Thanks for the invitation, @Shanyan Shanyu.
The internet has not erased information gaps. It has amplified low-value information without limit.
The real question has never been whether knowledge exists. It is why, in the same information environment, most people still struggle to make a breakthrough.
The reasons are not complicated, but they run against our instincts.
1. Access gaps have narrowed, while the threshold for discernment has risen
The old information gap was whether you could obtain something. The new one is whether you can recognize its value.
I prefer three tests for identifying valuable information:
Does it have traceable evidence?
Does it apply to the problem at hand?
Does it survive counterexamples and practical testing?
Difficulty and a lack of emotional gratification do not, by themselves, make something valuable.
Yet the internet’s dominant mechanisms systematically disadvantage these qualities.
Algorithms optimize clicks, time spent and emotional reactions, not long-term cognitive benefit.
The result is that important material is often among the least visible.
2. Knowledge is a compressed archive, but many people lack the conditions to unpack it
Sophisticated thinking is not merely acquired from lessons. It is developed through reasoning about real situations.
When people who have never borne the consequences discuss first principles, antifragility or systems thinking,
they may be reciting summaries rather than understanding the world.
The internet’s problem is not simply that you learn too little.
It puts conclusions directly in front of you, bypassing the difficult process that makes them meaningful.
Following an explanation is not mastery; understanding is not application; being able to repeat an idea is not being able to handle reality.
3. Sustained attention and immediate feedback are in tension
This involves habits, environment, incentives and cognitive load. It cannot be reduced to biological instinct or strength of will.
Deep thinking: demanding, slow to reward and often uncomfortable
Entertainment: low effort, quick feedback and intense gratification
The internet has perfected the route to immediate satisfaction.
For some people, immediate feedback crowds out attention and reduces time for sustained practice. But dopamine is not an energy reserve simply divided between entertainment and success, and it cannot explain the circumstances of most people.
4. A substantial emotional cost separates knowing from doing
Many people get stuck not because they do not know what to do, but because they:
Fear being inadequate
Fear getting no return on their effort
Fear a long period without positive feedback
A genuine breakthrough often involves prolonged low returns, intense self-doubt and an almost obsessive commitment to success.
At the same time, the internet performs a cruel trick: it magnifies success stories while hiding the process of failure.
That can be devastating to the development of psychological resilience.
5. Tacit knowledge remains concentrated within networks
Explicit knowledge can be made public.
But when it stops working, where the traps are, whom not to trust and how to read signals rarely appear in trending lists.
Algorithms keep directing you toward people similar to yourself.
You think you are seeing the world. Instead, you may be repeatedly reassured that your present social position is the natural one for you.
6. The conclusion is straightforward
The internet is not simply an amplifier of opportunity.
It is a filter.
It magnifies differences in discernment, action and access to resources. Sustained practice and real problems matter, but so do time, health, money and support networks. A lack of breakthrough cannot be equated with an unwillingness to work hard.
One final thought
Sophisticated understanding is not something everyone masters merely because it has been made public.
It comes with a kind of built-in encryption.
The encryption is not permission. It is boredom, difficulty and resistance to our instincts.
Few people pass through that filter.
It is understandable that others remain at the foot of the mountain, scrolling on their phones.
“Natural selection” here can only be a metaphor for social filtering, not a biological conclusion. Opportunity, resources, environment and action must each be examined. Nor can the metaphor determine whether the outcomes are fair.
I am Ni Mouren. If you enjoy these perspectives, visit my latest column.