Political Correctness: More Moral Than Politically Incorrect

In a 20-minute video, Reverend Rob Schenck discusses the dangers of harsh, politically incorrect rhetoric by political and religious leaders speaking in public. At present, many conservatives and populists believe that political correctness has been a detriment to America and its society. In essence, Schenck is arguing the opposite. He backs his argument up with real world examples of what he is talking about. Schenck, an Evangelical Minister, wrote My Words Led to Violence. Now Trump's are too for Time magazine (August 6, 2019).



Schenck's harsh anti-abortion rhetoric helped dehumanize pro-abortion people, calling doctors who perform abortions murderers, and other names. That was his attempt to dehumanize the people he bitterly opposed and morally condemned. 1:35 He considered pro-abortion people to be morally defective and not worthy of the same respect as an anti-abortion person. 11:10

In an article for Time magazine Schenck wrote: "As a national anti-abortion leader for more than 30 years, I routinely used inflammatory language from the podium. At rallies for the activist anti-abortion organization Operation Rescue, I depicted doctors who performed abortions as murderers, callous profiteers in misery, monsters and even pigs."

After one doctor that Schenck rhetorically attacked in public was murdered, Schenck reflected on what role he had in fomenting the killing. He finally came to believe that humanity was God's greatest gift and all people are human and all deserve the same dignity and respect.12:50 Now, his message is one of being careful about not using harsh political rhetoric in public. He has come to believe that some people in an audience look for permission in the words of political speakers on a powerful speaking platform. 15:10 Schenck points out that the president has the most powerful stage in the world and he must understand that his words can foment violence. Some people will take from harsh political rhetoric permission to "act on their most hideous impulses," regardless of whether the speaker intended such permission or not. 16:05 Once a person is dehumanized, someone inevitably will go out and hunt them down and unleash their murderous impulses.

Schenck argues that the president can and must stop the harsh rhetoric because sooner or later, someone innocent will be murdered by a listener who heard permission to kill in the president's words, again, regardless of whether permission was intended or not.

Some of what Schenck refers to has already happened. Trump's harsh rhetoric has stirred some people to try to murder people in groups that the president has vilified and dehumanized. Only intervention by police prevented the murders that Trump has authorized by his immoral, politically incorrect rhetoric. For example, a California man was arrested and charged with making threatening calls to Boston Globe journalists after Trump's attacks on the press: "A California man was charged Thursday with threatening to shoot and kill Boston Globe journalists, calling them “the enemy of the people,” in response to the newspaper’s nationwide editorial campaign denouncing President Trump’s political attacks against the press."

As far as Evangelical support for the president, Schenck sees Evangelicals supporting Trump as having "made a deal with the devil", asserting that "we've sold our principles for political gain."  17:15 He sees the situation as trading respect for human life for degrading of human life. 17:35 In his opinion, Evangelical support for Trump amounts to "a bid for political power." 18:15

Book Review: The Knowledge Illusion

Now if arguments were in themselves enough to make men good, they would justly . . . . have won very great rewards . . . . But as things are . . . . they are not able to encourage the many to nobility and goodness . . . . What argument would remold such people? It is hard, if not impossible, to remove by argument the traits that have long since been incorporated by character. Aristotle on the distinction between unconscious intuitive-emotional vs conscious deliberative thinking

Summary: The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone (Riverhead Books, New York, 2017), like the 1991 book, The User Illusion, focuses on how the human mind operates in a bubble of self-deceit about how much it knows and understands. The User Illusion, emphasizes human data processing power, information theory, the second law of thermodynamics and the physiology of cognition as it was understood at the time. The Knowledge Illusion uses current cognitive and social biology research to ask basically the same questions about the human condition. Both come to the essentially the same conclusion about the vast gulf between how little humans can and do know compared to how much they think they know.

The Knowledge Illusion builds on the existing concept of innate human limitations. The book describes profound insights about what human cognitive limitations mean for how we do politics and most everything else, and by clear implication, the well-being of the human species.

