Post-truth Is a Result of Both the Misunderstanding and Rejection of Post-modernism

We find ourselves in a post-truth world because of the poor way in which we have dealt with the revelations of post-modernism.

Post-modernism does indeed say that there is no truth, but that is only part of the story.  Leaving it there is like saying that there is no time because of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. What Einstein said was that time is relative to the speed an object is traveling at, not that time doesn't exist.

The post-modern revelation was that there is no universal and eternal truths because truth is always relative.  That does not mean that truth is completely arbitrary or completely non-existent.

Truth is relative to time and place, which means it is also relative to the past and the perceived or desired future.  Truth is never simple, and it is rarely easy. It is something that needs to be thought out and also believed in, and it must be believable. It needs to resonate with the people (their experience, community, history and vision of the future) and their physical surroundings.

We live in a post-truth world because some people refuse to believe that truth is relative and insist on a solid universal and/or eternal conception of truth and a storehouse of truths that fit that criteria. These people deny the complexity inherent in reality that post-modernism revealed. Others take up only a simplified and naïve version of post-modernism and insist that truth does not exist at all. 

One side insists on using only truths that deny or ignore the importance of context, truths that they know because of their privileged position and abilities. Meanwhile, the other side takes hold of any idea that is beneficial to them and promotes it as a truth.  Sooner or later, the difference between the sides collapses and they both employ each other's tactics. 

As these two sides fight against one another (and take advantage of the average person as they do so) the idea of truth is torn to shreds.  Both sides use it cynically to gain support for their own agenda. As this goes on any truths that we have and need are trivialized and made ineffective.  People, society and knowledge are left in free-fall, or left to wander in a wasteland.  As this goes on society as a whole and the average person loses. 

Appeal to Offence

I would like to propose a new logical fallacy.

Appeal to Offence

This happens when one side shows they are offended by something the opposition said or the way they said it.

This is followed by insisting that they apologize.

The apology must be complete and without qualification.  (Especially if it was unintentional.)  After all, an apology followed by a 'but' is not really an apology at all. 

Since the opponent cannot say anything else after they apologize, the offended party can then leave the debate or argument with the last word being an apology to them.  The apology can easily be construed as an admission of fault and defeat.

In this way an argument or debate can be easily shutdown and virtually won without providing any further evidence or logical backup for their side. 

(The other outcome is that the offender will refuse to apologize, or will offer an apology that is not accepted because it is followed by a 'but' or some soft of explanation or qualification. In this case the offended can accuse them of being uncivil and exit the situation while claiming the moral high ground.)

Like all fallacies, there are times when it may appear to be a fallacy but is not.  Naming this a fallacy does not mean that you cannot get offended in a debate, discussion or argument.  An appeal to a legitimate authority who knows the issue being discussed is not a fallacy of appealing to authority.  It also does not mean that you shouldn't apologize if you offend someone.  It is a fallacy if it is used as a means to settle the issue or end the debate. 

Being offended and wanting an apology (and giving an apology) is not a fallacy, not a logical problem, as long as it doesn't take precedent over the evidence and logic of the debate or argument.

Amusing Ourselves with Fear, Anger and Hate

To amuse doesn't just mean to entertain much less to do so in a pleasant way. Webster's dictionary has two obsolete definitions that we need to keep in mind when thinking about Neil Postman's critique of modern society: that we are amusing ourselves to death.

We can very easily amuse ourselves into ignoring all sorts of things by escaping into the pleasant and enjoyable. This is what most people will think when they hear the phrase 'amusing ourselves to death'. This is indeed one path, but it is the obvious one and not the one we are on.

Postman is quick to point out that the most obvious and popularly suspected path to a dystopia is usually not the one that will be followed. We are too smart and alert for that.

He points out that the Orwellian dystopia of 1984 is indeed possible but not as likely as the less known and feared dystopia of Huxley's Brave New World. Orwell talks of a totalitarian society that rules over its people with fear and pain, where information is restricted and tightly controlled. Huxley's version has people going along with the totalitarian regime because they are trained to do so and are rewarded (or distracted from anything else) with pleasure. Information does not need to be hidden or restricted because people are out of the habit of looking for it and are too busy indulging in pleasure to bother.

Postman thinks what we are actually heading for is something much more akin to Huxley's vision. We will not want to read or think or question because we will be busy entertaining ourselves (and consuming). We will be indulging in escapism and be confident that we can do so indefinitely with no real consequences. What is worse is that when we do come back from our escape, we are not capable of thinking or communicating in deep, meaningful and constructive ways because we have lost the ability to: amusement and escapism cause our thinking and communication skills to atrophy.

What is really dangerous about this is that there is no organized conspiracy that is doing this to us. The forces that are degrading us through amusement are fragmented and unorganized. They are all just out for their own profit and not colluding to control society. While that means that there is no puppet master pulling the strings and controlling us all, it also means there is no one or no force keeping society together and keeping us from slowing destroying the modern world and society that has been built up over the past two centuries or more.

In short, the main difference between Huxley's dystopia and our modern reality is that A Brave New World had puppet masters behind the scenes making sure it all runs smoothly and is sustainable, while our reality is one that tends more and more towards being unsustainable the more we amuse ourselves.

This is not a dystopia where a group of people's idea of a perfect world or society (a utopia) goes wrong and becomes more horrible and repressive than wonderful and liberating. This is a decent into chaos and disorder and has every potential to be more horrible and repressive than a dystopia.

But back to the word amuse: Are we really amusing ourselves into a downward spiral? The hate and fear that has gripped a large portion of the US and most of its media is not pleasant escapism. The news and politics are not pleasant and entertaining; they are often frightening and angry, and they inspire anger and hate.

The two obsolete definitions of amuse shed light on this: 1) to occupy the attention of, absorb

2) distract, bewilder. These do not necessarily have anything to do with pleasure. They do however have a lot to do with escapism and keeping our attention.

