Let’s do some links and comments today, then tomorrow perhaps I’ll return to posting book summaries.
NYT, The Editorial Board, 1 Jan 2022: Every Day Is Jan. 6 Now
This could be a reference from my 2021 in Review post. Online publications can change headlines depending on context; the headline on NYT’s homepage yesterday was better: “How Many Times Must America Be Proved Wrong About Trump?”
It’s quite long and I’m not going to try to fairly sample it. It’s linked for future reference, for posterity. But here’s the first paragraph:
One year after the smoke and broken glass, the mock gallows and the very real bloodshed of that awful day, it is tempting to look back and imagine that we can, in fact, simply look back. To imagine that what happened on Jan. 6, 2021 — a deadly riot at the seat of American government, incited by a defeated president amid a last-ditch effort to thwart the transfer of power to his successor — was horrifying but that it is in the past and that we as a nation have moved on.
And the last:
Above all, we should stop underestimating the threat facing the country. Countless times over the past six years, up to and including the events of Jan. 6, Mr. Trump and his allies openly projected their intent to do something outrageous or illegal or destructive. Every time, the common response was that they weren’t serious or that they would never succeed. How many times will we have to be proved wrong before we take it seriously? The sooner we do, the sooner we might hope to salvage a democracy that is in grave danger.
\\
Somewhat tangential:
Salon, Kirk Swearingen, 1 Jan 2022: Despite all the chaos and discord of 2021, Americans still need each other, subtitled, “Republicans actually know that government can do good. But they have to pretend otherwise most of the time”
The photo shows firefighters in Mayfield KY.
This speaks to one of my themes, of course. Americans like to vaunt their independence and self-reliance, and conservatives strive to dismantle any part of government that doesn’t directly benefit themselves. That may have been appropriate two centuries ago, but it isn’t now. Worldwide crises like climate change and a global pandemic can only be solved through international cooperation and big initiatives by government. (I think this is part of the reason small-government advocates simply dismiss these crises as fake, as conspiracy theories, thus absolving them of any responsibility to take part in solving them.)
We have a political crisis in America largely because we have a whole lot of elected officials in one party who have, for a long time now, not considered themselves public servants. Or, after decades of anti-government rhetoric about “starving the beast” and the like, their definition of public servant equates to nothing more than obstructionist. They do the work of the people (the ones who voted for them, anyway) by not doing the work of the people. Yet they are still willing to step up in a weather-related emergency or glom on when the other party votes for infrastructure dollars.
…
While Republicans believe in less government — unless it supports their political goals, or until they need to profit from it personally or must turn to it during a tragedy — people of liberal and moderate political views (the vast majority of Americans) understand that life is itself a tragedy in slow motion for all of us. We get sick, a job vanishes, a full-time job doesn’t pay a living wage or provide benefits, we suffer a disabling injury, we grow old. We find that we need some assistance because (to paraphrase the late Texas Gov. Ann Richards, who most famously said it referring to George H.W. Bush) we were not born on third base, thinking we hit a triple.
\\
NYT, Guest Essay by Nathan Ballantyne and David Dunning, 3 Jan 2022: Skeptics Say, ‘Do Your Own Research.’ It’s Not That Simple.
The Dunning coauthor is the Dunning of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
My initial thought, before reading this, is that people are motivated thinkers, looking for evidence to support their views and passing over counter-evidence. That is, you can do your “research” and find whatever you want to find on the internet.
But let’s see what the article says.
Isn’t it always a good idea to gather more information before making up your mind about a complex topic?
In theory, perhaps. But in practice the idea that people should investigate topics on their own, instinctively skeptical of expert opinion, is often misguided. As psychological studies have repeatedly shown, when it comes to technical and complex issues like climate change and vaccine efficacy, novices who do their own research often end up becoming more misled than informed — the exact opposite of what D.Y.O.R. is supposed to accomplish.
Consider what can happen when people begin to learn about a topic. They may start out appropriately humble, but they can quickly become unreasonably confident after just a small amount of exposure to the subject. Researchers have called this phenomenon the beginner’s bubble.
For many people, the first bits of information they find form their views.
The study suggested that people place far too much credence in the initial bits of information they encounter when learning something. “A little learning,” as the poet Alexander Pope wrote, “is a dangerous thing.”
And here’s the study about novices who claim knowledge of nonexistent things:
Research also shows that people learning about topics are vulnerable to hubris. Consider a 2015 study by one of us (Professor Dunning) and the psychologists Stav Atir and Emily Rosenzweig. It found that when novices perceive themselves as having developed expertise about topics such as finance and geography, they will frequently claim that they know about nonexistent financial instruments (like “prerated stocks”) and made-up places (like Cashmere, Ore.) when asked about such things.
The writers conclude:
For D.Y.O.R. enthusiasts, one lesson to take away from all of this might be: Don’t do your own research, because you are probably not competent to do it.
