#epistemic democrats

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Ostromizing democracy

Friday (May 5), I’ll be at the Books, Inc in Mountain View with Mitch Kapor for my novel Red Team Blues; and this weekend (May 6/7), I’ll be in Berkeley at the Bay Area Bookfest.

You know how “realist” has become a synonym for “asshole?” As in, “I’m not a racist, I’m just a ‘race realist?’” That same “realism” is also used to discredit the idea of democracy itself, among a group of self-styled “libertarian elitists,” who claim that social science proves that democracy doesn’t work — and can’t work.

If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/04/analytical-democratic-theory/#epistocratic-delusions

You’ve likely encountered elements of this ideology in the wild. Perhaps you’ve heard about how our cognitive biases make us incapable of deliberating, that “reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth. Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments.”

Or maybe you’ve heard that voters are “rationally ignorant,” choosing not to become informed about politics because their vote doesn’t have enough influence to justify the cognitive expenditure of figuring out how to cast it.

There’s the “backfire effect,” the idea that rational argument doesn’t make us change our minds, but rather, drives us to double-down on our own cherished beliefs. As if that wasn’t bad enough, there’s the Asch effect, which says that we will change our minds based on pressure from the majority, even if we know they’re wrong.

Finally, there’s the fact that the public Just Doesn’t Understand Economics. When you compare the views of the average person to the views of the average PhD economist, you find that the public sharply disagrees with such obvious truths as “we should only worry about how big the pie is, not how big my slice is?” These fools just can’t understand that an economy where their boss gets richer and they get poorer is a good economy, so long as it’s growing overall!

That’s why noted “realist” Peter Thiel thinks women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Thiel says that mothers are apt to sideline the “science” of economics for the soppy, sentimental idea that children shouldn’t starve to death and thus vote for politicians who are willing to tax rich people. Thus do we find ourselves on the road to serfdom:

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/

Other realists go even further, suggesting that anyone who disagrees with orthodox (Chicago School) economists shouldn’t be allowed to vote: “[a]nyone who opposes surge pricing should be disenfranchised. That’s how we should decide who decides in epistocracy.”

Add it all up and you get the various “libertarian” cases for abolishing democracy. Some of these libertarian elitists want to replace democracy with markets, because “markets impose an effective ‘user fee’ for irrationality that is absent from democracy.

Others say we should limit voting to “Vulcans” who can pass a knowledge test about the views of neoclassical economists, and if this means that fewer Black people and women are eligible to vote because either condition is “negatively correlated” with familiarity with “politics,” then so mote be it. After all, these groups are “much more likely than others to be mistaken about what they really need”:

https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2015/03/the-demographic-argument-for-compulsory-voting-with-a-guest-appearance-by-the-real-reason-the-left-advocates-compulsory-voting/

These arguments and some of their most gaping errors are rehearsed in an excellent Democracy Journal article by Henry Farrell, Hugo Mercier, and Melissa Schwartzberg (Mercier’s research is often misinterpreted and misquoted by libertarian elitists to bolster their position):

https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/68/the-new-libertarian-elitists/

The article is a companion piece to a new academic article in American Political Science Review, where the authors propose a new subdiscipline of political science, Analytical Democracy Theory:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/analytical-democratic-theory-a-microfoundational-approach/739A9A928A99A47994E4585059B03398

What’s “Analytical Democracy Theory?” It’s the systematic study of when and how collective decision-making works, and when it goes wrong. Because the libertarian elitists aren’t completely, utterly wrong — there are times when groups of people make bad decisions. From that crumb of truth, the libertarian elitists theorize an entire nihilistic cake in which self-governance is impossible and where we fools and sentimentalists must be subjugated to the will of our intellectual betters, for our own good.

This isn’t the first time libertarian political scientists have pulled this trick. You’ve probably heard of the “Tragedy of the Commons,” which claims to be a “realist” account of what happens when people try to share something — a park, a beach, a forest — without anyone owning it. According to the “tragedy,” these commons are inevitably ruined by “rational” actors who know that if they don’t overgraze, pollute or despoil, someone else will, so they might as well get there first.

The Tragedy of the Commons feels right, and we’ve all experienced some version of it — the messy kitchen at your office or student house-share, the litter in the park, etc. But the paper that brought us the idea of the Tragedy of the Commons, published in 1968 by Garrett Hardin in Science, was a hoax:

https://memex.craphound.com/2019/10/01/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-how-ecofascism-was-smuggled-into-mainstream-thought/

Hardin didn’t just claim that some commons turned tragic — he claimed that the tragedy was inevitable, and, moreover, that every commons had experienced a tragedy. But Hardin made it all up. It wasn’t true. What’s more, Hardin — an ardent white nationalist — used his “realist’s account of the commons to justify colonization and genocide.

After all, if the people who lived in these colonized places didn’t have property rights to keep their commons from tragifying, then those commons were already doomed. The colonizers who seized their lands and murdered the people they found there were actually saving the colonized from their own tragedies.

Hardin went on to pioneer the idea of “lifeboat ethics,” a greased slide to mass-extermination of “inferior” people (Hardin was also a eugenicist) in order to save our planet from “overpopulation.”

Hardin’s flawed account of the commons is a sterling example of the problem with economism, the ideology that underpins neoclassical economics:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/27/economism/#what-would-i-do-if-i-were-a-horse

Economism was summed up in by Ely Devons, who quipped “”If economists wished to study the horse, they wouldn’t go and look at horses. They’d sit in their studies and say to themselves, ‘What would I do if I were a horse?’”

Hardin asked himself, “If I were reliant upon a commons, what would I do?” And, being a realist (that is, an asshole), Hardin decided that he would steal everything from the commons because that’s what the other realists would do if he didn’t get there first.

Hardin didn’t go and look at a commons. But someone else did.

Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel for her work studying the properties of successful, durable commons. She went and looked at commons:

https://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-principles-managing-commmons

Ostom codified the circumstances, mechanisms and principles that distinguished successful commons from failed commons.

Analytical Democratic Theory proposes doing for democratic deliberation what Ostrom did for commons: to create an empirical account of the methods, arrangements, circumstances and systems that produce good group reasoning, and avoid the pitfalls that lead to bad group reasoning. The economists’ term for this is microfoundations: the close study of interaction among individuals, which then produces a “macro” account of how to structure whole societies.

Here are some examples of how microfoundations can answer some very big questions:

Backfire effects: The original backfire effect research was a fluke. It turns out that in most cases, people who are presented with well-sourced facts and good arguments change their minds — but not always.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-019-09528-x

Rational ignorance: Contrary to the predictions of “rational ignorance” theory, people who care about specific issues become “issue publics” who are incredibly knowledgeable about it, and deeply investigate and respond to candidates’ positions:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08913810608443650

Rational ignorance is a mirage, caused by giving people questionnaires about politics in general, rather than the politics that affects them directly and personally.

“Myside” bias: Even when people strongly identify with a group, they are capable of filtering out “erroneous messages” that come from that group if they get good, contradictory evidence:

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674237827

Majority bias: People are capable of rejecting the consensus of majorities, when the majority view is implausible, or when the majority is small, or when the majority is not perceived as benevolent. The Asch effect is “folklore”: yes, people may say that they hold a majority view when they face social sanction for rejecting it, but that doesn’t mean they’ve changed their minds:

https://alexandercoppock.com/guess_coppock_2020.pdf

Notwithstanding all this, democracy’s cheerleaders have some major gaps in the evidence to support their own view. Analytical Democratic Theory needs to investigate the nuts-and-bolts of when deliberation works and when it fails, including the tradeoffs between:

“social comfort and comfort in expressing dissent”:

https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37004-3

“shared common ground and some measure of preexisting disagreement”:

https://sci-hub.st/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1080

“group size and the need to represent diversity”:

https://www.nicolas.claidiere.fr/wp-content/uploads/DiscussionCrowds-Mercier-2021.pdf

“pressures for conformity and concerns for epistemic reputation”:

https://academic.oup.com/princeton-scholarship-online/book/30811

Realism is a demand dressed up as an observation. Realists like Margaret Thatcher insisted “there is no alternative” to neoliberalism, but what she meant was “stop trying to think of an alternative.” Hardin didn’t just claim that some commons turned tragic, he claimed that the tragedy of the commons was inevitable — that we shouldn’t even bother trying to create public goods.

