This post is the twelfth in a series of sixteen that address The Knowledge Illusion and unless otherwise noted all quotes are from The Knowledge Illusion. I recommend reading all sixteen posts in order.
I have written on numerous other books on psychology, social psychology, critical thinking, cognitive dissonance theory and related topics already but discovered this one and feel it plays a complimentary and very needed role. It helps to explain a huge number of "hows" and "whys" regarding the other subjects I mentioned, all of the subjects.
In chapter nine, Thinking About Politics, the authors of The Knowledge Illusion take on the dreaded topic of politics, or more exactly how we think about politics.
The authors pointed out that we as voters are often unaware of the topics that we are voting on or the reality that is involved. They used as an example low awareness regarding the affordable care act as 40 percent of Americans in 2013 were unaware it was law.
In 2012 the supreme court ruled to uphold portions of the law. People were asked by Pew research if they supported the ruling. 36 percent were in favor, 40 percent opposed, and 24 percent had no opinion. Pew asked what the court ruled. Only 55 percent got that right. 15 percent said the court ruled against the act, 30 percent had no idea.
There are many, many other examples. Americans who most strongly supported military intervention in Ukraine couldn't identify Ukraine on a map.
A survey in Oklahoma State University's Department of Agricultural Economics asked if we should have a law for mandatory labeling of food containing GMOs. 80 percent of people supported the law. They also were asked if we should have a law requiring a label for food containing DNA and 80 percent of people also supported that as law. So, according to these people all food should be labeled to warn us it has DNA.
"How seriously should we take the vote to label genetically modified foods if it comes from the same people who believe we should label all foods that contain DNA? It does seem to reduce their credibility. Apparently, the fact that a strong majority of people has some preference does not mean that their opinion is informed. As a rule, strong opinions on issues do not emerge from deep understanding. They often emerge in the absence of understanding or, as the great philosopher and political activist Bertrand Russell said, "The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists." Clint Eastwood was more blunt: "Extremism is so easy. You've got your position and that's it. It doesn't take much thought." watch
(Page 172)
Socrates had a quote in response to a "political expert."
" I reasoned to myself, as I left him, like this - "I am actually wiser than this person; likely neither of us knows anything of importance, but he thinks he knows something when he doesn't, whereas just as I don't know anything, so I don't think I do either. So, I appear to be wiser, at least than him, in just this one small respect: that when I don't know things, I don't think that I do either." ( Plato, Apology, 21d;trans. Christopher Rowe) (Page 173)
"In general, we don't appreciate how little we know; the tiniest bit of knowledge makes us feel like experts. Once we feel like an expert, we start talking like an expert. And as it turns out that the people we talk to don't know much, either. So, relative to them, we are experts. That enhances our feeling of expertise." (Page 173)
"This is how a community of knowledge can become dangerous. The people we talk to are influenced by us - and truth be told - we are influenced by them. When group members don't know much but share a position, members of the group can reinforce one another's sense of understanding, leading everyone to feel like their position is justified and their mission is clear, even when there is no real expertise to give it solid support. Everyone sees everyone else as justifying their view so that opinion rests on a mirage. Members of the group provide intellectual support for one another, but there's nothing supporting the group." (Page 173)
The authors pointed out that when people of like minds discuss an issue together they become more polarized. The internet has made this problem much, much worse. Often companies use stories intended to arouse the strongest emotions and the views of the most extreme members get represented, sometimes even exaggerated into, well lies, to generate strong emotions.
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has written several books including The Righteous Mind and by doing a lot of research he found that many of the views presented online and in media only represent less than ten percent of conservatives on the right and less than ten percent of liberals on the left and the vast majority are either not represented or very poorly represented.
Social isolation via the internet and the choice of one type of media is a dangerous combination. The authors pointed out that Socrates died because ancient Athenians didn't want him contaminating thinking, the same reason is given regarding Jesus and the Romans, and so with the first crusades and the Spanish Inquisition and on to Stalin's purges, Mao's Great Leap Forward and the incarcerations and death camps of Nazi Germany.
The authors note each of these events have multifaceted causes, but that they share a common justification. They all were done to satisfy a need for ideological purity to enable a society to follow the one true path into the future. It is safe to say that none of the leaders who thought they were protecting the glorious truth were correct. They were all suffering from an illusion of understanding and the consequences were terrible.
