"Worst of all, if other people—people just as intelligent, rational, and well-meaning as you—have sincerely come to disagree with you about the nature of reality, you might be forced to question the rational basis of your own beliefs. You might have to confront the possibility that the truth is not as obvious as you thought."
I think there are three very related, but crucially different fears potentially at work here. Arguably the most global and destabilizing fear is the possibility that "the truth is not as obvious as you thought": the very foundations of reality, truth, possibility of reliable facts are thrown into question. Then there is being "forced to question the rational basis of your own beliefs" which undermines faith in our own personal judgment; this is not only deeply unnerving but a blow to one's pride. Finally, there is the actual scenario of being wrong - which is not only a blow to one's pride (failure at being right) - but often means you must accept something being true that you don't *want* to be true, some state of affairs you dislike in its own right. Maybe the psychology of these three levels could be parsed further.
One final thought: whether or not "conspiracy theories of ignorance" are justified, it is important to sometimes be able to believe things strongly, and have faith in the grounds for those particular beliefs. Otherwise, we are screwed. Not having enough confidence in your own sound judgment and available evidence, failure to make your best shot at truth and stand behind this, can be just as pernicious as having too much faith in your flawed judgment or faulty evidence. This is the flipside of ignorance as overreach, self-deception and arrogance: ignorance as weakness and misplaced humility.
Thanks. Yes, this last point is something I think about a lot. I wonder if it's even possible to consistently get this right (i.e., believing strongly when appropriate and exhibiting intellectual humility when it's called for).
To avoid the relativist trap that we cannot be sure of anything, David Deutsch (big Popper fan) attempts to advance this by the concept of "good explanations that are hard to vary" as a proxy for "truth". It works better in natural sciences (he is a quantum physicist) than in social sciences b/c you have the natural experiment to help you adjudicate between the best theory available and all the others. I recommend his book, The beginning of Infinity - he is to me what Lippmann appears to be to you :)
Excellent points. On the last, I would add, for consideration, that perhaps we should both accept the strength of a given “conviction” at face value in the general course of action, but also demand proportionately reflective skepticism.
Among relevant factors would be the “sources” of that strength of conviction according to its conformity with or opposition to social norms, the local consequences (both real and felt) of one's own actions under the banner of social sentiments, the nonlocal consequences of social pressures towards individual and group actions, and whether those that fly that same banner under different motivations and sentiments are nevertheless emboldened by the generic success of that banner.
Perhaps the most useful information is the strength of a conviction, despite which meaningful action is complicated by empty signaling standard bearers, and where our own path of least resistance is to signal under that same banner rather than act on or negotiate one's convictions.
That makes sense - holding and expressing strong convictions need not preclude continuing to privately question and reexamine them (or publicly, for that matter). There is probably a complicated relationship between the public and private realms of action when it comes to holding, expressing and questioning one's convictions.
Another wonderful piece on problematic information.
>In contrast, if the problem is that people interpret reality through a fundamentally different set of beliefs and interpretive frameworks, the solution is far more challenging. It must involve deep persuasion, attempts to empathise and understand where others are coming from, and building trust between members of different belief-based communities.
I think compromise has a significant place here among persuasion, empathy and understanding. I don’t see it mentioned much in the comments or in this piece as an important tool in the tool box for bridging these difficult divides. It worries me that these disagreements are so often presented as zero-sum games where one side must win over the other. To me, this kind of decisive outcome is unlikely. By all means continue to persuade and empathize and listen to your opposition but above all else expect to compromise with them.
Good point. Yes, there has to be room for any party to the discussion to realize s/he may be wrong. I think I would use “common ground" rather than "compromise" as the frame here. There are some belief systems, for example, that should not be taught as fact: think flat earth believers wanting children to be taught that as fact in schools. In that case, compromise won't be possible, but perhaps it would be possible to find common ground, such as, you're welcome to hold that belief and you and I can discuss it civilly, but it cannot be taught to children as a fact.
I like this distinction between common ground and compromise, although your school policy example above actually sounds like another example of compromise since the core disagreement remains, and it's ultimately a matter of who gets to decide. "Compromise" is often used loosely to refer to what really might be called common ground (where the latter implies overlapping interests and shared premises against a background of conflict/disagreement). But I think there's a stronger meaning of compromise, where parties don't necessarily find common ground but are willing to "agree to disagree" and make specified concessions to one another for the sake moving forward, in a way that is reasonably respectful, pragmatic and constructive.
Yes, this makes a lot of sense. As I can see you understand, I chose common ground because compromise is so often seen as trying to find a “middle ground,” even where that is not appropriate. What you have done so well here, no matter what term we use, is to state the essential principle, which is “to "agree to disagree" and make specified concessions to one another for the sake moving forward, in a way that is reasonably respectful, pragmatic and constructive.” Nicely stated.
It can be a subtle judgment call! Especially if the disagreeing parties in question are using these same terminologies as talking points; their own exact meaning may be shaped by how they perceive any potential common ground/compromise. And if one gets misunderstood as the other there can be consequences. You made a good point about the problem of defaulting to "compromise" even when this is not desirable or achievable. Perhaps this third negative scenario is better understood as appeasement, i.e. "being a chump" (either as the outcome, or the fear of being perceived that way).
Unfortunately, despite good intentions, many political disputes just aren't compromisable. For example, was the 2020 Presidential Election stolen, or not? That's a "zero-sum" issue. One side is right, the other is wrong. Is birthright citizenship correct or not? Is Donald Trump currently suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer's Disease? (I mean that literally, not as a joke - given his age, family history, and, well, general demeanor, it's a possibility that should be taken seriously - but interestingly, is not considered a big Pundit Issue).
What sort of compromise would you propose for these?
In my readings of history, I've been astonished to see how in the run-up to the US Civil War, various factions tried over and over, very hard and extensively, to "compromise" - and it didn't work. At the time, what would you have advocated? (note, I don't mean this as a "gotcha" - it's just the punditry of the time is amazing to me, filled with all sorts of Serious People talking about how the radical abolitionist fringe is to blame for making discussion so difficult, etc).
>In my readings of history, I've been astonished to see how in the run-up to the US Civil War, various factions tried over and over, very hard and extensively, to "compromise" - and it didn't work. At the time, what would you have advocated?
