I have spent a lot of time questioning myself, my beliefs, what is right and how things are in the last year or so. I have sometimes got to the point where I have questioned whether even the process by which I think is a good one, whether the attempt at cold-hearted objectivity and logical thought is actually a useful method to use. My foundations have shuddered, but then I come across someone who is clearly brilliant, speaks with a smiling face, and independently says pretty much all the things that I say (except with more authority, clarity and with a smashing white beard). This is enormously comforting, and confirms in myself that it is OK to continue with the process that seems largely inherent in me anyway. This person is Dan Dennett.
One of the things that Dennett points out to people is that what we think we know and perceive about reality, what we are conscious of as reality, is actually a cobbled together model from partial information. People say all the time that they believe things because they experienced them, and the sensation was so strong that they know it was true. Dennett puts forward the case that actually, people are wildly mistaken about what they perceive, how they think, and how their brains process reality. I really recommend watching this, taking 24 minutes.
For me the understanding that what we see as reality, who we are, and what we believe is muddled, imprecise and dependent on an imperfect system is much easier to arrive at than most people. This because my brain changes it's basic perceptions all the time. A week ago I was sitting in the same place, dressed in the same clothes, having imbibed the same amount of beer, and experiencing one of the greater moments of existential joy that I have ever felt. Existence was good, better than good. To have nerves was a wonder. This week I am in the experience of doom, distracting myself from the collapse of sobbing tears by writing this blog post.
The difference between the two times is simply a matter of a few words and the change in a number of ratios of chemicals in my brain. When you are someone who is fundamentally a different someone on a regular basis, your ability to understand that what many people think of as consciousness (an unchanging you, experiencing a steady reality) is flatly bunk is greatly enhanced. The truth is that you really have very little idea of what happened in your past, your memories are entirely suspect. Furthermore, what you are experiencing right now is just a non-designed system's slapdash attempt to give you a good enough sense of what is going on to eat, avoid danger and procreate with something appropriate.
An "effective" dose of LSD is somewhere between 100 and 500 micrograms, while the average weight of the human brain is 6000 grams. So a change of .01% of your brain structure can have the effect of an acid trip, in which our concept of reality is distorted enormously to the point that we see things that aren't there, and even where our basic concepts break down. Personally I have experienced a moment in which I was convinced that I was in a moment of time from which branches of time and experience spread out in different directions. For me, at that time, the reality of time was non-linear.
The truth is that you have probably have very little concept at all of how your own mind works, that what you do is mostly based on habituation of neurons to consistent stimuli. Reality exists, but our individual, singular experience of it is just a model produced in a muddled place that is the consequence of pure survival and without any trace of design whatsoever.
However, humanity is such a marvelous thing that in groups we can turn our undeniable intellect to finding out what is going on. Just as an individual ant is as intelligent as a bacteria but a colony of ants is an organism capable of warfare and architecture and animal husbandry, an individual person is a wandering piece of guesswork but science is an incredibly powerful searchlight on the true nature of reality. You will always know more about what you experience than anyone else, but as it stands, a cognitive neuro-scientist knows more about how and why you experience things than you do.
This is an enormous comfort to me in times of trouble. Now that I have some concept that my mind changes, and why it changes, I can recognize in myself the processes that are occurring and know that what I feel right now is temporary, and only one version of reality. I would also say that even now, at this moment, I would accept the consequence of the magic of last week for the hardship of this grey weight today. I am one of the music-makers, the dreamers of the dreams, and there is a price to be paid for that.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Possible Epiphany
Have you ever talked to someone who, while you disagree with much of what they believed, seemed to have some rather conventional opinions but during the course of conversation you discovered that their method of thinking makes no sense to you at all? That is, when you have a discussion on why you believe what you believe and they believe what they believe you simply cannot follow their reasoning, it simply doesn't make sense to you.
In the last week or so I have had such an experience while discussing religion with someone on a forum. The clearest example of what I am talking about is C.S. Lewis trilemma which I reject as a trilemma simply because there are more than the three possibilities mentioned, and so it essentially means nothing other than a list of three things that might be true about Jesus. Here is the last word the individual had on the subject, "I didn't suggest that our discussion of the "Trilemma" was about the existence of God... But that you were misrepresenting why the "Trilemma" was false... That it wasn't because it was wrong... it is a "False" Dilemma... because more than three options or choices actually exist."