The media and internet distract and bewilder us with mountains of information, misinformation, trivia and data that keep us from paying attention to what is really around us (people, events, problems) and keep us from making decisions or taking action in regards to them even when we do see them. We are first distanced from everything and then paralyzed by the sheer amount of stuff coming at us.

After a while of course, we become numb to the flood that we find ourselves constantly immersed in. At that point you might think that we would find a shore, any shore, to crawl on to and dry out. If we did, we would likely be overwhelmed by the reality and problems we had been distracted from. We may choose to dive back into the flood and stay. But the media cannot allow us to even have that reprieve or the ability to make that choice. They also cannot allow us to remain numb and passive because their business model is based on keeping us actively tuned in.

As a result, they find ways to keep us engaged. After we have taken on all of the mindless pleasing entertainment we can handle and feel a need to do something, feel something, we become restless. In that restlessness we become susceptible to fear, anger and hate. 

It is no longer easy or even possible to lead us into an escape from all reality and problems, so the media leads us back into caricatures of selected realities and problems that are constructed in such a way that we cannot sit back and be passive in the face of them. (Part of the reason we fall for this is that our thinking and communication skill have atrophied.) These grotesque representations of reality are so inflammatory, divisive and seemingly urgent that we must have an opinion and a strong one at that. In this way, the media keeps us insulated from the real problems, the real world, and at the same time keeps us engaged, keeps us from feeling detached and numb.

I am not saying that this is done intentionally, far from it. I doubt that anyone laid this out as a plan and is trying to get something out of it, like political or economic control. It is merely what is happening as people and the media try to make money, keep informed and feel relevant. And, that is the biggest problem: no one is in control. Through this amusement that is more and more filled with fear, anger and hate, we are throwing ourselves down the spiral towards chaos. We are not in or heading into a dystopia where some evil elite or force is in control; we are heading into chaos, and as we go we are destroying our personal abilities and the societal structures necessary to combat that chaos.  It isn’t a path filled with pleasure, but it is a road of amusement that can lead to the death of modern society. 

Our Failure Is Who We Have Become

"When the supply of information is no longer controllable, a general breakdown in psychic tranquility and social purpose occurs. Without defenses, people have no way of finding meaning in their experience, lose their capacity to remember, and have difficulty imagining reasonable futures."

-- Neil Postman from Technopoly

#AmusingOurselvesToDeath

Americans, and especially American parents, we failed not because Trump won, or because Clinton lost. We failed because we bought the hype that this election was historically significant in a unique way. That became a self fulfilling prophecy. It has become uniquely significant because we have become hysterical and irrational, and as a result we have further divided our society.

We failed because many of us are not capable of finding meaning in our everyday lives and in our immediate surroundings. We have lost touch with ourselves and what, and who, is actually around us. Instead, we are consumed with what is behind the little glass screens we carry around.

When the information stops coming, we feel like the lights have gone out. We feel like the sun has disappeared. Instead of realizing that we need to sleep or rest, and that it is a great opportunity to do so, we panic.

We are so used to being awash in information that we don't know what to do, or who we are, without it. As a result, we push to have more and more, and we push to have it be ever more exciting and important. We want the hype because it keeps us from getting bored, from running out of 'information' to consume. We are addicted. That addiction strikes at the core of each one of us because without that information we no longer know who we are or what our purpose is.

In reality, we are not getting more information that we did 10 years ago. We are getting more trivial data, meaningless facts and misinformation. We are getting more uninformed, poorly formed and exaggerated opinions and analysis.

As a result, we are spending less time on the actual information and well informed and carefully though out opinions and analysis that happen to find us. This makes us less informed, less able to make decisions and always close to collapsing from 'information' overload and decision fatigue.

We also take less time to understand the actual information we get. We take things at face value as they are given to us and let our habits of comprehension (our biases) shape them without being the least bit conscious of it. We don't dig deeper and check the facts or the context. We don't understand; we simply react like we are getting hit on the knee by a rubber hammer.

In reality, we can't check, dig or understand because there is too much coming at us, and we are too obsessed with getting beyond what is here now and getting to what is coming next. We are so afraid of missing something that we actually make ourselves miss what we already have in front of us.

With all of that going on, it is hard to remember anything because nothing sinks in. If you don't take the time to understand something on a deeper level or wider plane, you are less likely to remember it. We only remember the sensational and that is only remembered largely out of context and without detail.

With all of this going on we don't have the memory, attention span or accurate information (especially not about our self and our actual immediate surroundings) to imagine a realistic future. We grasp at far flung utopian or distopian visions of the future that are almost certain to disappoint because they were never realistic in the first place.

We wonder why politicians, salesmen, etc. make us promises they don't keep... but the reality is they can't keep them because they are not possible, at least not in the terms and time frame they give them. They may know that they are impossible, or they may not. The real problem is that we don't seem to notice at the time that the promises are not realistic. We crave the new, the special the spectacular so much that we want to believe. It is a symptom of our addiction that helps to plunge us deeper into the addiction.

We have failed because of who we have become, what we do, what we expect and what we have come to rely on. Trump can't fix that, and he can only make it worse if we let him: if we continue to use him as an excuse to indulge in our bad habits that make us more delusional and more divided. Clinton couldn't have fixed it either, and thinking so is simply another one of our strong and comforting delusions.

We have failed because we not only believed the hype, but because we have become dependent on the hype. We may not be amusing ourselves to death, yet... But we are amusing ourselves into greater delusion and deeper division.

Evidence from Psychology to Support My Suspicion of Technology and Dismay at Public Discourse in the US

I recently read an article from a book on Psychology called Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. The article is called, “Self-Anchoring in Conversation: Why Language Users Do Not Do What They ‘Should.’” Being a language teacher, I thought the title was interesting... And being annoyed and dismayed by the degradation of public discourse and debate in the US, I thought it was a must read.

First, what does the title mean by 'should'? It means that in order to eliminate or at least avoid ambiguity and miscommunication, speakers and listeners should follow the 'principle of optimal design.' This means that speakers should design a message from the beginning with the audience in mind: their perspective, knowledge and background. At the same time, the listener should interpret from that position too: that knowledge, background and perspective needed to understand it are common, shared. Research shows that that is not actually the case most of the time. Instead they rely on a sort of shortcut system that can be called a heuristic.