Compromise.
I’m not sure what solution you’re proposing here. Compromise was tried and ultimately failed along with all the other suggestions mentioned in the post (persuasion, empathy, understanding, trust). I think it was correct to exhaust all these possibilities of peaceful resolution prior to war. After compromise failed there was a bloody war that lasted four years and a month in which >6% of the men in the country were killed. Is your proposal we skip ahead to the killing our neighbors part? If not, what are you proposing?
I believe wholeheartedly compromise has a place alongside persuasion, empathy, understanding and trust when trying to peacefully resolve any kind of conflict. Some contests might be zero-sum but many aren’t. If there’s an anti-compromise camp, I don’t want to be in it.
I think it’s a converse accident fallacy to suggest that since compromise wasn’t a viable option in those cases, it isn’t a viable option in any others.
All I’m suggesting is compromise is another way to settle disputes. Perhaps there is one piece of cake and two people. It makes sense to cut the cake in half sometimes. Political party A wants to spend $10 million on defense, political party B wants to spend none. They move forward by agreeing to spend $5 million.
If you don’t think compromise can be a useful tool, then I disagree, but wish you the best.
Note, I didn't claim, "There exists no, zero, none, nil, political disputes which can have compromise". But, *many* - implicitly, major disputes right now - are "zero sum". How (not rhetorically, literally) can there be compromise over "2020 election stolen"? Or birthright citizenship - either people are citizen sby birth, or they aren't. I'm asking for some idea how this can even be meaningful.
A key point about slavery history is that in modern thought, if there's one half of the country that says slavery should be OK everywhere, and another half which isn't so keen on it, it's pretty wild to try to work out a "compromise" where slavery is OK in one half the country, but not in the other half (while deriding the ultraleft who say it should immediately be abolished everywhere). Would you really have said "We must have attempts to empathise and understand where [the enslavers] are coming from, and building trust between members of [pro-slavery and anti-slavery] communities.". And I don't mean this as a "gotcha", because it really was a common point of view at the time!
This is NOT to take up the cry of "Civil War Now!". Rather, again, what do you want to do in specific today - not just say "compromise", but what concessions do you think should be given?
Epistemology is the science of certainty. There is no compromise in epistemology. The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty and that sufficiency is a tipping point.
Raw tribalism seems to me the most potent driver where it is most consequential. We have clear recent examples of this. The impulse is then rejection or suppression rather than engagement and catastrophic errors can ensue. Good critiques usually exist, and they can exemplify all the proper intellectual moves to little avail for the longest time. One side may have to loose to acknowledge them, but even then it is not guaranteed. We also have clear recent examples of that. It can't go on like this.
I find the most intriguing aspect of discussions of this kind is the need to convert. If only we could find the tools to help those blinded by ignorance and artifice to see the world as I see it. Is better media important? Should we start earlier with eduction? How can we conduction conversations with 'others' and find middle ground we can build on?
But what if this is truly hopeless? Of course there will be instances where some (typically small) progress is made. At Stanford their work in participatory democracy led them into experiements with moderated debates with ready access to high quality information. They had some small success in bridging divides but it is of limited worth because it simply isn't scaleable.
If we find ourselves believing this is truly insoluble, that the social schisms cannot be readily healed, or even healed with enormous sincere resource rich investment, what then? Is there something fundamental to human nature that could drive such schisms? If so, what might it be?
One of the problems of then information discourse is that performance exaggerations get rewarded with attention, which in turn creates the ability to expand the audience and gain reliability. This happens on both sides of the political spectrum, although high education/income people might be more resistant and skeptical with their information diet. Like people who would link a citation to the word 'cope'😀. How is a democratic system supposed to deal with this public tendency in a non-authoritarian way. Especially when the education system is probably both uncapable and unwilling at the moment .
A good point, though I would say “high education/income people” are not necessarily “more resistant and skeptical with their information diet.” Almost all the high education people around me are just as narrow in their information diet—typically the New York Times, PBS, maybe with the “spice” of MSNBC and/or the New Yorker thrown in. These comprise their journalistic Bible, and they exhibit no skepticism about what they are reading. Moreover their chosen information sources reinforce one another and strengthen their reader’s already strong confirmation bias. Meanwhile, my doorman is not confused about, eg, whether men, no matter how they identify, should play in female sports. It takes a sentence, and he responds, “losing position. The Democrats should drop it.” He is a solid Democrat, by the way. But he lives in the world, rather than in his head.
"There's zero correlation between being the best talker and having the best ideas."
― Susan Cain, author, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking
Here in The States, I am at a loss to know if our education system is weak, or if education systems in general cannot overcome the low common denominator of human nature. Both? Your - and or anyone else's - thoughts?
Made the comment before on Dan’s Substack that critical thinking and meta-epistemic awareness (I just made that up, is that a thing?) seem like crucial skills to begin teaching at the elementary level except that they could also potentially undermine beliefs that parents, politicians and educators might be loath to see challenged (beliefs of religion, country, economic system and about the forces of luck and evolution for example).
And I made the point before on your comment at that time that I am pessimistic about that as a proposed solution because most of us live in epistemic tribes, many of which are either hostile to or dismissive of the kind of skills you consider crucial. :)
Ah yes--I had forgotten about that aspect you two raise:
Parents, politicians, and society often do not want kids educated and skeptical as much as inculcated / brainwashed to believe the same nonsense as themselves.
Anecdotally, I have even met multiple middle and high school educators here in The States who are otherwise relatively good teachers, but horrified me, as they subscribe to common supernatural mythologies as factual. And you call yourselves educators?
A lot of brain rot throughout societies negatively affects education systems. Although ivory tower scholars at higher institutions of learning, such as our blog host, might cringe at the term "brain rot". If so, it would not be the first time I've made him cringe.
Wouldn't the fairly recent Congressional hearings here in The States, with our more conservative federal legislators grilling university leaders, resulting in the employment termination of multiple of those leaders, qualify as an example of which you two note?
I'm sure it's an obvious point but what parents want is most times less important than what they take for granted. It's like the air the kid grows up breathing.
