I haven’t read anything on this. So this is just toying around for the sake of seeing where it leads.

General

I assume thinking requires certain context being fixed. So by affecting this context they affect following thinking.

Scales of Stories/Thinking

1. high-level: geographical: alliances, resources
2. middle level: normal human thinking in the more understandeable/predictable world
3. mechanical scale: short-term or magical thinking in unpredictable conditions

Dehumanization*

My guess is that propaganda institutions pollute the middle level and provide conditions for thinking in other levels.

How Media Must be Operating on Levels

1. Statues on the TV performing rituals, high conceptions, limited access
2. Noise/nonsense, abuse of instincts of subjects
3. Fear/unpredictability spreading from the media

(I bet this is only one of ways to think about that)

(Also there may be different ways of dehumanization, for example I believe it is dehumanization when subjects thinking attempts are interrupted by nonsense and sofistry, but that is less relevant now even if pouplar too)

(And maybe there is actual warfare between different such systems)

The Real World

Given these different levels it is impossibe to have a single “true story”.

It is possible to have “good-enough evidence that supports/dismisses stories about facts”.

So there are competing stories and competing facts.

But also there is the idea about class-warfare and ideology/language serving that.

So there are competing stories, competing facts and cometing teams on top of that pile.

So politics/media are bound to be a mess if unconstained in their ways.

On What This Reflects

There was a long trip with a taxist with who it looked like I had an agreement at the time. But somehow he without really doing anything special but with a couple of random phrases convinced me that there is more stuff that is going-on.

Previously I gotten to like some more humane direction (that is not cheap or manipulative). But then some exposure to some other stories moved me away from simple stories. So things are a mess. But only this understanding puts me in my place.

I definetly need to use some tools of thinking here.

UPD: 9th of April (*)

Normally I have a suspicion to langage like that. Anything de- or anti- is so much likely to be BS or used by confused people.

What I meant above was from a single-brain activity point of view. But there are other things on different scales.

The question of what is human arises because of that. And there are so many fake assumptions that the question is not obvious.

One popular naming somebody have came-up with is “orcs”. Both funny and having some point naming. I imagine it becoming offensive and then all related books being banned.

Also there are conformists obviously.

And it was never a secret that different characters exist. But now since the war-matter is not some arbitrary distinction that is possible to ignore. This distinction as it looks now touches human-nature.

Anyway de-humanization conflates meanings of having a human in the first place and then doing some dark magic to them. And the meaning doing something that in historic terms produces less humane populations.

The second meaning is what is meant most likely by more analytical talking heads. The first meaning is how subjects should like to see it because it flatters them and moves-away the responsibility. Also the first one should appeal to those who prefer to see human nature to be good and need to hear an explanation of what is observed.

And what I mentioned is just an angle to the space of logics and decision-making.