The article summarizes studies that explore that heuristic. First speakers think of what they want to say. Second they formulate the sentence(s). Then they review them to see if they fit the audience, and only then will they make changes to fit the audience. When they first decide on what they are saying and formulate how to say it they are basing it (anchoring it) on their (an egocentric) perspective and knowledge. It is only later that they review and change (adjust) the message to see if it is comprehensible to the audience from their perspective and knowledge. The studies also show that the less time or fewer mental resources the speaker has at that moment, the more the last step is cut short or left out. The research also says the same about how people interpret messages: they start (anchor) from their own (egocentric) perspective and only later review to see if there may be a disparity due to the different perspective of the speaker that calls for modification (adjustment) in their understanding.

What struck me most about this is that reaching out to the other person's knowledge, background and perspective is left to the last, and when in a pinch, it is the first thing to be cut back on or cut out. It doesn't surprise me that this is what happens, but what does is that it has been formulated like this and backed up by what seems to be a fair amount of research. Why that surprises me is because it seems to fit exactly what is going on with public debate now in the age of the internet. We have so much information thrown at us constantly from so many different perspectives; we are so busy wading through all of that information; we are so busy contributing our own information to the flood; we are so busy multi-tasking, which really just means jumping back and forth from one task to another constantly being interrupted or interrupting ourselves.

The article itself says that, "When people are overly busy and cognitively occupied, they might not be able to adjust sufficiently from the egocentric anchor. This has clear consequences in our overly busy world."

I see this as part of the way that technology-- though it is hailed as a great uniter-- is actually dividing us. It makes us more "overly busy and cognitively occupied" so that we are less effective communicators. It also strips away context, which is related to background, knowledge and perspective, and makes it seem as if we don't have to adjust our messages or interpretations for different people to communicate effectively. It makes us to busy and so over-taxed that we don't effectively adjust or don't have the time or feel the need to adjust at all. Things are routinely taken out of context, misunderstood, misspoken. Instead of finding the root of these issue and putting them to rest, finding meaning and communicating, we rush off to spread the error and add to it by adding our instinctive response to it. Our response often doesn't itself go through a process of reflection and adjustment because there is no time or mental resources to do so, at least not if we want to get out two cents in before everyone's attention moves on to something else.

I am not saying that we need to rewire our brains to process and create messages differently. That would be taxing and inefficient in many ways, at least in everyday circumstances. The article says that by using this heuristic, "the language user is taking a shortcut that is cheap in mental resources and relatively fast."  Also that it is, "typically successful" when the speaker and listener share much in terms of background, knowledge and perspective-- which is quite often. Doing what we 'should' –building the message from the beginning with the audience in mind— is far more time consuming and taxing. While that approach may be a way to reflect on and modify our heuristic approach sometimes or useful when working on a single very important message, for daily use it would be more trouble than it is worth.

My point is that we should slow down and make sure that we don't constantly short change the adjustment step in the process, and try to never outright skip it. This does not mean to stop using technology and its benefits, but to slow down and use it more effectively to communicate accurately, not simply communicate more in terms of volume: in terms of number of messages and size of audience.

Here are extended quotes from the text that my paraphrasing in the second and third paragraph are based on:
"What we consistently find it that language users do not do what they 'should' do according to common sense and current theory. For example, they do not routinely use readily available information about the perspective of the other. The reason is twofold. First, information about perspective is not only knowledge, it is metaknowledge: It is knowledge about who knows what. Such higher-level information typically takes more cognitive resources and more time to use. By relying on an egocentric interpretation in the case of understanding, and an egocentric plan in the case of speaking, the language user is taking a shortcut that is cheap in mental resources and relatively fast.
"The second reason we rely on an egocentric process is that it is typically successful. In many cases, the overlap between the foci of the speaker and the addressee is such that an egocentric process would be sufficient for successful communication.”

“Nickerson (1999) demonstrates how miscommunication can result from people's mistaken assessment of what others know and their tendency to overimpute their own knowledge to others. We have shown that even when language users are well informed about what others know, they still anchor egocentrically when taking the other's perspective. Although people might be quite good at taking into account differences in perspective when they use language, they only do so through this effortful and time-consuming process of adjustment. When people are overly busy and cognitively occupied, they might not be able to adjust sufficiently from the egocentric anchor. This has clear consequences in our overly busy world.”

Bibliography

Keysar, Boaz, and Dale J Barr. 2002. "Self-Anchoring in Conversation: Why Language Users Do Not Do What The "Should"." In Heuristics And Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment , edited by Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin and Daniel Kahneman, 150-166. New York, NY : Cambridge University Press.

Russian Media Tactics and The Fate of the US

My observations of Russian media and argumentative tactics have lead me to believe that they don't actually want to try to prove anything.   They simply spread so much counter information and half thought-out alternative theories that they undermine any single coherent opinion on the issue. 

Believe or not, I think this is related to the current US election too.

Really what they are doing is to take advantage of the fallacy fallacy. The arguments and evidence their opponents are offering all have faults or counter evidence.  As a result, they must be false and so must their conclusions.

This is bad enough when it paralyzes people's ability to rationally chose a side or story to believe.  But sometimes it damages the idea of truth itself. This is possible when people believe their is one truth and it is obvious once the facts are all laid out.  That idea of truth though is not what logic, experience or science say truth is.  Any truth and the facts it is based on are not infallible, indisputable or singular. 

For many people the type of tactics Putin's Russia uses undermines the authority of truth and facts.  This leaves a vacuum that they can fill with power and force.  This is what keeps chaos at bay and keeps the country from disintegrating. 

For others, who still believe in finding a truth that fits all the facts, it leaves them scrambling to come up with some sort of conspiracy theory that however unlikely is believed because it fits the 'facts.'

In either case, their is so much uncertainty that a people cannot come together to agree on the issue.  In fact most individuals can't even take a coherent opinion on it.