A child raised in France learns to speak French. This isn't the result of a decision. It's just the way life is there.
And I'm of the opinion that parents whose world view is informed by Enlightenment values create a world for their children whereby they pick up those values as they would their native language.
Similiarly, parents whose world sets little store by what I might consider to be rationality and critical faculties will bring up children, for the most part, who share that world view and for the most part there is little that education can do about it.
In the unlikely event you would like to explore this admittedly stark perspective I have written a little on in here in ss.
A related point: I think that one reason Trump is so popular is that he devoutly believes in naive realism. What really gets him mad is the notion that the world is unknowable and uncontrollable. That is why he is so hostile to science and intellectualism generally. He believes he has a God-given right to certainty about the world, as do many of his voters.
Having observed Trump for what is now (unfortunately) many years I concluded that he has a lizard brain that operates by flicking out the tongue, moving it in random directions and picking up scents that motivate hunting. Likewise Trump throws out random ideas before his minions and sees what gets the response he is looking for, whereupon he doubles down on it. I don't think he gives a rat's ass about the truth of anything. He doesn't need certainty, he doesn't need coherence, he doesn't need consistency, he doesn't need any of the virtues some of us may typically associate with the relationship between world and words - he is 100 percent instrumental - he just needs something that works with his audience and if that stops working he will move onto the next scan for a hot button.
It's possible. However, my theory seems to me more plausible because I assume that Trump, as a human being, acts according to recognizably human motives, but you see him as more like a reptile than a human. Your demonizing attitude towards Trump might be accurate, but it is the kind of interpretation that Dan Williams continually warns us against.
I acknowledge that it is an unsettling analogy and is provocatively phrased but IMHO it is accurate.
I respect Dan and his warnings. But a warning is just that, a warning. It is not a universal rule and I don't find generalizations about extremists like Trump that they must not be demonized, tbat they too have a good side, to be especially helpful.
I'm reminded of the wonderful film 'The Producers' 2005. "Hitler was a wonderful dancer,"
I'm inclined to think your analogy is lazy and hackneyed rather than unsettling. People are constantly comparing their enemies to animals, and doing so becomes easy and automatic. It's an impulse that you definitely share with Trump! It takes more effort to come up with analogies that are more plausible and fitting. Also, I never said that Trump had a good side!
Thank you for sharing. The point of course was not to simply refer to him as a reptile but to point out an aspect of his behavior that I have taken the trouble to study. However, as you don't really address the real points I made and simply jumped onto the terms used an analogy I truly don't know who is the more lazy.
Please do make a point of not reading my lazy hackneyed comments any more. I don't want to offend you.
But as an unaffiliated USA voter deeply sceptical of human nature - and thus sceptical of all politicians and political factions - I find Griffiths' lizard analogy also correct, but also more emotionally satisfying.
My take on this would be that what Trump *himself* believes or cares about is largely irrelevant, especially knowing what we do about his hollow self-interest and cynicism. Much more important I think is what his followers and enemies project onto him, and the impact of whatever he professes to believe or want on their own beliefs and actions.
For me, the biggest “take-home” is this: “In contrast, if the problem is that people interpret reality through a fundamentally different set of beliefs and interpretive frameworks, the solution is far more challenging. It must involve deep persuasion, attempts to empathise and understand where others are coming from, and building trust between members of different belief-based communities.”
I had a conversation related to this just the other day. A friend claimed anyone who voted for Trump was just gulled by their news ecosystem. (To her credit, she has had and continues to have respectful conversations with people who voted for Trump to try and probe why this happened.) I offered, as contrast, an example of a very thoughtful Hispanic man I know, a good family man, a hard worker, and kind to all. Before the election, he engaged me at one point about the debate between Harris and Trump. He lives in a conservative area, and he and friends, many of whom are policemen, were discussing the debate as they watched. He counseled them to give her a chance, let the debate finish. He nonetheless concluded from the debate, along with his friends, that Harris’s position was wrong on immigration. His parents are immigrants, he said, but they followed the rules.
Meanwhile, in my very “leftie” enclave, many, as my friend had at first, saw this stance from any Hispanic as “voting against his interests.” Moreover, using, for example, Krugman’s analyses that show the importance of immigrants to the economy, including many essential low level jobs, such as caregiving, working in agriculture, and the like, they believed that people like the Hispanic fellow with whom I spoke just didn’t have the facts or understand the issue.
Now, I am a progressive Democrat, and I do think Krugman is correct in terms of the “macro” picture. But I also think, having spoken with my Hispanic fellow and others sharing his concerns, that his concern is valid, too. So now, with this more complex understanding in hand, the task, while perhaps daunting, is a more constructive one: how to bridge the gap in these perspectives in a humane, fair way for all.
Which brings me back to your quote with which I opened: we cannot get to the point of working together constructively to find solutions to the problems in front of us unless we first get past our positions, listen actively, and seek out where common ground lies. It’s only then that we can start to work together to solve the problem under review. Of course, I am no Pollyanna and know this will not work in many cases. But there are many more instances where it can work. It takes that old-time slow boring of hard boards, ours included!
Agree. It is really, really difficult to even start these conversations, let alone get to the point of coming upon common ground. I have achieved it, but it is laborious, often taking several conversations, addressing one small aspect at a time. (I suppose my background as a union organizer and also as a “leaderboard” canvasser in a swing district in the period that resulted in the 2018 blue wave helped me hone these skills to the extent I have—as I am by no means a “natural,” not even very outgoing personally.) The biggest problem I see with these one-one-one conversations, which can be productive, is that meanwhile, in the US, we are already on the Titantic and running out of time. So, I don’t know what the answer is, but I think Dan’s analysis is very useful for helping us each to at least do small things to help break through these barriers, especially if we do not, as most of us do not, have the ability to do so on a larger scale.
Nice of you to say, but at 76, my ability to do that is behind me. I do, though, continue to have as many one-on-one conversations as I can. A roadblock for me, also, is that the Democratic electeds are stuck in a terrible identitarian swamp that is pulling us all down. On that issue, I can’t get anywhere with my electeds. That’s a big, big barrier to Democratic success going forward.