The authors asked people a variety of questions regarding policy and noted the responses. Questions included whether there should be a flat tax, if we should have a cap and trade program, whether we should have single payer healthcare.
As before, they asked people to rate their understanding on an issue from 1 to 7. They then asked them to explain the policy and its effects in explicit details. As expected, people are terrible at explaining policies, especially ones they don't understand, and after this step they rated their understanding lower.
The authors also wanted to know if having this ignorance exposed would lessen the degree of polarity people have.
So, they also had people rate how firmly they support or oppose a position on the 1 to 7 scale before being questioned and after.
"We found that attempting to explain how a policy worked not only reduced our participants' sense of understanding, it also reduced the extremity of their position. If we consider the whole group together, the fact that people were on average less extreme means that the group as a whole was less polarized after the explanation exercise. The attempt to explain caused their positions to converge. " (Page 172)
The authors pointed out a vital contrast. Usually when people in a group think about their positions and discus them they become more certain. They think of the reasons for their beliefs in their own minds and reinforce them.
In this exercise people are forced to think of policies in causal terms involving the steps and details and sequence and results. Causal explanation gets us out of our beliefs and into the real world. It also exposes gaps in our knowledge and how little we really know.
The authors use the example of a law limiting use of water water to ten gallons a day per person. With causal reasoning you have to look at what would be short term effects ? Long term ? How would you bathe ? Wash dishes ? Would you drink water ? What about lawns ?
They point out that we can't understand a policy by thinking about how we would feel. We need to think about the causes and effects it would bring into being.
"Getting people to think beyond their own interests and experiences may be necessary for reducing their hubris and thereby reducing polarization. Causal explanation may be the only form of thinking that will shatter the illusion of explanatory depth and change people's attitudes." (Page 179)
The authors ran another experiment in which they again used the 1 to 7 system and asked people their level of understanding on issues and their positions but this time asked them to use reasons they had for their positions and didn't as any causal questions.
The participants didn't discover how shallow their understanding was or moderate their positions. They finished as certain of their knowledge as when they started.
Just finding reasons is easy for people. Coming up with details of what causes what regarding a policy is hard, especially when you don't know those details.
"Pondering your reasons for your position will do nothing but reinforce what you already believe. What you have to do is think about the issue on its own terms, think about exactly what policy you want to implement and what the direct consequences of that policy would be and what the consequences of those consequences would be in turn. You have to think more deeply about how things work than most people do." (Page 180)
The authors ran another experiment in which they tested two groups. One gave causal explanations and the other gave reasons as in the earlier experiment. In this experiment instead of ratings they had participants choose between four options. They could donate money to an advocacy group that favored their position, they could donate money to a group that opposes their position, they could keep the money or they could turn down the money. Very few people gave to a group that opposes their position and very few turned down the money.
The people who gave reasons had high certainty and people who had a strong position initially were more likely to donate. The moderates were less likely to donate. In the group that gave causal explanations the people who started with extreme positions donated no more than the moderates. This suggests that exposing how little we know can inspire more moderate behavior.
A very important different category or exception was found regarding this.
"But it's important to recognize another critical driver of people's opinions: There are certain values that we hold sacred, and no amount of discussion is going to change them.
Jonathan Haidt argues that moral conclusions are rarely based on much reasoning but come instead from intuitions and feelings. His strongest evidence for saying this comes from cases that he calls moral dumbfounding. To demonstrate this, he offered the following scenario (beware it's designed to generate discomfort) " (Page 181)
The authors then present a story of a brother and sister traveling together and they make love and the sister is on birth control and the brother uses a condom as well.
Most people are disgusted by the story and say the brother and sister did something wrong. (I tend to agree)
But the interesting thing is many people have trouble explaining WHY it is wrong. They say incest is wrong but have trouble giving reasons. Several reasons are given as examples and counterarguments are presented for each one.
I personally would take on aspects of the counterarguments in a debate because I have my own opinion but that's not the point. Most people don't have well thought out arguments ready for thorough scrutiny on this issue.
