White Person's Burden: the Cost of Meaningful Change

Kelsey Smoot writes at The Guardian about the nature of "allyship" - of being more than a mere sympathizer - and of the costs one must bear to do so.  The lead poses a striking question:

If the White people in my life could hit a button and instantly remove the privileges afforded to them along racial lines, would they hit that button?

Now here is a powerful question, and one that gets right to the heart of the true extent of inequality in the United States.  Reparations are relatively easy for us to support, since any reparations will necessarily be paid for through tax revenue and, I think, is likely to be relatively insubstantial on a family's bottom line.  Smoot's question, however, dispenses with any theoretical considerations of reparations and straightforwardly demands that Whites should return to Blacks the value they inherited through centuries of slavery and generations of systematic exclusion of Blacks from the opportunities that the parents, grandparents, great grandparents and great great grandparents of Whites benefited from.

What's more, Smoot argues that the donations, the expressions of support, the flag waving and social solidarity afforded the BLM movement by Whites is a way of buying forgiveness of the sin of racism, an exculpatory expression simultaneously of guilt and superiority, an indulgence of the secular church of progressivism.  She writes:

In my direct circle, it has become obvious to me that many of my White peers are at a loss for what to do in this critical moment to prove themselves different from the ones they have come to view as the true agents of White supremacy. I imagine them, phone in hand, scrolling on social media and seeing messages of disdain and moral indictment pointed at them directly. They think to themselves: “I am not the type of White person who would murder someone in the street. I don’t use racial slurs. I voted for Obama. I have Black friends.” Unable to reconcile the dissonance of their allyship being broadly called into question in the digital sphere, these White individuals turn to me, to us, the proverbial “Black friend”, as a cathartic release of such inner turmoil. They want us to vindicate their longstanding inaction – their culpability in White supremacy – by accepting their monetary donations, their well-wishes and genuine feelings of sympathy at what is only now crystalizing in their minds as another sort of pandemic; one which has only ever kept racially marginalized individuals quarantined away from enjoying the liberties promised to all Americans in the governing documents of the nation.

The word "afforded" in this context should ring with dissonance.  It suggests that support for BLM by Whites is as much a form of privilege as any other.  It is a way of Whites saying "my conscience is worth this much, and this much only," to which Smoot rightly responds by questioning how much they've gained through generations of tacit ( at best ) support of White superiority.  She goes on to say:

The truth is, genuine allyship is not kindness, it is not a charitable act, nor is it even a personal commitment to hold anti-racist ideals – it is a fall from grace. Real allyship enacted by White Americans, with a clear objective to make equitable the lived experiences of individuals across racial lines, means a willingness to lose things. Not just the extra $50 in one’s monthly budget by way of donating to an organization working towards racial justice. I mean palpable, incalculable loss. The loss of the charmed life associated with being a White person in America. Refusing a pay raise at one’s job and insisting that it be reallocated to co-workers of color who are undoubtedly being underpaid. The loss of potentially every close relationship with other White friends and family members who refuse to acknowledge or amend their behaviors that reinforce systemic oppression. The loss of bodily safety, by way of physically intervening when violence is being inflicted on to Black bodies.

A "fall from grace," now that is a powerful description.  It denotes a state of being in which one has been gifted a reprieve from the consequences of one's own sins, a reprieve which is moreover unmerited.  For Whites, being a true ally to Blacks means sacrificing all the entitlements and privileges they have - often without thinking of it.  That pay rise which is not shared with people of color, regardless of performance.  ( One might also say so of gender. )  Access to loans, housing, education.  The "charmed" life did not come to be by accident, nor even by one's own hard work.  It came as a result of violence, violence which is still being inflicted on black bodies and brown.

If the benefits of a culture which prizes whiteness often go unnoticed by them, while at the same time prises those benefits from people of color, then the beneficiaries share responsibility for that violence.  As difficult as it is to wake from this ignorance into the uncomfortable knowledge of one's own complicity in these crimes, it is more difficult still to appreciate the vastness of them, and of the true scale the benefits of these crimes has afforded the United States.

One of the key works attempting to understand the value of slavery and its contribution the US economy is The Economics of the Civil War by Roger Ransom.  One way of looking at the problem is to evaluate the value of all slaves in the US at the height of slavery, in 1860.  Ransom presents data suggesting a valuation of nearly $3.5 billion in 1860 dollars.

Normalizing values across this distance of time is difficult, and there are a variety of ways of doing so.  Samuel Williamson and Louis Cain take Ransom and Sutch's data to estimate that the 1860 value of slaves in 2015 dollars comes to between six and thirteen trillion US$.

Wealth in Slaves in Trillions of 2016 dollars
As Measured by the Share of the GDP

Ian Webster at Officialdata.org uses BLS statistics to derive the aggregate increase in inflation from 1860 to 2020, which he puts at 2,989 percent.  Measured this way, the 1860 value of slaves in the US comes to roughly ten and a half trillion, about half of US GDP in 2019.  But this is just a representation of the purchase price for all slaves in 1860.  The real value of slaves was the labor they produced over their working lives.  Williamson and Cain offer a sense of what that value actually was:

While some slaves were rented out for farm and other types of work, most slaves worked on the farms and plantations of their owners. In both cases, the work they did was mostly unskilled, so a comparable measure of the value of these services is reflected in the unskilled wage. In other words, we can assume that to hire a free employee to do the work of a slave would cost the unskilled wage of that day. Thus, a measure of the average value of a slave would be the present value of the net rental cost over the life expectancy of the average slave...Unlike hired hands, slaves were responsible in large part for producing their own room, board, and clothing. Given that the work week today is significantly shorter than in 1850 and that slaves were made to work harder during the same amount of time as free workers, it would take more than one hired hand today to replace the labor supplied by a slave then.