I feel like we’re talking about Dunning-Kruger without mentioning Dunning-Kruger. The Quakers have a wonderful phrase, “truth is continually revealed.” The implication is one can never know the truth, therefore one’s skepticism must be mixed with a healthy optimism and an open mind that willingly receives and parses everything at face value, continually discerning and sifting to find the common resonance of capital T Truth.
The term to “steel-man” an argument proceeds in this type of good faith procedural examination. However, as anyone who has ever tried to shepherd a consensus-based decision making process will attest, it is often a Sisyphean effort. My point is that even problematic information is useful as a whole, if for no other reason than to indicate the tone and tenor of a platform. The folks at https://consilienceproject.org/ have some great insights and strategies regarding all of these arguments. Whether it is democratic institutions run via Blockchain voting, fully transparent, electoral processes, or the means by which we cultivate good faith actors in politics of every stripe. Because ultimately that’s what it takes to run a democracy: Good faith.
Slice and dice it all you might, the task moving forward remains clear: 1) expose the big lies, 2) illuminate genuine mistakes, 3) understand actual disagreements.
Chomsky and Herman in Necessary Illusions and Manufacturing Consent lay out the challenges and complexities and opportunities for attacking the first problem. Meanwhile the establishment Dems and Reps as puppets of plutocracy are too false and corrupt to fundamentally address any of these three problems.
Sanity with honesty, broadly and generally, is found primarily among the currently limited number of progressive populists in electoral realms, who have a toehold in the Dem party, who often stand alone and strong against the Dem/Rep establishment.
Terrific, terrific essay. Very clear. I won't say more because I need to think about it a bit. I just came across your site, so I'll start looking at past posts. One question; you seem to have given some thought to the role of social media in our current mess. I think it has been absolutely critical, but I'd be interested in your thoughts.
I am a big Popper fan and until recently participated in an online discussion group until some of the members started spinning off into the MAGAsphere. Very unPopperian in my opinion.
I think you might be interested in these two posts on my Substack. The first invokes Hayek to discuss what's wrong with economics. The second explains why our nation is so divided. I wrote it a while back, but I think it has stood the test of time.
If you look at what Trump and Musk are doing to the U.S. Government, in addition to the mass firings, it is the deliberate destruction of data, and the defunding of scientific research. This will create a situation where Americans will be deprived of the means of monitoring the consequences of industry and government action, and of knowing how to mitigate the environmental damage. It will also accelerate the trend of distrust towards government and science. I've just written about it in my substack: https://crjustice5.substack.com I also want to comment on your point about polarization and the tendency to see the other side as intentionally deceptive. I'm sorry to say that I think that this is a "death spiral" that we can't get out of. I forsee civil war happening in the U.S. in the not to distant future.
"... the deliberate destruction of data, and the defunding of scientific research. This will create a situation where Americans will be deprived of the means of monitoring the consequences of industry and government action, and of knowing how to mitigate the environmental damage."
(1) Are you suggesting you "know" that "data" is being destroyed (How does one "destroy" data? Delete conputer files which have no backups? Shred documents which have no copies? What exactly are "Trump and Musk" doing in this regard? (2) Are you suggesting as well that the only "monitors of the consequences of industry and government action [whatever such "action" may be]" are agencies of the federal government? Could you be specific about this, at least before the civil war starts?
Although no one would deny that many politicians lie, I believe that interpretive charity is usually the best strategy in political argument. Political liars only succeed if they can convince many followers, who do not benefit from their lies, to sincerely support them. In arguing against a lying leader and his followers, it's pointless to try to persuade the leader. I need to convince the sincere followers to change their minds. Usually, telling them that they are stupid dupes or nefarious liars won't do the trick.
We need a healthy narrative of the other side. The narrative I prefer is that alternative views provide healthy tension to maintain social balance. You need freedom in tension with structure. You need growth in tension with pruning, or writers and editors.
This person is in opposition to be with full knowledge and different values, and I need that tension both to test my proclivities but also to limit my opponents excess. It is when the tension breaks, where we swing into excess.
While this is a thorough examination of tensions, still, I'd say it gets caught up in the issue itself. That is, I think there's a bit of "weakman" in terms of contrasting "self-evidently true" vs "compelling independent evidence". I'd assert most political discourse treats "self-evidently true" as just meaning "this has been established so well that disputing it is either ignorant or dishonest", i.e. ""compelling independent evidence".
To be blunt, it seems to me you're trying to find a way to say that e.g. right-wing 2020 election denialism shouldn't be respected, while right-wing attacks on Covid public health should be respected. But this immediately runs into the problem that you've built up a whole framework about how one shouldn't be overconfident, one can be wrong even in the strongest convictions, etc. etc. Then why doesn't this apply to the claim that the 2020 election was stolen? All the professional liars can run every single technique to advocate voting fraud possibilities: It doesn't matter how many debunked claims have been made, each new claim has to be evaluated on its merits (lab leak!). Oh, look at that dumb stupid person who said it was utterly impossible, that shows The Establisment is trying to stop debate. Isn't it arrogant to think you know what is absolutely true? There's so many people who believe this, officials have lost the trust of the public in their integrity due to their elite disrepect of the masses. On and on.
That is, it's not at all clear to me why the "Merchant Of Doubt" process does not abstractly apply very strongly to 2020 election fraud claims. The moment you try to escape it by saying "But the evidence ...", it fails because of that process, notably due to the proving-a-negative issue.
"Worst of all, if other people—people just as intelligent, rational, and well-meaning as you—have sincerely come to disagree with you about the nature of reality, you might be forced to question the rational basis of your own beliefs. You might have to confront the possibility that the truth is not as obvious as you thought."
I think there are three very related, but crucially different fears potentially at work here. Arguably the most global and destabilizing fear is the possibility that "the truth is not as obvious as you thought": the very foundations of reality, truth, possibility of reliable facts are thrown into question. Then there is being "forced to question the rational basis of your own beliefs" which undermines faith in our own personal judgment; this is not only deeply unnerving but a blow to one's pride. Finally, there is the actual scenario of being wrong - which is not only a blow to one's pride (failure at being right) - but often means you must accept something being true that you don't *want* to be true, some state of affairs you dislike in its own right. Maybe the psychology of these three levels could be parsed further.
