> Until people start thinking critically instead of emotionally, this science will keep delivering results for those who use it.<p>This is doubtless true, but I strongly dislike political articles that end with implicit appeals to moral evolution. There is no useful call to action, no suggestion of how said evolution could occur - and more importantly persist. It also individuates the response to collective phenomena.<p>'Pollution will worsen until people begin to take responsibility for their waste'.
'Literacy will decline until parents start to take their kids reading seriously'.
'The war will worsen until international institutions can find a way to work together'.<p>These appeals sound like they offer solutions, while failing to even offer useful explanations. The article above is wildly simplistic - missing significant important questions, let alone attempting to answer them. Here are a few.<p>'Why are such techniques more amenable to the right then the left?'
'Should and can the noble lie be employed in ethical demagoguery?'
'Can people be educated out of being easily manipulated, is there any research that demonstrates how, does this scale?'
'Do mass information campaigns help ameliorate misinformation?'
'If communications technology really is what facilitates authoritarian fear-mongering, can technology be used to prevent it? What are the trade offs?'