This type of maneuvering is what Trump has in common with Putin's Russia, not foreign policy or business goals.  (Or maybe I should say this should be the only truly disturbing thing.)  It is that he uses these tactics more overtly and than other politicians in the US. 

Clinton uses them too but more subtly.  This kind of thinking allows her to get away with calling Trump a lair whenever he says anything she doesn't agree with. Or to call a whole speech of his a lie just because is has one provable falsehood in it.  (Granted he does have credibility problems, but that doesn't justify her taking such horrible advantage of it. That is if she is indeed concerned about policies and truth.) 
At the same time, whenever something ridiculous comes out of his mouth or is attached to him, she claims that that is the truth and the real Trump.   She does this without pointing out why or giving evidence.  It is just as illogical as the hyperbole that spews from his mouth.   Trump is a bad man, so any thing he says that is good must be a lie; he is the fault in the argument.  Trump is a bad man, so anything bad he says or is associated with must be true; again, he is the fault in the argument. (Or maybe this is just the genetic fallacy, and I am stretching too much when I relate it to the Fallacy Fallacy.  Still, it is no doubt a fallacy.)

What has made Putin's Russia so strong and powerful is what is helping to tear America's democracy apart.  People can't or don't,  at least not in public, make up their own mind on issues because the water is so muddy.  Only that will also tear America apart because their is no dictator who can or will take over to force unity on the American people.  I am glad to say that Trump is really not capable of that.  You may doubt that he will not try or doesn't want to try. But even if you are right and I am wrong, there is a balance of power in the US system.  There is no party in Congress or majority of Supreme Court justices that will back him making the US a dictatorship. 

Putin's Russia is wrong and ridiculous when it acts like this.  It is destructive and even dangerous.  The only thing that holds Russia together in light of that is Putin's power and often ruthless power plays.  People in the US need to stop indulging, and stop allowing the candidates and media to indulge in these tactics.  The US doesn't have a strongman, and the system won't allow for one anytime soon, that can keep the country from falling apart if we don't.

The US Election: What Does Putin Want? Why Should Americans Care?

I think this article misses the whole point of Putin or Russia saying or doing anything regarding this election.  The author is too shortsighted, which Putin is not.  

The Putin/Russian objective is to weaken American.  They can do that no matter who wins (or who is running) by aggravating the divisions amongst the American people and damaging the credibility of the election process.   (These are things they have done in their own country and neighboring countries for years.)

Clinton is playing right into their hands by having such poor information security that her campaign can get hacked.  She should know better. She helps Putin as well when she says the Putin wants Trump to win.   Voters shouldn't care what Putin wants when they go to the polls, the should vote based on who they think will make America stronger and more secure internally and externally regardless of what some dictator says or wants. 

Trump and his surrogates play into Putin's hand just as much, if not more.  The more they talk in such inflammatory language about the system being rigged, (no matter what evidence they do or don't have) the more they undermine confidence in the system.  That can only weaken American and that helps Putin.  The same goes for all of Trump's other divisive rhetoric. (And Clinton's.)

The press, the politicians and the people of the US need to stop playing the game Putin wants them to play: divide, smear and stoke fear.  They need to stop not because it is what Putin wants but because it is bad for the US in all respects and on all levels.  Putin wants it because it breaks down the US from the inside out, from the bottom to the top.  And that is why Americans (the media, the candidates and the citizens)  should stop: because it weakens the US in such fundamental ways.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/15/opinions/putin-clinton-hate-affair-ghitis/index.html

Dylan's Nobel, Mistake

"If you look back, far back, 2,500 years or so, you discover Homer and Sappho and they wrote poetic texts that were meant to be listened to, that were meant to be performed, often with instruments -- and it's the same way with Bob Dylan."

This is the justification that Sara Danius from the Swedish Academy gave for why the great lyricist should be given the literature award. 

Let me give some historical perspective that should help people understand why, despite the fact that I am a Dylan fan, I think this is a mistake. 

If we look back 2,500 years, literacy was not anywhere near as common as it is today, not even in Ancient Greece.  Not only that, but books were very rare and very expensive.  I have heard the comparison that one small book back then would cost as much as a car would cost a family today.  If that is true, then even if you were rich, you wouldn't be going to the bookstore often to pick up the latest releases-- even if a bookstore existed.  It was all just not very practical, not even realistic.  If poets wanted to have their work appreciated by more than a select few, it was essential that they have it performed. 

In comparison, today many more people can read; books are quite inexpensive and easier to get than ever.  Yet, people spend their time on (mostly) mindless entertainment via the internet or TV.  The only obstacle most people have to reading a book of poetry is their own will to do so.  These days, poetry does not have to be performed to be accessible. People have the ability and means to read, but do so less and less. 

So why did the Swedish Academy choose a musician that so many people have already heard of and hear often when instead they could shine a spotlight on a great writer that many don't know of and in the process maybe get a few more people to actually read a book?  I can't think of a single reason for them to do so that isn't a mistake in the long run. 

Intellectual and Liberal Snobs (My Definition)

These two types of snobs are people that believe in their idea of truth or vision of the future so strongly that they are willing to dismiss and ignore people who have different ideas and visions than them.  Often their belief is wholehearted and pure, authentic.  But the way that they treat others who have different (and often just as authentic) ideas and visions is what sabotages them.  

They may find their truth or realize their vision, but in doing so they will have alienated so many people that it is seen as useless or even oppressive.  Those others will see that future as a dystopia because their concerns, ideas and beliefs are not part of it.  Those others will see those truths as conspiracy and lies because it doesn't take into account their values, experiences and beliefs.  

I think a big part of the political establishment is made up of snobs.  The result, the counter movement, is the rise of anti-establishment and anti-intellectual movements.  The ignored move to the margins, huddle there and become even more marginal. They become a caricature of themselves as they start to simply defy everything the snobs affirm.  This is, in part, because those in the huddle are so diverse that they really don't have anything they can stand united for.  (They are not conservatives or religious or anything but 'anti-s' at that point.)