One final thought: whether or not "conspiracy theories of ignorance" are justified, it is important to sometimes be able to believe things strongly, and have faith in the grounds for those particular beliefs. Otherwise, we are screwed. Not having enough confidence in your own sound judgment and available evidence, failure to make your best shot at truth and stand behind this, can be just as pernicious as having too much faith in your flawed judgment or faulty evidence. This is the flipside of ignorance as overreach, self-deception and arrogance: ignorance as weakness and misplaced humility.
Thanks. Yes, this last point is something I think about a lot. I wonder if it's even possible to consistently get this right (i.e., believing strongly when appropriate and exhibiting intellectual humility when it's called for).
To avoid the relativist trap that we cannot be sure of anything, David Deutsch (big Popper fan) attempts to advance this by the concept of "good explanations that are hard to vary" as a proxy for "truth". It works better in natural sciences (he is a quantum physicist) than in social sciences b/c you have the natural experiment to help you adjudicate between the best theory available and all the others. I recommend his book, The beginning of Infinity - he is to me what Lippmann appears to be to you :)
Excellent points. On the last, I would add, for consideration, that perhaps we should both accept the strength of a given “conviction” at face value in the general course of action, but also demand proportionately reflective skepticism.
Among relevant factors would be the “sources” of that strength of conviction according to its conformity with or opposition to social norms, the local consequences (both real and felt) of one's own actions under the banner of social sentiments, the nonlocal consequences of social pressures towards individual and group actions, and whether those that fly that same banner under different motivations and sentiments are nevertheless emboldened by the generic success of that banner.
Perhaps the most useful information is the strength of a conviction, despite which meaningful action is complicated by empty signaling standard bearers, and where our own path of least resistance is to signal under that same banner rather than act on or negotiate one's convictions.
That makes sense - holding and expressing strong convictions need not preclude continuing to privately question and reexamine them (or publicly, for that matter). There is probably a complicated relationship between the public and private realms of action when it comes to holding, expressing and questioning one's convictions.
Interesting - thanks
Another wonderful piece on problematic information.
>In contrast, if the problem is that people interpret reality through a fundamentally different set of beliefs and interpretive frameworks, the solution is far more challenging. It must involve deep persuasion, attempts to empathise and understand where others are coming from, and building trust between members of different belief-based communities.
I think compromise has a significant place here among persuasion, empathy and understanding. I don’t see it mentioned much in the comments or in this piece as an important tool in the tool box for bridging these difficult divides. It worries me that these disagreements are so often presented as zero-sum games where one side must win over the other. To me, this kind of decisive outcome is unlikely. By all means continue to persuade and empathize and listen to your opposition but above all else expect to compromise with them.
Good point. Yes, there has to be room for any party to the discussion to realize s/he may be wrong. I think I would use “common ground" rather than "compromise" as the frame here. There are some belief systems, for example, that should not be taught as fact: think flat earth believers wanting children to be taught that as fact in schools. In that case, compromise won't be possible, but perhaps it would be possible to find common ground, such as, you're welcome to hold that belief and you and I can discuss it civilly, but it cannot be taught to children as a fact.
I like this distinction between common ground and compromise, although your school policy example above actually sounds like another example of compromise since the core disagreement remains, and it's ultimately a matter of who gets to decide. "Compromise" is often used loosely to refer to what really might be called common ground (where the latter implies overlapping interests and shared premises against a background of conflict/disagreement). But I think there's a stronger meaning of compromise, where parties don't necessarily find common ground but are willing to "agree to disagree" and make specified concessions to one another for the sake moving forward, in a way that is reasonably respectful, pragmatic and constructive.
Yes, this makes a lot of sense. As I can see you understand, I chose common ground because compromise is so often seen as trying to find a “middle ground,” even where that is not appropriate. What you have done so well here, no matter what term we use, is to state the essential principle, which is “to "agree to disagree" and make specified concessions to one another for the sake moving forward, in a way that is reasonably respectful, pragmatic and constructive.” Nicely stated.
It can be a subtle judgment call! Especially if the disagreeing parties in question are using these same terminologies as talking points; their own exact meaning may be shaped by how they perceive any potential common ground/compromise. And if one gets misunderstood as the other there can be consequences. You made a good point about the problem of defaulting to "compromise" even when this is not desirable or achievable. Perhaps this third negative scenario is better understood as appeasement, i.e. "being a chump" (either as the outcome, or the fear of being perceived that way).
Unfortunately, despite good intentions, many political disputes just aren't compromisable. For example, was the 2020 Presidential Election stolen, or not? That's a "zero-sum" issue. One side is right, the other is wrong. Is birthright citizenship correct or not? Is Donald Trump currently suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer's Disease? (I mean that literally, not as a joke - given his age, family history, and, well, general demeanor, it's a possibility that should be taken seriously - but interestingly, is not considered a big Pundit Issue).
What sort of compromise would you propose for these?
In my readings of history, I've been astonished to see how in the run-up to the US Civil War, various factions tried over and over, very hard and extensively, to "compromise" - and it didn't work. At the time, what would you have advocated? (note, I don't mean this as a "gotcha" - it's just the punditry of the time is amazing to me, filled with all sorts of Serious People talking about how the radical abolitionist fringe is to blame for making discussion so difficult, etc).
>In my readings of history, I've been astonished to see how in the run-up to the US Civil War, various factions tried over and over, very hard and extensively, to "compromise" - and it didn't work. At the time, what would you have advocated?
Compromise.
I’m not sure what solution you’re proposing here. Compromise was tried and ultimately failed along with all the other suggestions mentioned in the post (persuasion, empathy, understanding, trust). I think it was correct to exhaust all these possibilities of peaceful resolution prior to war. After compromise failed there was a bloody war that lasted four years and a month in which >6% of the men in the country were killed. Is your proposal we skip ahead to the killing our neighbors part? If not, what are you proposing?
I believe wholeheartedly compromise has a place alongside persuasion, empathy, understanding and trust when trying to peacefully resolve any kind of conflict. Some contests might be zero-sum but many aren’t. If there’s an anti-compromise camp, I don’t want to be in it.
There is no compromise with slavery or the death camps!
