This is a master class on the issues under discussion. As I read, I could think of several examples along the lines you describe:
First, I recall how, when helping to develop a small scale white-collar fraud case back in the day, it appeared to me impossible that jurors would be able to find their way around the mass of evidence and law to make an informed decision. Not that they were intellectually incapable, but simply because the evidence and law were technically complex. A narrative had to be supplied that tied the pieces together, but that itself imposed a constructed reality on those very facts and law.
Second, I am reminded of an observation Paul Krugman made in his Substack column today about plans for the federal workforce, in the course of setting out a short analysis on the topic: “never underestimate how ignorant these people are about the government they’re trying to take over.”
In each case, to understand the issues and make judgments, it appears necessary, at least in part, to rely on knowledgeable interlocutors: the lawyers presenting the case in the first instance, Paul Krugman in the second, and Jetelina’s team in the third.
This all points me to your observation that “Although there is a deep sense in which everyone is biased, not everyone is equally biased. Some people exhibit virtues of active open-mindedness. Some people at least try to overcome motivated reasoning and self-deception.”
I am again led to wonder, as I am from time to time, to what extent critical thinking that allows for such discernment can be taught.
With apologies for the basic nature of my observations, many thanks for spurring our thinking on this complex conundrum.
Thanks - all good observations. (Also, I didn't know Krugman was on Substack now - good to see). I suspect critical thinking of the sort discussed can be taught to a limited degree but the main issue is a social one: creating communities where relevant norms of thought are enforced (reputationally)
'I am again led to wonder, as I am from time to time, to what extent critical thinking that allows for such discernment can be taught.'
Good point. I am deeply pessimistic on this score. Not in principle for there is nothing fundamental to critical thinking that is unteachable by classes or example, but because our social reality is that we grow up in tribes and most people on the planet belong to tribes in which critical thinking of a non-elementary nature is an alien notion.
IMHO Lippman is much the more insightful thinker than Dewey on political realities. Dewey was an idealist.
Popper is interesting in TOSAIE
His conclusion as I remember it here is that the key characteristic of a democracy is that the people can change their government. They may do this for good reason or bad reason. That is secondary to Popper. Primary is that they can do it.
It is also interesting to compare political theory and management theory. Core issues are exactly the same. What is Taylor's theory of scientific managament other than an approach that exalts expertise and disenfranchises the independent thought of the workers it manages? What is any approach that emphasizes the importance of company culture but a recognition that as NO system can legislate for all circumstances that a company may face or a person in the organization may face the only way to 'govern' is by promoting a culture that emphasizes values of enduring worth. 'The customer is always right.'
Thanks Pete - and yes good point re. the analogy with management. The note about Popper is interesting as well. I don't much like TOSAIE but it has some worthwhile ideas in it.
Best overview of situation I’ve read. One small qualification: Successful action doesn’t require truth, often approximate truth suffices. This is true in the material as well as the social sphere. And often we can see that something (e.g.aspirin)works w/o knowing how it works.
Crux seems to be: is tribalism a feature or a bug? If the Lippmann view is too individualistic, the appropriation of tribal bias is effectively information sharing from tribal experts and shared experience. Basically, tribes are strategic coalitions along ethical, economic and in-group lines to effectively solve for democracy's information and individual irrelevancy problems.
Seems like if you accept democracy, you must embrace tribalism. I'm pretty sure this falls out of Arrow's work on coalitions, but it has been a couple decades. Grim thoughts.
"Policy-making within modern societies involves managing unimaginably large, complicated, large-scale societies shaped by the actions and interactions of millions of individuals—each one of them an immensely complex agent in their own right—influenced by countless social, economic, cultural, political, and technological..."
Deeply true.
It is interesting to compare this perspective with the (later) insights of Hayek. His arguments in favor of an unrestrained operation of the price system for resource allocation rather than say Leontiev's planned economy approach is an acknowledgement of precisely this overwhelming unimaginably complex fast moving reality.
"Although there is a deep sense in which everyone is biased, not everyone is equally biased. Some people exhibit virtues of active open-mindedness. Some people at least try to overcome motivated reasoning and self-deception"
True
The key follow-up question being
What proportion of a given society, it indeed if the global population. Does this represent.
I content it is much much smaller than most of us suppose.