The snobs bring this upon themselves because they are unwilling to take seriously the others.  Yet, they are so snobbish (even self-righteous) that they can't see this, and they blame the others all the more and in ever more degrading ways.  They refuse to really listen, care or compromise.  

The sad thing is that they, the snobs, are usually very intelligent and very hopeful people.  The problem is that their abstract ideas of truth, humanity, etc. keep them from seeing and dealing with real people unless those people share those abstractions.

It comes down to this: Individuals don't find truth, and even if they do, without a community to affirm it, it is meaningless and hollow, ineffectual.   Individuals don't make futures, and if they somehow can, that future is merely a tyranny unless the community feels they are meaningfully participating in and benefiting from it.

It is about community, which means it has to have listening, care and compromise as part of it.  This is something snobs, however well intentioned or correct, just don't get. And so, there is just so much they can't get right. 

Oh THOSE Close Minded People

Saw a meme today that said, 'The problem with closed-minded people is that their mouths are always open.'

That may have been true at one point though I think it is a bit different today. The current problem with closed minded people is that no one looks at the real reasons for why 'they' think what 'they' do. To put it another way: 'Their' mouths are always open and 'your' ears are quick to close. All 'you' do is throw insults at 'them:' close minded, racist, sexist, etc. All that does is close 'them' off even more and show that 'you' are just as close minded as 'you' think 'they' are.

The fact is that in the highly polarized climate in the US right now 'you' are 'them' to 'them' and 'they' are convinced 'they' are as right as 'you' are convinced 'you' are.

Yes, someone maybe factually right and others factually wrong, but that is not the whole story. You can't dismiss a person's worries, fears, hopes or beliefs just because facts are wrong. Most people are not (and have never been) that coldly logical. You need to deal with those fears, worries and beliefs, not believe and insist that citing facts will make them magically disappear. On the other hand, playing on worries, fears, hopes and beliefs is counter productive too.

Going past the facts (not ignoring them) and connecting with people-- understanding their worries, fears, hopes and beliefs-- is what is called being human and compassionate. Right now both sides are at most paying lip-service to compassion. One side is focusing on being factually correct, the other on being tough. Both think that is their path to being effective.

But in both cases being effective comes at the cost of bulldozing over those that don't agree with them. That is horribly damaging to unity and compromise. When it comes to having a functioning democracy, unity and compromise are often more important than being effective, especially when general trust is at such a low.

The problem of Anti-Intellectualism and the Problem with Mainstream Intellectualism

It is quite clear that anti-intellectualism is widespread in America. Some argue that America has always been rather anti-intellectual, but I am not sure that is true. Americans, I think, have always disliked arrogance and being talked down to. They hate being told what to think and how to think. But that isn’t necessarily anti-intellectualism. I think the current rise in anti-intellectualism has more to do with the change in what it means to be an intellectual in America, especially in main stream culture.

What does it mean in America today to be an intellectual? This is not a silly question because that is not a clearly defined or understood term. (Like so many other words, we throw it around as if there is one clear meaning that we all know.) It used to mean simply someone who was intelligent and often implied that they were well educated and well read. Today the meaning seems much narrower, especially when we talk about anti-intellectualism.

To be an intellectual today often means to be scientific. Let's face it, everything today tries or claims to be a science or scientific. When we judge how true, important or reliable something is, we want to know how scientific it is. Science is the measure of truth and reliability. When someone is an intellectual, they should be truthful, have important information and that information needs to be reliable, so they need to be scientific. Economics strives to be scientific and is based more and more on data and math, less and less on theory and ideas. Psychology relies more and more on data and clinical trials, less on the individual and the practitioner. (I think that a result of this is the greater and greater reliance on medication as opposed to the work done between the patient and practitioner.) Even some branches of art and literary criticism/ studies are trying to become more scientific: data driven and objective.

Here it is necessary for me to clarify what I mean by science. This will necessitate me contrasting science with scientism. Science is a method of inquiry used to understand the physical world. It is primarily descriptive and aims to tell us what is there and how it works. It relies on repeatable events, and thus more and more on numerical data, and uses data to formulate and support theories that account for the majority of the events and factors. It has its own set of assumptions and rules: the understandability (or even logical nature) of the physical world, it limits itself to the physical world, etc. It also relies on a tradition and authority of its own that needs to be respected. This is a very valid and useful human pursuit. This is what I will refer to as legitimate science, or simply science.

Science turns to scientism when it does any or several of the following: goes beyond talking about the physical world (usually to categorically deny that anything out side of the physical exists), tries to be prescriptive, thinks that it can answer questions of meaning and significance (or insists that they be ignored because they are not scientific and therefore not important), denies its own assumptions, thinks its own rules ought to apply to every human pursuit (or any pursuit of truth or knowledge), or denies that it has its own tradition and hierarchy of authority and as a result claims that tradition and hierarchy of all types need to be dismantled or disrespected. In short, scientism is when the very legitimate discipline of science over steps its bounds or misrepresents itself. Often it is a case of non-scientists misunderstanding what science actually is.

Science is therefore about how things are, and what is happening, all of this in the physical world. In contrast, theology (and its practice in the everyday world, which we call religion), philosophy and the arts are about why and what for: meaning and value. For lack of a better blanket term, I will simply call these the humanities. These are not at all limited to the physical world and not limited to questions of what and how. In fact, they are more focused on the world of ideas and questions of meaning, significance and value.

Another distinction between science and the humanities is the difference between descriptive pursuits and prescriptive ones. Science is by and large limited to being descriptive; its aim is to accurately describe the world and how it works. Though the humanities often start with description of what is as a foundation, they primarily are prescriptive. They talk about what things could be or should be, or how they should be understood or valued.

Science is descriptive like a photograph or diagram in an instruction manual. It gives a detailed account of what is and what is happening. Sometimes, based on that, it talks about how we can manipulate or use these things, but really that is more technology than pure science.