According to Salary.com, the average wage for a general laborer today comes to $16 an hour.  Non-slave industrial work ran between 60 and 70 hours per week by 1860, and had been steadily decreasing since 1840.  In 1860 slaves certainly worked more hours per day than non-slaves, and agricultural work generally demanded more hours than industrial work.  An 80 hour work week is probably a very conservative estimate, then - and that's not counting the work slaves were required to do to maintain their own living standards.  Today that brings the cost of such labor to roughly $66,500 per year.  Williamson and Cain suggest the average working lives of slaves ran to 20 years.  There were one million slaves in the US by 1860, bringing the value of their productive work in 2020 to 66,500,000,000, a value which slaveholders could expect to get twenty times over.  Thus the purchase price of all 1860 slaves today comes to ten and a half trillion $US, and the value over their working lives to roughly twelve trillion.

Now the net value slaveholders actually saw from slavery is hard to evaluate, and the headline numbers here are not representative of that.  Those numbers do represent the gross value generated by those slaves, however, and therefore the value lost to them.  If we consider the potential of interest gained in the intervening 180 years, the total lost revenue to slaves and their families could well be much higher.  There is nevertheless value in simply using these numbers to provide a first approximation of the total value of the labor stolen from Blacks in 2020.  There are 40 million or so blacks, and we estimate some $23 trillion worth of stolen labor, which comes to roughly half a million dollars for every Black person in the US today.

So yeah, giving up that raise doesn't begin to address the problem.

Chapter Review: What is Truth?

“In this book we argue that social factors are essential to the understanding the spread of beliefs, including--especially--false beliefs. We discuss important mechanisms by which false beliefs spread and discuss why, perhaps counterintuitively, these very same mechanisms are often invaluable to us in our attempts to reach truth. .... the spread of ideas from scientists and other experts to the public and to politicians is deeply influenced by social factors--and for this reason is readily manipulated.” -- Cailin O’Connor and James Weatherall, The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread, pages 11, 17, 2019


This is a review of chapter 1, What is Truth, of the 2019 book, The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread by Cailin O’Connor and James Weatherall. My review of the whole book is here. This review describes the tactics that modern propagandists use to deceive scientists, policy makers, politicians, social influencers and the public generally.

In this review, I used ‘propaganda’ to mean a tool to deceive one or more people by any means. The book focuses on using social networks to plant, spread and reinforce false beliefs. Inherent in social manipulation, humans are also susceptible to propaganda due to various inherited psychological traits, e.g., a usually weak ability to think rationally in terms of statistics.

Propagandist tactics generally

Four points stand out. First, propagandist deceit usually does not need to be complete among relevant people for it to be effective. Deceiving targeted people and groups can effectively serve the propagandists goal. Second, it is not necessary for propagandists to hold back the spread of belief in actual fact-based truth forever. Instead, by sufficiently blocking belief in truth, propagandists can delay social action for decades. Examples of propagandist-inspired social inaction that was, or still is, effectively maintained for years include social paralysis about the bad health effects of cigarette smoking and the bad environmental effects of our continuing unregulated release of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, including ozone-destroying CFCs.

Since the book was published in 2019, it predated the COVID-19 pandemic. I would add to the propaganda list, the propaganda about COVID-19 and related truths, e.g., anti-facemask propaganda, that the president, conservatives, right wing populists and GOP politicians are spewing on the American people right now, sometimes with lethal consequences.

Third, the authors argue that both political and industrial propaganda are important and can be personally and socially damaging. That scientists, journalists and policy makers can be deceived and used just like everyone else is an important point to keep in mind. Effective propagandists are acutely aware of human social and cognitive traits, flaws and biases that can be used to lead to the spread of false beliefs. For example, humans did not evolve to think in terms of statistics and most (but not all) people don't think that way. Propagandists know this very well and they use it relentlessly and ruthlessly to deceive. The tactic is simple, effective and often very low cost.

A corollary of that relentless ruthlessness is the sheer lack of morality in the propaganda industry. And, it is a very big industry that is called by various names, e.g, public relations firms, marketing firms, etc. There are usually no moral overt qualms about deceiving people or harming them, including killing them. Cigarettes, climate science denial and COVID-19 deceit are good examples. The main propagandist defense is a liability shift to people, society and government under the irrational but incredibly effective rubric called caveat emptor.

 Finally, some of most effective propaganda includes some truth. Some is even based entirely on truth, or what appears to be truth when viewed as the propagandist presents it. Here, information is often manipulated in how it is presented to make anomalies look like the rule or real truth, not the exception or an illusion. This tactic has been and still is used to effectively fool all kinds people, including scientists, policy makers and social influencers. That scientists can still fall for this tactic is disturbing. Among people, they are the ones who are in theory trained to be more rational about statistics and differentiating truth from illusion.

Sometimes humans just cannot help being human and propagandists know this full well. They are also expert at spotting the susceptible minds in the herd. In essence, they are predators expertly trained to look carefully and painstakingly for and find the minds that are susceptible to their message. The predator plies their poison using subtle charms, e.g., intelligent flattery, and not so subtle charms, e.g., funding for research or outright bribery and fraud. Even self-aware and honest scientists have been tricked and used. Dishonest scientists are even better if they are subtle and smart about their dishonesty.

What is Truth?

Fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain; a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities

One of the most effective and often low cost tactics the propagandist uses is to fight science with more science. The goals are to create the appearance of controversy and/or doubt about established science showing that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer and other serious diseases. The tobacco industry was extremely successful in creating enough doubt about this that it was able to block meaningful regulations for decades. Big tobacco was absolutely ruthless about this. Not only did the industry create false doubts, they also sometimes flat out lied in their propaganda. To make their propaganda look scientifically sound, they paid ‘experts’ to create an appearance of much more uncertainty and controversy than actually existed in the consensus mainstream. Big tobacco also funded its own research and published data that created doubt about the toxicity of cigarettes while not publishing their studies that confirmed what most scientists already knew and believed. The authors call that tactic selective sharing. I call it at least immoral, evil at worst and in any case, fraud.

Similarly, the chemical industry led by DuPont, mounted a ferocious attack on truth when evidence began to show that the ozone layer in the atmosphere over the south pole developed a hole with hardly any ozone in it. Without ozone, cancer-causing ultraviolet rays from the sun reach the ground. The initial discovery in 1985 was shocking. Many honest scientists did  not believe the data or the analysis, because (1) scientists simply could not believe that ozone levels could fall that far and (2) previous 1970s satellite data detected no loss of ozone in that area. Two experts in satellite data analysis decided to recheck the prior data and discovered that it did show a loss of ozone. The discovery was overlooked because the data analysis software ignored low ozone measurements as anomalies. In the 1970's scientists did not believe that ozone levels could drop as far as they had dropped, so such low measurements were tossed out as being impossible and thus errors in those measurements.

Other 1970's research had shown that CFCs, a common class of widely compounds with over million tons having been made. CFCs could get into the atmosphere and lead to depletion of ozone. Once the meaning of all the data together became clear, the science community was convinced that ozone depletion was real and that CFCs needed to be regulated. That's when DuPont launched its propaganda effort. The major CFC manufacturer, DuPont, bought nationwide ads arguing that it was too soon to regulate CFCs, there was still too much uncertainty in the science and the outright lie that “there is no persuasive evidence” that CFCs can cause ozone depletion. One editorial in an influential chemistry industry publication, Chemical Week, commented: “.... we’re talking about a basically unknown effect on a little-understood phenomenon brought on by a debatable cause. .... One fact is clear: We don’t have the facts. We don’t even know for sure whether there is a problem.”

All of that was blatant lies. There was solid evidence showing the existence of a problem. DuPont was so intent on protecting its revenue stream from making and selling tons of CFCs that it did not hesitate to risk destruction of the ozone layer and attendant bad effects on life on the entire planet. In defending its revenue stream, DuPont propagandists directly attacked the idea of truth itself. In DuPont’s version of reality, there is never enough data to warrant regulation. Knowledge is always uncertain to some extent, and that is true. Nonetheless, when there is enough certainty to act, the propagandists keep attacking truth on the basis of whatever uncertainty there is.

This anti-truth tactic has been used repeatedly by industrial and political propagandists to protect their economic position and/or political power. It is easy to inject uncertainty and doubt in complicated situations, which are common. Therein lies the power of propaganda to block socially useful action. Therein lies some seeds of human self-annihilation.

Global Acceptance of LGBTQ On the Rise

A global divide on admission of LGBTQ communities remains but is narrowing, a new study shows.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-06-25/lgbtq-acceptance-growing-in-us-and-other-countries-over-time

THE GLOBAL PUSH FOR GAY rights around the world has been a long, slow struggle – in some Middle Eastern and African countries, for example, same-sex acts today can bring the death penalty. But public acceptance is increasing, even in culturally conservative countries, according to a global study released on Thursday.

People in the United States, India, South Africa, Japan, South Korea and Mexico have registered the largest gains in public acceptance with gay rights since 2002, according to findings released from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.

Pew conducted its polling in 34 countries, including the U.S. The study finds public opinion around the world on the acceptance of gay rights is still divided by country, region and economic development, despite substantial change in laws and norms surrounding issues such as same-sex marriage and the rights of LGBTQ communities around the world.

Pew released its survey in June, celebrated as Pride Month in many countries. Pew first began international polling on the acceptance of gay rights in 2002, and 2013 is the last year the organization conducted its study. As in 2013, the data released today reflect public acceptance of gay rights is shaped by the country where people live. People in Western Europe and the Americas are generally more accepting than people in Eastern Europe, Russia, Ukraine, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, while people in Asia-Pacific countries are split on the topic.

Those differences are shaped by the economic development of countries, as well as individuals' age, education levels and religious and political views, says Jacob Poushter, the study's lead author and Pew's associate director of global attitudes research.

"Generally, more educated, younger and less religious respondents voiced greater acceptance of homosexuality than those who are less educated, older or more religious," Poushter said in an email.

Pew's study found substantial changes in public opinion. In the United States, for example, 72% today say homosexuality should be accepted, a sharp increase from 46% in 1994 and 51% in 2002, Poushter says.

Among other countries showing major increases in public acceptance of homosexuality since 2002:

• South Africa, which shows a 21-point increase in public acceptance;
• South Korea, where a 19-point increase is shown;

COURTESY OF PEW RESEARCH CENTER

In both Japan and Mexico, just over half said they accepted homosexuality; in 2002; nearly 7 in 10 respondents in today's study now approve.

Even in India, where today a minority (37%) today say they accept homosexuality, that level of approval is a 22-point increase.

Pew conducted the survey from May 13 to Oct. 2, 2019, polling 38,426 people in 34 countries.

The phrasing Pew used in its survey was, "And which one of these comes closer to your opinion? Homosexuality should be accepted by society OR Homosexuality should not be accepted by society." Pew began polling this question in the U.S. in 1994 and expanded globally in 2002.

Pew researchers acknowledge the word "homosexuality" can today be considered archaic but say the word is the most applicable and translatable when asking the question across societies and languages, and has been used in other cross-national research, including the World Values Survey.

