[wilmerags]

Do you mind sharing references to read more about the approach in which you are framing the problem?

Also maybe if we limit the aspiration indexing statements whose veracity can change over time and be accepted by experts then we would only refer to that canonical reference instead of remaking the statement or questioning its veracity, might work (?)

I see this today in the exercise of making sure what you want to communicate (statements) has not been communicated before, but this exercise is not suitable if platforms reward repackaging information as content so there can be influencers/people profiting out of it.

[inphovore]

I think you’re going in the wrong direction.

We suffer from a mass delusion that once something is said and accepted, it represents the precipice of understanding.

It does not.

We must remake ourselves every generation. We must replicate, disseminate, corroborate. And reprocess.

This information processing is distributed, asynchronous, and working at a glacial pace in our minds.

Our human understanding is not what can be googled or found in a book, it is our working knowledge. For working knowledge, knowing must be worked. This produces endless distillations and specializations. There will be content creators for as long as there will be content consumers.

The popular ones will skew for modern relevance. The “good” ones will preserve faithfulness to barely knowable truths.

Cognitively it actually takes three years of familiarity before a mind has integrated an idea. And ten years to see the full consequences of that ideas integration.

We aren’t as individually competent and knowledgeable as we imagine. We need the churn, merely of highest available quality.