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.