Determining the truth of things
How likely is it that everything you currently believe is true?
Imagine a person who is happy to believe whatever they currently believe, and who dismisses everything they disagree with as incorrect, without fair consideration. Who believes that their worldview is complete and does not require constant reevaluation.
I am not sure that a person exactly like this exists at all, but what I am certain about is that we’re all probably a little more like this person than we want to be, or think we are.
Seeking
If you care about the truth, you must seek it, and the measure of how much one values the truth is correlated with how much you seek it.
Now, as a parent of small children, I can attest that I value just getting through the day more than some nebulous idea of “the truth.” But I make some attempt. I go out and try to find contrary opinions, and interrogate the veracity of sources I trust—not all of the time, not even most of the time, but some of the time, because if I don’t, I’m far more likely to have an incorrect view of the world, or to be misled by people I often agree with.
Last year, Pod Save America's hosts stated that Sean Hannity had encouraged witnesses to destroy evidence requested by the Mueller probe. I like the show and have a positive view of the hosts—and a rather negative one of Sean Hannity—but they were dead wrong in this analysis. As should be obvious from watching the clip below, Hannity was using the Mueller probe requests as a launching-point for a clumsy tirade about Hillary Clinton, and not genuinely encouraging criminal behavior.
Recently, the New York Times claimed that “President Trump will sign an executive order defining Judaism as a nationality”, which understandably freaked a lot of people out.
I was one of those people, and retweeted a thread where a Jewish man walked through the implications of such an order, as he saw them. As it turns out, our fears were misplaced:
The text of the order, which leaked on Wednesday, does not redefine Judaism as a race or nationality. It does not claim that Jews are a nation or a different race. The order’s interpretation of Title VI—insofar as the law applies to Jews—is entirely in line with the Obama administration’s approach. It only deviates from past practice by suggesting that harsh criticism of Israel—specifically, the notion that it is “a racist endeavor”—may be used as evidence to prove anti-Semitic intent.
The bubble and misinformation
Recently, JK Rowling came under fire for the following tweet:
Her complaint is the line “but force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?” It is either Rowling’s understanding that this is what Maya Forstater lost her job at the Centre for Global Development (CGD) over, or this is a bad faith misrepresentation of the facts.
Because this is not what the facts of the case show. From the Guardian:
But in a 26-page judgment released late on Wednesday, Tayler dismissed her claim. “I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that Forstater is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”
CGD’s solicitor expands upon this:
“A number of commentators have viewed this case as being about the claimant’s freedom of speech. Employment Judge Tayler acknowledged that there is nothing to stop the claimant campaigning against the proposed revisions to the Gender Recognition Act or, expressing her opinion that there should be some spaces that are restricted to women assigned female at birth. However, she can do so without insisting on calling transwomen men. It is the fact that her belief necessarily involves violating the dignity of others which means it is not protected under the Equality Act 2010.”
Rowling’s complaint benefits from one thing: to characterize the action against Forstater as she does is a crude approximation of a shape to fit the hole of reality. You can look at the shape and the hole and it seems like the one might fit the other, but unless you try it you won’t know whether it fits.
The two major groups at conflict here seem be those that might say that assigned sex at birth is one’s gender (mostly), and those that might say they are fighting against repressive TERFs. The nature of their conflict perpetuates the conflict itself, as with every flashpoint there seem to be opinion pieces on both sides characterizing the other as something truly dreadful, leading to further polarization of group members.
I've read several of these opinion pieces. Often, after I dug into the author’s reasoning, and the facts claimed, I found holes in their argument you could drive a bus through. This is not something unique to either group (or even to these groups), and I am not claiming that any of this was done in bad faith.
But how is a person to understand the truth of the matter? The same as always: look at the underlying facts, understand the biases of commentators, analyze the arguments put forth, etc. But who can do this for every piece of content that crosses their eyes? It’s hard work, and it’s time-consuming.
Easier to stick with what you already feel is right. But what happens then? A person becomes trapped, consuming content and experiences that confirm their existing positions, and dismissing those that do not—aided in this process by the errors made everyone eventually, but only noticed in your opponents. And if you do this, having your beliefs reinforced over and over again, is it not more likely that you will fall victim to the extremes?
At least he didn’t criticize Trump this time OH SHIT
Although groups often do this to some degree, the Trump and “conservative” media ecosystem has been relentless in its challenge of contrary viewpoints. The degree to which this composite organism does so is remarkable.
One might expect liberal viewpoints to be challenged by Fox News, but often it attacks parodies—bizarrely twisted caricatures of reality that fall apart under the withering lens of a single Google search.
Parker Molloy has a good thread on this fake outrage, and posted this insane example:
It’s worth reading the Media Matters article for more examples of this, but I would like to focus not on the particular examples or even the pattern of behavior, but on the effect of that behavior. For if you can convince your audience that your naysayers and doubters are truly like these parodies, then it’s more likely that the convinced will continue to adhere to your position.
Fox News has a long tradition of slurring the mainstream media, which it is continuing throughout this presidency. Errors in the mainstream press are frequently labelled not as errors but as lies. This presentation of course comes with a comparison—if they are lying, surely we are telling the truth?
Trump himself goes even further, claiming contrary views in the media are “fake news”, and frequently referring to the press as “the enemy of the people”. His attacks are not just on news stories, not just on individual institutions, but on the very idea of a free press.
In an almost Orwellian moment, he declared “Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. […] Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening.” It’s clear he’s talking about seeing and reading from the press, but holy shit.
Sometimes the press gets things wrong. There are very real problems with many media outlets, and they should be addressed. But they are the best means of communicating information and analysis to the wider public that we have available.
If one can gain a better understanding of the truth of things by considering opposing viewpoints, and questioning those sources you trust, what does it mean when other viewpoints are from “the enemy” and seriously questioning sources you trust takes more time and effort than most people have?
How could you tell if you’re being lied to?
Imagine Trump told a lie, and the steady diet of conservative media you are consuming parroted that lie. How could you tell? You would need something that contradicts the lie, at least to start. But what could do that?
Could the mainstream press help here? If you believe it to be “fake news”, if you hear over and over again the slurring of the press by your media outlets, why would you suddenly trust The Washington Post if it told you something that you did not like?
Perhaps underlying evidence might work. But look at climate change. With 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human-caused climate change is happening, most Republicans still do not believe that climate change is a major threat. Climate denial remains popular with conservative talking heads, who mislead by misrepresenting the evidence so, if you already dismiss climate change as a hoax, you don’t have to look at the evidence yourself.
Even when Trump himself says you should “read the transcript” to see that he did nothing wrong, that phrase can be seen acting as something to protect existing beliefs, by people who have not read it.
And internally, if you have been pulled further to the extremes of your in-group, having your existing biases reaffirmed over and over again, seeing those that disagree being ritually ridiculed, having taken part in this ritual, how likely are you to have a contradictory thought?
Once you’ve bought into the idea that the mainstream press, the scientific community, liberals, etc. are all liars pushing hidden agendas, then how likely are you to be convinced by them of anything? How much more likely are you to oppose them?
This isn’t a class of problem unique to Trump, or to politics. But in this it has found a particularly hideous expression.
Do not trust those who would tell you to close your eyes and ears to things that contradict them for, if you do, you are begging to be fooled.