I think it’s a converse accident fallacy to suggest that since compromise wasn’t a viable option in those cases, it isn’t a viable option in any others.
All I’m suggesting is compromise is another way to settle disputes. Perhaps there is one piece of cake and two people. It makes sense to cut the cake in half sometimes. Political party A wants to spend $10 million on defense, political party B wants to spend none. They move forward by agreeing to spend $5 million.
If you don’t think compromise can be a useful tool, then I disagree, but wish you the best.
Note, I didn't claim, "There exists no, zero, none, nil, political disputes which can have compromise". But, *many* - implicitly, major disputes right now - are "zero sum". How (not rhetorically, literally) can there be compromise over "2020 election stolen"? Or birthright citizenship - either people are citizen sby birth, or they aren't. I'm asking for some idea how this can even be meaningful.
A key point about slavery history is that in modern thought, if there's one half of the country that says slavery should be OK everywhere, and another half which isn't so keen on it, it's pretty wild to try to work out a "compromise" where slavery is OK in one half the country, but not in the other half (while deriding the ultraleft who say it should immediately be abolished everywhere). Would you really have said "We must have attempts to empathise and understand where [the enslavers] are coming from, and building trust between members of [pro-slavery and anti-slavery] communities.". And I don't mean this as a "gotcha", because it really was a common point of view at the time!
This is NOT to take up the cry of "Civil War Now!". Rather, again, what do you want to do in specific today - not just say "compromise", but what concessions do you think should be given?
Epistemology is the science of certainty. There is no compromise in epistemology. The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty and that sufficiency is a tipping point.
Yes great point
Raw tribalism seems to me the most potent driver where it is most consequential. We have clear recent examples of this. The impulse is then rejection or suppression rather than engagement and catastrophic errors can ensue. Good critiques usually exist, and they can exemplify all the proper intellectual moves to little avail for the longest time. One side may have to loose to acknowledge them, but even then it is not guaranteed. We also have clear recent examples of that. It can't go on like this.
I find the most intriguing aspect of discussions of this kind is the need to convert. If only we could find the tools to help those blinded by ignorance and artifice to see the world as I see it. Is better media important? Should we start earlier with eduction? How can we conduction conversations with 'others' and find middle ground we can build on?
But what if this is truly hopeless? Of course there will be instances where some (typically small) progress is made. At Stanford their work in participatory democracy led them into experiements with moderated debates with ready access to high quality information. They had some small success in bridging divides but it is of limited worth because it simply isn't scaleable.
If we find ourselves believing this is truly insoluble, that the social schisms cannot be readily healed, or even healed with enormous sincere resource rich investment, what then? Is there something fundamental to human nature that could drive such schisms? If so, what might it be?
Thanks - all very good questions! (And I don't have good answers unfortunately)
Great observations and questions. Would enjoy hearing more from Dan on this.
One of the problems of then information discourse is that performance exaggerations get rewarded with attention, which in turn creates the ability to expand the audience and gain reliability. This happens on both sides of the political spectrum, although high education/income people might be more resistant and skeptical with their information diet. Like people who would link a citation to the word 'cope'😀. How is a democratic system supposed to deal with this public tendency in a non-authoritarian way. Especially when the education system is probably both uncapable and unwilling at the moment .
Yes, good point and question (and yes, in hindsight, providing a citation for "cope" was an odd thing to do!).
A good point, though I would say “high education/income people” are not necessarily “more resistant and skeptical with their information diet.” Almost all the high education people around me are just as narrow in their information diet—typically the New York Times, PBS, maybe with the “spice” of MSNBC and/or the New Yorker thrown in. These comprise their journalistic Bible, and they exhibit no skepticism about what they are reading. Moreover their chosen information sources reinforce one another and strengthen their reader’s already strong confirmation bias. Meanwhile, my doorman is not confused about, eg, whether men, no matter how they identify, should play in female sports. It takes a sentence, and he responds, “losing position. The Democrats should drop it.” He is a solid Democrat, by the way. But he lives in the world, rather than in his head.
I appreciate your insight here. It reminds of:
"There's zero correlation between being the best talker and having the best ideas."
― Susan Cain, author, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking
Here in The States, I am at a loss to know if our education system is weak, or if education systems in general cannot overcome the low common denominator of human nature. Both? Your - and or anyone else's - thoughts?
Made the comment before on Dan’s Substack that critical thinking and meta-epistemic awareness (I just made that up, is that a thing?) seem like crucial skills to begin teaching at the elementary level except that they could also potentially undermine beliefs that parents, politicians and educators might be loath to see challenged (beliefs of religion, country, economic system and about the forces of luck and evolution for example).
And I made the point before on your comment at that time that I am pessimistic about that as a proposed solution because most of us live in epistemic tribes, many of which are either hostile to or dismissive of the kind of skills you consider crucial. :)
Ah yes--I had forgotten about that aspect you two raise:
Parents, politicians, and society often do not want kids educated and skeptical as much as inculcated / brainwashed to believe the same nonsense as themselves.
Anecdotally, I have even met multiple middle and high school educators here in The States who are otherwise relatively good teachers, but horrified me, as they subscribe to common supernatural mythologies as factual. And you call yourselves educators?
A lot of brain rot throughout societies negatively affects education systems. Although ivory tower scholars at higher institutions of learning, such as our blog host, might cringe at the term "brain rot". If so, it would not be the first time I've made him cringe.
Wouldn't the fairly recent Congressional hearings here in The States, with our more conservative federal legislators grilling university leaders, resulting in the employment termination of multiple of those leaders, qualify as an example of which you two note?
I'm sure it's an obvious point but what parents want is most times less important than what they take for granted. It's like the air the kid grows up breathing.
A child raised in France learns to speak French. This isn't the result of a decision. It's just the way life is there.
And I'm of the opinion that parents whose world view is informed by Enlightenment values create a world for their children whereby they pick up those values as they would their native language.
Similiarly, parents whose world sets little store by what I might consider to be rationality and critical faculties will bring up children, for the most part, who share that world view and for the most part there is little that education can do about it.
In the unlikely event you would like to explore this admittedly stark perspective I have written a little on in here in ss.
Excellent.
You write carefully and clearly. A pleasure to read.
And I ordered the book on early socieities - looks fascinating.