The Ostrom method — actually studying how something works, rather than asking yourself how it would work if everyone thought like you — is a powerful tonic to this, but it’s not the only one. One of the things that makes science fiction so powerful is its ability to ask how a system would work under some different social arrangement.

It’s a radical proposition. Don’t just ask what the gadget does: ask who it does it for and who it does it to. That’s the foundation of Luddism, which is smeared as a technophobic rejection of technology, but which was only ever a social rejection of the specific economic arrangements of that technology. Specifically, the Luddites rejected the idea that machines should be “so easy a child could use them” in order to kidnap children from orphanages and working them to death at those machines:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/20/love-the-machine/#hate-the-factory

There are sf writers who are making enormous strides in imagining how deliberative tools could enable new democratic institutions. Ruthanna Emrys’s stunning 2022 novel “A Half-Built Garden” is a tour-de-force:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/07/26/aislands/#dead-ringers

I like to think that I make a small contribution here, too. My next novel, “The Lost Cause,” is at root a tale of competing group decision-making methodologies, between post-Green New Deal repair collectives, seafaring anarcho-capitalist techno-solutionists, and terrorizing white nationalist militias (it’s out in November):

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250865939/the-lost-cause

Catch me on tour with Red Team Blues in Mountain View, Berkeley, Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, DC, Gaithersburg, Oxford, Hay, Manchester, Nottingham, London, and Berlin!

[Image ID: A lab-coated scientist amidst an array of chemistry equipment. His head has been replaced with a 19th-century anatomical lateral cross-section showing the inside of a bearded man's head, including one lobe of his brain. He is peering at a large flask half-full of red liquid. Inside the liquid floats the Capitol building.]

[schraubd]

There But For the Grace of God

Over at the bad place, Batya Ungar-Sargon is mainlining copium to explain Donald Trump's debate performance. My take on the debate is that Harris did well because she's a factory settings Democratic apparatchik, and the main skill for doing that well is one she's good at: acting, pretending the neoliberal (or now neoconservative!) agenda of the Democratic elite is your own,… — Batya Ungar-Sargon (@bungarsargon) September 11, 2024 Ah yes, that explains it. Donald Trump is just too pure authentic for this world. His raw untamable independent streak just couldn't be corralled to please "the elites" ("on either side"!). Harris gets "if anything, she was too prepared" version 2.0. It's amazing how hard one has to work to avoid the Occam's Razor explanation* that Trump sounded like a madman because he is one; that Trump's inability to articulate a concept of a plan for America beyond crude xenophobic nativism is because he lacks one. Batya's descent into utter madness brain worms territory (which has been ongoing for years, including being a key player making Newsweek the house journal for the alt-right and antisemitic White supremacists and parroting the crudest Putinist propaganda about how funding of "Zelensky's War" is why Americans don't have manufacturing jobs) legitimately frightens me, because I don't know what zombie bit her and so I don't know how to ensure it doesn't bite me too. My main inference right now is "don't become opinion editor for a Jewish media outlet", because it was her experience at the Forward that seemed to drive her into the arms of madness, but I'm terrified that if exposed to the wrong trauma I too might go from being a reasonable intelligent and thoughtful commentator to a true believer in every fever swamp inanity imaginable. I'm not really exposed to Batya these days, since she's not on BlueSky. There's a line on BlueSky that it's an echo chamber, and that's something I worry about too -- isn't it important that I be exposed to more views like Batya's, to ensure that I'm not cocooning myself in an epistemic bubble? The problem, though, is that while when I expose myself to the Batya's of the world I may pat myself on the back for being a good, virtuous epistemic citizen willing to challenge myself with views-not-my-own, in reality exposing myself to the likes of Batya feels less challenging than it is confirmatory. Reading her takes only makes me feel incredibly relieved that I don't have her takes. She is anti-persuasive.  If the point of reading diverse views is to have that "huh, I never thought of it that way" moment, reading these people makes me go "huh, turns out that the caricatured mental model I have of brain-rotted right-wingers isn't a caricature at all." They're saying exactly what I expect them to say; there are no surprises. I'm unconvinced that confirming that instinct is actually healthier, even along the axis of remaining open-minded to divergent opinions. * Of course, this circle also struggles mightily to understand what an "Occam's Razor" explanation is. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/juXKUBd

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Julian Adorney and Mark Johnson

Published: Jun 10, 2024

There’s a sense that the liberal order is eroding.

What do we mean by that? By “liberal order” we mean three things: political liberalism, economic liberalism, and epistemic liberalism.

Politically, it’s tough to shake the sense that we’re drifting away from our liberal roots. Fringes on both sides are rejecting the liberal principle that all human beings are created equal and that our differences are dwarfed by our shared humanity. On the left, prominent activists are endorsing the idea that people with different immutable characteristics (race, gender, etc.) have different intrinsic worth. For instance, in 2021, Yale University’s Child Study Center hosted a psychiatrist who gave a speech titled, “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind,” where she compared white people to “a demented violent predator who thinks they are a saint or a superhero.” In response to Hamas’ brutal attack on Israeli civilians on October 7, Yale professor Zareena Grewal tweeted, “Settlers are not civilians. This is not hard.” Across the political aisle, Dilbert comic creator Scott Adams called black Americans a “hate group” whom white Americans should “get the hell away from.”

If a core component of political liberalism is that all human beings are created equal, then many prominent voices are pushing us rapidly toward an illiberal worldview where one’s worth is determined by immutable characteristics. 

Increasingly, members of both parties seek to change liberal institutions to lock the opposition out of power. Their apparent goal is to undermine a key outcome of political liberalism: a peaceful and regular transfer of power between large and well-represented factions. On the right, prominent Republicans have refused to concede Trump’s loss in 2020, and many are refusing to commit to certifying the 2024 election should Trump lose again. “At the end of the day, the 47th president of the United States will be President Donald Trump,” Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) said in response to repeated questions about whether or not he would accept the election results. On the left, prominent Democrats advocate for abolishing the Electoral College, partly on the grounds that it favors Republicans; and for splitting California into multiple states to gain more blue Senate seats. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Tina Smith (D-MN), among others, have called for expanding the Supreme Court explicitly so they can pack it with Democrats.

This disdain for democratic norms isn’t limited to political elites on right or left; it is permeating the general populace. According to a 2023 poll, only 54 percent of young Americans (aged 18-29) agree with the statement, “Democracy is the greatest form of government.”

Economic liberalism is also under attack. In 2022, Pew found that only 57 percent of the public had a favorable view of capitalism. Those numbers are even worse among young Americans; only 40 percent among those aged 18-29 had a positive view of capitalism. By contrast, 44 percent of the same age group reported having a positive view of socialism. Faced with the choice of which system we should live under, it’s unclear whether young Americans would prefer economic liberalism over the command-and-control systems of socialism or communism. And while young people typically hold more left-of-center views and often become more conservative as they age, the intensity of young peoples’ opposition to capitalism should not be discounted. From 2010 to 2018, a separate Gallup poll found that the number of young Americans (aged 18-29) with a positive view of capitalism dropped by 23 percent. 