Pew's study also found that people in wealthier and more developed economies are more accepting than countries that are less wealthy and developed. Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, nations with a per-capita gross domestic product of more than $50,000, registered among the highest levels of acceptance. By comparison, less than 2-in-10 respondents in Nigeria, Kenya and Ukraine have per-capita GDPs of less than $10,000, express acceptance.

"Country wealth, measured by GDP per capita, is a still a driving force for attitudes towards acceptance of homosexuality in society, with people in wealthier countries expressing more acceptance than those in less developed economies," Poushter said.

Microphone Drop...

What happens if, as some are predicting, Trump decides to drop the mic and walk away?  Who will take his place on the Republican ticket?  Pence?  Some new nominee?

What do you predict would happen?

Same thing with Biden.  What would happen if Biden keels over?  Who gets to step in?  Bernie?  Is there any official protocol/procedures for this?

Thanks for posting and recommending.

The Administration's Evil COVID-19 Sabotage and Lies

Where the polls are today according to the 
poll aggregation source 538

Sabotage

The Washington Post writes:

In the hours before President Trump’s rally in Tulsa, his campaign directed the removal of thousands of “Do Not Sit Here, Please!” stickers from seats in the arena that were intended to establish social distance between rallygoers, according to video and photos obtained by The Washington Post and a person familiar with the event. 

The removal contradicted instructions from the management of the BOK Center, the 19,000-seat arena in downtown Tulsa where Trump held his rally on June 20.

BOK arena management bought the do-not-sit stickers for Trump’s rally to distance attendees in the arena. The stickers were meant to try to keep people distanced by leaving open seats. BOK staff put the stickers on almost every other seat in the arena, but Trump’s campaign came in and told event management to stop. Trump's goons then began removing the stickers. The WaPo article includes a sickening video showing a Trump goon removing the stickers from the seats. During the event, attendees did not leave spaces between themselves.

As would be expected from a campaign working for a chronic liar president who is expert at maintaining plausible deniability, the president's campaign lied and claimed that it was are not aware of any campaign staff asking or removing the social distancing measure.

That is evil. The president is personally responsible for very person who got infected there and for all who will suffer or die. All of that is harm and death directly on the president's hands.

Lies

The New York Times writes on the Vice President's first COVID-19 task farce briefing in about two months. The NYT writes:

The vice president falsely claimed that increased testing “is generating” more cases, among other exaggerations and inaccurate claims. 

The NYT pointed out that increased testing in other countries has not produced the increase in the infection rate now seen in the United States.

Pence claimed that “as we stand here today, all 50 states and territories across this country are opening up safely and responsibly” and “we flattened the curve”, both are a ridiculous claims the NYT labeled as false. Pence also falsely claimed that “more testing is generating more cases. To one extent or another, the volume of new cases coming in is a reflection of a great success in expanding testing across the country.”

The president is America's liar-in-chief, while the self-proclaimed "Christian" Pence is America's vice liar-in-chief. Either Pence is a fake Christian or Christianity accepts intentional lies that lead to needless suffering and deaths.

Lying through his unmasked, unchristian teeth --
note masked Fauci in the background enjoying the deception of the American people

Is it Time for Moral Condemnation?

“As soon as we develop algorithms that identify and block fake news sites, the creator of these sites will have a tremendous incentive to find creative ways to outwit the detectors. .... This framework paints a dreary picture of our hopes for defeating fake news. The better we get at detecting and stopping it, the better we should expect propagandists to get at producing and disseminating it. That said, the only solution is to keep trying. .... The idea that our search for truth in public discourse is an endless arms race between highly motivated, well-funded political and industrial forces attempting to protect or advance their interests, and a society trying to adapt to an ever-changing media and technological landscape, suggests that propagandists and others who seek to distort the facts will constantly invent new methods for doing so.” -- Cailin O’Connor and James Weatherall, The Misinformation Age: How False beliefs Spread, 2019

“I develop a theory of propaganda which affects mass behavior without necessarily affecting mass beliefs. A group of citizens observe a signal of their government's performance, which is upwardly inflated by propaganda. Citizens want to support the government if it performs well and if others are supportive (i.e., to coordinate). Some citizens are unaware of the propaganda (“credulous”). Because of the coordination motive, the non-credulous still respond to propaganda, and when the coordination motive dominates they perfectly mimic the actions of the credulous. So, all can act as if they believe the government's lies even though most do not.” -- Andrew Little, Propaganda and credulity, Games and Economic Behavior, vol. 102, pages 224-232, 2017 (paper behind paywall)(free 2015 online non-peer reviewed version)

On conformity bias

People’s beliefs can sometimes be influenced by a psychological trait called conformity bias. When a group of people falsely believe something, other people in their presence sometimes come to believe the false belief by losing confidence in their own veracity and/or by simply wanting to conform to what the group believes. The phenomenon is well-documented. Cailin O’Connor and James Weatherall comment in their 2019 book, The Misinformation Age: How False beliefs Spread: “While conformity seems to vary across cultures and over time, it reflects two truths about human psychology: we do not like to disagree with others, and we often trust the judgments of others over our own.”

On evil

One school of thought says it is counterproductive to use the word evil in political discourse because it is too pejorative, inflammatory, etc. It shuts down continued civil discourse. There is some truth in that line of argument. 

Another school of thought, or maybe just me, disagrees and argues that, we have descended into darkness enough that it is now time to call evil out for what it is, regardless of whether people are consciously aware or not. 

That raises the questions of (i) what the definition of evil is, and (ii) how one can rationally hold someone morally accountable for their own unconscious morality and attendant beliefs and behaviors.