The humanities are prescriptive in that they tell us about meaning and value: how we should see and act towards things and people. The word mythology fits well here, but I hesitate to use it because of its negative connotations. Myths are stories that are not literally true but that contain truth. (In a world where science is seen as the measure of truth, a world where scientism pervades, something not being literally true is taken to mean that it is false and therefore unimportant.) Meaning and values are not things that are in the world itself. They are things we create or things that are revealed to us, if you believe in a higher power or something transcendent. Myths tell us about those things in a way that resonates with us.

What is often referred to as science in the main stream is too often scientism. One of the results of this is that the humanities are either colonized by scientific ideas and methods, or they are discredited and mocked. This is especially true in the case of religion. Of course religion and theology should yield to science when it comes to understanding the what and how of the physical world, but at the same time science should not insists that the religious approach and religious conceptions be totally abandoned. Religion and science deal with two different things that are closely connected but different. The humanities should not be trying to explain the what and how in a descriptive way; they should and usually do look at it in a way that is prescriptive and looks for meaning and value. At the same time science should not be trying to explain or dismiss questions of meaning and value because the pursuit of them is not scientific.

The humanities should yield to science in areas where science is the more appropriate method of inquiry and scientific research is more developed. This is seen as common sense for many. What is less common is the opposite: that science needs to yield to the humanities in certain spheres. Yet, that is just as true.

The borders between science and humanities will never be totally clear and there will always be some tension and even conflict. This is natural. Legitimate science ought to acknowledge this and respect the purpose and methods of the humanities, even religion and theology. A failure to do this is a slip into scientism which is really a form of scientific fundamentalism. The opposite needs to be the case as well: the humanities need to respect legitimate science. To not do so is a slip into any number of forms of fundamentalism which we see all too often today and rightly condemn. However, it is important to condemn them as that discipline overstepping its boundaries, not of the discipline as a whole. But the latter is often what happens.

When intellectualism is really scientism, then it is perfectly understandable that anti-intellectualism increases. Some people are more scientific minded, they want descriptive truths that deal with what and how. Others are more humanities minded and want truths that are mostly prescriptive and that deal more with meaning and significance. Both are necessary for a sustainable civilization or culture.

Yes, anti-intellectualism is a problem, especially in a democracy. However, when intellectualism becomes scientism there does need to be resistance and a fight against it. That is why I do sympathize with anti-intellectualism as a response to an intellectualism that is largely anti-humanities and anti-religious, a hostile form of scientism. The problem is that that response is merely reactionary and just as myopic as the scientism it is trying to counter. Science is not going to be put in check and scientism rooted out by a movement that is anti-scientific and anti-authority. That just feeds the animosity and makes the situation worse.

The Root of All Evil

Being at one is godlike and good, 

but human, too human, the mania
Which insists there is only the One, 

one country, one truth and one way.
-- Friedrich Holderlin

The Great US Bathroom Debate

This whole bathroom debate in the US has strengthened my suspicion that liberals in the US want to use the exception as a basis for the rule, while the conservatives want to ignore the fact that there are exceptions to the rule at all.

On the left, they want to use anecdotes or outliers that show how a small number of people are being oppressed or disadvantaged to re-write the rules and norms.  This is what the far left is doing when they talk about the idea that gender is just a social construct and that we should really just get rid of the gender question on forms and gendered bathrooms.  This extremely is silly if you ask me.  It fails to understand what a rule is and what normal means.

On the right, they want to keep the old rules and norms, not change them and refuse to admit that there are any exceptions, outliers.  This is just as silly.  For a person to have a gender is the norm, that is true.  But, not all people are normal and those that aren’t shouldn’t be treated as if they are horrible or evil, or whatever.  They are different and we need to understand that and accept it.

In the end, I think it is about being realistic about what is normal and useful: the rules and norms.  At the same time we have to have tolerance and realize that there are exceptions and deal with them in a constructive way.

The rules and norms are useful for society in general, and I don’t think we can give that up, nor should we.  But those norms and rules shouldn’t be used to vilify or attack people.  Rules like this are rules based on what is normal, in other words most prevalent.  That is what this kind of rule should be, not something based on the unusual or anecdotal.  But, rules always have exceptions because what is normal is never 100%.  So the idea that there should be no exceptions is ridiculous.

How we deal with exceptions is what makes us human and not machines or computers that just follow rules unthinkingly and without compassion.  

The "Rigged" System

To Trump, Trump's supporters and Sander's supporters who are complaining about 'the system:'

The system has been this way for a while, it is only now that you have realized that? Or are you only complaining now because you are at a disadvantage because of the system?

But the accusation that the system is rigged brings up another issue: How Democratic is America, really?  

America has never been a true direct democracy. It wasn't in the beginning, but it has gotten closer to that over the years. This, in my opinion, is perfectly understandable. You need at least three things to have a functioning democracy:

1) A population that is willing to compromise and has an understanding of the common good.

2) An electorate that is informed AND knowledgeable. (They need to have background knowledge and a familiarity with context in order to make use of information they are given.)

3) An electorate that is educated to think critically about goals and solutions (not just criticize and complain). To put it simply: properly educated.

The founding fathers of the US knew that they didn't have a population that fit the second and third criteria. That is (at least in part) why they limited the right to vote to landowners. Landowners would be more likely have the means to be informed, knowledgeable and educated. Remember, there were no public schools and very few people could afford the time or money to be educated back then. Also, the only way to spread information was via print distributed by foot or on horseback. The Electoral Collage and a Senate that was not directly elected also helped mitigate the dangers of having an uneducated and uninformed population.

As education and information became more common, the electorate was expanded. (As prejudice against blacks and women became weaker, it expanded along those lines as well.)

The candidates for the general election used to be chosen by the party leaders; it was not a very democratic process at all. That has changed over time as well.

There is still a way to go of course, but I wonder if the environment it right for making those changes. One contrary example is the affect that the internet is having on the electorate.

The internet is really not the World Wide Web that connects people anymore. The algorithms that curate our News Feeds and searches work with the data from our clicking history to give us more of what they think we want to see. The information we get from the internet is selected in a way so as to give us more of what we have already seen, more of what 'we want.'