Epistemic liberalism is on the ropes too. As the Harper’s Letter warned, “The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.” In recent years, even prominent intellectuals have been terrified of being canceled for daring to write outside of the lines set by a new and predominantly left-wing orthodoxy, adversely affecting out discourse. Again, this disdain for liberalism is more acute among young people: a 2019 survey found that 41 percent of young Americans didn’t believe that the First Amendment should protect hate speech. Furthermore, a full majority (51 percent) of college students considered it “sometimes” or “always acceptable” to “shout down speakers or try to prevent them from talking.”

As Jonathan Rauch argues in The Constitution of Knowledge, a necessary precondition of epistemic liberalism is that everyone should be allowed to speak freely, a precondition increasingly unmet in recent years.

In their book Is Everyone Really Equal?, Robin DiAngelo (of White Fragility fame) and Özlem Sensoy even challenge the foundation of epistemic liberalism itself: the scientific method. This method mandates that hypotheses be tested against reality before acceptance. “Critical Theory developed in part as a response to this presumed infallibility of scientific method,” they write “and raised questions about whose rationality and whose presumed objectivity underlies scientific methods.” Of course, once we jettison the principle that ideas should be tested by holding them up to reality, all we have left are mythologies and accusations. One of the great triumphs of the Enlightenment was giving us the scientific tools to more accurately understand the world, but those tools—like other facets of liberalism—are increasingly under attack.

So, what went wrong? Why do so many Americans, particularly young Americans, harbor such disdain for our liberal order? Why have we seen the rise of widespread social censorship, and why do books telling us that not all humans are created equal become mega-bestsellers? We believe a key reason is that too many proponents of the liberal order (ourselves included) have failed to defend our ideals vigorously. In the face of our complacency, a small but impassioned minority intent on dismantling the pillars of liberalism has been gaining ground, both within institutions and within the hearts and minds of the younger generation.

Why haven’t many of us stood up for our ideas? We posit two reasons. First, there is a sense of complacency: a lot of us look at illiberalism and think, “It can't happen here.” The United States was founded as an essentially liberal country. We were the first country to really seek to embody Enlightenment ideals (however imperfectly) from our birth. Throughout our 250-year history, despite fluctuating levels of government intervention in Americans' social and economic lives, we have never lost our political, economic, or epistemological liberal foundations. This long track record of resilience has led many of us to overlook the rising threat of illiberal ideals, assuming our liberal system is too robust to be torn down.

Adding to this complacency is the fact that many threats to our liberal social contract are largely invisible to those outside educational or academic circles. Cloaked in the guise of combating racism, Critical Race Theory takes aim at the liberal order; however, most people who haven’t been inside the halls of a university in the last 10 or so years may not be aware of this aspect. Critical Theory—including Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, Post-Colonial Theory, and others—generally opposes Enlightenment thinking, but its arguments are wrapped in jargon and mostly live in academic papers. For example, the book Is Everyone Really Equal? criticizes political, economic, and epistemic liberalism, but it’s not a mainstream bestseller; instead, it’s a widely-used textbook for prospective teachers. What begins in the academy often seeps out into schools and eventually permeates the broader society, and many teachers and professors of these ideologies explicitly describe themselves as activists or as scholar-activists whose goal is to turn the next generation onto these ideas. The threat is real, but the more anti-liberal facets of these ideologies aren’t exactly being shouted by CNN, which makes it easy to miss.

Second, as humans, we often abandon our ideals in the face of social pressure. Consider an organization consisting of ten people: one progressive and nine moderates. In 2020, each member starts to hear about Black Lives Matter (BLM). The progressive enthusiastically supports BLM, and loudly encourages his colleagues to do the same. What happens next illustrates how prone we are to jettison our ideals if doing so brings social rewards.

The first moderate faces a choice. He could thoroughly research BLM by investigating police violence nationwide, examining the evidence of systemic racism or system-wide equality, exploring BLM’s proposed program and what they actually advocate for, and making an informed decision about whether or not he supports the organization. But that’s a lot of work for not a lot of return. After all, his job doesn’t require that he understand BLM; the only immediate consequence is his colleague’s opinion of him. Consequently, he engages in what Nobel Prize winning economist Daniel Kahneman calls “substitution.” As Kahneman explains in Thinking, Fast and Slow, “when faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution.” For example, when participants were asked how much money Exxon should pay for nets to prevent birds from drowning in oil ponds, they did not perform an economic calculation. Instead, what drove their decision-making process was emotion: “the awful image of a helpless bird drowning, its feathers soaked in thick oil.”

Thus, the moderate engages in substitution. Instead of tackling the complex and difficult question “What do I think of BLM?” he asks himself an easier but more emotional question: “How much do I care about black people?” For any decent person, the answer is “quite a lot”—and so he signs on with his progressive colleague. The fact that he’s now supporting an illiberal ideology—one of BLM’s co-founders said in 2019 that “I believe we all have work to do to keep dismantling the organizing principle of this society"—never occurs to him.

When the next moderate is asked the same question about whether he supports BLM, he has the same incentive as his colleague to engage in substitution, but with added social pressure: now two of his nine coworkers support BLM, and he risks losing social capital if he does not. As humans, we are social animals. Sociologist Brooke Harrington explains that we often value others’ perception of us more than our own survival, as social ostracism in our distant past often meant death anyway. As she puts it, “social death is more frightening than physical death.” And so, motivated by the social rewards for supporting BLM and the fear of social punishment if he does not, one coworker after another agrees to support BLM.

Adding to our social calculus is the fact that we all want to be seen as (and, even more importantly, see ourselves as) empathetic. In the example of BLM, we don’t want to be perceived as racists. If this means going along with an organization that says that police “cannot [be] reform[ed]” because they were “born out of slave patrols,” then that’s a small price to pay. This same desire to be seen as empathetic (again, especially by ourselves) holds when we are called to cancel a professor for saying something insensitive, or to condemn cultural appropriation, or to read and praise books and articles claiming that liberalism has failed marginalized people and that a new, totalitarian system is necessary for their salvation.

But why shouldn’t we be complacent? Why shouldn’t we go along to get along, and let our values bend here and there so we can fit in with the new illiberal crowd? One reason is that the stakes are no longer trivial. There is nothing magical about the liberal order that guarantees it will always triumph. History shows us that liberalism can give way to totalitarianism, as it did in Nazi Germany; or to empire, as in ancient Rome. In England, new rules regulate what people are allowed to say, with citizens facing fines or imprisonment for saying something the political establishment does not like. In Canada, a new bill supported by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would criminalize speech that those in power consider hateful. The United States is not immune to these dangers. Our Constitution alone is not a sufficient defense, because laws are downstream from culture. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights can be interpreted by illiberal justices (and have been in the 20th century); and when this happens, our rights can erode very rapidly indeed. Our freedom is sustained not by our geography or even our founding documents, but by our willingness to fight for liberalism—to defend it in the court of public opinion.

If we’re going to preserve the freedoms we cherish, that is what it will take. We must find the courage to stand up for our ideals—to speak and act based on principle alone. We must be open to new evidence that might change our views, but at the same time resist having our minds changed for us. We must prioritize truth over popular opinion.

In essence, we must think and act more like August Landmesser.

[ Source: The Lone German Man Who Refused to Give Hitler the Nazi Salute (businessinsider.com) ]

--

About the Authors

Julian Adorney is the founder of Heal the West, a Substack movement dedicated to preserving our liberal social contract. He’s also a writer for the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR). Find him on X: @Julian_Liberty.

Mark Johnson is a trusted advisor and executive coach at Pioneering Leadership and a facilitator and coach at The Undaunted Man. He has over 25 years of experience optimizing people and companies—he writes at The Undaunted Man’s Substack and Universal Principles.

==

Whatever its flaws, every alternative to liberalism is a nightmare.

[mitigatedchaos]

Speaking of Scott, people have been making an argument that Astral Codex Ten is a lot weaker than Slate Star Codex.

I'll admit to it right now, I haven't been reading it! Since it's come up, I decided to have a peek.

I had a good laugh at a few parts of this recent post.