Evil defined

IMO, evil is acts that are beyond mere immorality. Evil includes a conscious or unconscious element of malice or harm toward another person or group. Harm can arise from intent or lack of intent. It can arise from ignorance, or flawed or partisan reasoning. In this regard, I'm now going beyond condemning what most people*** are consciously aware of. I am no longer willing to accept or forgive unsupported beliefs that directly or indirectly cause undue harm, especially when evidence reasonably shows the errors. Ignorance of relevant of facts is no longer acceptable because the stakes are so high and facts are now available to most people. 

*** People who don't have the time or means to at least try to find real facts and non-bogus reasoning are excused. These days, there is no excuse for unwarranted ignorance or false beliefs flowing from logical nonsense. There is reliable information available online for free. People without access to information online are a different matter.

Civic duty

An argument against unwarranted ignorance is focused on both average people and on the special interests and people who use dark free speech and false beliefs for their own personal, economic, tribe or other benefit. Average people have a moral duty to at least try to not be deceived and manipulated into false beliefs and overtly irrational behaviors when those things harm important ideals including democracy, social comity and the rule of law.

People should be free to think and be nutty in private and in activities that are essentially private, e.g., church services, or in the home. But activities that affect the public and society are a different matter.

The situation for interests and people who use dark free speech is different. They bear moral responsibility for the false beliefs and resulting bad behaviors that flow from that. Arguably, when their propaganda causes people to harm themselves or others, even unintentionally, that crosses the line from immoral to evil.


Questions: Do average people have some civic duty to try to be more informed and less deceived? Is it evil to use dark free speech leads and it leads people to harm themselves or others, even unintentionally? If people fail or refuse to try to be more informed and less deceived and their false beliefs leads them to harm others, is that evil, immoral or something else, e.g., just a mistake?

At the dentist's office yesterday

Effects of Consuming and Believing Conservative Misinformation

Three recent studies have generated evidence indicating that misinformation from conservative media sources is linked to higher COVID-19 infection rates. Although there are multiple reasons for the failed US response including, a lack of a cohesive federal policy, botched testing and tracing, and a culture that emphasizes individualism, data is accumulating that indicates misinformation and false conspiracy theories are another factor in the failure. The Washington Post writes:

“The end result, according to one of the studies, is that infection and mortality rates are higher in places where one pundit who initially downplayed the severity of the pandemic — Fox News’s Sean Hannity — reaches the largest audiences.

“We are receiving an incredible number of studies and solid data showing that consuming far-right media and social media content was strongly associated with low concern about the virus at the onset of the pandemic,” said Irene Pasquetto, chief editor of the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, which published one of the studies.

A working paper posted by the National Bureau of Economic Research in May examined whether these incorrect beliefs affected real-world behavior.

The authors used anonymous location data from millions of cellphones to explore how the popularity of Fox News in a given Zip code related to social distancing practices there. By March 15, they found, a 10 percent increase in Fox News viewership within a Zip code reduced its residents’ propensity to stay home, in compliance with public health guidelines, by about 1.3 percentage points.

Given total stay-at-home behavior increased by 20 percentage points during the study period, that effect size is “pretty large,” said Andrey Simonov, the study’s lead author. It’s comparable to Fox’s persuasive effect on voting behavior, as identified in a 2017 paper[1] by a different team.”

If the show does not take the virus seriously, 
viewer behavior is affected

One of the studies focused on Fox News viewers 55 and older in areas where Sean Hannity’s show is more or less popular than Tucker Carlson’s program. Hannity viewers changed their pandemic-related behaviors like hand-washing or canceling travel plans four days later than other Fox News viewers. By contrast, Carlson’s viewership changed behaviors three days earlier. The results were that a one standard deviation increase in Hannity viewership compared to Carlson was associated with approximately 32 percent more COVID-19 cases on March 14 and approximately 23 percent more COVID-19 deaths on March 28. The differences fade after the end of March presumably because since the middle of March, Hannity’s coverage had become quite close to Carlson’s in treating COVID-19 seriously.

Footnote: 

1. That 2017 study includes these comments:

“The largest elasticity magnitudes are on individuals from the opposite ideology of the channel. Were a viewer initially at the ideology of the median Democratic voter in 2008 to watch an additional three minutes of Fox News [FNC] per week, her likelihood of voting Republican would increase by 1.03 percentage points. Another pattern that emerges from the table is that Fox is substantially better at influencing Democrats than MSNBC is at influencing Republicans. This last feature is consistent with the regression result that the IV effect of Fox is greater and more consistent than the corresponding effect for MSNBC.

We find a persuasion rate of 58 percent in 2000, 27 percent in 2004, and 28 percent in 2008 for FNC. FNC is consistently more effective at converting viewers than is MSNBC which has corresponding estimated persuasion rates of just 16 percent, 0 percent, and 8 percent.

Our estimates imply increasing effects of FNC on the Republican vote share in presidential elections over time, from 0.46 points in 2000 to 6.34 points in 2008. Furthermore, we estimate that cable news can increase polarization and explain about two-thirds of the increase among the public in the United States, and that this increase depends on both a persuasive effect of cable news and the existence of tastes for like-minded news. Finally, we find that an influence-maximizing owner of the cable news channels could have large effects on vote shares, but would have to sacrifice some levels of viewership to maximize influence.”

She Wanted to Be a Republican President. She’s Voting for Biden.

The former Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina tells The Ticket that she plans to vote for Joe Biden.

Republicans who say Donald Trump should lose in November but insist they won’t vote for Joe Biden aren’t being honest, Carly Fiorina argues.

Fiorina was a Republican candidate for president just four years ago, and was briefly Ted Cruz’s prospective running mate. Trump needs to go, she says—and that means she’s voting for Biden.