"There is also an amusingly elitist (and to modern sensibilities outrageous) passage where he notes that large segments of society are simply a lost cause: "
This is a fantastic discussion of the issues of the limits of knowledge and what that means for democracy. I've come to similar conclusions, inspired by Hume and modern cognitive science. I don't believe humans in general are capable (or at least consistently capable) of what we call rationality. Our choices are always motivated by what Hume would call the "passions" and what (apparently) Lippmann might call "stereotypes."
I lean toward the idea that this means we need towards building processes and institutions that emphasize consensus. My inclination is that groups of people can (but most certainly not always) approach choices in a rational manner using well-defined rules and institutions. This is no guarantee. Democracies will always make mistakes. I also think we must take the limits on rationality into consideration when approaching the responsibilities of citizens towards their democracy. If we assume all of these limitations then we must also accept them and discuss democracy, policy, and consensus etc. taking these limitations into account. It's actually the respectful way to approach all individuals.
Walter Lippmann made some perceptive observations, but missed a lot, and so drew wrong conclusions.
John Dewey corrected those conclusions, while filling in some of the yawning gaps.
In America, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, democratic socialists, these are Deweyites. Donald Trump, Joe Biden, the One Percent, these are Lippmannites.
That instantiates the level of the main distinctions being made here, which is refreshingly basic.
That's a way to basically "understand modern society" - as people will not be stopped from attempting - when you correct and supplement Lippmann, you get the Deweyites, the progressives.
If you go with the Swiss cheese of Lippmann's conclusions, you get oligarchy, as Dewey notes, since "politics is the shadow cast by business" - business wealth.
Dewey would have to amend now that politics is the shadow cast further by plutocratic financial concentration and exponentialization, and the likely world-ending tyranny inherent in that.
In America, no one thinks (or pretends) that they are more culturally attuned and intellectually sensible and responsibly acting than the Dem/Rep establishment and the One Percent - the plutocracy.
Bernie, AOC, and the democratic socialists show the profound falsity of that - classic John Dewey.
Seems plain as day: Trump and Biden/Harris (and the Dem/Rep establishment) are predatory Lippmannites, controlling and distorting public opinion via media (fostering bullshit "stereotypes" and "pseudo-environments), rather than using media as a watchdog. The billionaire fake populist establishment also keeps the most powerful and far-reaching decision-making in the hands of the financial elite as opposed to popular will. Building and leading a billionaire technocracy (aka plutocracy) is the natural extension of Lippmann's thought, as Dewey pointed out, an anti-democracy, whatever Lippmann believed he was doing. Lippmann laid the intellectual groundwork for a propagandizing billionaire technocracy, a plutocracy, whatever his intentions. The establishment has fully embraced this, long since. This is what Dewey opposed, and this is what the progressive populists also oppose and fight against. Nearly victorious with Bernie's runs and Corbyn's efforts, progressive populists have had great recent successes in Central and South America, particularly in Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, Columbia, Venezuela, Honduras, and so on, also in North America in Mexico. And boy do the Lippmannites fight back. Their media managed technocracy has endless money, weapons, and other resources, while the Dewey progressives have got most of the people.
"“In that world people and things have their well-known places, and do certain expected things. We feel at home there. We fit in. We are members. We know the way around. There we find the charm of the familiar, the normal, the dependable; its grooves and shapes are where we are accustomed to find them"
I need to dig into this. Hayek had definitely read Lippmann. My sense is that some people think Hayek was greatly influenced by him but didn't disclose this - but I'm not an expert on that so can't evaluate.
This is a master class on the issues under discussion. As I read, I could think of several examples along the lines you describe:
First, I recall how, when helping to develop a small scale white-collar fraud case back in the day, it appeared to me impossible that jurors would be able to find their way around the mass of evidence and law to make an informed decision. Not that they were intellectually incapable, but simply because the evidence and law were technically complex. A narrative had to be supplied that tied the pieces together, but that itself imposed a constructed reality on those very facts and law.
Second, I am reminded of an observation Paul Krugman made in his Substack column today about plans for the federal workforce, in the course of setting out a short analysis on the topic: “never underestimate how ignorant these people are about the government they’re trying to take over.”