We can use this more serious post for calibration. There are a few things going on here.

1: Scott is writing for a more general audience, about a more common mistake, rather than a highly-selected audience of high-IQ nerds with a similar cultural background.

2: There is a pattern where someone is intelligent and relatively self-reflective and encounters some problem within society. Then they undergo rising awareness as they pour immense intellectual effort into figuring out what the fuck is going on. During this phase, they will tend to attack problems where there is high potential information gain.

3: Combining 1 & 2, we can see that Scott is taking on an officer role for a broader share of the blues than before, attempting to guide them away from a purely tribalistic pursuit-of-power approach. (We see something similar in the blog of another famous substacker - Matt Yglesias, despite (or perhaps because of) his partisanship attempting to reduce the epistemic debt load of the Democratic coalition.)

4: Scott is posting something almost daily (with new written posts every 2-3 days); this is less time to develop a topic.

5: Slate Star Codex apparently launched in 2013. The readers of the original blog are now ten years older, which means they've had ten more years to undergo ideological development.

Some time in the past couple of years, I reread Isaac Asimov's The Caves of Steel. It's well-written and a fun read, with a nice twist.

As a test, I decided to guess Asimov's age when he wrote it. I was correct. While many of us in the 2014-2022 encouraged people to look beyond the background of the author, the era and the author leak in. This just isn't a reason to throw out every book written before 2008.

[transmutationisms]

i make a version of this post like every 3 months but truly so funny of astrology to hang around despite its cosmological episteme being dead in the water by the 18th century, the pernicious weed of anthropocentrism stalking kings for thousands of years goes democratic.... also i said before that the shift from astrology as predictive science to astrology as fixed personality traits was a 20th century move but i actually think the connective tissue here is medical astrology, which is old and established but had a Moment in the 17th century that sort of prefigured astrology being reclaimed by independent practitioners in the 19th century after the medical establishment declared it heterodox in basically an attempt to shore up their own professional status and epistemological authority. so if u think about it this is all down to doctors and their class interests, as so many shit things are :)

[arcticdementor]

Abstract This article addresses a paradox between self-perceptions of psychology as a liberal, progressive, antiracist discipline and profession and the persistent criticisms of racism and calls for decolonization. It builds on the criticisms of epistemic exclusion and White centering, arguing that White supremacy is maintained by “conversational silencing” in which the focus on doing good psychology systematically draws attention away from the realities of racism and the operation of power. The process is illustrated by investigations of disciplinary discourse around non-Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic psychology and on stereotyping, racism, and prejudice reduction, which constitute the vanguard of liberal scholarship in the discipline. This progressive scholarship nurtures “White ignorance,” an absence of belief about systemic racism that psychology plays a part in upholding.

[yuyapecotakeda]

Takeda, Y. (2024). Critical media literacy: Balancing skepticism and trust toward epistemic authorities. Philosophy of Education, 80(1), 24–39.

This paper was presented as a keynote at Philosophy of Education Society's Annual Meeting in 2024.

Abstract:

The point of departure of this paper is the striking similarities between the dispositions critical media literacy education aims to cultivate and the characteristics conspiracy theorists claim to embody. The golden question of critical literacy, “who benefits?” is in fact the central question of conspiracy theorists: “cui bono?” While critical media literacy educators teach learners to disrupt the common sense, to interrogate multiple viewpoints, to focus on sociopolitical issues, and to take actions and promote social justice, conspiracy theorists claim that they do exactly those things. What I wish to illuminate through this juxtaposition, however, is not a way to clearly demarcate “critical” from “conspiratorial” theorizing, but is a question of educational desirability of skepticism. Skepticism in this paper is not understood as a classical epistemological question of the possibility of knowledge attainment, but as a form of vigilance toward epistemic authorities like the government, media, and academic institutions.

Drawing on philosophy of conspiracy theories and political epistemology, I illuminate the problem of radical skepticism that characterizes some conspiracy theories and discuss the pivotal epistemic role of trust. Through this, I claim that critical media literacy education for democratic citizenship must strike a balance between the promotion of skepticism and the promotion of trust toward epistemic authorities.

[30032]

Things We Could Design - Ron Wakkary Material Witness - Susan Schippli Navigation Beyond Vision - EFlux The Advancement of Science - Philip Kitchner Science in a Democratic Society - Philip Kitchner Process and Reality - Whitehead Image and Logic - Peter Galison Half-Earth Socialism - Troy Vettese Karl Maarx's Ecosocialism - Kohei Sato Truth and Method - Gadamer The Logic of Information - Lucino floridi Ethis of Hospitality - Daniel Innerarity Inventing the Future - Nick Srnicek Eco-Deconstruction - various Ownership of Knowledge - Dagmar Schafer An Anthropology of Futures and Technologies - various Marx in the Anthropocene - Kohei Sato Mute Compulsion - Soren Mau The Intolerable Present, the Urgency of Revolution - Maurizio Lazzarato How Knowledge Grows - Chris Haufe Context Changes Everything : How Constraints Create Coherence (2023) - Alicia Juarrero Nonhuman Humanitarians - Benjamin Meiches Forces of Reproduction -Stefania Barca Bareback Porn, Porous Masculinities, Queer Futures - João Florêncio The Exploit - Alexander Galloway, Eugene Thacker Systems of Objects - Baudrillard Digital rubbish - jennifer gabrys Nonhuman Witnessing: War, Data, and Ecology after the End of the World - Michael Richardson A Vital Frontier: Water Insurgencies in Europe - Andrea Muehlebach Humans and Aquatic Animals in Early Modern America and Africa - Cristina Brito Making Sense of Life - Evelyn Fox Keller Knorr Cetina, Karin (1999). Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge Information And Experimental Knowledge

[didanawisgi]

by Robin Koerner

“Jordan Peterson, the Canadian professor of psychology who in the last year has become North America’s most popular public intellectual, has spent many decades studying tyranny and its antecedents. As a result, he frequently warns his audiences of the unparalleled destructive power of “ideological possession.”

As someone who has long been writing about the threat posed by this all too prevalent epistemic disease, I am delighted to see the attention that is now being paid to it.

Ideological possession is to healthy political discourse as scientism is to science.

Any ideology has the potential to be deadly.

The most important thing to know about diagnosing ideological possession is that you can’t do it by looking at the content of the possessing ideology.

As I have said elsewhere, it’s not the content of your belief that makes you dangerous, it’s the way you believe it.

Any ideology has the potential to be deadly when advanced by those who are so sure of their own knowledge and moral outlook that they would impose it against the protestations of those affected by it. To the ideologically possessed, the imposition can always be justified because “it’s the right thing to do,” “it will start working if we keep at it,” “the complaints are coming from bad people,” and so on. (Yes. The logic is as circular as it seems.)

So, with apologies to Dr. Peterson and an open invitation to him to amend and augment the following (he is the clinician, after all), here, for diagnostic purposes, is a list of symptoms of ideological possession—that most fatal of epistemic diseases.

Cautions and Caveats

The symptoms of ideological possession manifest differently according to the possessing ideology.

So, for illustrative purposes, the following list of symptoms is presented with example manifestations, labeled to indicate their association with so-called “progressive” (P), so-called “conservative” (C), and so-called “libertarian” (L) possessing ideologies.

For instance, the fact that someone believes the world is out to get them doesn’t necessarily mean they are paranoid.

To be fair, it is not the case that all people who present with manifestations similar to those listed below are exhibiting symptoms of ideological possession. It is, after all, quite possible to hold apparently simplistic or radical views that are very carefully arrived at with an open mind, good data, and intellectual honesty.

For instance, the fact that someone believes the world is out to get them doesn’t necessarily mean they are paranoid (B does not imply P). More interestingly, as the old saw goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that the world isn’t out to get you (P does not strictly mean  B is false).

