Author: Curt Doolittle

TELEGRAM, SOCIAL MEDIA, AND THE PROBLEM OF ‘UNSERIOUS POPLE’ DRIVING AWAY SERIOUS PEOPLE
–“You need to do something about the NLI Telegram channel. That place was taken by people with no interest in the institute, and they’re preventing more serious individuals from engaging with NLI”– @TheoAdoreDore

Hmmm… I’m aware of this problem. “Our” thoughts are that it is better to isolate that class of people on Telegram, and focus “Our” attention on Twitter, where “that kind of behavior” from “that class of people” is suppressed, and the platform tends to eliminate them. In addition, Martin can and does ‘handle’ those people.

Personally, I can’t tolerate the Telegram group behavior and I try to ‘correct’ people or start blocking them rather quickly. But Martin objects saying something along the lines that it takes time to educate ‘that class of people’ and it must be done in their own frame, and it’s better to move those people a little than have them continually influenced by others and not move them at all (at least not move them helpfully).

I did host my own Telegram channels but I found it just attracted more of “that class of people” and drove out those people I want to reach.

I had the same problem on Gab. “that class of people” ruined all discourse.

And it’s as bad or worse on Reddit.

I had a pretty good reputation on Quora, with thousands of views every month, but Quora started suppressing anything on sex, class, group, civilization and race differences, which affected my reach there as well.

Facebook banned our whole organization after an organized raid by the “nazi” sympathizers of all people. And the ADL didn’t help either.

Here on Twitter, where the algorithm seeks to produce networks people with common interests and associations and LIMIT them to those networks, just responding to “that class of people” limits my reach.

If I could compose and post here on Twitter and auto-post the full (long) post to Telegram then maybe that might be worth it. But it would mean I would have to aggressively police the Telegram feed.

And you see, that’s the issue. My job isn’t social media. It’s to use social media to compose and test ideas to both improve my ability to argue and convey those ideas. And to ‘feed’ those ideas into the conservative discourse so that they gradually dissipate through it, and achieve our objectives indirectly. And in the off chance we find someone capable of joining the team, we do (note that it very very rarely happens). And most of those we’ve tried to add have failed rather quickly.

I started using social media because it was essentially a free and voluntary research tool for obtaining demonstrated behavior instead of reported behavior that is all but meaningless if it can be influenced at all by virtue or moral signals.

And, with social media, it was the first time it was possible to do research at scale on the linguistic expression of demonstrated intuition instinct and learned bias and preference. I have stopped running ‘king of the hill games’ for research – simply because I don’t need to. The work is done. And at a level of granularity that hasn’t been done in cognitive science, psychology and sociology.

Now what I work on is largely reducing all that knowledge to a systematic form and then attempting to communicate the knowledge that exists in the sciences into that form, and then into narrative explanations that can relate that form to ordinary human experience so that it’s something a college level person of adequate ability can learn by reading.

So, the better question is why I don’t delete my work from all of social media, and instead, write papers and articles like most intellectuals do. It’s not as if I can’t. But it does take much more time per idea, and instead of efficiency running tests on social media so that I can increase the quality of the book (that’s finally getting there), papers and articles would take time away from that goal: the science, logic, and constitution of Natural Law.

Make sense? Feedback appreciated if you have more. 🙂

– Hugs

Reply addressees: @TheoAdoreDore @romanyam