"Apparently, strong moral reactions don't require reasons. Strong political opinions don't either. Sometimes whether or not we understand the consequences of a policy is irrelevant. Such attitudes are not based on causal analysis. We don't care whether the policy will produce good results or bad outcomes. What matters are the values enshrined by policy." (Page 182)
The authors point out that attitudes about some topics are often set and no statements about costs or practicality or studies or anything but a value. They give several examples including pro-choice and pro-life positions regarding abortion. Generally people have a value they have embraced and that is the beginning and end regarding abortion for them. That makes this a sacred values issue.
It is similar with assisted suicide. Some people have a pro or con position and nothing you tell them affects it. Some see ALL suicide as a sin or cowardly and so don't ever support it while others see being forced to live in suffering as immoral and believe it should be treated as a fundamental right. Not much room between those positions.
The authors noted this.
"But if people's positions are not consequentialist but based on sacred values, then shattering the illusion won't matter."
(Page 184)
The authors tried asking people about these two issues of abortion and assisted suicide and found no illusions of explanatory depth. People felt the same before and after causal explanations. They were not moderated by learning more. For some topics, apparently facts don't matter to people.
This brings up something extremity important. The authors point out that as people are open to causal explanations only for policies that are thought of in terms of consequences, meaning outcomes or results and not effective on issues involving sacred values. We tend to feel like values are settled and not open for debate or change, consequences be damned.
They point out that most issues are consequentialist for most people, which leaves a lot of room for using causal explanations. Most people want the best outcomes regarding education, healthcare, power and many other topics.
"Proponents of political positions often cast policies that most people see as consequentialist in values-based terms in order to hide their ignorance, prevent moderation of opinion, and block compromise. The health care debate is a perfect example of this. Most people just want the best health care for the most people at the most affordable price. " (Page 184)
The authors point out that politicians often take a sacred values position on a topic that has clear facts to hide truth. Often they support an alleged value over a preferable outcome because it fits an agenda or the ideology they promote or the values their big money donors support.
"The secret that people who are practiced in the art of persuasion have learned over millennia is that when an attitude is based on a sacred value, consequences don't matter."
(Page 185)
This is probably one of the most important facts in propaganda analysis. If you want a position to be adamant unchanging, uncompromising and irreversible tie it to be a sacred value. Make it about honor, duty, loyalty or some other sacred value.
If you want people to be open to change or compromise on a policy make it a practical matter, about expenses and savings, efficient allocation of resources, getting a job done in a timely manner, anything that is not a sacred value.
The authors gave the example of gay marriage in America. According to Pew Research 60% of Americans opposed gay marriage in 2004 with 31% supporting it. By 2015 55% of Americans support it while only 39% oppose it.
What happened ? Jonathan Haidt believes the exposure of people to gay marriage made them realize it didn't negatively impact their lives. For most people in America your spouse is the same, your job is the same and your life is not really different. So, people found that the consequences are acceptable.
"Whether we frame issues in terms of consequences or sacred values also influences the likelihood of achieving compromise in negotiation. " (Page 186)
The authors give the sad example of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides would benefit from some long time term peaceful solution. But tragically the authors note that both sides have sacred values as grievances and the idea of compromise is unacceptable.
One thing I learned rapidly in trying to understand persuasion and propaganda is that you are in very deep trouble if you are trying to discuss facts and evidence, causes and effects if you stumble into a sacred value someone holds.
They can be very certain and any disagreement or even questioning regarding a sacred value can derail both a conversation and reason. This can manifest in different circumstances, depending on who you talk with based on their own values.
Some Americans tolerate no criticism of any acts by United States military and say things like "support the troops" and "better to fight the war over there than over here" and "they all want to blow us up anyway." And they are unwilling to consider any consequences or evidence against the United States government in this regard.
Similarly, I have spoken to American Jews and found a minority that support any actions by Israel and refuse to consider that the government could be doing anything wrong in any way. Period. Case closed.
Sacred values also have the benefit of letting you skip all that fancy causal analysis. Causal analysis requires a lot of thinking and if done well requires a lot of knowledge.
I in my own journey out of Scientology noted the sacred science as Robert Jay Lifton described eliminated causal or any analysis and assumed Scientology was far too sacred to be doubted, questioned or ever criticized or ridiculed. But I realized that anything that cannot be doubted, questioned, or even criticized and ridiculed has been taken out of the category of critical thinking. Maybe something else is being done with it but critical thinking isn't.
This brings us to something the authors pointed out. They talked about how sacred values have their place and are worth standing up for. Basic human rights are often considered sacred values and certainly make sense to me.