To see this in action, do a search on a controversial or ambiguous topic on your own computer or device. Then logout, clear history/cookies, go incognito, etc. and do the same search. (Or make it easier on yourself and just find a public computer that you are not logged into.) The results will be different. The same sort of thing is true of your FB Feed. The things you click on and like change what ends up in your top stories feed.

In this way the internet has become more of a divider than a uniter. It puts each of us in our own little echo-chamber. We become less likely to want to compromise and less aware of what a compromise would actually look like because we know so little about those we disagree with. Our body of background knowledge and our understanding of the context of knowledge and information becomes skewed. We think and analyze less of what we take in because there is so much information coming at us so fast and so little of it actually challenges us or call us to think.

I am personally not concerned that the Republican Party may deny Trump the nomination. His popularity has a lot to do with the growing shortcomings of the electorate. He is not reputable, reliable or responsible candidate, and the party should step in to slow (if not stop) him if they have the means to do so. I am also not concerned that the Democratic Party is putting up roadblocks for Sanders. His ideas are not very practical, and beyond that, they will have little support in Washington. That means they will not get implemented, and that will only increase the frustration and divisiveness of American politics.

Those are short term solutions though. In the long run, something needs to be done about the state of the electorate—the mindset and resources of the voters. If the electorate does not have those three things listed above, a democracy (or any government chosen by it) won’t function properly. These things that make people complain about the process being ‘rigged’ are actually ways devised to protect the population from an electorate that is not functional. Of course they can be abused by those in power, but they were designed to keep the general public from abusing itself. They should not be taken lightly and should be allowed to serve their purpose when needed.

"The slaughter of the innocent in Brussels:

These attacks are identical to acts of murderous violence targeting identically-innocent people in different cities."

By Hamid Dabashi 

I exchanged emails with this author, once upon a time.  He is interesting and very intelligent, but I think here he has bitten too hard on the “everything is one harmonious whole” thinking that I find very annoying because it is so naive.  I see this as the meta-logic of quite a few Western intellectuals these days.

The meta-logic is that we are all the same, we are all human, and as such we should all be able to get along.  This gets extended to rights and freedoms as well, and it follows that as long as we are fighting for more freedom and more rights, we are working towards unity and stability.  Yes, the belief seems to be that things will just work out fine for everyone as long as we don’t let anyone divide or oppress us because unity and freedom are the natural state.  As a result of this kind of thinking, ISIS and the islamophobes are one and the same because they divide us when we are really united.

I find the premise that we are all the same and can all just get along very naive, and so the analysis that follows from it is ridiculous.  This meta-logic also allows for him to say that terrorism is not a response to Western actions but a logical extension of it.  It is logical, but it is a logical response to it, not an extension.  It is logical to return violence with violence. To get beyond this, first we need to get over the meta-logic of oneness.   Then we need to analyze the idea that violence is a logical response to violence.  I think we will find the answer to this beyond logic.  We need to do this by going back to the assumptions and foundations of the logic we are using and the civilization that gave raise to and sustains it.

Saying that answering violence with violence is logical is very true, but it leaves out things like context, intention and values.  Yes, dare I say it: sometimes you have to go against your values to defend them.  Sometimes your intentions and goals are good though your actions are questionable, at best.  Sometimes the context that you see things in and make decisions from is very different from that of others.  It is a very dangerous place to be, but because no values are actually controlling the way the world works, sometimes you need to step outside of your value system to defend them against others who don’t share them.

A sort of example can be seen in one interpretation of Machiavelli.  Machiavelli did not say that there are no morals and that power is always right and can do what it wants.  His point was that a good leader provides stability for the people, which in times when there was rarely a peaceful transition of power from one party or faction to another meant that the leader had to first of all stay in power.  To do that it was acceptable to be a-moral because the stability of the kingdom was more important.

This can very easily become abuse and lead to atrocities that end up effacing those very values. It is a thin line and slippery slope, but unless you attribute some sort of divine power or divine providence to the values you hold, it is the cold, hard and ugly reality of it.

So, we need to step outside of the logic of saying that when violence is responded to with violence, this is only to be expected and is natural…  not only that but the logic goes further and says that as a result, the counter-violence is just as legitimate as the initial violence.  This logical trap needs to be recognized and passed over.  (And logical traps are always to be found in any system because if post-modern philosophy taught us anything it is that all systems are essentially circular.)

We need to realize that we may need to use violence and that if we are vigilant in our judgment, with intentions that support our values—even if they go against them—violence is not an acceptable response because we believe our values to be superior to the other’s values.

But here again I come up against the naive assumption that we are all the same and that really our values are all the same…  But that is simply not the case.  Sometimes they are very different and that difference requires stepping outside of normal logic and realizing that no matter how dangerous it is to take that step out, sometimes it is necessary to defend and sustain the values that we have and that we truly believe are better.  Because even if we haven’t yet, and maybe never can, fully implement the values of democracy, liberty, etc. they are worth keeping and pursuing even in the face of the paradox of having to violate them (while insisting that others don’t) to safeguard them.

In Defense of Capitalism and Small Government

It is becoming more and more difficult to defend being a supporter of capitalism and small government.  This is justified in part because of the rise in economic inequality and the abuses of power and influence by the super-rich.  However, that does not mean that capitalism is, in a strict sense, to blame and that the government must take a greater and greater role in the economy.

First of all, capitalism requires a certain social and moral environment to function properly. Adam Smith was by training a moral philosopher and The Wealth of Nations should always be read with that in mind.  He assumed that the majority of people in an economy, even--and maybe even especially--the rich, would be reasonable moral and ethical people with ties to their community if not also their nation.  Without these things, the 'invisible hand' will not work, and inequality will be out of control.  But that is another topic for another post.  But here is a quote to help support this point:

“In The Theory of the Moral Sentiments, Smith emphasized that trust, responsibility and accountability exist only in a society that respects them, and only where the spontaneous fruit of human sympathy is allowed to ripen. It is where sympathy, duty and virtue achieve their proper place that self-interest leads, by an invisible hand, to a result that benefits everyone."
-- Roger Scruton

What I want to focus on here is government involvement in the economy.  This, to put it simply, is the difference between capitalism and socialism, or communism when it is most extreme.  It could also be referred to as the difference between a free market economy and a command economy.  Or catchier yet, a demand (and supply) economy versus a command economy. 