Review: The Knowledge Illusion was written by two cognitive scientists, Steve Sloman (cognitive, linguistic and psychological science professor, Brown University, Editor-In-Chief of the journal Cognition) and Philip Fernbach (professor of marketing, University of Colorado, Leeds School of Business). Fernbach's academic affiliation points out a segment of American society, marketing, that has long understood human cognitive and social and used that knowledge to sell the public. Along with politicians, political groups and special interests backed by professional public relations efforts, marketers are experts in human cognitive biology and how to appeal to the unconscious human mind to get what they want.

The Knowledge Illusion is very easy to read and well organized. It is written for a general audience. It uses a only a few technical terms, which makes it easy to focus on the ideas without much effort to digest terminology. The few core technical terms that are used are important and necessary to describe the book's core concepts. This book is well worth reading for anyone wanting easy access to some current insights about (i) how the human mind perceives, thinks about and deals with the world and politics, and (ii) how to see and do things differently.

The following illustrates where the current science stands.

1: A test for ignorance - the illusion of understanding: It wasn't until 1998 that a simple, reliable method to measure self-deceit was devised. This test has turned out to be very reliable: “We have been studying psychological phenomena for a long time and it is rare to come across one as robust as the illusion of understanding.” The basic test consists of the following three questions. 1. On a scale of 1 to 7 (1 = no understanding, 7 = complete understanding), how well do you understand X, where X is anything from how zippers or flush toilets work, or how well do you understand a political issue?
2. In as much detail as you can give, how does X work or what is X, e.g., how does a zipper work or what is the thinking behind climate change belief?
3. On the 1 to 7 scale, how well do you understand X?
What happens is that when most, not all, people find they know little or nothing about the topic at hand, their score drops. Their illusion of understanding (called the “illusion of explanatory depth”) has been broken. When these questions center on issues that implicate politics such as climate change or genetically modified foods, people with extreme beliefs tend to become less certain and less extreme.

Authors Sloman and Fernbach point out that this method of punching holes in personal belief works by using question 2 to force people to think outside their personal belief systems. The simple belief- or ideology-neutral question ‘how does it work?’ isn't psychologically threatening until people people begin to realize how little they actually know. That cognitive trick forces recognition of reality vs belief disconnects. By the time people understand their own ignorance, it is too late to raise personal belief defenses.

For political issues, this veil of ignorance-piercing cannot be done by providing explanations of climate change or genetically modified foods and then pointing to policies that make sense based on reality. That direct attack method simply doesn't work. Most people have to be ‘tricked’ into seeing their own ignorance, making external facts and logic unpersuasive.

2: Two minds and two operating systems: Unconscious-emotional and conscious deliberative: Sloman and Fernbach describe data showing that people who tend to think slowly and consciously do not show a statistically significant drop in their scores in the ignorance test described above. People who are fast, intuitive, unconscious thinkers, about 80% of adults, generally show a significant score drop in the 3-question ignorance test.

Interestingly, the following three question test is sufficient to distinguish unconscious, intuitive thinkers from conscious, reasoning thinkers (answers at footnote 1 below).
1. A bat and a ball cost $1.10. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
2. There is a patch of lily pads in a lake. The patch doubles in size every day. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake?
3. If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long does it take 100 machine to make 100 widgets?
People who get all three questions right are slow, conscious thinkers, while people who get one or more wrong are fast intuitive thinkers, e.g., various differences between the groups are measurable. The three questions are designed to make the incorrect answer jump right out, which is what most people respond with. By contrast, not responding with the wrong answer requires a mindset that, in essence, checks its work before answering. The slow thinkers do not change their scores in the ignorance test because they are more deliberative about what they think they know. Deliberative thinkers are better grounded in reality than intuitive thinkers.

3: We don't like seeing our personal illusions shattered: Shattering political illusions by coaxing people to think outside their belief systems elicits a backlash in response to (i) seeing reality for what it is, and (ii) how different reality is from what personal belief was. The implication for political leadership is obvious. Sloman and Fernbach sum it up like this:

“Unfortunately, the procedure does have a cost. Exposing people's illusions can upset them. . . . We had hoped that shattering the illusion of understanding would make people more curious and more open to new information . . . . This is not what we have found. If anything, people are less inclined to seek new information after finding out that they were wrong. . . . . people don't like having their illusion shattered. In the words of Voltaire: ‘Illusion is the first of all pleasures.’ . . . . People like to feel successful, not incompetent. . . . . A good leader must be able to help people realize their ignorance without making them feel stupid. This is not easy.”