Fiorina is not going to keep quiet, write in another candidate, or vote third-party. “I’ve been very clear that I can’t support Donald Trump,” she told me, in an interview that can be heard in full on the latest episode of The Ticket. “And elections are binary choices.” She struggled with the decision, and whether to go public. But she said that this struggle is one Republicans need to have—including those who have rationalized supporting Trump despite their disagreements, because of some of his policies or judicial appointments.

“As citizens, our vote is more than a check on a box. You know, it’s a statement about where we want to go, and I think what we need now actually is real leadership that can unify the country,” she said. “I am encouraged that Joe Biden is a person of humility and empathy and character. I think he’s demonstrated that through his life. And I think we need humility and empathy everywhere in public life right now. And I think character counts.”

Of course, Trump diehards will dismiss her. She has said over the years that Trump isn’t a real businessman, that he lacks character, that he is the definition of an autocrat, that impeachment was “vital.” But she’s not the stereotype of a Republican squish: Before her 2016 run, she was a Tea Party–type candidate for Senate in 2010 and the CEO of Hewlett-Packard. Four years ago, she voted for Trump—even after he’d been caught saying about her, “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?”

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who said she agrees with former Defense Secretary James Mattis that Trump is a threat to the Constitution, but is “struggling” with whether to vote for him, is putting politics over principle, Fiorina told me. John Bolton, who has said he hopes for America’s sake that Trump loses but that he’ll write in a conservative Republican, looks to Fiorina like he’s “desperately trying to preserve some position in the Republican Party as a conservative Republican.” As for Cruz, who’s turned into an avid Trump defender—she said she hasn’t spoken with him in years. And Trump, she told me, can tweet whatever he wants about her.

It hasn’t been an easy journey to backing a Democrat, especially when she thinks about issues that she cares deeply about, such as limiting government spending and restricting abortion. But as she’s been working with her Unlocking Potential Foundation, which focuses on increasing diversity among corporate leadership, she’s also been watching how the coronavirus pandemic has exposed inequality in America. She needed to speak up, too. Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are right, she said: The structures of power have been bent too far toward corporate control. But if conservatives really want to do anything about it, she said, they need to start by standing up for their principles.

What follows is an edited and condensed transcript:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/carly-fiorina-vote-biden/613474/

Democracy's Institutions are Falling to the Demagogue

Department of Justice lawyer Erica Newland

An article published in April in The Atlantic, The President Is Winning His War on American Institutions, lays out the status of the president's attacks on institutions that were supposed to stand in defense of democracy and the rule of law. This is very ugly. If the president is re-elected, he could very well push this country into a downward corrupt, authoritarian trajectory that it cannot recover from. The Atlantic writes:

“After three years, the adults have all left the room—saying just about nothing on their way out to alert the country to the peril—while Trump is still there. 

James Baker, the former general counsel of the FBI, and a target of Trump’s rage against the state, acknowledges that many government officials, not excluding himself, went into the administration convinced “that they are either smarter than the president, or that they can hold their own against the president, or that they can protect the institution against the president because they understand the rules and regulations and how it’s supposed to work, and that they will be able to defend the institution that they love or served in previously against what they perceive to be, I will say neutrally, the inappropriate actions of the president. And I think they are fooling themselves. They’re fooling themselves. He’s light-years ahead of them.” 

The adults were too sophisticated to see Trump’s special political talents—his instinct for every adversary’s weakness, his fanatical devotion to himself, his knack for imposing his will, his sheer staying power. They also failed to appreciate the advanced decay of the Republican Party, which by 2016 was far gone in a nihilistic pursuit of power at all costs. They didn’t grasp the readiness of large numbers of Americans to accept, even relish, Trump’s contempt for democratic norms and basic decency. It took the arrival of such a leader to reveal how many things that had always seemed engraved in monumental stone turned out to depend on those flimsy norms, and how much the norms depended on public opinion. Their vanishing exposed the real power of the presidency. Legal precedent could be deleted with a keystroke; law enforcement’s independence from the White House was optional; the separation of powers turned out to be a gentleman’s agreement; transparent lies were more potent than solid facts. None of this was clear to the political class until Trump became president. 

When Trump came to power, he believed that the regime was his, property he’d rightfully acquired, and that the 2 million civilians working under him, most of them in obscurity, owed him their total loyalty. He harbored a deep suspicion that some of them were plotting in secret to destroy him. He had to bring them to heel before he could be secure in his power. This wouldn’t be easy—the permanent government had defied other leaders and outlasted them. In his inexperience and rashness—the very qualities his supporters loved—he made early mistakes. He placed unreliable or inept commissars in charge of the bureaucracy, and it kept running on its own. 

But a simple intuition had propelled Trump throughout his life: Human beings are weak. They have their illusions, appetites, vanities, fears. They can be cowed, corrupted, or crushed. A government is composed of human beings. This was the flaw in the brilliant design of the Framers, and Trump learned how to exploit it. The wreckage began to pile up. He needed only a few years to warp his administration into a tool for his own benefit. If he’s given a few more years, the damage to American democracy will be irreversible.

