Epistemology? Ontology? Knowledge.

I remember in the 2010s being mocked for perusing Wikipedia to initiate myself into topics of interest. Reiterating overviews from Wikipedia on any subject was considered low-effort and pretentious. If you boasted expertise (or even familiarity) with a newfound subject citing Wikipedia perusal, you were subjected to ridicule. Even in non-academic circles, it was expected to have read at least one canonical book (as deemed by experts), demonstrated interest in that topic for a significant period, and shown a thorough grasp of that cultural domain.

This video is an incredible artifact of that cultural era where one had to overcorrect material indulgence by dabbling in 'smart' domains. You were considered intelligent if you read books and had a huge personal library; cultural currency was derived from inhabiting literary subcultures. This predated Facebook groups that lampoon Harry Potter readers for not outgrowing their obsession (these groups emerged well before JK Rowling's controversies).

The Overton window for being considered intelligent has drastically shifted in the last decade. This hasn't occurred simply due to changing perceptions of bookworms or cultural disdain for literary subcultures that correct people's grammar/syntax (the horrific "grammar Nazi" era). It's symptomatic of the legitimization of multiple knowledge avenues previously considered illegitimate, including social media, memes, Twitter discourse, video essays, and YouTube lectures. This has engendered a democratization of knowledge in unprecedented ways. While the upsides are obvious, I'll enumerate my observations of the downsides.

First, our standards for discourse participation have shifted from requiring some history in a particular discursive domain to accepting anyone willing to participate without prior knowledge or interest. While this might sound elitist, it's important to note how the engagement bar has radically transformed to favor uninitiated participants.

Second, legitimizing knowledge from non-traditional sources like video essays, Twitter discussions, memes, online commentary, and blogs has rendered discussions more complex. Previously, participants needed to pass through various gates to engage in discussions (especially regarding cultural topics like films, music, and subcultures). Now, those with superficial understanding gained through new media are readily accepted into discourse.

Third, mainstream media's decline as the primary source of current affairs deserves separate mention. Legacy media has lost its position as the sole tastemaking, opinion-shaping, hegemony-reinforcing force. I've witnessed world events whose discussion cycles exhaust themselves on social media before legacy media can even plan coverage. For example, the Wagner Group rebellion, mass shootings, terrorist attacks, and Israel-Palestine news are thoroughly covered on platforms like X (Twitter), with opinions, theories, and counter-theories formed before traditional media engagement.

Documentary as an Epistemological Framework

Any discussion of cultural and intellectual currency must address documentaries – an artform now being supplanted by newer media.

As a longtime documentaryhead, I consumed everything from World War 2 to wildlife documentaries on National Geographic and other platforms. Documentaries were considered equivalent to book-reading or serious subject engagement. While Wikipedia knowledge was deemed superficial, documentary-derived information was legitimate. The culture hadn't yet developed clear distinctions between Michael Moore or Herzog documentaries and mass-produced content. Mainstream media literacy regarding documentary qualifications is recent.

My relationship with documentaries changed after watching one about a familiar topic. It stripped away multidimensional complexity, rendering the subject sterile and diminished. Though not critical, it glossed over significant nuances that contributed to its profundity – like watching a Nolan film without Hans Zimmer's score, or a sanitized Tarantino movie.

This revelation suggested documentaries should be considered less engaging than Wikipedia entries, which at least offer citation access and hyperlinked related topics for broader perspective.

Similarly, the substitution of subculture discussions (led by longtime participants) with meme-based discussions rarely translates to earnest engagement. It devolves into competition over who can regurgitate the most fascinating trivia to appear "smart." This performative intelligence has diminished the "anti-intellectual posturing" archetype. Everyone feels obligated to participate in current trends, with culture favoring dabblers over sincere participants, ultimately degrading public discourse quality.

Knowledge is better than "Knawledge."

Solutions:

Read books Read books unrelated to current trends Read for understanding rather than social positioning Walk