Echoing Aristotle, Sloman and Fernbach observe that “scientific attitudes are not based on rational evaluation of evidence, and therefore providing information does not change them. Attitudes are determined instead by a host of contextual and cultural factors that make then largely immune to change. . . . . beliefs are deeply intertwined with other beliefs, shared cultural values, and our identities. . . . . The power that culture has over cognition just swamps [any] attempts at education.”

Importantly, the authors constantly point out that the world is far too complex for people to have broad, deep knowledge. They argue that, in view of amazingly severe human cognitive limitations, we have no choice but use other people and the world itself for data and analysis. The ramifications of that shoot through all of politics. That's where illusions of knowledge come from.

The Knowledge Illusion is highly recommended. There is much more to it, and this short review cannot do the book justice. In particular, this book will help (i) people with the moral courage to begin a serious, unsettling journey in self-reflection, and (ii) people interested in trying to understand why politics is what it is.

This stuff isn't for the faint of heart or for hard core political ideologues. For people open to it, this kind of knowledge can challenge and upset a person's worldview and self-image. That's not the ideologue's mindset.

Footnote:
1. (1) The ball costs 5 cents, (2) 47 days, (3) 5 minutes (each machine takes 5 minutes to make one item).

B&B orig: 9/5/17

The War on Truth: Gun Lobby Trumps Science and Politics on Gun Violence

The NRA record on truth speaks for itself

The president met with the leader of the radical gun rights organization (NRA) and accepted their propaganda opposing universal background checks for gun purchases. The NRA's groundless conspiracy theory is that background checks for guns will lead to confiscation of all guns. No evidence supports that false claim. Recent polling indicates that about 85-90% of Americans favor universal background checks.

So, once again, lobbyists with money talks and public opinion walks. That is the norm in American politics, where “even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.” Demands backed by campaign contributions and bribes from economic elites and organized interests dictate policy by compliant politicians, not public opinion. Here the organized interest is the NRA, the economic elites are gun manufacturers and the compliant politician is the president.

The attack on truth: Even worse than accepting an American president accepting a crackpot conspiracy theory, is the president's immediate attack on truth. Presumably, that idea came from the NRA. The basis for trying to shut down information flow to the public is simple and popular: An ignorant public is easier to deceive than an informed public. Politicians know this. So does most everyone else with an agenda, including political parties, marketers, religious groups and gun manufacturers.

A Washington Post article, After Trump blames mental illness for mass shootings, health agencies ordered to hold all posts on issue, indicates that a “Health and Human Services [HHS] directive on Aug. 5 warned communication staffers not to post anything on social media related to mental health, violence and mass shootings without prior approval. ..... Many researchers and mental health experts said Trump’s comments contradicted well-established research. ..... While mental illness is sometimes a factor in such shootings, it is rarely a predictor, according to a growing body of research. Most studies of mass shooters have found that no more than a quarter of them have diagnosed mental illness. Researchers have noted that more commonly shared attributes include a strong sense of resentment, desire for notoriety, obsession with other shooters, a history of domestic violence, narcissism and access to firearms.”

The HHS denied that there was any attempt to squelch information flow. Instead, the agency said it was holding off on commenting to allow the president to speak first before government experts could speak freely. That makes no sense. Cognitive science is clear that when false information followed by corrections, the false information is often more persuasive than the later correction.[1] That is evidence of the president’s and the NRA’s intent to deceive the public by resort to dark free speech[2], which is deeply immoral.

This not the first time that the NRA and republican politicians have attacked research that could lead to inconvenient truth. For example, this 1993 NEJM paper, Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, led congressional GOP politicians to pass a ban on federal funding for research on the causes of gun violence a couple of years later. The NRA lobbied for and got that funding ban, which is still in place today. The data described in that 1996 research paper led the researchers to conclude that mere gun ownership is a risk factor in domestic shooting deaths. As discussed here before, that was something gun manufacturers did not want the public to know anything about. That kind of information had to be shut down and suppressed as much as possible.