This thinking is completely beyond my capabilities. I cannot think that someone who says one of three options must be true, when there are other options, isn't wrong. The idea is that Lewis says that there are only three options, that this is false, and yet Lewis isn't wrong about these three being the only choices.
When faced with such a situation I find myself at a loss on how to discuss anything. This individual thinks they have a wider and more complete understanding because they can understand their position and I cannot. They think there is a greater subtlety to their position because it goes beyond formal logic. Using formal logic of course the argument is false, they admit that, but somehow that doesn't mean that Lewis is wrong. I find this frustrating.
This is where I come to my possible epiphany. While riding the bicycle I wondered what could be the method that produced the reasoning applied above. What I determined is that the real way that people determine what is correct or not is how they feel about it. When I really come down to it the way I use logic is to use systems of thinking that feel right. When someone says that although a trilemma is a false trilemma it is not necessarily wrong in the end all I can do is say that it is. So what this other person is doing is simply appling a different system for determing truth, based on a different set of feelings.
There are all sorts of things that people do without reason. People have confirmation bias, a bias towards an entity acting, the ability to be willfully ignorant, people are unreasonably optimistic, and they tend to thinking there is a point to it all. Most of our beliefs are based upon what our in-group thinks and how our brain is organized rather than on pure reasoning, and it is highly resistant to change. The individual above thinks that what feels right to them is a higher level of understanding than pure reasoning, and the important thing is that most people do too, it's just that this guy is more upfront about it. While the person can quite reasonably tell that saying one of three things must be true when there are more possibilities, the three possibilities seem to be truly what feels right as the only possibilities, and what feels right trumps reason.
So, my epiphany was that I should stop caring about what people think. I can think myself, come to conclusions I think are right, challenge those assumptions and explain my positions. But what I should stop doing is caring about whether anyone else is convinced because of this process. This isn't like sport, everyone is playing their own game under their own rules. Futhermore, it simply isn't possible to change the primary sources for why people think the way they do.
However, I think I should care about how people feel. Not only is this the basic nature of goodness, but it is also actually the most effective way to persuade anyone. Being nice to someone and stating your opinion will convince more people than providing a reasoned and indisputable argument. It's probably about time for me to realize that.
In the last week or so I have had such an experience while discussing religion with someone on a forum. The clearest example of what I am talking about is C.S. Lewis trilemma which I reject as a trilemma simply because there are more than the three possibilities mentioned, and so it essentially means nothing other than a list of three things that might be true about Jesus. Here is the last word the individual had on the subject, "I didn't suggest that our discussion of the "Trilemma" was about the existence of God... But that you were misrepresenting why the "Trilemma" was false... That it wasn't because it was wrong... it is a "False" Dilemma... because more than three options or choices actually exist."
This thinking is completely beyond my capabilities. I cannot think that someone who says one of three options must be true, when there are other options, isn't wrong. The idea is that Lewis says that there are only three options, that this is false, and yet Lewis isn't wrong about these three being the only choices.
When faced with such a situation I find myself at a loss on how to discuss anything. This individual thinks they have a wider and more complete understanding because they can understand their position and I cannot. They think there is a greater subtlety to their position because it goes beyond formal logic. Using formal logic of course the argument is false, they admit that, but somehow that doesn't mean that Lewis is wrong. I find this frustrating.
This is where I come to my possible epiphany. While riding the bicycle I wondered what could be the method that produced the reasoning applied above. What I determined is that the real way that people determine what is correct or not is how they feel about it. When I really come down to it the way I use logic is to use systems of thinking that feel right. When someone says that although a trilemma is a false trilemma it is not necessarily wrong in the end all I can do is say that it is. So what this other person is doing is simply appling a different system for determing truth, based on a different set of feelings.
There are all sorts of things that people do without reason. People have confirmation bias, a bias towards an entity acting, the ability to be willfully ignorant, people are unreasonably optimistic, and they tend to thinking there is a point to it all. Most of our beliefs are based upon what our in-group thinks and how our brain is organized rather than on pure reasoning, and it is highly resistant to change. The individual above thinks that what feels right to them is a higher level of understanding than pure reasoning, and the important thing is that most people do too, it's just that this guy is more upfront about it. While the person can quite reasonably tell that saying one of three things must be true when there are more possibilities, the three possibilities seem to be truly what feels right as the only possibilities, and what feels right trumps reason.