Nevertheless, believing the world is out to get you is a very good diagnostic marker for paranoia (B is highly causally correlated with P).

So with that caution, the manifestations below are offered because I have witnessed each one, and when I did so, had reason to believe it was symptomatic of at least the early stages of the onset of ideological possession.

List of Symptoms for Diagnostic Purposes

Major Symptoms

The possessed insists that anyone who disfavors a specific view or policy must also reject the basic moral value that, to the possessed individual, justifies that view or policy. This is the fallacy of the assumed paradigm. (L: “If you won’t let mothers protect their children with guns, you’re a misogynist.” C: “People who favor gun control don’t value freedom.” P: “People against regulating firearms don’t care about violence against children.”)

The possessed uses one-dimensional labels for people they’ve never met and who clearly aren’t one-dimensional as a means of dismissing the value of all their beliefs or actions. (L: “Churchill was a mass-murderer.” C: “Gandhi was a pedophile.” P: “Thatcher was a witch.”)

Related to the above, the possessed will regard a few quotes or actions by an individual as proof that the individual is evil without regard to context, appreciation that everyone is a product of his time, recognition that people change over time, or consideration of other quotes and actions that provide evidence against the claimed ill intent of the individual in question.

The possessed advocates worse treatment of people within a specified group than others. (P: “Straight white men have privilege and so should have their opinions discounted or suppressed.” L: “People who work for the state initiate violence, and it is ok to use violence against those who initiate violence.” C: “People who burn the flag are traitors and should be punished as such.”)

The possessed believes that a single principle provides answers to most important moral and political questions, disregarding reasonable moral intuitions to the contrary (precisely because they are to the contrary) and any uncertainty regarding the precise meaning or application of the principle. (P: “Equality.” L: “Non-aggression.” C: “Biblical authority.”)

When the results of an ideologically justified action are the opposite of those intended or used to justify that action in the first place, the possessed is convinced that not only is the action not the cause of any resulting problem but that more of the same action will eventually solve that problem. (P: “Venezuela needs more socialism.” C: “We need more unprovoked military involvement in conflicts that don’t involve us.” L: “Europe should open its borders immediately to everyone.”)

Minor Symptoms

The possessed enjoys opportunities to defend what he believes more than opportunities to make his beliefs more accurate.

The possessed collects data that support her beliefs instead of seeking data that would help her correct false beliefs.

The possessed offers unsolicited opinions without any empathic engagement with the recipient or any interest in whether she is in any state to be positively influenced by them.

The possessed would rather reform society’s institutions to better serve his ideology than reform his ideology to better serve people.

Immunity, Pathology, and Cure

Fortunately, the epistemic immune system of most mentally healthy people protects them from ideological possession. The core of the immune response—and indeed an effective cure—is Love of Truth, specifically the holding of Truth as the highest moral value.

Love of Truth, in fact, provides a near-perfect protection against ideological possession.

Pathologically, ideological possession may even be understood as the substitution of that highest value by another.

Love of Truth, in fact, provides a near-perfect protection against ideological possession because the disease, while deadly, has no defense against the honest admission by the afflicted of his or her symptoms.

Nevertheless, the most pernicious and subtle feature of the disease prevents the possessed from seeking treatment or treating himself: ideological possession can disguise itself in the mind of the afflicted as that very same Love of Truth that, in its authentic form, would cure it.

What conditions, then, enable those in the grip of ideological possession—whose love of Truth may have already been replaced by a counterfeit—to cure themselves?

To answer that, it is important to understand the symbiotic relationship of the disease with its host.

Although epidemics of ideological possession can be fatal to entire societies, the disease provides immediate benefits to the individual who is afflicted, such as intellectual certainty and stability, feelings of moral superiority, an apparent simplification of life’s difficult decisions and questions, avoidance of true moral responsibility, and a sense of belonging among others similarly afflicted. All of these tend to prevent self-treatment.

The painful shock activates the Love of Truth long enough to locate the cause of the pain.

Accordingly, the cures for ideological possession tend to be external and unsought. They nevertheless exist and fall into two broad categories—fast cures and slow cures.

Fast cures tend to be triggered by a catastrophic failure of one or more of the above benefits to the afflicted individual. This may occur when, despite the highly motivated perception and reasoning of the possessed individual, she experiences an unexpected, painful, and shocking outcome of an ideologically motivated action. The painful shock activates the Love of Truth long enough to locate the cause of the pain, forcing the afflicted to admit the symptoms, and therefore identify the disease for what it is, effecting the rapid cure.

Slow cures tend to involve a rising awareness by one afflicted individual of the same disease in friends or others with whom she identifies. This can be induced when the individual sees inconsistencies in those others’ words and actions that cause direct harm to others and to the stated goals of the possessing ideology. (In theory, this slow cure could be induced by observations of one’s own actions under ideological possession, but this is prevented by the self-righteousness that is felt when one acts in the grip of the disease.)

Maintaining Good Epistemic Health

To protect oneself from the terrible epistemic disease of ideological possession, epistemic nutrition and exercise are extremely effective.

The good news is, if you’re chasing Truth hard enough, it is very unlikely that this particular disease will ever catch up with you.

With respect to the former, the regular consumption of great thinkers like J.S. Mill (“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that”), George Orwell (“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle”), and Dostoevsky (“Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer. Nothing is more difficult than to understand him”) will keep you in good epistemic health. Supplement these basics with a more varied diet of thinkers with whom you disagree on things that matter, and you’ll be in even better shape.

With respect to the latter, a comfortable regime of epistemic exercise—which takes a little time and effort but is immediately rewarding—involves maintaining real friendships with people who have very different assumptions, experiences, and declared moral and political priorities from your own.

The good news is, if you’re chasing Truth hard enough, it is very unlikely that this particular disease will ever catch up with you.”

[thebad---catholic]

I wish everything in this country were the fault of Republicans being in power because that would make it very simple to solve, but if you look it up social engineering (including education) mostly doesn't work to close outcome gaps between racial/ethnic groups - and actually it's tough to get positive results with it in general within racial/ethnic groups as well.

Making educational gains stick into adulthood is like pulling teeth.

Y'all Democrats just assume social engineering works - you almost all assume someone in your coalition knows how to "fix" all this within the bounds of acceptable ethics, and that Republicans are holding it back.

Ain't the case. You can wring some modest gains out but that's about it. You have no path to equalizing outcomes to narrow enough amounts for you to accept, given current technology, that's morally acceptable.

Y'all spent the last 10 years cooking up an elaborate racially-scientific framework called "white privilege," rather than accept this. "White privilege" theory uses the literal Nazi tactic of first assuming what the "correct" race ratio is (based on nothing but wishful thinking), rejecting all evidence that may exonerate the target group (such as math test results) as "inherently biased" for unfalsifiable reasons, then working backwards to declare the entire gap in outcomes to be the result of a bad racial essence (in your case, "whiteness").

And don't "but you don't understand-" at me:

This eventually resulted in attempts at uniform racial discrimination which explicitly treated being white as a flat penalty in distributing life-saving medical care, as a matter of formal policy - which was obviously where it was going to go from the start.

Supposedly such thinking was fringe, but then Biden overturned the order that defunded teaching that "any race is inherently evil or racist."

The Republicans may have caused the Iraq War, but they didn't cause this screw-up. Unfortunately I need a Republican clean sweep to wash this content out - institutionalizing unfalsifiable racial conspiracy theorizing is extremely unwise for a multiracial democracy.

Democrats haven't shown enough moral, social, or epistemic spine to throw the "Math is colonialist" (there is no *useful* meaning to such a statement!) people out on their ---es.

Anon, seek therapy.

Everyone else, please find in this incomprehensible screed the motivation to vote blue. This is what we’re up against.