Given the circumstances, it seems reasonable to refer to the next mass shooting as something along the lines of “Trump-NRA event #1”, “Trump-NRA event #2”, etc., to make clear that both the president and the NRA favor keeping as many guns in circulation as possible, including keeping guns in the hands of killers who are not mentally ill. That reasoning is perfectly logical because universal background checks could be used to detect both mentally ill people and the majority of mass shooters who are not mentally ill.

Footnotes:
1. “Generally speaking, misconceptions regarding climate change, evolution, and healthcare reform could be harder to correct, as people’s religious beliefs and political identities are deeply implicated ..... Further, the data showed that ‘beliefs in constructed misinformation (fictional events or studies) were easier to debunk, whereas beliefs in real-world misinformation tended to be more resilient to change.’” The same applies to other kinds of information that implicate personal beliefs and identity, including false beliefs about gun safety and ownership risk.

2. Dark free speech: Constitutionally or otherwise protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, misinform, confuse and/or demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide corruption (~ lies and deceit of omission), and inconvenient truths and facts, and (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism. (my label, my definition)

Social Science: Women's Anger & Asymmetric Social Responses

An NPR program, The Takeaway, broadcast a series of stories on the different social responses to expressions of anger from men and women. Links are given below. The asymmetry is not trivial.

The Tuesday broadcast: One set of experiments simulated a jury online with a single juror who is holding out and trying to convince the remaining jurors to change their minds. The holdout juror, not a real person, was given a male or female name and the fake juror expressed their opinions in either angry or neutral language. The impact on groups of jurors was then assessed. When the holdout juror's argument was expressed in neutral language, the test jurors changed their minds about 7% of the time. But when anger was expressed by men, the test jurors changed their minds about 18% of the time, while the angry woman juror changed no minds at all. Clearly, an angry male was more persuasive than a neutral male or female, while an angry female was completely unpersuasive.

In another experiment, people were shown videos of lawyers delivering closing arguments the experimenters wrote up. The arguments were delivered in a neutral or angry way by male and female attorneys and people listening to the arguments were asked to assess the attorneys. People in the experiment rated the angry male attorney arguments more highly than the calm arguments. By contrast, angry female attorneys were rated lower than neutral female attorneys.

The experimenters conclude that “things are very complex for women in the workplace,” especially in professions where women need to persuade people. The experience is not uncommon among women in the workforce. Emotion is a powerful tool in persuasion and if women are deprived of it, they are at a disadvantage. In situations where expressing emotion is appropriate, being neutral and calm can be seen as weakness. The playing field is not even for men and women, at least when it comes to expressions and use of anger in the workplace.

The researcher commented that in general, when a woman expresses anger in public, that is perceived to reflect a problem with the woman. By contrast, social science research indicates that when men express anger, people generally assume there is a legitimate reason having nothing to do with the man.

This is a social gender norm that arguably leads to economic inefficiency by negating a useful workplace tool. Women’s talents are being wasted by this social norm. The researchers argue that society needs to adapt to appropriate shows of emotion by women in society.

What that does not consider is other ways to see this situation. Maybe society should be less accepting of shows of emotion by men. Or, maybe nothing can be done because asymmetric social responses to anger are deeply ingrained in human cognitive and social biology.

Based on the information discussed in the Tuesday broadcast, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that. And, there is some evidence that the # MeToo movement, with public expressions of anger by many women, is beginning to normalize women’s expressions of anger about sexual harassment and assault. That is some evidence that maybe the norm can be softened completely or to some lesser extent, but it will likely take time and educating the public.

Monday: https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/releasing-her-rage
Tuesday: https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/women-are-punished-expressing-anger-men-are-rewarded
Wednesday: https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/workplace-strategies-women-and-their-rage
Thursday: https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/mother-mother-pop-cultures-response-womens-anger

B&B orig: 7/29/18