[Department of Justice lawyer Erica] Newland and her colleagues were saving Trump from his own lies. They were using their legal skills to launder his false statements and jury-rig arguments so that presidential orders would pass constitutional muster. When she read that producers of The Apprentice had had to edit episodes in order to make Trump’s decisions seem coherent, she realized that the attorneys in the Office of Legal Counsel were doing something similar. Loyalty to the president was equated with legality. ‘There was hardly any respect for the other departments of government—not for the lower courts, not for Congress, and certainly not for the bureaucracy, for professionalism, for facts or the truth,’ she told me. ‘Corruption is the right word for this. It doesn’t have to be pay-to-play to be corrupt. It’s a departure from the oath.’” (emphasis added)

Despicable John Bolton

In a recent interview, John Bolton said that he would not vote for the president or Joe Biden. Instead, he will find what he considers to be an acceptable conservative and write that person in as his vote for president. For all the good that tactic will do, Bolton should just write in himself or Mickey Mouse or anyone else real or imagined. It will be just another vote for the president that he so bitterly criticizes. Given Bolton’s insider knowledge and experience, his write-in tactic is idiotic and unpatriotic. He knows far better than most of us. Bolton’s lunacy is just another example of how incoherent, authoritarian and tribal the GOP and its radical ideology have become among GOP elites and probably many of the rank and file. Despite his first-hand knowledge, he still doesn’t have the moral courage to bring himself to defend the country against a demagogue tyrant-wannabe.

The irrational John Bolton

Coronavirus Déjà Vu All Over Again

The New York Times is reporting that COVID-19 is out of control most everywhere south of the US border. The NYT writes:

“Inequality, densely packed cities, legions of informal workers and weak health care systems have undermined efforts to fight the pandemic, as some governments have fumbled the response. 

The coronavirus was always going to hit Latin America hard. Even before it arrived, experts warned that the region’s combustible blend of inequality, densely packed cities, legions of informal workers living day-to-day and health care systems starved of resources could undermine even the best attempts to curb the pandemic. 

But by brushing off the dangers, fumbling the response, dismissing scientific or expert guidance, withholding data and simply denying the extent of the outbreak altogether, some governments have made matters even worse. 

In many ways, the faltering, scattershot approach to the pandemic in parts of Latin America resembles the disorganized approach in the United States — with some presidents in the region questioning how dangerous the virus is, championing unproven, baseless or even dangerous remedies, clashing bitterly with state governors and refusing to wear face masks in public. 

And as the virus storms through Latin America, corruption has flourished, the already intense political polarization in some countries has deepened, and some governments have curtailed civil rights. In El Salvador, thousands of people have been rounded up, many for violating stay-at-home orders, despite the Supreme Court’s demands that the detentions end. 

Economies already stretched thin before the virus lie on the precipice of ruin. Millions are out of work, with millions more at risk. The United Nations has said the pandemic could result in a drop of 5.3 percent in the regional economy — the worst in a century — forcing some 16 million people into extreme poverty.

In Brazil, where President Jair Bolsonaro spent months downplaying the threat of the virus — calling it a “measly flu” and railing against shutdowns imposed by governors — ....

In Mexico, where President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has suggested that a clean conscience helps ward off infection — ‘no lying, no stealing, no betraying, that helps a lot to not get coronavirus,’”

Does that sound like déjà vu or what? As the old saying goes, what goes around in the US comes around south of the border. Well, at least for bad stuff. Not so sure about good stuff.

Obrador: no lying, no stealing, no betraying

Trump: it's a democratic hoax, it will go away like magic, drink some bleach

Hm. Is Obrador is ahead of the president regarding COVID? Or, are they tied? Since the president is the world’s best negotiator and smartest stable genius with the best vocabulary, how could he not be ahead? 

The Psychology of Men and Facemasks

I'm a manstud!

Context

1. I've now progressed in my thinking about politics that, assuming I can do it and there is some supporting data, most every politics OP I post should be linked to cognitive or social science in some way. The reason is simple: Cognitive and social science describe politics and the human condition better than any political partisan, special interest, blowhard, crook, liar, demagogue, political or religious ideologue or murderer ever would. I am sure there are a few or some major business people, politicians, etc., who are significantly, mostly or completely exceptions to that blanket condemnation. Well, pretty sure. I hope.

2. Over my lifetime to date, I've come to believe that for modern times, men in power have been and still are probably (~85% personal confidence) significantly worse than women in power would be in terms of acceptance of facts and true truths, rational reasoning, governing, reasonable empathy and civility, honesty** and exercise of soft power (non-war and /or mass slaughter) effectiveness. Exercise of hard power, i.e., the military and kinetic force, seems to come way too easy to men. The caveat on that belief is that I am not a historian and thus no expert.

3. Is there a historian in the house? I really need one right now.

** No, reasonable empathy, civility or honesty does not mean anything close to gullibility, stupidity or any other weakness. IMO, reasonable (not stupid) empathy, civility and honesty are strengths, not weaknesses and when circumstances merit, they need to be mostly or completely withdrawn.

Bad boys

An article my home town newspaper the San Diego Union Tribune published today was interesting. The article, Why more men aren't wearing masks -- and how to change that, reported data indicating that men are less prone to wear face masks than women. Duh. Observing unmasked men in public compared to women and children with their moms inspired Hélène Barcelo of the Mathematical Science Research Institute in Berkeley, to look closely. A study by Barcelo and Valerio Capraro of London’s Middlesex University generated data indicating that men are less likely than women to wear face covering.

The SDUT writes:

“Posted online in mid-May, the resulting study of 2,459 U.S. participants, “The Effect of Messaging and Gender on Intentions to Wear a Face Covering to Slow Down COVID-19 Transmission,” offers an interesting glimpse into why some men resist the call to cover up — and provides some clues as to how to influence that behavior. In addition to finding that men are less inclined to wear a face mask, the study found that men are less likely than women to believe they will be seriously affected by the coronavirus. 

Further, it found a big difference between men and women when it came to the self-reported negative emotions that come with that simple strip of fabric across the face. 

As study co-author Capraro explained, “We asked [participants to rank] on a scale of one to 10 how much they agreed with five different statements: ‘Wearing a face covering is cool,’ ‘Wearing a face covering is not cool,’ ‘Wearing a face covering is shameful,’ ‘Wearing a face covering is a sign of weakness’ and ‘The stigma attached to wearing a face covering is preventing me from wearing one as often as I should.’ 