Third, I am reminded of a Substack article by Katelyn Jetelina and her team about the “nature fallacy” that I thought particularly illuminating. https://open.substack.com/pub/yourlocalepidemiologist/p/heres-what-were-getting-ourselves?r=16541&utm_medium=ios
In each case, to understand the issues and make judgments, it appears necessary, at least in part, to rely on knowledgeable interlocutors: the lawyers presenting the case in the first instance, Paul Krugman in the second, and Jetelina’s team in the third.
This all points me to your observation that “Although there is a deep sense in which everyone is biased, not everyone is equally biased. Some people exhibit virtues of active open-mindedness. Some people at least try to overcome motivated reasoning and self-deception.”
I am again led to wonder, as I am from time to time, to what extent critical thinking that allows for such discernment can be taught.
With apologies for the basic nature of my observations, many thanks for spurring our thinking on this complex conundrum.
Thanks - all good observations. (Also, I didn't know Krugman was on Substack now - good to see). I suspect critical thinking of the sort discussed can be taught to a limited degree but the main issue is a social one: creating communities where relevant norms of thought are enforced (reputationally)
'I am again led to wonder, as I am from time to time, to what extent critical thinking that allows for such discernment can be taught.'
Good point. I am deeply pessimistic on this score. Not in principle for there is nothing fundamental to critical thinking that is unteachable by classes or example, but because our social reality is that we grow up in tribes and most people on the planet belong to tribes in which critical thinking of a non-elementary nature is an alien notion.
Another terrific piece. Very clear.
IMHO Lippman is much the more insightful thinker than Dewey on political realities. Dewey was an idealist.
Popper is interesting in TOSAIE
His conclusion as I remember it here is that the key characteristic of a democracy is that the people can change their government. They may do this for good reason or bad reason. That is secondary to Popper. Primary is that they can do it.
It is also interesting to compare political theory and management theory. Core issues are exactly the same. What is Taylor's theory of scientific managament other than an approach that exalts expertise and disenfranchises the independent thought of the workers it manages? What is any approach that emphasizes the importance of company culture but a recognition that as NO system can legislate for all circumstances that a company may face or a person in the organization may face the only way to 'govern' is by promoting a culture that emphasizes values of enduring worth. 'The customer is always right.'
Thanks Pete - and yes good point re. the analogy with management. The note about Popper is interesting as well. I don't much like TOSAIE but it has some worthwhile ideas in it.
Dewey? An idealist? Moreso than Lippmann, certainly, but I think he earned the standard label of "pragmatist."
I wasn’t speaking technically. It’s a dangerous term to use around philosopers :)
I was thinking more of his well meaning optimism
Best overview of situation I’ve read. One small qualification: Successful action doesn’t require truth, often approximate truth suffices. This is true in the material as well as the social sphere. And often we can see that something (e.g.aspirin)works w/o knowing how it works.
Yes good point
Crux seems to be: is tribalism a feature or a bug? If the Lippmann view is too individualistic, the appropriation of tribal bias is effectively information sharing from tribal experts and shared experience. Basically, tribes are strategic coalitions along ethical, economic and in-group lines to effectively solve for democracy's information and individual irrelevancy problems.
Seems like if you accept democracy, you must embrace tribalism. I'm pretty sure this falls out of Arrow's work on coalitions, but it has been a couple decades. Grim thoughts.
Yes that connection between democracy and tribalism seems pretty unavoidable in a way.
"Policy-making within modern societies involves managing unimaginably large, complicated, large-scale societies shaped by the actions and interactions of millions of individuals—each one of them an immensely complex agent in their own right—influenced by countless social, economic, cultural, political, and technological..."
Deeply true.
It is interesting to compare this perspective with the (later) insights of Hayek. His arguments in favor of an unrestrained operation of the price system for resource allocation rather than say Leontiev's planned economy approach is an acknowledgement of precisely this overwhelming unimaginably complex fast moving reality.
"Hayek never had an especially satisfying answer to: externalities"
Very true
But at least he had the good grace to begrudgingly acknowledge the fact
"Although there is a deep sense in which everyone is biased, not everyone is equally biased. Some people exhibit virtues of active open-mindedness. Some people at least try to overcome motivated reasoning and self-deception"
True
The key follow-up question being
What proportion of a given society, it indeed if the global population. Does this represent.
I content it is much much smaller than most of us suppose.
