Here’s a link to Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Rationality: From AI to Zombies
Tag: name-calling
Our public discourse could benefit from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
One of the most frustrating facts about the current level and character of our political discourse—as typified by the Kavanaugh nomination and hearings for appointment to the Supreme Court—is the degree to which it amounts to so many gangs of monkeys hurling feces at each other.
And yet, in characterizing the matter this way, I’m indulging in the very thing that I’m decrying (and I didn’t do it just to make a point—that really was my honest reaction, and I only caught myself after the fact). It seems to me that, more and more over the past few decades, we approach disagreements about policies, economics, and other social concerns with an attitude appropriate to children calling each other names on a playground, or to rabid sports fans supporting their team against bitter rivals, as though that enmity were etched into the very bedrock of existence.
Yet, even among sports fans, and certainly among players, there is traditionally an underlying ethos of good sportsmanship. Pettiness, vindictiveness, name-calling…these things are not admired among serious athletes, those who love their sport for its own sake.
But the level of “discussion” between those who disagree about political matters simply reeks of the same cognitive biases and distortions that play a role in mood disorders like depression and anxiety, and which such techniques as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy have been designed to counteract. I long for the application of CBT to our public discourse, especially about matters of deep import that have a serious impact on the lives of many people. We fall prey to fallacies of absolutist, Us/Them, good/evil, all-or-nothing thinking, of mind-reading, of catastrophizing, and to blind and rabid tribalism in areas where we would do better to engage the highest regions of our brains to make sound judgements.
One of the most refreshing posts I’ve seen regarding the Kavanaugh hearings was by a local, central-Florida-based, “libertarian” politician, who said that while he had mixed feelings about the accusations being made about Kavanaugh regarding past sexual assault, this didn’t really matter—at least with respect to the confirmation hearing—because Kavanaugh’s stance on the Fourth Amendment and other Constitutional issues regarding Presidential power and accountability were already bad enough to make him a poor choice for the Supreme Court. In other words, he wanted to focus on matters of substance relating to the specific qualifications for the job for which Kavanaugh was being considered.
This is not to say that allegations of sexual assault aren’t serious matters—they certainly are. The fact of these allegations and the varying character of the reactions to them are reminders and examples of important issues that trouble our society, and which require addressing. It’s not unreasonable to decide that the character of a man who would sexually assault a woman—if he did—makes him unsuitable for one of the most crucial positions in our national government. But it’s also not entirely unreasonable to be at least a little curious about the timing of the allegations, and to wonder whether that timing ought to have any bearing on whether we judge them to be true or not. These matters can be soberly considered in evaluating the candidate.
But “sober” is not a word one would be inclined to use to describe the level of discussion on this very serious set of concerns. Rather, we see a plethora of memes that focus on silly facial expressions of Kavanaugh, or of Lindsey Graham, or of Christine Blasey Ford, as though the transient set of one’s features as captured in single frames of video feeds has any bearing on whether a person is truthful or not, or whether they are of good character. This is less convincing than phrenology, frankly, and should be beneath the dignity of those who judge these issues to be pivotal.
Important concerns have been and are being raised by this event, and they are worthy of discussion, consideration, and action. It’s a serious issue to consider the various cultural forces that lead countless women—and men, as well—who have been victims of sexual assault to keep silent, rather than bring out accusations only to have them dismissed or taken lightly. It’s likewise a real issue whether the timing of these particular accusations, by raising shades of political machination, weakens the gravitas of the “MeToo” movement and harms its broad acceptance.
It’s also of real worry that so many people don’t seem to understand the difference between a confirmation hearing and a criminal trial, and that there are different standards of evidence involved because the purpose of the occasions is very different.
And it is a very real concern just to what degree we wish to allow the potential undermining of checks on Executive power such as might be engendered by giving the lifetime Supreme Court appointment to someone who is soft on that issue.
To deal with any and all of these concerns is worthwhile, perhaps even absolutely necessary. But we are not actually dealing with them. Much of the discourse, even at the “highest” levels, about these matters, amounts to sheer rhetoric and attempted manipulation, of others and of ourselves. Outrage is fun, or at least it’s exciting, and we seem to be growing addicted to it, at the expense of our ability to deal with important matters in a reasonable fashion. In this, our discourse is reminiscent of our civil and criminal trials, which amount to jousting matches between hired champions, where the one most skilled at emotional chicanery, at engaging and making use of our many inherent cognitive biases, tends to win.
It shouldn’t be about “winning”. It should be about the seeking of truth, the attempt to achieve the best possible outcome we can manage as a society. One of the things I like most about the US Constitution is that it is, in character, a very scientific document. It arranges a system of government as a starting point, but it ensures peer review in the form of the various checks and balances, and always leaves itself open, in principle and in practice, to the updating of its model, in the form of the amendment process. I wish we could approach matters of national concern, that bear on the interpretation of that document—and frankly, all important matters—with calm heads worthy of the Constitution’s character.
The fact that someone disagrees with you on some particular point does not mean that they are evil, and the fact that they agree with you on some other emotionally salient issue does not automatically make them good.
The world is complex. And while it’s true that humans are primates—so it’s not all that surprising that we fall into primate dominance display patterns rather easily, especially when our emotions become aroused—we should recognize that this is almost always a weakness when dealing with issues that couldn’t have been faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors over evolutionary time. Complicated problems benefit most from careful, rational thought, and calm, reasonable discussion in which everyone recognizes their own fallibility and all are open—at least in principle—to having their minds changed.
