It doesn’t appear so.

My concern is that's an assumption, especially when Gen A are growing in information environments dominated by platforms and the incentives they offer, and, as a society, we aren't educating them to navigate this new reality because we think we're still in the old information environment.

In the platform economy speed of engagement is rewarded over slow facts and deliberation, so populist and conspiratorial moral-epistemic systems work extremely well, while slower functional VDA and technocratic moral-epistemic systems perform poorly.

Yes.

And, individuals have agency. They can stop to think, or they can choose not to. The means to analyze are easily available.

I see a competition between rational, scientific, or analytic view of the world opposed to a disordered set of conspiracy theories. Yes, the latter is political.

But intellectual and moral thought isn’t primarily political. I believe reason should prevail, but as you argue, the task isn’t easy.

It should be possible to block the political dominance of the disordered discourse because each of its claims can be seen as false by people with basic school level education in science, humanities, and civics. They only make sense as a complete package of lies.

Can the lies keep up with the facts?

If you do decide to move here, consider carefully, and enjoy!

Don’t get me wrong. I love Brazil. We do many things right, or try. There are good things about life here. But it’s not at all easy.

I teach at Brazil’s top university. Honestly, the educational experience here can’t compare to a good US university.

Most Brazilians buy private health plans if they can afford it.

Violent crime here is a lot more common than in the US.

And biking is not safe.

Não pode falar a palavra “guilhotina”, da azar.

Also this is completely unfair. I only control half of our media empire.

Gotta be joking this is a Nature paper.

Today in life under competitive authoritarianism