anti-free-speech positions and brown-shirt fascist tactics? The more important question is why do their supporters support them?
Surely it has occurred to you something deeper is going on.
In SL we see the same behavior in those repeating the idea that the Lab has not been developing SL in spite of all evidence to the contrary. They spin information to attempt to prove their point. Take region crossings as an example. For all of the existence of Second Life or any virtual world, there have been problems moving from region to region, technically from server to server.
The point the spinners leave out is the magnitude of the problem. In 2008 and 2017 there were and are problems when crossing regions. But, the 2017 problems are fewer and we can wear way more scripts and attachments while crossing than we could in 2008. When we see an uptick in region-crossing problems a fix comes out in weeks or months. The fixes are usually a resolution to the problem that
When we see an uptick in region-crossing problems a fix comes out in weeks or months. The fixes are usually a resolution to the problem that fixes some underlying inefficiency resulting in a net improvement. Things continue to get better. Incomplete and inaccurate information is used to spin the truth. Why do people do that?
Scott Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist, writes a blog and he explains mass hysteria. He touches on the motivations that move people to accept and act on ideas that have no tangible support in real life. Ego is involved. We see something similar in the obliviously unaware SL’ers. While the word hysteria may connote more than I wish to imply, I haven’t found a more fitting term.
The Tactics of Opinion Changing…
When we try to correct misinformation, we run into some interesting obstacles.
Recently, considerable effort has been spent trying to figure out why ‘warming skeptics’ refuse to accept the claim the Earth is warming and how to change their minds.
Are those skeptics like those in SL that just can’t see the Lab has abandoned Second Life? I would say yes.
The climate-mind-change studies were to try and find ways to change people’s thinking and do recommend tactics. The tactics I’ve seen recommended are similar to those found in a book titled Rape of the Mind, which is aptly titled when the tactics and methods described therein are considered. Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals supplies another a set of tactics described in Rape. The Koran also supplies a similar ‘radical’ set of tactics for changing minds.
The Western and American cultures are based on different ideas of how to change minds. Basically, free speech, listening, and respect while reasoning through an idea or issue. The original Judo-Christian tactics are based on Biblical requirements for respect and gentleness in defending one’s faith. And yes, I do know many Christians can’t live up to the ideal.
Understanding What is Happening…
Scott’s hysteria article gives you a good indicator for telling when you are dealing with delusion and an attachment to it.
Alinsky’s tactics are not about being convincing, but swaying the opinion of the uninformed by beating down an informed opinion with ridicule. Those living in a hysteria bubble can be shaken by such ridicule. Changing the mind of a hysteric is a matter of magnitudes. So, we have a good indicator what one is doing by the tactics they employ.
You are obviously not going to change the mind of an informed person without substantial evidence and a rational discussion.
We see one of the posters in the SL Forum attacking those disagreeing with him/her. (Reference) A basic Alinsky tactic. Their world views are coloring what they see happening in SL. They are extrapolating from their philosophies to explain what they perceive in in SL without bothering about facts. They ASSUME those they disagree with are unaware of how life is.
To change a deluded mind one not only has to deal with the actual evidence that shows they are wrong but, with the philosophy they based their thinking on. One is then pushing on their ego and self-esteem. So, it is not surprising when they get angry and more and more irrational.
Knowing these things you can tell what one is doing and have an idea of why by how they push back against evidence opposing their position.
Some people just react to the situations. Others use their mind and decide how to handle it. I prefer the later and strive to remain respectful. But, there comes a point where one either decides to disengage or escalate or just gets pissed off.
Our choices reveal us, hopefully to ourselves, certainly to others. So, you should be able to tell if one is looking for answers or truth, or protecting their delusions. Your response to either reveals you.