We seem to have a societal mood disorder, some population-based depression/anxiety syndrome, that makes us prone to counter-productive thoughts and behaviors. Given this, we should remind ourselves of some of the cognitive distortions typical of such disorders, such as: all-or-nothing thinking; overgeneralization; mental filtering; discounting the positives; jumping to conclusions; magnification and minimization; emotional reasoning; overusing “should” statements; labeling; and blame.
It would be nice if we could all be a bit more Stoic in our approach to public issues, especially ones of great import. It’s precisely because serious concerns are so prone to make us emotional that we should defend ourselves against the distortions of our emotional reactions, and against descending to playground-level invective rather than engaging in serious conversation. It’s when matters are most consequential that our passions are most likely to be aroused—but this is precisely the time when we should be most on our guard against succumbing to their every dictate. Serious problems are rarely solved by name-calling and reactionary vilification.
We really need to do better. We can do better, I have no doubt about that. And the answer to the question of whether or not we will do better will have serious consequences.
We shouldn’t assume that we know other people’s motives and character based on limited data (and it’s almost always limited)
I have a long and very important letter to write today (I haven’t been this nervous about writing something since college), so I’m going to keep this relatively short, but I did want to write something, at least. It’s on a subject that troubles me quite a bit, that apparent tendency—at least on social media—for people to act as if they were telepathic or clairvoyant regarding other people’s motives and thoughts.
It happens so easily, and probably without much thought (probably without much ill-intent). We see a post or declaration, or a political or social statement, and we infer from it all sorts of things about the source’s character, intentions, and morality. It’s remarkable that we imagine we’re so good at such interpretations, since most of us very rarely have any idea what our own motivations and deeper thoughts are. It’s apparently true that often we can recognize by facial expression and body language how our friends and colleagues are feeling more clearly than they recognize it themselves, but this is broad and crude. Recognizing that someone is sad or angry before they realize it themselves doesn’t give us any reason to think we know why someone is sad or angry.
Yet if a person posts a meme supportive of the Second Amendment—or conversely, one supportive of stricter gun control—those who see this meme often seem to draw far-reaching conclusions, straw-manning the person and their supposed motivations. The sharer must be a right-wing, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, anti-government bigot, say; or alternatively, they must be a “regressive leftist,” communist, SJW, crusading vegan, who wants to emasculate all men.
How many people in the world would meet those descriptions accurately? There are probably a few—there are a lot of people in the world, after all, and the Gaussian is broad. But surely, most people don’t honestly fit into any such broad stereotypes.
Of course, maybe I’m making my own error by guessing that people perform such acts of unwarranted attribution based on limited statements and data. Maybe I’m straw-manning the people online. Certainly, there are many to whom I’m being unjust—or would be if I were thinking of them. But mostly, I’m thinking of the people who respond to trolling and counter-trolling, and the ones who take part in internet-based debates that rapidly, or immediately, degenerate into name-calling matches of which most six-year-olds would be ashamed.
I wonder how people can feel comfortable engaging in such interactions on a regular basis. Perhaps the anonymity, or pseudo-anonymity, of the online world helps people let slip their baser natures more easily. We are free from the subtle cues of body language and expression that, as I stated above, give us a sense of how our interlocutor feels. Also, the nearly-automatic echo-chamber effect of social media tends to reinforce our sense of identity as a member of a particular group, and that leads us to be more inclined to react to perceived outsiders as enemies—this is probably both defensive and a matter of “virtue-signaling,” or what would probably be better understood as tribe-signaling. We are declaring to those in our tribe that we are members in good standing, and thus should remain welcome.
A similar phenomenon might be behind why a lot of people, many of whom don’t honestly subscribe to the tenets of their stated religion, continue to go church (or mosque, or synagogue, or whatever) on a regular basis. They demonstrate not their actual beliefs, but that they are committed members of the tribe.
This is, I suppose, often relatively harmless. But it is anathema to honest discourse. And it’s only through honest discourse (as far as I can see) that we can come to an ever-improving model of the world, to come nearer to truth and understanding. We can see how tribalism and partisanship, a reflexive judgmentalism and name-calling, has poisoned much of our political system, creating deadlocks even in a government currently dominated by a single political party. Nothing gets done—or at least very little does—when those involved are just trying to demonstrate their “virtue” by assailing those on the other side. At least, it seems like that’s what they’re doing. Maybe I’m misjudging.
I don’t know what the fix for this tribalism is; it seems to be something innate in the human character. But it’s surely not the only thing, or we would never have created modern civilization. Perhaps a place to start, a small step, would be for us to try to curtail our instinct to lead or to respond with accusation and insult. If we think we know someone else’s motives, we should stop and think again before believing ourselves. If we want to bring a point of criticism to their attention, instead of reflexively spewing, “It’s gross! It’s racist!” we might start by saying, “I don’t know what your intentions are here, but when you say something like that, it comes across—to me at least—as racist. Is that what you wanted?”
I don’t know if that will work better or not, but I’d love to see the experiment tried on a large scale. In the meantime, remember, just because you infer something doesn’t mean that it was actually implied.