Capitalism depends on markets that are made up of people and groups acting of their own initiative and according to their own judgment about what is in their own self-interest.  These are organic and complex relationships between different and differing entities.  Through these networks, people and institutions make the decisions about what to produce, how much and how.  They are never totally efficient, but nothing ever is.  This system distributes the planning and decision making among many people and relationships; it is like cloud computing or crowd sourcing economic decisions.  When these organic networks fail to be efficient or effective in a major way, the government is there to step in—hopefully temporarily—to correct the problem.  That is how I understand capitalism and a free market economy, and that is what I am in favor of.

Communism and socialism are different forms of a command economy.  The government, and its experts, plan and control the decisions: almost completely in the case of communism and to varying degrees in the case of socialism.  It decides what to produce, how much and how. The smooth functioning of the economy depends on the data, intelligence, etc. of the officials in charge.  Of course the experts can never make perfect predictions and plans.  When things go wrong the kind of organic relationships that a market economy depends on need to take hold and fix the problems in an impromptu way. 

The most extreme form of command economy, communism, usually has the government actively dismantling and suppressing those relationships because they often interfere with the calculations and actions they have to make and take to get the economy to function smoothly. As a result, when needed those networks are usually not up to the task of stepping in and fixing problems that arise from miscalculations.  In the case of a socialist economy, the more the government is in involved, the less people feel the necessity or obligation to get involved.  But this takes bit more explanation I think, so let me use an example.

When something or someone else takes over doing something for people, people tend to lose a sense of responsibility for that activity and later the ability to do it.  If that continues the can even lose the ability to sense that it needs to be done or that it is important.  Take typing on a smart phone for example.  Smart phones (much more so than MS Word on the computer) corrects all sorts of errors that people make when writing.  They also add things like spaces so that we don’t have to. 

How many people don’t pay attention to spelling or punctuation/spacing anymore because of that?  I admit that I have never been a good at spelling on my own, but when I use auto-complete I notice that I get even worse.  I am not even trying to spell the word or pay attention to what I am typing, I simply plunk in a few letters and then let the program sort it out.  That is part of why I have not used auto-correct for a long time.  I let it suggest words, but I choose them and make myself at least try to spell them right.  If I don’t pay attention to spelling, my ability to spell gets worse.

What about spaces and punctuation?  Very often I see commas and periods with spaces before then or no space after.  (I am after all a teacher and look at all Word documents with “Show/Hide” on.)  I have students that claim to have never been taught that there should never be a space before a comma or period, there should be two after a period (or one, depending on the style manual you follow) and only one after a comma.  But even in people that I am sure know better, they still are sloppy with these conventions when using auto-correct. 

These are very simple things to do and to know how to do.  For so many people they became habit to do right, and we don’t even think about them.  But if the program takes over doing them, we lose the habit, sometimes lose the knowledge, and we also don’t make a point of explicitly teaching younger generations how to do it on their own—and as a result some never know what is right or wrong and just let the program do what it will and assume that is right. 

A lot of people (if any bother to get this far) will say that I am taking too large of a leap here when I compare government programs and involvement to auto-correct, but I really don’t think that I am.  If someone or something else takes a responsibility away from you, you can lose skills, forget knowledge and even forget how things ought to be.  Those that never knew will never learn and may never know. 

Now, I am not against government intervention, just the same as I am not against auto-correct.  It would take me much longer to write anything on my phone if it weren’t for some of those neat automated functions… and it would take me much longer to write this without the little red and blue lines that MS Word puts under so many things that I type when I am on a roll.  But they need to help us to implement what we know faster and more effectively.  They need to help us, not replace our knowledge and skills.  The same is true of government involvement in the economy and society; it needs to step in and help when necessary, not replace the actions of individuals and the functioning of communities, etc.  It is these responsible individuals and functional communities that are the foundation of society and of a functional capitalistic economy. They are also the safety net, the correcting factor, when a command economy's planning fails or fall short.

Herbert Hoover was afraid of the changes in American society that Roosevelt’s New Deal was going to bring.  Yes, Hoover should have done more to deal with the Great Depression, but I think he was right in warning that Roosevelt may have been doing too much.  Hoover cautioned that an increase in permanent government agencies would take responsibility (and liberty) away from the average American and society in general.  This would harm the determined, communal and independent spirit and make people more and more dependent on the government.  I think he was right. 

Yes, Franklin Roosevelt did a lot to bring about recovery from the Great Depression, and that should not be denied.  But that doesn’t mean that the permanence of those things and the effects of them can’t and shouldn’t be examined and questioned.  FDR’s cousin Teddy Roosevelt did a lot to help the American economy and the average worker during his presidency, and he did it by making tough decisions and convincing (sometimes forcing) people to act in ways that benefited society as a whole.  He didn’t do so by creating permanent institutions to deal with problems in bureaucratic and impersonal ways.  Personally, I don’t think the difference between the two Roosevelts can be over stated.  The right actions and decisions at the right time can often help the economy (and the average worker) just as much as the creation of a new government program or agency.  But the former doesn't run the risk of eroding the culture of responsibility and awareness that is so important for societies, communities and an economy to function well.

This is why I am in favor of capitalism and small government.  I have little faith or trust in any organization and body of experts (and the data necessary) to effectively control the economy without the corrective force of those organic relationships that those very organizations tend to erode.  I have much more faith in the ‘organic’ networks that capitalism relies on.  But for those networks to be well developed there needs to be a sense of community and common good, moral and ethics. There also needs to be a flexible and responsive, but small, government to step in when necessary to deal with any serious crisis that may arise.