[commajade]

millennials are killing capitalism - eric a. stanley, nov 2021

on the corporatized cannibalism of radical lgbt figures under the colonial order: "what is that bind? what have we done? if the mode of the arrival of a subject does not disrupt colonial history, then sometimes it's better to stay hidden than it is to reappear." as opposed to the literal emptying out of the image as it's being mass produced and sold, watering down of lgbt movements as counterinsurgence that is structural even when it is not deliberate

"as is well documented, the white left only loves black revolutionaries when they're dead. then you can produce them as empty symbols for whatever you want."

"marsha and sylvia were themselves theorists, not just things on t-shirts. they were theorizing about the world they didn't want and the world that they wanted."

"perhaps sometimes it's better to stay hidden. bringing things into the collective archive does not necessarily equal liberation. thinking about underground archives and things that shouldn't be recovered. not because people don't deserve the kind of praise but because it does this kind of second order displacement, this kind of second order violence."

"this tangle of race gender and sexuality together are what allows for white cis modernity to appear as impenetrable and indeed natural. if we begin with an understanding that both gender and sexuality are positioned within a settler state as it's buttresses, as the things that hold it together, then we cannot so easily disaggregate them. the force of colonial modernity is holding them together so we need to think about what is stitching them together."

surplus violence, overkill. violence that continues after the very corporeal bodily death of the person to destroy even the possibility of that person

to do trans and queer study we have to continually return to the question of slavery itself. the technologies of mass violence that were rendered against people. we need to see the epistemic and ongoing work of chattel slavery as not an event in the past but as a structure and apparatus that dictates the present. the history of HIV as a colonial disease created and spread through colonial slavery in the congo under belgian violence in the early 1900s. to understand HIV in the united states we must link it to ongoing antiblack coloniality. that same kind of colonial death world is responsible for the racist unequal distribution of HIV medications in africa and the US today. how do we understand these seemingly really difference scenes not in a linear understanding of connected histories but as a relational practice.

the incoherence of power. the two most prevalent ways we have for understanding oppression dehumanization or exile. they don't quite get at the true terror at the project of enlightenment. dehumanization assumed that under correct appeal or legal reform one might be able to achieve enfranchisement. so it's personal individual not structural which is why i think that framework is not exact enough and indeed actually dangerous. the second model offered is of exile. we simply banish that which we can't understand, the pushing out of the polis. that is not correct. "instead the form of violence i chart in this book is a brutal incorporation." one example is solitary confinement. the state can only know itself with an outside inside perspective. this is what names the democratic force. come real close so i can terrorize you.

[route22ny]

The split-screen reality of the Trump era became all too real for Stephen Richer recently, and in a very literal way. On May 15, the Arizona election official — a Republican — was looking at two computer screens. On one was former President Trump’s claim that a key election database had been deleted, an “unbelievable election crime.” On the other screen was that very database, quite intact.

“Wow,” Richer tweeted. “This is unhinged. I’m literally looking at our voter registration database on my other screen. Right now.”

A couple of days later, he made his dismay even more explicit.

“What can we do here?” he asked in an interview with CNN. “This is tantamount to saying that the pencil sitting on my desk in front of me doesn’t exist.”

When Richer unseated a Democratic incumbent to become Maricopa County’s recorder in November, he thought he had won the most boring job in politics: maintaining the county’s voter files. But he had not reckoned on Trump, #StopTheSteal, and the most massive, audacious and successful propaganda campaign in modern American history — a campaign that has adapted Russian-style disinformation to U.S. politics with alarming success.

Fortunately, Richer and his local Republican colleagues have refused to be victimized. Instead, they have shown how to fight back.

Information warfare takes many forms, but it has an overarching goal: to divide, demoralize and disorient a political foe by manipulating the social and media environments. As Yuri Bezmenov, a Soviet intelligence defector, explained in a chilling 1983 interview, “What it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their family, their community and their country.”

One potent weapon of mass distraction is the “fire hose of falsehood,” a torrent of lies that aims not so much to persuade as to confuse and disorient. After Russian intelligence services got caught poisoning a defector and his daughter in the U.K. in 2018, the Russian government responded with a blizzard of mutually contradictory lies: Britain did it, Ukraine did it, a jealous lover did it, it was a suicide attempt and so on.

Another standard technique: conspiracy bootstrapping. First you spread a rumor. Then you demand an investigation. Failure to investigate just confirms the conspiracy, but so does an investigation with a negative finding. It’s a trap: either ignoring or debunking the conspiracy theory propagates it.

Those techniques are not new. Intelligence services and propaganda experts understand them well, and master propagandists like Josef Goebbels and Vladimir Putin have used them to powerful effect. What no one imagined was that they could be deployed by an American president and his party — and not against a foreign antagonist, but against the American public.

Pundits often say that, whatever his authoritarian tendencies, Trump is too inept and inattentive to have done much lasting damage to democracy. They are wrong: In the realm of information warfare, Trump is a genius-level innovator. It was he who figured out how to adapt Russia-style disinformation to the U.S. political environment, no mean accomplishment.

His use of the fire hose of falsehood was masterly. In his 2016 campaign, according to PolitiFact, 70% of his checkable claims were false or mostly false, a flood of untruths whose like had never been seen in a presidential campaign. He began his presidency by lying about the weather at his inauguration and also lying about the size of the crowd. By the time his presidency was over, Washington Post fact-checkers had clocked him at more than 30,000 confirmed falsehoods, with nearly half coming in his final year.

Similarly, he was a master of conspiracy bootstrapping. He retailed conspiracy theories and falsehoods on the grounds that a lot of people were saying them, although of course he was the sayer-in-chief. Truth and common decency need not apply; when a prominent cable news host criticized him, Trump peddled an absurd (and deeply cruel) lie that the host was suspected of murder.

The black arts of disinformation had the intended effect, at least from Trump’s point of view. They exacerbated the country’s divisions, commandeered the country’s attention, dominated his opponents, disoriented the media and helped him establish a cult of personality among followers who trusted no one else.

Still, he saved the worst for last. His pièce de résistance was the propaganda attack on the 2020 election. Beginning months before the election, he launched a drumbeat of unfounded attacks on mail-in voting. Pundits were puzzled. Many Republicans vote by mail, and the pandemic was especially dangerous to older voters who lean toward Trump; why discourage them from voting safely and conveniently?

But Trump was aiming for the post-election. He saw he was in electoral trouble. With the anti-mail campaign, he was organizing, priming, and testing an unprecedented propaganda network, ready for use if he lost.

And then came #StopTheSteal itself, a disinformation campaign whose likes the country had never witnessed. It mobilized the White House, Republican politicians, social media, conservative cable news and talk radio, frivolous litigation, and every other available channel to broadcast the message that the election was rigged. The Big Lie, as it was aptly named, failed to keep Trump in office, but it succeeded at its secondary goal: turning the Republican Party itself into a propaganda organ.

In April, only a fourth of Republicans believed Joe Biden was legitimately elected, and GOP politicians who insisted on truth were persona non grata.

With that as background, we can see more clearly what is going on right now in Maricopa County, Arizona’s largest. In 2020, Biden carried Maricopa by more than 45,000 votes, and with it the state. The result was certified by the Republican governor, double-checked twice by the county’s election officials, and then confirmed by two independent audits.

But in classic bootstrapping fashion, Trump and state Republican leaders seized on conspiracy theories, such as that phony ballots had been smuggled in from Asia, to launch an unnecessary recount conducted by an unqualified company whose boss had promoted uncorroborated charges of election fraud. In textbook fashion, the controversial recount drove yet more public attention to the conspiracy theories, engendering yet more suspicion and spawning me-too demands for partisan “audits” across the country.

The Arizona shenanigans will not change the outcome of the 2020 election, but that is not the point. A great propaganda campaign is cyclonic and self-propelled: once unleashed, it takes on a life of its own, heedless of any underlying reality. By that yardstick, the Arizona recount is a great propaganda campaign.