The authors point out that we can have sacred values but they shouldn't stop causal reasoning about the consequences of social policy.
They pointed out a simple reality about most political discourse. It's remarkably shallow. Citizens, commentators and politicians often take a stand before engaging in a serious analysis of pros and cons of proposed legislation.
They point out the fact that much of television is shouting matches. It is often just talking points being repeated in competition. The authors assert that the public deserves some analysis. I tend to concur.
Often networks just let politicians and their representatives say whatever they want and present it as balanced to have a republican and democrat say whatever they want.
But this is often a disservice. Often politicians who wear a flag on their suit every day and make values based speeches regarding supporting veterans and the military have a track record of consistent opposition to bills that would increase benefits or pay for the military or support bills that cut foodstamps to military families and oppose programs to help homeless veterans. But the politicians can put their hands over their hearts and stand tall when they are on camera in front of a flag. So patriotic.
Showing their voting record and listing bills would be much more useful.
Similarly topics like raising the minimum wage have history and so little it presented that people get away with outright lying about the effects of raising it because no one thinks to check out the truth. People go on television and write articles claiming every time the minimum wage is raised job numbers decline. Every single time. But it has a history. History is facts, causes and effects. Policies and outcomes. And guess what ? In the United States the federal minimum wage has been raised twenty two times and 68% of the time employment grew in the next year, not declined. That is a fact. It should be pointed out EVERY TIME the false claims regarding raising wages and declining jobs are presented. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
(Source regarding minimum wage study:
A GROUNDBREAKING NEW REPORT UPENDS CONVENTIONAL WISDOM ABOUT THE MINIMUM WAGE
This is not a pro raising minimum wage argument. It is a pro learning enough about the history and facts, not values, of a topic so you cannot easily be fooled. Howard Zinn was quoted as saying "History is important. If you don't know history, it's as if you were born yesterday. And if you were born yesterday, anybody up there in a position of power can tell you anything, and you have no way of checking up on it." End Quote
Now, I must admit I have dug deeper on some topics than most people would like to. That's fair enough. But with most topics if you don't dig a bit you have no way of checking anything.
The authors recognize that we all can't become experts on everything. They advise getting the best experts and having them advise us what our options are. We can check the history of institutions and individuals and look at recommendations. It is certainly easier than becoming an expert on everything.
The authors point out that having citizens decide issues regarding ballot measure has the liability that citizens can be unaware of consequences like lowering taxes may have disastrous effects on a local government.
They noted two quotes from Winston Churchill:
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Ouch.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. " (Page 191)
Now, I must admit Winston Churchill despite being known for leading England through resisting the Nazis isn't exactly my favorite historical figure. His attitudes on race, tolerance and genocide are not the most kind, to put it mildly. But his deep character flaws aside, he has a way with words.
I must admit that until I left Scientology I hadn't read the constitution or begun learning about how the United States Senate and house of representatives make laws which the president may accept or in some cases veto and the two bodies can try for a high enough majority to override a veto and the courts as a third branch must ensure the laws are followed.
So, I understand the first comment. Many Americans I speak with in person admit privately that they don't know how laws are made. Or how taxes are allocated.
Most people don't know the federal budget is now around 4.7 trillion dollars a year with a deficit around one trillion dollars a year and a debt of over twenty two trillion dollars. It is usually not known that the disbursement of the budget is as follows.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities the United States federal budget for 2017 was allocated:
Defense and international security assistance 15%
Social Security 24%
Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and marketplace subsidies 26%
Safety net programs 9%
Interest on debt 7%
Benefits for federal retirees and veterans 8%
Transportation infrastructure 2%
Education 3%
Science and medical research 2%
Non-security international 1%
All other 4%
You can note facts like foreign aid is usually one or two percent of the budget but sometimes politicians and reporters act like it is a lot of money by just saying a figure in the billions with no context. Similarly they can complain about food stamps. But according to several sources including the book Age of Propaganda the actual taxes a family that makes fifty thousand dollars a year pays towards food stamps totals thirty six dollars a year, while in contrast the same family pays around four thousand dollars a year in taxes to pay for corporate subsidies, money given to corporations. The authors of Age of Propaganda pointed out the usefulness of an itemized tax bill for every American so they can know the truth about where their taxes go. We can find the information but it takes a lot of digging. It shouldn't.