So, my epiphany was that I should stop caring about what people think. I can think myself, come to conclusions I think are right, challenge those assumptions and explain my positions. But what I should stop doing is caring about whether anyone else is convinced because of this process. This isn't like sport, everyone is playing their own game under their own rules. Futhermore, it simply isn't possible to change the primary sources for why people think the way they do.
However, I think I should care about how people feel. Not only is this the basic nature of goodness, but it is also actually the most effective way to persuade anyone. Being nice to someone and stating your opinion will convince more people than providing a reasoned and indisputable argument. It's probably about time for me to realize that.
Monday, June 14, 2010
The Internet, Extremism, Confirmation Bias
I have a theory, and I'm going to tell you about it.
When the internet first arrived it was rightly lauded for being the biggest source of information the world had ever known. One of thine things that was going to be great about the internet was that the amount of different voices telling people what was going on was going to dramatically increase. Instead of a few news outlets from your own country you could access the ideas of people from the street to the most scholarly article within minutes. This has indeed happened and if you want to find out about something there are more opportunities to do so then you may be able to read.
There was a wide-spread opinion that this vastly greater diversity of information was going to lead to a greater acceptance of different people through the breakdown of stereotypes. It's a little tricky to think that all Iranians are fanatical Muslim terrorists when you are debating whether Gears of War or Fable III is a better X-Box 360 game with a student from Tehran. I think when people first get onto the internet this is true. The power of Google and Wikipedia to diffuse silly stereotypes about things is enormous.
On the other hand there is the rather unpleasant trait of people known as confirmation bias. This means that people generally prefer and seek out information and opinions that confirm their own beliefs. The danger with this and the internet is that no matter how crazy you are there's an excellent chance you can find someone on the internet who agrees with your beliefs. There may be only two hundred people in the world who think Joe Biden is Satan and needs to be stopped, but on the internet those people can see that they are not alone, therefore they are right, and then they can get together and try to stop Joe Biden.
Over time people tend to simply go back to the same web sites over and over again. Once you have decided something is a good site, you tend to simply use that site for that purpose. So, there may be ten thousand different sources for news, but we tend to go back again and again to the same two or three sources to get all our information. What constitutes a good site for people is generally one that confirms their own feelings on subjects. When we go to sites with competing viewpoints I feel that we look for ways in which their opinions are false, thus confirming our original beliefs.
Over time what happens with the internet is that groups of like-minded people get together and then become almost entirely the only source of trusted information for each other. No longer are people moderated by the approval or disapproval of their local community. As with all things if those people are right and smart and have the greater good at heart they can create new wonders like never before. If those people are paranoid, violent crazy people they confirm each others positions, intensify them and possibly unleash the consequences upon us all.
Are you aware of your own confirmation bias? Try this for an interesting experiment. Go to a web site with which you disagree generally. Find a subject where you are pretty sure you will disagree with everything said. Then go through it sentence by sentence and consciously decide whether you can agree with that sentence or not. By the end of the article count up how many sentences with which you have agreed. It may surprise you to find out that you agree with half or more of an article which previously you would have dismissed as totally wrong.
When the internet first arrived it was rightly lauded for being the biggest source of information the world had ever known. One of thine things that was going to be great about the internet was that the amount of different voices telling people what was going on was going to dramatically increase. Instead of a few news outlets from your own country you could access the ideas of people from the street to the most scholarly article within minutes. This has indeed happened and if you want to find out about something there are more opportunities to do so then you may be able to read.
There was a wide-spread opinion that this vastly greater diversity of information was going to lead to a greater acceptance of different people through the breakdown of stereotypes. It's a little tricky to think that all Iranians are fanatical Muslim terrorists when you are debating whether Gears of War or Fable III is a better X-Box 360 game with a student from Tehran. I think when people first get onto the internet this is true. The power of Google and Wikipedia to diffuse silly stereotypes about things is enormous.
On the other hand there is the rather unpleasant trait of people known as confirmation bias. This means that people generally prefer and seek out information and opinions that confirm their own beliefs. The danger with this and the internet is that no matter how crazy you are there's an excellent chance you can find someone on the internet who agrees with your beliefs. There may be only two hundred people in the world who think Joe Biden is Satan and needs to be stopped, but on the internet those people can see that they are not alone, therefore they are right, and then they can get together and try to stop Joe Biden.
