David

“When an inscrutable technology becomes an invisible technology, we would be wise to be concerned. At that point, the technology's assumptions and intentions have infiltrated our own desires and actions. We no longer know whether the software is aiding us or controlling us. We're behind the wheel, but we can't be sure who's driving.”
― Nicholas Carr, The Glass Cage: How Our Computers Are Changing Us

“Just as we all like love tales because there is an instinct of sex, we all like astonishing tales because they touch the nerve of the ancient instinct of astonishment. This is proved by the fact that when we are very young children we do not need fairy tales: we only need tales. Mere life is interesting enough. A child of seven is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door and saw a dragon. But a child of three is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door. Boys like romantic tales; but babies like realistic tales—because they find them romantic.”
― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

“The known, our current story, protects us from the unknown, from chaos—which is to
say, provides our experience with determinate and predictable structure. Chaos has a
nature all of its own. That nature is experienced as affective valence, at first exposure, not
as objective property. If something unknown or unpredictable occurs, while we are
carrying out our motivated plans, we are first surprised. That surprise—which is a
combination of apprehension and curiosity—comprises our instinctive emotional
response to the occurrence of something we did not desire. The appearance of something
unexpected is proof that we do not know how to act—by definition, as it is the production
of what we want that we use as evidence for the integrity of our knowledge. If we are
somewhere we don’t know how to act, we are (probably) in trouble—we might learn
something new, but we are still in trouble.”
― Jordan B. Peterson, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief

“When the British invaders confronted the Iroquois on the east coast of North America, the British were able to draw upon technology, science, and other cultural developments from China, India, and Egypt, not to mention various other peoples from continental Europe. But the Iroquois could not draw upon the cultural developments of the Aztecs or Incas, who remained unknown to them, though located only a fraction of the distance away as China is from Britain. While the immediate confrontation was between the British settlers and the Iroquois, the cultural resources mobilized on one side represented many more cultures from many more societies around the world. It was by no means a question of the genetic or even cultural superiority of the British by themselves, as compared to the Iroquois, for the British were by no means by themselves. They had the advantage of centuries of cultural diffusion from numerous sources, scattered over thousands of miles.”
― Thomas Sowell, Conquests and Cultures: An International History