Quote:
|
Interesting. Can you explain? Or point to an on-line version?
|
This focuses on colleges' problems, but these nine cognitive deficiencies apply to both the right and the left. Haidt applies them to both in the book, but you don't need his imprimatur to see how perfectly they apply to unthinking sorts of all stripes:
https://medium.com/the-polymath-proj...e-d1cfa81053ea
Quote:
I think an underrated part of polarization comes from
- people choose news that they want to hear
- technology has made it possible for anyone to publish anything, and has destroyed the financial models that previously led to consolidation in the media space
- consequently, people increasingly live in epistemic bubbles of their own choosing.
|
Haidt would agree with all of that. But that is pretty well known stuff. Where he offers insight is in his dismantling of the demented reasoning inside the minds of people in those silos. He offers a pretty solid description of the pathology at work.
Lukianoff compliments him by dismantling the flawed logic of both sides. I conclude both sides are playing an ends-justify-the-means game because, under his analysis, it becomes clear that neither a majority of the extreme right nor a majority of the extreme left can truly believe their arguments. Thus, it's not just the silo effect, but four groups at work:
1. Willful liars of the right
2. Deluded people on the right
3. Willful liars of the left
4. Deluded people on the left
Perhaps the best explanation of this is what I'd coin the "negation effect." On the right, if you offer facts that refute a favored narrative, they will either ignore it or make up a lie to refute it. ("Snopes is a left wing Soros site designed to refute right wing views!", etc.) On the left, if you offer facts that refute a favored narrative, they will respond by attacking the author as racist/sexist/trans-phobic, etc. rather than countering the argument. Lukianoff neatly describes this demented behavior as "insisting on retraction instead of offering rebuttal."
In both cases, engagement is assiduously avoided as it carries a high risk of putting the lie to the favored narrative.
In these situations, a significant number of intentional actors are at work, playing an ends-justify-means game ("I believe my view is better, and I am on the righteous side, so I am privileged to lie, offer conspiracy theories which shoot the messenger, or use brute force of online shame attacks to shut down anyone who challenges it.")
Quote:
|
I'm not going to defend Facebook or Google, but it seems to me the forces driving this are much bigger than they are. They just figured out how to monetize effectively before a lot of people, and rode the network effects.
|
You'll find much disturbing agreement from Haidt and Lukianoff there.
I think what we have at the poles of the country right now are two groups who simply want what they want and don't want to hear anyone tell them they can't have it. Hence, I stated at the outset, it's lizard brain stuff. Sure, one can dress it up as effectively and brutally playing out a Machiavellian hand. But I see every little clever behavior among what looks like armies of liars and deluded folks in a war of narratives with each other. It seems more a degradation, a devolution, than anything else.
ETA: But none of this can or should worry you or any other parent sending a kid to college. Because a smart kid can and should simply ignore this sort of thing and focus on learning something useful.