Over time people tend to simply go back to the same web sites over and over again. Once you have decided something is a good site, you tend to simply use that site for that purpose. So, there may be ten thousand different sources for news, but we tend to go back again and again to the same two or three sources to get all our information. What constitutes a good site for people is generally one that confirms their own feelings on subjects. When we go to sites with competing viewpoints I feel that we look for ways in which their opinions are false, thus confirming our original beliefs.
Over time what happens with the internet is that groups of like-minded people get together and then become almost entirely the only source of trusted information for each other. No longer are people moderated by the approval or disapproval of their local community. As with all things if those people are right and smart and have the greater good at heart they can create new wonders like never before. If those people are paranoid, violent crazy people they confirm each others positions, intensify them and possibly unleash the consequences upon us all.
Are you aware of your own confirmation bias? Try this for an interesting experiment. Go to a web site with which you disagree generally. Find a subject where you are pretty sure you will disagree with everything said. Then go through it sentence by sentence and consciously decide whether you can agree with that sentence or not. By the end of the article count up how many sentences with which you have agreed. It may surprise you to find out that you agree with half or more of an article which previously you would have dismissed as totally wrong.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Forty.
When I was born the life expectancy for an first-world male was about 67 years old. Most people got married and had children in their early twenties. This lead to an easy and sensible idea of middle-aged beginning at forty. By forty you were supposed to be settled in your career, a proven and competent parent, a pillar of society. Over halfway through your life and having achieved most of the important things that would happen in your life.
I turned forty last week and I've been thinking since then that I should write something on this blog about what should be a significant milestone. However, I haven't been able to think of anything to say. So, I'm forty. I don't feel substantially different than when I was 25. Looking at life-expectancy tables my life-expectancy is now about 78 years, and of course the longer I live the longer I can be expected to live. So, I'm probably somewhere about halfway through my life.
In talking to my father he is a believer that middle-aged, experienced and capable but still active, is more like 50-60 than 40 (as it was when he went through it). I still have a part of my self-identification as being an athlete, something I was growing up. But for about twenty years I've been overweight. Should I stick to my present exercise regime (and it seems very likely that I will under my present circumstances) there's an excellent chance that I will physically be fitter than I have been since a teenager. While it would be nice to be prettier again, this makes me nervous about having bi-polar disorder, having boundless energy and living in Texas.
Perhaps being forty matters in terms of how I am treated by people. I tend to dress and act like someone a decade or more younger. The number of times of that people tell me that I'm still a baby, too young to really know something, or that I'll change my mind as I get older is irritatingly large. Perhaps that will stop. Perhaps my opinion will be respected more, perhaps less. Perhaps the important thing about being forty is if you think that it is important in some manner.
Overall I feel that I know myself better than I have ever done. I feel secure in who I am, I have a good idea of my faults and some idea of some good qualities. I think I've done a better job (under the circumstances) than most people in working out what is going on and how to live. I look around and people's lives seem so frantic, so anxious, so filled with drama. At forty I think I'm doing OK.
At the moment my focus is on exercise, music, and going back to meditation to help me appreciate where I am.
I turned forty last week and I've been thinking since then that I should write something on this blog about what should be a significant milestone. However, I haven't been able to think of anything to say. So, I'm forty. I don't feel substantially different than when I was 25. Looking at life-expectancy tables my life-expectancy is now about 78 years, and of course the longer I live the longer I can be expected to live. So, I'm probably somewhere about halfway through my life.
In talking to my father he is a believer that middle-aged, experienced and capable but still active, is more like 50-60 than 40 (as it was when he went through it). I still have a part of my self-identification as being an athlete, something I was growing up. But for about twenty years I've been overweight. Should I stick to my present exercise regime (and it seems very likely that I will under my present circumstances) there's an excellent chance that I will physically be fitter than I have been since a teenager. While it would be nice to be prettier again, this makes me nervous about having bi-polar disorder, having boundless energy and living in Texas.
Perhaps being forty matters in terms of how I am treated by people. I tend to dress and act like someone a decade or more younger. The number of times of that people tell me that I'm still a baby, too young to really know something, or that I'll change my mind as I get older is irritatingly large. Perhaps that will stop. Perhaps my opinion will be respected more, perhaps less. Perhaps the important thing about being forty is if you think that it is important in some manner.