A related point: I think that one reason Trump is so popular is that he devoutly believes in naive realism. What really gets him mad is the notion that the world is unknowable and uncontrollable. That is why he is so hostile to science and intellectualism generally. He believes he has a God-given right to certainty about the world, as do many of his voters.
I'm sceptical.
Having observed Trump for what is now (unfortunately) many years I concluded that he has a lizard brain that operates by flicking out the tongue, moving it in random directions and picking up scents that motivate hunting. Likewise Trump throws out random ideas before his minions and sees what gets the response he is looking for, whereupon he doubles down on it. I don't think he gives a rat's ass about the truth of anything. He doesn't need certainty, he doesn't need coherence, he doesn't need consistency, he doesn't need any of the virtues some of us may typically associate with the relationship between world and words - he is 100 percent instrumental - he just needs something that works with his audience and if that stops working he will move onto the next scan for a hot button.
It's possible. However, my theory seems to me more plausible because I assume that Trump, as a human being, acts according to recognizably human motives, but you see him as more like a reptile than a human. Your demonizing attitude towards Trump might be accurate, but it is the kind of interpretation that Dan Williams continually warns us against.
I acknowledge that it is an unsettling analogy and is provocatively phrased but IMHO it is accurate.
I respect Dan and his warnings. But a warning is just that, a warning. It is not a universal rule and I don't find generalizations about extremists like Trump that they must not be demonized, tbat they too have a good side, to be especially helpful.
I'm reminded of the wonderful film 'The Producers' 2005. "Hitler was a wonderful dancer,"
I'm inclined to think your analogy is lazy and hackneyed rather than unsettling. People are constantly comparing their enemies to animals, and doing so becomes easy and automatic. It's an impulse that you definitely share with Trump! It takes more effort to come up with analogies that are more plausible and fitting. Also, I never said that Trump had a good side!
Thank you for sharing. The point of course was not to simply refer to him as a reptile but to point out an aspect of his behavior that I have taken the trouble to study. However, as you don't really address the real points I made and simply jumped onto the terms used an analogy I truly don't know who is the more lazy.
Please do make a point of not reading my lazy hackneyed comments any more. I don't want to offend you.
I suspect you may be correct.
But as an unaffiliated USA voter deeply sceptical of human nature - and thus sceptical of all politicians and political factions - I find Griffiths' lizard analogy also correct, but also more emotionally satisfying.
My take on this would be that what Trump *himself* believes or cares about is largely irrelevant, especially knowing what we do about his hollow self-interest and cynicism. Much more important I think is what his followers and enemies project onto him, and the impact of whatever he professes to believe or want on their own beliefs and actions.
For me, the biggest “take-home” is this: “In contrast, if the problem is that people interpret reality through a fundamentally different set of beliefs and interpretive frameworks, the solution is far more challenging. It must involve deep persuasion, attempts to empathise and understand where others are coming from, and building trust between members of different belief-based communities.”
I had a conversation related to this just the other day. A friend claimed anyone who voted for Trump was just gulled by their news ecosystem. (To her credit, she has had and continues to have respectful conversations with people who voted for Trump to try and probe why this happened.) I offered, as contrast, an example of a very thoughtful Hispanic man I know, a good family man, a hard worker, and kind to all. Before the election, he engaged me at one point about the debate between Harris and Trump. He lives in a conservative area, and he and friends, many of whom are policemen, were discussing the debate as they watched. He counseled them to give her a chance, let the debate finish. He nonetheless concluded from the debate, along with his friends, that Harris’s position was wrong on immigration. His parents are immigrants, he said, but they followed the rules.
Meanwhile, in my very “leftie” enclave, many, as my friend had at first, saw this stance from any Hispanic as “voting against his interests.” Moreover, using, for example, Krugman’s analyses that show the importance of immigrants to the economy, including many essential low level jobs, such as caregiving, working in agriculture, and the like, they believed that people like the Hispanic fellow with whom I spoke just didn’t have the facts or understand the issue.
Now, I am a progressive Democrat, and I do think Krugman is correct in terms of the “macro” picture. But I also think, having spoken with my Hispanic fellow and others sharing his concerns, that his concern is valid, too. So now, with this more complex understanding in hand, the task, while perhaps daunting, is a more constructive one: how to bridge the gap in these perspectives in a humane, fair way for all.
Which brings me back to your quote with which I opened: we cannot get to the point of working together constructively to find solutions to the problems in front of us unless we first get past our positions, listen actively, and seek out where common ground lies. It’s only then that we can start to work together to solve the problem under review. Of course, I am no Pollyanna and know this will not work in many cases. But there are many more instances where it can work. It takes that old-time slow boring of hard boards, ours included!
Thanks for this - great comment
And the most immigrant-friendly Dems saw Harris as having repositioned herself too far towards the secure borders end of the spectrum https://www.vox.com/politics/378478/harris-immigration-border-progressive-agenda-2024-election
Shows you just how difficult it is to navigate these issues in a country with such disparate views on the facts and the other team’s positioning.
Agree. It is really, really difficult to even start these conversations, let alone get to the point of coming upon common ground. I have achieved it, but it is laborious, often taking several conversations, addressing one small aspect at a time. (I suppose my background as a union organizer and also as a “leaderboard” canvasser in a swing district in the period that resulted in the 2018 blue wave helped me hone these skills to the extent I have—as I am by no means a “natural,” not even very outgoing personally.) The biggest problem I see with these one-one-one conversations, which can be productive, is that meanwhile, in the US, we are already on the Titantic and running out of time. So, I don’t know what the answer is, but I think Dan’s analysis is very useful for helping us each to at least do small things to help break through these barriers, especially if we do not, as most of us do not, have the ability to do so on a larger scale.
You seem like just the sort of person that the Dems should be looking at recruiting for trust-building and renewal.
Nice of you to say, but at 76, my ability to do that is behind me. I do, though, continue to have as many one-on-one conversations as I can. A roadblock for me, also, is that the Democratic electeds are stuck in a terrible identitarian swamp that is pulling us all down. On that issue, I can’t get anywhere with my electeds. That’s a big, big barrier to Democratic success going forward.