“The two statements that showed the biggest difference between men and women,” Capraro said, “were, ‘Wearing a face covering is a sign of weakness’ and ‘The stigma attached to wearing a face covering is preventing me from wearing one as often as I should.’”

To reorient the male mind on this point, the researchers suggest these:

1. Emphasize the benefit to community over than family, country or self. That tactic appeared to be the biggest motivator for men. (Germaine: Wot? Over family? No wonder we're on the road to hell. -- See, that exemplifies why I think women are better suited for rule than men.)

SDUT quotes a researcher o this point: “One of my areas of research is in benevolent sexism. So one way to rebrand this is instead of [making it about] protecting yourself, make it about protecting other people. [Make it about being] paternalistic and chivalrous. You’re saying, ‘I’m protecting the weak, the elderly, [and] I’m being a hero.”

I don't know how anyone else reads that, but I read it like this: (whining voice) I'm a big stud. You've gotta listen to and obey me. 

I'm not impressed with that. The only question in my mind is how accurate it is or is not. (I need to do more research on this point, so CAVEAT)

2. “According to Alex Navarro, assistant director of the Center for the History of Medicine at the University of Michigan and one of the editors-in-chief of the American Influenza Epidemic of 1918-1919: A Digital Encyclopedia, an overt appeal to patriotism was used to encourage mask-wearing in the early stages of the Spanish flu epidemic as the country was still fighting World War I.”

Apparently, this appeals to most men more than facts and reason 

-- what a stud!

3. SDUT writes:

“If stereotypical masculine behavior is part of the problem, might it be part of the solution? Could some of the traits traditionally associated with manliness be Trojan Horsed to increase the number of masked men? Glick, who back in April penned a piece for Scientific American titled “Masks and Emasculation: Why Some Men Refuse to Take Safety Precautions,” thinks the approach might work. 

‘Of course you’d be playing into this kind of masculinity,’ Glick said, ‘but I think tough-looking masks — MAGA masks, camouflage[-print masks], [masks printed with] shark teeth — might. They wear masks in wrestling, right? And what about superheroes and villains?’”

That speaks for itself. 

4. And there's this about the power of humor with men:

“‘I think [humor] definitely could work,’ he said. ‘A lot of men communicate this way. They have serious conversations but in humorous ways because [they] can’t fully own it so [they] joke about it. For example, guys in the locker room might be talking about the difficulties in [their] marriages but by joking about it. It’s kind of a code they use to communicate, to admit they’re having a hard time.’ 

Englar-Carlson said he wasn’t exactly sure what a humorous messaging campaign around mask-wearing might look like, but with Glick’s comment about wrestlers, superheroes and villains echoing in my ears, I floated one possibility: a PSA featuring Darth Vader, Bane from “The Dark Knight Rises” and a cadre of Lucha Libre wrestlers playing it tough while urging guys to put on their own masks.”

Is it me, or do many or most men look mentally weak? You can't present them with reality so you have to deflect, cajole, pull rabbits out of hats and otherwise massage fragile egos.

The SDUT article continues in this vein.

Questions: 

1. Does this reasonably indicate that men as leaders are too wuss in terms of self-confidence or mental power and compensate with unjustified violence, including not wearing a facemask in the face of COVID-19, and war too often? Or is just one thing insufficient to draw such a sweeping conclusion?

2. Are men’s egos really as fragile as I think this article reasonably conveys?

Viral Photo Misidentified as Trump Tulsa Crowd

Quick Take

Social media accounts supportive of President Donald Trump have been sharing a photo of a large outdoor crowd with the false claim that it shows the scene outside of Trump’s Tulsa rally. It actually shows the Rolling Thunder event near Washington, D.C. in 2019.

Full Story

Although President Donald Trump had expected to fill the 19,000-seat arena for his rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma — with overflow crowds next door — there were whole sections of empty seats at the June 20 event.

The Tulsa Fire Department reported that about 6,200 tickets were scanned for the event. The Trump campaign has disputed that number, saying that the attendance figure was actually closer to 12,000.

What’s not in dispute, though, is that the campaign cancelled speeches that were planned for an outdoor overflow crowd when that crowd didn’t materialize.

But you wouldn’t know that by looking at Trump fan accounts on social media, which have been posting a picture of an outdoor crowd near Washington, D.C. in 2019 with the bogus claim that it shows the overflow crowd in Tulsa.

Many of the pictures were shared with a caption attached that claimed: “A small crowd has gathered for the Trump Rally in Tulsa “

The Berks County Republican Committee’s Facebook page posted the picture the day after Trump’s rally with this claim: “SHARE THIS FAR AND WIDE AS THE LEFT IS TRYING TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE TRUMP SUPPORTERS DIDN’T SHOW UP FOR TRUMP!”

But the picture actually shows the start of an annual motorcycle ride through Washington, D.C. that highlights veterans’ issues and honors prisoners of war. It’s hosted by an organization called Rolling Thunder. The picture shows a crowd of participants gathered in the north parking lot of the Pentagon, where the ride began on May 26, 2019.

Other photos from that day, some of which were featured on the Facebook page for Rolling Thunder Washington, D.C., show a similar angle of the scene as is featured in the picture now being shared with the false information. The same white Jeep is visible in the foreground as is the black truck in the crowd and the white-topped tents.

Artie Muller, executive director of Rolling Thunder confirmed to FactCheck.org that the photo being shared on social media shows the event. “That’s how it always looks,” he said.

So, the picture shows a crowd near Washington, D.C. in 2019, not the crowd for Trump’s Tulsa rally.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/06/viral-photo-misidentified-as-trump-tulsa-crowd/