Americans have never been exposed to Russian-style disinformation tactics, at least not coming from a major political party and deployed on a national scale. We are thus dangerously vulnerable to them. What can we do? There are no quick or simple answers; developing immunity requires everything from more sophisticated journalism and better-designed social media platforms to teaching media literacy, and much more.

But here is where to start: Do what Stephen Richer did. Insist loudly, unwaveringly and bravely on calling out lies, even at the cost of partisan solidarity.

Once it became clear that the #StopTheSteal campaign was escalating instead of dying out, Richer went public with a no-holds-barred denunciation of what Trump and his enablers were up to. “Just stop indulging this,” he told CNN. “Stop giving space for lies.”

At his side were all five of the Maricopa County supervisors — four of whom are Republicans. Calling the recount a sham, a con, and a “spectacle that is harming all of us,” they declared they “stand united together to defend the Constitution and the republic in our opposition to the Big Lie. We ask everyone to join us in standing for truth.” They also wrote a blistering 14-page letter shredding the alt-audit in detail.

Propaganda attacks succeed when critical points of resistance collapse; they stumble when trusted voices expose lies for what they are. Individuals and small groups may not be able to shut down a propaganda campaign or neutralize all its effects, but they can strip away its facade of legitimacy and act as an anchor against runaway fabulism. That was why the Soviet Union struggled so mightily to silence Andrei Sakharov and other dissident voices, and why those voices ultimately brought down the evil empire.

And it is why Rep. Liz Cheney made a difference when she chose truthfulness over her job in the Republican congressional leadership. The day she was booted, she read her colleagues John 8:32: “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” She could not end #StopTheSteal, but she could, and did, dent its credibility and embarrass Republicans whose equivocation and silence abetted the Big Lie.

In the same way, Richer and his colleagues in Arizona laid down a marker. They risked their political standing and even their personal safety (Richer has needed security protection) to expose their own party’s propaganda and shame those who spread it.

The deployment of Russian-style information warfare has allowed Trump and his authoritarian cult to usurp the Republican Party. And they are not finished. Now that they have succeeded with mass disinformation, it will be a fixture of American politics for years to come.

Countermeasures begin, though do not end, with personal integrity: standing up for facts and staying reality-based, whatever the short-term political costs. Think of it as epistemic patriotism, and pray for more of it, especially from Republicans.

***

The author, Jonathan Rauch, is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and the author of “The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth.”

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-arizona-dreaming-20210522-uyd6ivuv75hd5gof2geyd5adtu-story.html

[mitigatedchaos]

2008 - 2020+

(~1,700 words, 8 minutes)

A summary of events and my ideological development from 2008-2020; most of this will be familiar to long-time readers; this post is mostly for later review in 5-10 years.

[ @lokifreign ]

did it seem sudden in 08?

[ mitigatedchaos ]

10 years ago was 2013. By 2013, the direction of the eventual [identitarian] shift was visible, but it wasn't established that "real" "serious" liberals were going to go along with and indulge it.

[ @lokifreign ]

I had a different view (I'm 51; Clinton cleared up any lingering misunderstandings I entertained about dem/lib); it's interesting - I'd love to read something clear about that time period from that perspective. 08 for me was more about the death of the free internet, but I'd be really interested at seeing that realization from the inside somewhat namean. thanks fr sharin'! 🫀👍 [...] never mind! ^_^ all set

So to clear this up for anyone else...

2000-2008

From the perspective of someone who grew up in the 00's, the Republican Party put a tremendous amount of political investment into the Iraq War, which turned out to be a disaster. The only WMDs were leftover chemical shells, not exactly a "clear and present danger;" I'm not aware of any of them being used in terrorist attacks.

2008-2012

So going into 2008, Republicans looked epistemically bankrupt. The War probably cost them an entire generation. It was such a colossal fuck-up that one of the early MitigatedChaos essays, back in 2017, was "A Price Paid in National Will," arguing that patriotism is an exhaustible resource. It is basically screaming at the 00's US establishment right for squandering a valuable and precious resource with their dumb war. [1] As it happens, military recruitment is way down.

By contrast, the first-term Obama-era Democratic coalition offered us people like Roland Fryer, a pragmatic-minded black academic who was willing to reach counterintuitive conclusions or try things like just paying students to see if that worked. Combined with things like the lead-crime hypothesis or support for early childhood education, the epistemic grounding was a lot better than what they offered after 2016.

The public position of the Democratic Party 2008-2012 was largely meritocratic colorblind liberal individualism, combined with moderate immigration restrictionism, with only a modest exception for Affirmative Action in universities. They were still pro free speech, valued professionalism, and valued things like consumer rights, and mostly weren't against patriotism.

This was an extremely well-hedged set of positions, adequately handling risks from multiple directions at once - and the follower libs (the "Stage 3s" as post-rationalists would call them) echoed all of it, causing the overall Democratic coalition to seem much, much smarter than they actually are.

Even electing a black President seemed a decent bet, and if there is one thing Obama is really good at, it's projecting a Presidential image.

If you combine this with Transhumanism and an expectation that significant new technologies will overcome long-standing issues in the case that social solutions don't work, kicking in around 2040-2050, as most Rationalists probably would have expected at that time, it covers most of the bases. Get some potential gains from social policy, stalling for time for a few decades, and then if any problems are leftover, mop them up with biotech.

I was also engaged in a phase of gender exploration from around 2009-2012 (in cyberspace). I encountered some of the current gender ideas early. At the time, because they weren't as popular, there was a stronger selection effect.

2013-2017

From around 2012-2013 onwards, we started getting the articles about "manspreading," and "mansplaining," combined with a frame that it was prohibited for men to question this because of "male privilege" including subconscious bias which, by definition, they could not be aware of.

I actually checked in on a Mens Rights forum around this time, and a GamerGate forum later, and contrasted what I actually saw with both media coverage and left/lib representations which were... basically almost all completely different from my direct observations.

I was very doubtful because the epistemic norms of the movement were just awful, and very obviously designed in a way that was prone to abuse.

From around 2014 onwards, those same norms were shifting to the much more dangerous field of race. Obama didn't campaign on it, and more "serious" Democrats instead of like, Gawker, were more focused on things like "Republican obstruction in Congress."

By late 2014 or early 2015, I had given up on defending the Obama Administration in arguments, which I'd been doing since around 2008.

From 2013-2015, I was feeling depressed and anxious. Without realizing what I was doing at first, I began an exercise to rework the basis of my politics by working on a fictional country, rewriting it again and again and again.

The development of some kinds of political writers may require something like this, either working from a distant time, like Moldbug, or trying to work out a simulation of a country repeatedly and gaming things out with others, as Scott Alexander and I both did. This allows something that I call Ideological Stereoscopic Vision - viewing the same issue from two ideological perspectives simultaneously. With this, it's possible to see the functional mechanics of your original ideology, which otherwise just appear to be truths.

I was going leave the Presidential box blank in the 2016 election, but voted for Clinton as a personal favor for a dear friend.

Overall my basic model from 2012 wasn't that bad. I hadn't called to deplatform all the Republicans, for instance, and once Trump won the primary, based on the uncertainty I concluded that it was possible he would win the general election.

However, I had to build a much more sophisticated model to explain the benefits of things like colorblind liberal individualism, and explain why it was being attacked, and how. Until 2014, I hadn't considered it something that even could come under serious attack, since influential people should know better than to let that happen.

2017-2020

Around 2017, I opened the blog MitigatedChaos.

In 2018, Roland Fryer was #metoo'd. An investigation mostly cleared him except to require workplace sensitivity training (proportional, IMO). However, the investigation was apparently overruled by a secret committee, and in 2019 he was suspended for 2 years without pay.

In 2018, Robin DiAngelo's "White Fragility" was published. This was followed in 2019 by Ibram Kendi's best-selling, pro-"corrective" discrimination, "How to Be an Anti-Racist." (At some point in 2020 or maybe 2021, the Microsoft Windows 10 login screen featured a link to "anti-racist books" with Kendi's book at the top.)