Too bad Wittgenstein didn’t have a katana rather than a mere fireplace poker
He did.
And would have used it.
Just forgot to bring it.
I feel like we’re talking about Dunning-Kruger without mentioning Dunning-Kruger. The Quakers have a wonderful phrase, “truth is continually revealed.” The implication is one can never know the truth, therefore one’s skepticism must be mixed with a healthy optimism and an open mind that willingly receives and parses everything at face value, continually discerning and sifting to find the common resonance of capital T Truth.
The term to “steel-man” an argument proceeds in this type of good faith procedural examination. However, as anyone who has ever tried to shepherd a consensus-based decision making process will attest, it is often a Sisyphean effort. My point is that even problematic information is useful as a whole, if for no other reason than to indicate the tone and tenor of a platform. The folks at https://consilienceproject.org/ have some great insights and strategies regarding all of these arguments. Whether it is democratic institutions run via Blockchain voting, fully transparent, electoral processes, or the means by which we cultivate good faith actors in politics of every stripe. Because ultimately that’s what it takes to run a democracy: Good faith.
I also want to pass on Dr. Iain McGilchrist’s lovely sentiment that we should not necessarily fear ignorance, but rather ignorance of ignorance.
Yes radical ignorance (ignorance of ignorance) is a root cause of many problems!
Slice and dice it all you might, the task moving forward remains clear: 1) expose the big lies, 2) illuminate genuine mistakes, 3) understand actual disagreements.
Chomsky and Herman in Necessary Illusions and Manufacturing Consent lay out the challenges and complexities and opportunities for attacking the first problem. Meanwhile the establishment Dems and Reps as puppets of plutocracy are too false and corrupt to fundamentally address any of these three problems.
Sanity with honesty, broadly and generally, is found primarily among the currently limited number of progressive populists in electoral realms, who have a toehold in the Dem party, who often stand alone and strong against the Dem/Rep establishment.
Terrific, terrific essay. Very clear. I won't say more because I need to think about it a bit. I just came across your site, so I'll start looking at past posts. One question; you seem to have given some thought to the role of social media in our current mess. I think it has been absolutely critical, but I'd be interested in your thoughts.
I am a big Popper fan and until recently participated in an online discussion group until some of the members started spinning off into the MAGAsphere. Very unPopperian in my opinion.
I think you might be interested in these two posts on my Substack. The first invokes Hayek to discuss what's wrong with economics. The second explains why our nation is so divided. I wrote it a while back, but I think it has stood the test of time.
https://charles72f.substack.com/p/the-pretense-of-knowledge
https://charles72f.substack.com/p/the-tribe-has-spoken
Thanks for these suggestions. I'm a bit sceptical of placing too much weight on social media but there's lots of uncertainty here
When people are equivalently and sufficiently rational, they come to the same conclusion with the same evidence, or one that's perfectly compatible.
If you look at what Trump and Musk are doing to the U.S. Government, in addition to the mass firings, it is the deliberate destruction of data, and the defunding of scientific research. This will create a situation where Americans will be deprived of the means of monitoring the consequences of industry and government action, and of knowing how to mitigate the environmental damage. It will also accelerate the trend of distrust towards government and science. I've just written about it in my substack: https://crjustice5.substack.com I also want to comment on your point about polarization and the tendency to see the other side as intentionally deceptive. I'm sorry to say that I think that this is a "death spiral" that we can't get out of. I forsee civil war happening in the U.S. in the not to distant future.
There are definitely worrying trends...
"... the deliberate destruction of data, and the defunding of scientific research. This will create a situation where Americans will be deprived of the means of monitoring the consequences of industry and government action, and of knowing how to mitigate the environmental damage."
(1) Are you suggesting you "know" that "data" is being destroyed (How does one "destroy" data? Delete conputer files which have no backups? Shred documents which have no copies? What exactly are "Trump and Musk" doing in this regard? (2) Are you suggesting as well that the only "monitors of the consequences of industry and government action [whatever such "action" may be]" are agencies of the federal government? Could you be specific about this, at least before the civil war starts?
Although no one would deny that many politicians lie, I believe that interpretive charity is usually the best strategy in political argument. Political liars only succeed if they can convince many followers, who do not benefit from their lies, to sincerely support them. In arguing against a lying leader and his followers, it's pointless to try to persuade the leader. I need to convince the sincere followers to change their minds. Usually, telling them that they are stupid dupes or nefarious liars won't do the trick.
We need a healthy narrative of the other side. The narrative I prefer is that alternative views provide healthy tension to maintain social balance. You need freedom in tension with structure. You need growth in tension with pruning, or writers and editors.
This person is in opposition to be with full knowledge and different values, and I need that tension both to test my proclivities but also to limit my opponents excess. It is when the tension breaks, where we swing into excess.
While this is a thorough examination of tensions, still, I'd say it gets caught up in the issue itself. That is, I think there's a bit of "weakman" in terms of contrasting "self-evidently true" vs "compelling independent evidence". I'd assert most political discourse treats "self-evidently true" as just meaning "this has been established so well that disputing it is either ignorant or dishonest", i.e. ""compelling independent evidence".
To be blunt, it seems to me you're trying to find a way to say that e.g. right-wing 2020 election denialism shouldn't be respected, while right-wing attacks on Covid public health should be respected. But this immediately runs into the problem that you've built up a whole framework about how one shouldn't be overconfident, one can be wrong even in the strongest convictions, etc. etc. Then why doesn't this apply to the claim that the 2020 election was stolen? All the professional liars can run every single technique to advocate voting fraud possibilities: It doesn't matter how many debunked claims have been made, each new claim has to be evaluated on its merits (lab leak!). Oh, look at that dumb stupid person who said it was utterly impossible, that shows The Establisment is trying to stop debate. Isn't it arrogant to think you know what is absolutely true? There's so many people who believe this, officials have lost the trust of the public in their integrity due to their elite disrepect of the masses. On and on.
That is, it's not at all clear to me why the "Merchant Of Doubt" process does not abstractly apply very strongly to 2020 election fraud claims. The moment you try to escape it by saying "But the evidence ...", it fails because of that process, notably due to the proving-a-negative issue.
Hmm fair points. I agree there is a potential issue here.