"There is also an amusingly elitist (and to modern sensibilities outrageous) passage where he notes that large segments of society are simply a lost cause: "
Maybe it's me
But
Doesn't sound outrageous at all
This is a fantastic discussion of the issues of the limits of knowledge and what that means for democracy. I've come to similar conclusions, inspired by Hume and modern cognitive science. I don't believe humans in general are capable (or at least consistently capable) of what we call rationality. Our choices are always motivated by what Hume would call the "passions" and what (apparently) Lippmann might call "stereotypes."
I lean toward the idea that this means we need towards building processes and institutions that emphasize consensus. My inclination is that groups of people can (but most certainly not always) approach choices in a rational manner using well-defined rules and institutions. This is no guarantee. Democracies will always make mistakes. I also think we must take the limits on rationality into consideration when approaching the responsibilities of citizens towards their democracy. If we assume all of these limitations then we must also accept them and discuss democracy, policy, and consensus etc. taking these limitations into account. It's actually the respectful way to approach all individuals.
I don't know if you have come across it but if not I think you would love the fantastic book by Sperber & Mercier 'The Enigma of Reason''
It's brilliant
Walter Lippmann made some perceptive observations, but missed a lot, and so drew wrong conclusions.
John Dewey corrected those conclusions, while filling in some of the yawning gaps.
In America, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, democratic socialists, these are Deweyites. Donald Trump, Joe Biden, the One Percent, these are Lippmannites.
That instantiates the level of the main distinctions being made here, which is refreshingly basic.
That's a way to basically "understand modern society" - as people will not be stopped from attempting - when you correct and supplement Lippmann, you get the Deweyites, the progressives.
If you go with the Swiss cheese of Lippmann's conclusions, you get oligarchy, as Dewey notes, since "politics is the shadow cast by business" - business wealth.
Dewey would have to amend now that politics is the shadow cast further by plutocratic financial concentration and exponentialization, and the likely world-ending tyranny inherent in that.
In America, no one thinks (or pretends) that they are more culturally attuned and intellectually sensible and responsibly acting than the Dem/Rep establishment and the One Percent - the plutocracy.
Bernie, AOC, and the democratic socialists show the profound falsity of that - classic John Dewey.
Interesting. I'm not sure I'd agree that Trump or Biden are Lippmannites!
Permit me to go further
They are clearly not
In fact if Trump is informed by anything resembling coherent philosophy i'de be much surprised and interested to know what it is
Seems plain as day: Trump and Biden/Harris (and the Dem/Rep establishment) are predatory Lippmannites, controlling and distorting public opinion via media (fostering bullshit "stereotypes" and "pseudo-environments), rather than using media as a watchdog. The billionaire fake populist establishment also keeps the most powerful and far-reaching decision-making in the hands of the financial elite as opposed to popular will. Building and leading a billionaire technocracy (aka plutocracy) is the natural extension of Lippmann's thought, as Dewey pointed out, an anti-democracy, whatever Lippmann believed he was doing. Lippmann laid the intellectual groundwork for a propagandizing billionaire technocracy, a plutocracy, whatever his intentions. The establishment has fully embraced this, long since. This is what Dewey opposed, and this is what the progressive populists also oppose and fight against. Nearly victorious with Bernie's runs and Corbyn's efforts, progressive populists have had great recent successes in Central and South America, particularly in Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, Columbia, Venezuela, Honduras, and so on, also in North America in Mexico. And boy do the Lippmannites fight back. Their media managed technocracy has endless money, weapons, and other resources, while the Dewey progressives have got most of the people.
"“In that world people and things have their well-known places, and do certain expected things. We feel at home there. We fit in. We are members. We know the way around. There we find the charm of the familiar, the normal, the dependable; its grooves and shapes are where we are accustomed to find them"
Social identity theory
Btw. Tribalism is most definitely a feature and a bug ( if a feature here means something designed to fit a purpose and a bug introduces side effects)
It is an eternal dimension of human existence with merits and shortcomings
And yes the interesting question is how this reality fits in the modern world we have spawned
Good overview. On Hayek and Lippmann, has anyone written about the similarity of their analysis social knowledge? Did H read L?
I need to dig into this. Hayek had definitely read Lippmann. My sense is that some people think Hayek was greatly influenced by him but didn't disclose this - but I'm not an expert on that so can't evaluate.
Excellent
Once again