Overall I feel that I know myself better than I have ever done. I feel secure in who I am, I have a good idea of my faults and some idea of some good qualities. I think I've done a better job (under the circumstances) than most people in working out what is going on and how to live. I look around and people's lives seem so frantic, so anxious, so filled with drama. At forty I think I'm doing OK.
At the moment my focus is on exercise, music, and going back to meditation to help me appreciate where I am.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
How Things Are Going.
It's hot. I'm sweating steadily in the shade under a fan.
The circumstances at Christina's job seem to be improving somewhat, at least in terms of working conditions. In what seems to be a steady cycle, all the accusations against Christina of racism, incompetence, poor attitude have been shown in time to be false, and she is being complimented on her professionalism, discretion and abilities. The person promoted to the position that Christina turned down because of the ridiculous workload expected has been found wanting in terms of doing work, and so at least the discontent of unfairness is going away somewhat.
So Christina is in a better mood, money is coming in at a rate that enables us to save regularly, disaster and misery averted for the time being. However, the prospects of The Plan are not ideal. It seems that Christina's work has instituted a hiring freeze to the point that it is quite possible that if people leave they will not be replaced. This means that the prospects of Christina getting a promotion or two is pretty low unless she decides to look for work in other companies. This has been talked about for six months now, no progress to report....
For me there has been quite a change in that we are now settled in the house, we have had multiple visitors but without the prospect of more, and all previous locations are now somebody else's problem. We have pretty much what we need in terms of stuff, all the utilities are hooked up, everything in the house works. Moving has finished. If I can shop, cook, clean and walk the dog enough for Christina my duties are completed. My workload has been reduced. It is also nice for me as the one who looks at the finances that the effects of all of this means that for the first time in fifteen months our account balances are going up rather than down.
The down side of this situation is that unless I think of things to do, themes, schemes and devious plots, I find myself in the situation that led me to write this post. That is that I don't have much to do.
The gout struck me finally three weeks ago. It had been lingering in the background with aches and swelling in my ankles and feet, but hadn't really incapacitated me. This changed three weeks back after a combination of plying my mother and nephew with proper Texan food, and the post visit debauchery, resulted in swelling and pain for three days.
Since then I have been almost entirely vegetarian, and dramatically cut my alcohol content (just on the weekends, and even then much less). Christina has joined me in this regimen (although she can eat what she wants for lunch) and combined with daily bicycle riding we are acting in a manner that is said to be more healthy. I think it has been excellent for Christina's mood, and I find myself becoming addicted to the exercise. We've lost five pounds or so each, so far. I don't really miss drinking as such, but the evenings do tend to be a lot less exciting and interesting.
Last week I joined a band. While sitting around with little direction I thought I'd randomly search through craigslist ads for musicians. It turned out that there was a band looking to play irish music who wanted a mandolin player. It even turned out that the person looking had been in my basement in Portland when I was starting Sam's Cross. I've been to a practice and it looks like I'm the second best musician in a motley crew of guys who remind me of any dungeons and dragons session, or IT department, or Portland video arcade at night. It looks relaxing, fun, and involves real-live people with whom I can converse.
In summary, life here is not like a box of chocolates, more like spaghetti and Ragu.
The circumstances at Christina's job seem to be improving somewhat, at least in terms of working conditions. In what seems to be a steady cycle, all the accusations against Christina of racism, incompetence, poor attitude have been shown in time to be false, and she is being complimented on her professionalism, discretion and abilities. The person promoted to the position that Christina turned down because of the ridiculous workload expected has been found wanting in terms of doing work, and so at least the discontent of unfairness is going away somewhat.
So Christina is in a better mood, money is coming in at a rate that enables us to save regularly, disaster and misery averted for the time being. However, the prospects of The Plan are not ideal. It seems that Christina's work has instituted a hiring freeze to the point that it is quite possible that if people leave they will not be replaced. This means that the prospects of Christina getting a promotion or two is pretty low unless she decides to look for work in other companies. This has been talked about for six months now, no progress to report....
