The alternative information is forming alternative reality

The alternative information is forming alternative reality

The alternative reality is one of the most incredible and at the same time dangerous things, what researchers, who are working with information theories have ever invented. This thing is distorting information because human beings are looking for company, what have similar opinions, what themselves have.

That means that the information, that people get can be from many sources, but it strongly polarized. That means that a great number of people can use the same sources, what can be faked, and that thing would cause the mass-effect on the Internet.

When we are looking at the perfect assistants for the information warriors or "trolls", what is the modern version of the world "propagandist", we might think one person. The people who could transform the faked information true in the mind of people could be the person, who is working in a trusted newspaper or news agency.

If a journalist, who is working in the qualified would believe the faked information, that thing would get the effect, what makes it trusted. And this is the thing, what we must realize. "Because that information seems real" is the comment, what might be used in the case, where the story in some national broadcast network is proven fake.

This is a really dangerous thing in modern information. We have lots of information, but we cannot say is it true or fake. When we are thinking about social media, we are facing the thing that we can get more information than ever before, and there is, of course, many people, who are acting for some kind of ideological organization.

And more interesting thing is that we cannot say, what is the ideology? Does a person even self notice, when the opinions what that individual would write or tell are ideologically polarized? If we are taught from childhood, that some ideology is bad, we believe that this thing is self-evidence. That means that ideology turns to more than politics.

This is a dangerous thing. When we are thinking about ourselves as social animals or creatures, we must realize that the willing to find the group, what has the same opinions, what we have is created to protect the group. But there is the risk, that we would be members of the small but very noisy and radical group. And that means that we might be surrounded by people. who have the same opinions, what we have.

That effect would be like blowing oxygen to flames, and that thing would exacerbate our opinions, what happens to every member of those groups. When we are hearing only polarized opinions, where every criticism is filtered away, that means that we are getting only information, which is supporting our own opinions. And we will transmit those opinions to our descendants, who might start to think that our ideology is "more than normal politics".

Diversity in working life part II

Diversity in working life part II

Many people think that diversity is just some physiological or psychological thing. The thing is that diversity can be that somebody has different kinds of education than somebody else in the workplace. That kind of thing can also cause challenges in the relationship with the working group.

So, diversity in working life can mean many more things than just ethnic or linguistic differences or be in some kind of sexual minority. That doesn't mean also handicap or illness, and we always forget one thing, which might make us different than others.

That he might be the different educational backgrounds in the working environment. Those things are almost every time we have forgotten to mention in the cases when we are talking about diversity. So when we are thinking about isolation and problems also nontypical training in working place can cause problems.

And sometimes some people are asking "why workplace would not be homogeneous. Does that mean why every person would not have the same education as leaders and directors? The thing is that controlling that kind of working society would be easy, but then we can ask one question: are every side of things noticed and research by every side by using the analytic methods?

So should somebody sometimes notice things like legal aspects of some decision? And should somebody advice leaders of the company in the technical questions? The thing is that the leadership of big companies is not an easy thing. And if things like copyrights and licenses are forgotten, that thing would cause very big losses and if the bought land area, what is meant for holiday or hotel use would be polluted there would be financial losses in this kind of case.

The purpose of hiring highly trained specialists for a company means that they will bring their knowledge and skills in the use of leaders of companies. Their mission is to support the leaders of the company and give advice on important questions. That means that those highly trained and highly paid people's mission is not to sit and be nobody in the company. Their mission is to give advises in the questions, where is needed some special skills, and one of them is the code of laws.

And in the big International environment, there are many special sectors, which have their own special trained people. In those cases, nobody handles all areas of business, legal and political fields. If the firm exports to the wrong country that can cause very bad problems with the authorities. If there are some limits in exporting products to that country those rules must be followed.