Do you think the US, in particular, is behind the curve? Tesla alone is pushing the boundries of current public technology by making electric cars much more available to the consumer. Microsoft's OS is being used all around the world. And Google... don't even start: they're owning their game, as much as one stereolythic entity could own a game at such a scale. I see your point. The US may host some of the most powerful software engineers at Microsoft and Google etc., but an average citizen isn't doing that good with tech. Even the White House is pitching in on the problem. It may have something to do with the fact that people are getting "on defensive" — which is what nationalism is all about: "My tribe is good, the rest can go kiss a wall": less connectivity could lead to less exposure to the opposing opinions. That being said, some of the most popular online information and entertainment options — Facebook, YouTube — limit the user to the opinions which they have already expressed. You saw an Alex Jones video? Here's another one! — and a different one, saying what some other person thought of that, too! That way, you rarely get to see the other side speak — if there even is "the other side" to speak — unless you go out of your way to go looking for it.
I don’t believe that the U.S. tech sector is behind the curve, the typical public servants that make up our government are behind. Same with the many of the folks that are clinging to coal mines and other outmoded jobs who then rally behind Donald Trump’s pie-in-the-sky promises to foolishly return to the past. I agree that more of us need to realize that too many of us use technology to spend our time in online echo chambers. Instead, we can use our tech to connect with people that have an entirely different set of experiences and point of view. Maybe then we can see that we all want to feel connected and valued by other people. Do you think that this may change in time? Maybe we’ll become more tolerant by actually recognizing the limitations of online echo chambers and then get sick of them.
I'm certain it will change in time. Our desire to reaffirm our ideas may forever stay with us — nature is a powerful forms — but we may change our attitude to it and, with some work upon ourselves, allow it to affect us less. This would require a lot of introspection and the desire to change for a lot of people, and that would require a strong impulse. In fiction, it often comes when our view of the world crashes into something much different from our own: say, from an alien contact. I don't think it would take such an extreme measure in real life, but the human mind is very much a physical object, in the meaning that it complies with the laws of physics. It takes either a high application of force over a short period of time or low application over a long period to achieve the same result when changing minds. The human mind is also a pendulum by nature. A high force momentary will make a shift, but the pendulum will soon return to its resting point, with only a small deviation. The only way to ensure a long-term solution is to keep applying the pressure, however small, until the resting point is a satisfactory one. We know how bad echo-chambering is, and if you're unsure, there are plenty of examples to base research on currently. I think people are learning about it more and more nowadays. The more we do, the more pressure we can apply against it, even if it's contrary to our nature to do so.Do you think that this may change in time?