Is that our message? Not necessarily. For one thing, that is precisely the kind of advice that advocates of D.Y.O.R. are primed to reject. In a society where conflicts between so-called elites and their critics are so pronounced, appealing to the superiority of experts can trigger distrust.
…
We strive to offer careful guidance when it comes to our own areas of expertise. Even so, some D.Y.O.R. enthusiasts may reject our cautions. If they do, we hope that they will nonetheless heed at least one piece of advice: If you are going to do your own research, the research you should do first is on how best to do your own research.
There’s a reason doctors and lawyers spend years and years in school to become experts in their fields. Rather than spending 20 minutes on the web to “do your own research” (D.Y.O.R.).
And a truism: you don’t have to have an opinion on everything. Too many think they do, rather than relying on better informed people on those topics.
\\
Tangentially:
Newsweek, 3 Jan 2022: 5 Scientific Conspiracy Theories That Are Still Here in 2022
Flat earth; Global warming is a hoax; Vaccines cause autism; the Moon Landing was faked; Aliens have visited us.
\\
There’s something here all the debunkers are missing, or that I simply haven’t seen yet – what is the *motivation* of anyone to believe any of these various conspiracy theories, from the notion that the election was stolen, to the one about the moon landing being faked? I understand it’s partly the attraction of any conspiracy theory – the feeling of privilege of being in on the truth, in a superior state of knowing that truth unlike all the “sheep” out there. But are there reasons why *certain* things are subject to conspiracy theories and many other potential things are not? I think it has to do with psychology, how certain ideas threaten individual and community standards; or, secondarily, how certain ideas just boggle the minds of people who have a subjectively limited view of the world (like the Earth being round, to some people).
Links and Comments: January 6th; How Americans Need Each Other; How to ‘Do Your Own Research’; Enduring Conspiracy Theories
Let’s do some links and comments today, then tomorrow perhaps I’ll return to posting book summaries.
NYT, The Editorial Board, 1 Jan 2022: Every Day Is Jan. 6 Now
This could be a reference from my 2021 in Review post. Online publications can change headlines depending on context; the headline on NYT’s homepage yesterday was better: “How Many Times Must America Be Proved Wrong About Trump?”
It’s quite long and I’m not going to try to fairly sample it. It’s linked for future reference, for posterity. But here’s the first paragraph:
And the last:
\\
Somewhat tangential:
Salon, Kirk Swearingen, 1 Jan 2022: Despite all the chaos and discord of 2021, Americans still need each other, subtitled, “Republicans actually know that government can do good. But they have to pretend otherwise most of the time”
The photo shows firefighters in Mayfield KY.
This speaks to one of my themes, of course. Americans like to vaunt their independence and self-reliance, and conservatives strive to dismantle any part of government that doesn’t directly benefit themselves. That may have been appropriate two centuries ago, but it isn’t now. Worldwide crises like climate change and a global pandemic can only be solved through international cooperation and big initiatives by government. (I think this is part of the reason small-government advocates simply dismiss these crises as fake, as conspiracy theories, thus absolving them of any responsibility to take part in solving them.)
\\
NYT, Guest Essay by Nathan Ballantyne and David Dunning, 3 Jan 2022: Skeptics Say, ‘Do Your Own Research.’ It’s Not That Simple.
The Dunning coauthor is the Dunning of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
My initial thought, before reading this, is that people are motivated thinkers, looking for evidence to support their views and passing over counter-evidence. That is, you can do your “research” and find whatever you want to find on the internet.
But let’s see what the article says.
For many people, the first bits of information they find form their views.
And here’s the study about novices who claim knowledge of nonexistent things:
The writers conclude:
There’s a reason doctors and lawyers spend years and years in school to become experts in their fields. Rather than spending 20 minutes on the web to “do your own research” (D.Y.O.R.).
And a truism: you don’t have to have an opinion on everything. Too many think they do, rather than relying on better informed people on those topics.
\\
Tangentially:
Newsweek, 3 Jan 2022: 5 Scientific Conspiracy Theories That Are Still Here in 2022
Flat earth; Global warming is a hoax; Vaccines cause autism; the Moon Landing was faked; Aliens have visited us.
\\
There’s something here all the debunkers are missing, or that I simply haven’t seen yet – what is the *motivation* of anyone to believe any of these various conspiracy theories, from the notion that the election was stolen, to the one about the moon landing being faked? I understand it’s partly the attraction of any conspiracy theory – the feeling of privilege of being in on the truth, in a superior state of knowing that truth unlike all the “sheep” out there. But are there reasons why *certain* things are subject to conspiracy theories and many other potential things are not? I think it has to do with psychology, how certain ideas threaten individual and community standards; or, secondarily, how certain ideas just boggle the minds of people who have a subjectively limited view of the world (like the Earth being round, to some people).