Unlike Fryer, both writers seemed uninterested in whether their proposals would actually work, as did their readers.

As someone who had voted for Obama in 2012, I was willing to elect politicians or spend money, even if that money might not necessarily work, but that was assuming those involved were actual academics making a serious attempt with some chance of success, not spiteful unqualified quacks.

Because people throughout society demanded that I take race seriously, in 2019, I conducted an investigation into school funding and whether charter schools would be capable of closing racial outcome gaps. (It's difficult to assess their effectiveness on grades due to selection effects on parents, but they're about as cost-effective as public schools, may produce a modest benefit, and allow parents to at least provide a safe environment for their children. The few online charter schools in my sample had dismal results.)

That was when I learned that the social interventions camp were 90% bluffing, hadn't checked the research, and the amount of good faith I had been giving them since 2014 was unjustified. Each of them assumed that someone else had been doing the actual work (not "doing the work" of reading about bad things that happened to racial groups, but the work of figuring out how to solve things).

That was mostly true in 2010. It certainly wasn't by 2018 - or at least the links between the people doing the work and the actual movement were well broken by that time. The implicit claims of what Social Justice can deliver, and the urgency with which they make their demands, have been wildly disproportionate the entire time.

Going into 2020, I still had hope that serious liberals might be in charge somewhere. But instead of actual reforms which might be useful, we got "Defund the Police," which as the CHAZ and subsequent national stats have demonstrated, is delusional.

After 2020

When it turned out that Biden is just lame, and the great racial awakening wasn't as promised, some of the air went out of it. Biden had the opportunity to end the thing in one swoop by just leaving Trump's executive order in place, but instead confirmed that the Democratic Party is committed to this program of crank race dogma, and in the institutions the supporters are digging trenches.

Mainstream Republicans are aware of the problem and acting now, so what was a rout has stabilized into a war front. The primary mission of the right-wing ideological vanguard from 2017-2022, waking the Republicans up to the scale of the problem, and punching through the window of social acceptability hard enough to get them moving, is now complete. As a vital or artistic movement, they no longer have the same margin of information advantage, and energy is leaving the scene.

Sometime after 2020, I developed the coalitional interest deadlock theory to explain some of what had happened - why did the Democrats double down on such a hateful strategy that's obviously bad for the country? Why not just stick with their epistemically-advantaged position from 2012? One possible answer: because each of their coalition members inhibits any other coalition member's attempts to fix anything, so the only thing to do is find an outgroup to blame and hope no one notices, as no one is willing to negotiate a settlement to free up resources for improvement.

They have little to offer but decline and hatred, for now. Maybe in 10 years, they'll be as different as the 2020 Republicans are from 2000's.

---

[1] A left-anarchist view here would be that such sentiments will always be exploited for wasteful wars of imperialism that enrich a small and well-connected group at the top; there is something to such a view, but the actual 21st-century US wars, and their duration, also seem to have been caused by ideological derangement.

[lesbianchemicalplant]

“Boost [x] voices” is a disastrous framework to be adopted by leftists (“leftists” and even some actual communists, in an eclectic or mistaken “speaking their language” kind of way) in the imperial core

It is a workhorse of imperialist propaganda. “Listen to miami gusanos [about how bad and evil the Cuban revolution was]”; “listen to expats from [communist or formerly communist country]” in general; “stop erasing [LGBT or whatever] Catholics” to shut down criticism against one of the largest and oldest colonial institutions in the entire world; “listen to [x] / check your [x] privilege” as a moral imperative to recuperate all political activity back into Democrat electoral politics, into supporting a ruling class party in the world’s dominant imperialist power, as a cudgel against even criticizing their function (with the other bourgeois party) being mediation of ruling class interests; “listen to [Hindu nationalist] Indian voices [about colonization of Kashmir]”; “listen to [zionist] Jewish voices [about the colonization of Palestine]”; “listen to [[x] group which western media alleges needs Saving from a US geopolitical enemy]”; “listen to marginalized US military personnel”; and on, and on, and on

Epistemic deference is a mistake. It is the easiest fucking thing in the world to use in service of ruling class interests.

And I think it’s a framework that easily creeps up on you if you even casually expose yourself to radlib things on social media, even when doing so critically. At least for me personally, I regret to say that I have occasionally fallen back on its rhetorical forms in moments of laziness and exasperation: e.g. speaking of ”listening to trans women” instead of just discussing transmisogyny itself, even having myself been on the receiving end of how it’s precisely the transmisogynistic and liberal trans women (Contrapoints) whose “voices are boosted”

I guess my point here is that there’s no way to use the “[x] voices” framework without paying it back ten-fold. You can’t use an epistemology just a little bit, as convenient, without aiding its rampant use for reactionary purposes. Even as a rhetorical slip, it’s a mistake. There’s no substitute or shortcut around having an analysis of imperialism, of how the conditions of our existence are produced and reproduced, and applying that framework as needed

[bimboficationblues]

(1) i'm a philosophy major and have noticed analytics are obsessed with appeal to authority/expertise. if you want to see how cartoonish it gets look at michael huemer's paper "Is critical thinking epistemically responsible?" where he seems to want every non-expert to be an intellectually vacuous shell of a human being that can only read surveys of expert opinions and spout the numbers at people. it reminds me of jason brennan's epistocracy and, like brennan (and caplan), huemer is a libertarian

(2) so that leads me to conclude libertarians are attracted to this for some reason, although i think it's a trend with liberal (analytic) philosophy in general. basically i'm wondering if you know of any texts that explain and/or critique this phenomenon

I think if you look to like critiques of John Stuart Mill: Boy Genius, or similar figures, you will kind of start to see that this is a trend within liberal thought more broadly. The concept of the "genius" or the "expert" is historically correlated with the developing concept of the industrialist or the entrepreneur, and liberal thought has a deeply anti-democratic streak embedded within it. So like of course the libertarians still uphold it, because as the last bastions of Original Liberalism, their first value above all else is the preservation of private property (which is also what makes them so vulnerable to fascist creep)

Personally I really like Ishay Landa's book The Apprentice's Sorcerer: Liberal Tradition and Fascism. It has its issues but it's actually fun to read and hones in on this strain of liberal thought quite nicely. I think reading up on Hayek or folks like that can also be pretty illustrative. These two papers (1) and (2), I found compelling when I read them.

What I like about this approach is that honing in on the sort of political climate and economic commitments of liberals/libertarians better helps explain their positions. I mean on a personal level, these people are arrogant dirtbags, you'll rarely find an epistocrat who says "I'm an absolute dunce, take away my right to vote" but I think it helps to place that worldview in economic context wherein they associate technical knowledge with economic power

[azspot]

The epistemic coup proceeds in four stages.

The first is the appropriation of epistemic rights, which lays the foundation for all that follows. Surveillance capitalism originates in the discovery that companies can stake a claim to people’s lives as free raw material for the extraction of behavioral data, which they then declare their private property.

The second stage is marked by a sharp rise in epistemic inequality, defined as the difference between what I can know and what can be known about me. The third stage, which we are living through now, introduces epistemic chaos caused by the profit-driven algorithmic amplification, dissemination and microtargeting of corrupt information, much of it produced by coordinated schemes of disinformation. Its effects are felt in the real world, where they splinter shared reality, poison social discourse, paralyze democratic politics and sometimes instigate violence and death.

In the fourth stage, epistemic dominance is institutionalized, overriding democratic governance with computational governance by private surveillance capital. The machines know, and the systems decide, directed and sustained by the illegitimate authority and anti-democratic power of private surveillance capital. Each stage builds on the last. Epistemic chaos prepares the ground for epistemic dominance by weakening democratic society — all too plain in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.