For me there has been quite a change in that we are now settled in the house, we have had multiple visitors but without the prospect of more, and all previous locations are now somebody else's problem. We have pretty much what we need in terms of stuff, all the utilities are hooked up, everything in the house works. Moving has finished. If I can shop, cook, clean and walk the dog enough for Christina my duties are completed. My workload has been reduced. It is also nice for me as the one who looks at the finances that the effects of all of this means that for the first time in fifteen months our account balances are going up rather than down.
The down side of this situation is that unless I think of things to do, themes, schemes and devious plots, I find myself in the situation that led me to write this post. That is that I don't have much to do.
The gout struck me finally three weeks ago. It had been lingering in the background with aches and swelling in my ankles and feet, but hadn't really incapacitated me. This changed three weeks back after a combination of plying my mother and nephew with proper Texan food, and the post visit debauchery, resulted in swelling and pain for three days.
Since then I have been almost entirely vegetarian, and dramatically cut my alcohol content (just on the weekends, and even then much less). Christina has joined me in this regimen (although she can eat what she wants for lunch) and combined with daily bicycle riding we are acting in a manner that is said to be more healthy. I think it has been excellent for Christina's mood, and I find myself becoming addicted to the exercise. We've lost five pounds or so each, so far. I don't really miss drinking as such, but the evenings do tend to be a lot less exciting and interesting.
Last week I joined a band. While sitting around with little direction I thought I'd randomly search through craigslist ads for musicians. It turned out that there was a band looking to play irish music who wanted a mandolin player. It even turned out that the person looking had been in my basement in Portland when I was starting Sam's Cross. I've been to a practice and it looks like I'm the second best musician in a motley crew of guys who remind me of any dungeons and dragons session, or IT department, or Portland video arcade at night. It looks relaxing, fun, and involves real-live people with whom I can converse.
In summary, life here is not like a box of chocolates, more like spaghetti and Ragu.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The Problem With Politics
In the USA the approval rating of Congress, the bit of the government that passes the laws, has an approval rating of about 20% and a disapproval rate of about 75%. That's for people who were more popular at the time of their election than the alternatives provided. The US population basically hate the government they selected. This must be a problem, but why is it so?
The first reason is that the US population at large is stupid. Over and over again they vote for people that they then later dislike, or they don't vote at all and let people who they disagree with choose their government for them. If the majority of people in a democracy consistently disapprove of their government but incumbents win more than challengers then the electorate must be stupid.
One of the particular ways that the US electorate is stupid is that they have no interests in cause and effect. So, before Obama was elected economic predictions were for the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. It didn't happen and things look like they are turning around. But the economy is still not as good as Americans are used to and therefore half the US population thinks he's done a bad job. Having done better than expected half the electorate thinks he has done poorly.
The second reason why there is a problem with government is the point I wish to make in this post. I think the fundamental reason why government is not meeting the approval of the electorate is because those who want to be in politics do not wish to be in the business of governing. I think the overwhelming majority of those in politics at the national level are there for the same reasons that professional athletes want to be sportsmen. They wish to compete against another team and win.
That's right, I think the majority of politicians and their staff are more interested in winning elections than governing. It is a sport, with teams, rules, uniforms, the whole nine yards. There are even television programs that look almost exactly like sports programs in which the prospects of each team in the upcoming match are debated with stats and opinion from talking heads. These programs at almost no point discuss what would be the best result for the country (there are a couple of programs that do, but they are outnumbered) but rather discuss the chances of winning, what each side can do to win. When the point is to win rather than to govern well, what you will end up with is a government that is good at winning elections rather than governing.
The problem with government is that instead of individuals putting forward what they propose to do to if elected and then letting the electorate decide what proposals they prefer we have two teams telling rather stupid, gullible people what is most likely to get them to vote for their team, either the red one or the blue one.
The first reason is that the US population at large is stupid. Over and over again they vote for people that they then later dislike, or they don't vote at all and let people who they disagree with choose their government for them. If the majority of people in a democracy consistently disapprove of their government but incumbents win more than challengers then the electorate must be stupid.
One of the particular ways that the US electorate is stupid is that they have no interests in cause and effect. So, before Obama was elected economic predictions were for the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. It didn't happen and things look like they are turning around. But the economy is still not as good as Americans are used to and therefore half the US population thinks he's done a bad job. Having done better than expected half the electorate thinks he has done poorly.