I not preaching that every person become a budget expert but we should know enough about it to be aware that about eighty percent of the budget is devoted to defense, social security, medical programs and safety net programs and that things like education, science, infrastructure and foreign aid get just a few percent each, hardly anything. And that we have a huge deficit with no solution to that in sight.
There are other important facts like corporations pay about seven percent of taxes and in the fifties they paid about thirty five percent, so they are making enormous profits.
The lesson isn't meant as an insult but as a guard against propaganda.
The authors discovered something else. People can get upset by having their ignorance exposed. They found asking people for details on something that the person doesn't really understand frequently led to the person no longer wanting to talk to them.
"We had hoped that shattering the illusion of understanding would make people more curious and more open to new information about the topic at hand. This is not what we have found. If anything, people are less inclined to seek new information after finding out that they were wrong. Causal explanation is an effective way to shatter the illusion, but people don't like having their illusion shattered. In the words of Voltaire: " Illusion is the first of all pleasures. " Shattering an illusion can cause people to disengage. People like to feel successful, not incompetent. " (Page 192)
Now I must admit to similar experiences. When I left Scientology and studied hypnosis and critical thinking I realized many ex Scientologists didn't want someone pointing out things they didn't know about hypnosis or Scientology and many certainly don't want anyone to point out logical fallacies in anything they write.
I ran into one woman who goes on Facebook for maybe a couple hours a day and comments on various issues she has with Scientology. She asks lots of questions online about Scientology. I foolishly pointed out a dozen books on cults and psychology to answer her questions. She got extremely angry and wrote that no one has time for that. But, she has a couple hours a day to rehash her experiences in Scientology over and over. Okay. She made several comments and I, perhaps foolishly, pointed out several logical fallacies she was using, because, hey, now that we are out of Scientology it would be great if we left behind the bad habits Scientology instilled in us.
She of course said she learned about all that in her first semester in college and knows all that so shouldn't point it out. Umm, think about that. She was in essence saying she knows what logical fallacies are and that they are wrong (poor critical thinking with faulty logic) and they should not be pointed out, ever. It frankly makes no sense. If you know all the fallacies then why would you use them over and over in your statements ?
A much more plausible explanation is that she felt called out when I recommended the books and she tried to save face when she said she knew knew all about fallacies from her first year in college as if she was years past where you learn and talk about fallacies. Bottom line, she didn't want to be exposed as ignorant.
I didn't want to overwhelm her and make her look bad. That wasn't my intent. I was hoping she would read some books and find something that helped her to recover from Scientology and I foolishly had hoped that pointing out the fallacies Scientology instilled would help somebody, several somebodies, see the harm these habits create and work to improve their thinking and lives But lots of people have shown both in and out of ex Scientologists' groups have shown that if you expose that they are using fallacies they just double and triple down.
When you point out logical fallacies such as red herring fallacies like ad hominem and the genetic fallacy being irrelevant to the truth of claims they dive in and use them more.
How we get this information out in a way that people accept is a difficult challenge. In my opinion people would greatly benefit from this knowledge but accepting it requires admitting a profound ignorance, and most people, much of the time aren't ready for this. To me the gateway subject for many people to examine this can be critical thinking or cognitive science or psychology. These subjects are so deep and unexplored in earlier education that a serious student of any of them should quickly realize they have a lot to learn to understand these subjects. This approach in my opinion is needed for other subjects like hypnosis and cults, but one thing at a time.
The authors point out that a good leader must make people aware of their ignorance buy not make them feel stupid. I must confess that it is challenging.
In my experience I in my forties discovered virtually everything I believed in was a fraud and further discovered that decades of attempting to understand and practice Scientology and even extreme confidence and certainty I understood it didn't make me correct, not even a little bit.
I got to have my whole world shattered and discovered I had delusions of grandeur and delusions of competence with no basis in reality. That intensely stunning and demoralizing experience left me willing to explore how someone could be so ignorant but feel enlightened, be so wrong but be sure they are so right.
But most people don't find recorded evidence that the person they thought was the savior of humanity was just a pathological liar and conman, scheming his way through life, spinning a web of lies. I discovered plenty plenty and realized I needed to learn much, much more than I know.
How can people whose religous, political and scientific beliefs are not so completely debunked see something like this ?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.