The second reason why there is a problem with government is the point I wish to make in this post. I think the fundamental reason why government is not meeting the approval of the electorate is because those who want to be in politics do not wish to be in the business of governing. I think the overwhelming majority of those in politics at the national level are there for the same reasons that professional athletes want to be sportsmen. They wish to compete against another team and win.
That's right, I think the majority of politicians and their staff are more interested in winning elections than governing. It is a sport, with teams, rules, uniforms, the whole nine yards. There are even television programs that look almost exactly like sports programs in which the prospects of each team in the upcoming match are debated with stats and opinion from talking heads. These programs at almost no point discuss what would be the best result for the country (there are a couple of programs that do, but they are outnumbered) but rather discuss the chances of winning, what each side can do to win. When the point is to win rather than to govern well, what you will end up with is a government that is good at winning elections rather than governing.
The problem with government is that instead of individuals putting forward what they propose to do to if elected and then letting the electorate decide what proposals they prefer we have two teams telling rather stupid, gullible people what is most likely to get them to vote for their team, either the red one or the blue one.
Monday, May 3, 2010
The Utility of Willful Ignorance.
A frustration of mine is the characteristic of many people to be willfully ignorant. To be willfully ignorant you must actively choose not to learn something. For example, while talking on a religion forum information was gathered that repeated published scientific studies show that on average atheists have a higher IQ than dogmatic believers. The amount is 6 points, so probably less than the difference between being a bit tired and being well rested. However, a poster on the forum said that there was nothing but opinion supporting the position that atheists were smarter than believers. When showed the evidence beyond opinion this was rejected as "Lies, damn lies and statistics." In other words the individual had decided not to take on information about the world, they had decided to be willfully ignorant.
I have seen this repeatedly in politics where people will simply decide not to take on information (such as the actual words in a law) and rather choose to listen to the talking point rantings from either side. I have repeatedly shown someone accounts of observed speciation (actual evolution happening), and that person repeatedly states that there are no such things. There are people who think that Barack Obama is a Muslim despite them knowing that he does not worship in a mosque and regularly attended a Christian church. They have chosen to be ignorant.
Wilfull ignorance is everywhere. Despite there being more evidence for the fact of evolution than for any other scientific theory the majority of Americans think evolution is false. The availability of information showing that this position is ignorant is astounding. Most Americans think they know more about biology than biologists, but how many think they know more about plumbing than plumbers? How stupid is that?
Now, it would seem that choosing to be ignorant of the state of the world around you would be a big negative. Thinking that all Muslims have been instructed in their religion to conquer the world and force you to convert cannot be useful when dealing with Muslims who have not been so instructed. But the numbers of people being willfully ignorant is such a vast number that there must be some reason for it. There must be some utility in this choice.
When are people willfully ignorant? They are willfully ignorant when some belief of there's is challenged by information. The people who choose not to know that France has a better health care system at half the price of the US system make that choice because they have a belief that governments are bad at everything. If they took on the new information they would have to change a belief. Now, changing the belief would seem to be sensible, but the key is that this belief is a shared belief. It isn't just one person having that belief it is a group. That group probably has a name, an identity, and differentiates itself from competing groups. If you refuse to learn about the French health care system you are probably a right-wing, republican, free-market capitalist, if someone asked you about yourself you would label yourself within that group, and you probably compete against left-wing, democrat, socialists.
So, if you change your mind about a position based on evidence, and you identify with groups based on your beliefs, then that change of position removes you from a group with which you identify. If you are a fundamentalist Christian and you change your mind so that you believe evolution to be a fact, then you can no longer identify as a fundamentalist Christian. People are willfully ignorant to sustain their position within a group.
Through the history of humans (and many animals too) it is much more useful to remain within a strong, united group then to differ on some points and be out of a group. The bigger the group, the stronger the group the more power and rewards the individual can get from that group, and therefore the stronger the motivation to remain ignorant about facts that are contrary to the position of that group. If you were Galileo there was more utility in deciding to not believe that the planets revolved around the sun than believing that they do, regardless of what the actual facts were.
Willfull ignorance occurs because the human animal knows that without the group it dies and it is therefore better to be part of a group that is wrong about many things, than to be right about everything and all alone.
Addendum: I do find it interesting, and even a little annoying, that the spell checker on this program objects to the non-capitalization of american, or muslim, but not to the non-capitalization of atheist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)