Dark free speech & the public interest

Exuma Island Iguana

Legal Context: “But it cannot be the duty, because it is not the right, of the state to protect the public against false doctrine. The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech, and religion. In this field, every person must be his own watchman for truth, because the forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us.” U.S. Supreme Court, Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 1945.

Cultural context: “The age of neutral journalism has passed. It is impossible because what you select from the huge sea of information is already subjective.” Dmitry Kiselyov, Russian propagandist, 2016.

The scope of free speech: With few exceptions, the US Constitution legally equates truth and even handed honesty (honest free speech) with lies, deceit, misinformation and unwarranted character assassination (dark free speech). The rare exceptions include illegal speech, mostly libel, slander, incitement to violence and false advertising. In politics, those exceptions are almost irrelevant, e.g., ‘Hillary is a crook and I’ll put her in jail.’ In other words, lies and deceit are just as legal as honesty. The constitution is simply neutral about it.

Post truth politics: With this election, America has arguably entered an era of post truth politics. For many Americans (~33-45% ?), truth is secondary or completely irrelevant. For that highly vocal group, politics is much more a matter of feeling good, vilifying the opposition and/or advancing personal or ideological agendas than trying to see the truth and apply reasonably unbiased conscious reason. In essence, American politics is more a matter of entertainment and/or self-interest than any serious attempt at objectivity. The US Constitution and courts have nothing to say about this either.

Social and cognitive science convincingly argue that politics for almost everyone is as much or more based on emotion, personal morals and beliefs in false information than reality and reasonably unbiased conscious reason. The evidence on that point seems to be solid. The reason for that flows from how the human mind processes information about reality and facts and then applies conscious reason. Both perceptions of reality and reason are heavily biased and distorted by personal ideology, morals, social identity and an array of powerful unconscious reality- and reason-distorting biases. That’s not a criticism of the human condition. It's a statement of fact.

Reason and the public interest: Given the self-deceived nature of politics, essentially everyone knows they base their politics on unbiased reality and unbiased reason. Of course, that knowledge isn’t knowledge. It’s personal opinion. And it’s usually wrong. Everyone knows that their personal politics would best serve the public interest. Just ask any conservative or liberal to compare their conception of the public interest with the other side’s concept and the contradictions are instantly obvious.

What’s the value of dark free speech?: If dark free speech is defined to as any form of speech or expression that’s intentionally or unintentionally false, misleading and/or deceptive, what is the value of dark free speech to the public interest compared to honest speech? One answer is there’s no way to weigh the effect of dark free speech because (i) the public interest is a personal meaningless concept, and/or (ii) truth in politics is subjective and personal. Another is to say it’s bad, but in a general, ill-defined sort of way. Another is to say it’s good if it serves a noble cause, e.g., liberalism or conservatism, but bad if it harms the cause.

Social and cognitive science make it clear that the point of people discussing politics is to convince others to accept their own opinions and beliefs. Conscious human reason isn’t applied to critically analyze personal beliefs. It’s usually (>95% of the time?) used to convince others, even when we are wrong about what we believe. Social scientists have documented the personal, moralistic, intolerant nature of belief and judgment in politics. One puts it this way: “Morality binds and blinds. . . . . We do moral reasoning not to reconstruct why we ourselves came to a judgment; we reason to find the best possible reasons why somebody else ought to join us in our judgment. . . . . We make our first judgments rapidly, and we are dreadful at seeking out evidence that might disconfirm those initial judgments.”

If one accepts that as a reasonably accurate description of personal politics, the purpose of dark free speech is obvious. It serves to convince others, regardless of how well or badly our own beliefs affect the ‘true’ public interest.

Dark free speech arguably is insidious, difficult to see and a major threat to the long term survival of modern human civilization, if not the species. Nonetheless, that’s part of the human evolutionary legacy. Whether it better serves (i) human survival and peace or (ii) human misery or destruction is an open question. From this observer’s point of view, it’s more a force for human misery or destruction than survival and peace.

Questions: When someone uses dark free speech, intentional or not, should that person be accorded the same respect and opportunity to speak as a person who tries to be even handed and honest? Does it matter if dark speech is used to advance a good cause? If so, who defines a cause as good? Should the analysis be based on how objective facts are treated? If so, who defines what a fact is? In this era of (i) sophisticated propaganda, (ii) public disengagement from and distrust in politics and political institutions, and (iii) rampant lying and deceit, why should liars and deceivers and dark free speech be accorded equal respect and opportunity to speak? Does honest free speech deserve just as much deference and respect than dark free speech, even if dark speech arguably increases the odds of war or other catastrophes? Or, is what’s being asked here simply hopeless?

B&B orig: 11/29/16

Pragmatic politics: Can it ever make a difference?

Logic context: There are some things that humans can never know. Some claims or knowledge that cannot be proved or disproved, may nonetheless be true or false. And, there's risk in proposing things. To have a chance of being shown to be true, a proposal or idea will usually run a risk of being proven wrong. Ideology and morals in politics is a case in point. Some assertions or claims of truth that flow from an ideological or moral point of view may be true or false but not formally provable one way or the other.

Despite uncertainty, there can be practical ways forward that can shed light on complex matters such as how political ideology or principles, personal morals and human biology influence political beliefs and preferences. One observer commented: “Moral and political philosophy will be different once reason is allowed to regain its ancient sway. Instead of seeking---vainly as it has appeared---for some fundamental principle from which all else follows deductively, we can live with our actual, somewhat piecemeal, approach to moral reasoning and moral reform. . . . . we do not need an exhaustive critique of pure reason, but can be content to hope that we shall continue to recognize good reasons when they are offered us. So, too, in politics, we can be much more relaxed once we are no longer compelled, on a priori grounds, to despair of reason. If reason is nothing, we should be pessimistic about the outcome of political debate, and compelled to view the political process as a crude conflict of particular interests, with the weaker always being trampled on by the strong, and with propaganda being the only way of bringing others to share one's views. . . . . But once reason is acknowledged to have some sway over men's minds, the case is greatly altered. We can do business with reasonable men, knowing that should we concede the force of their arguments they will not automatically construe our concession as a sign of weakness, but will be the readier in their turn to grant the cogency of good arguments adduced by us.”

To further complicate things, researchers have observed that empirical research may never afford a way to draw a line between rational skepticism and irrational bias (pdf). That assessment feels about right because research can’t tell when persuasion by relevant new information should occur.

Biology context: Almost everyone who is active about politics believes they are rational and base their beliefs and common sense on facts. That’s often or usually not true. However, simply pointing that out can be fraught. One commentator observed: “The first thing people often do is get defensive. Suddenly, you’re questioning something that’s assumed ‘fact.’ . . . . The point is simply that politics is often about beliefs and emotion. We may want it to be about facts and logic, but facts and logic are more likely convenient tools to justify beliefs.”

Brain scan of people reacting to bad information about their preferred candidate; brain regions: ACC – anterior cingulate cortex, vmPFC – ventromedial prefrontal cortex, pCING – posterior cingulate cortex, etc.

Regarding logic or reason, there’s evidence that partisans unconsciously react to political candidates based at least in part on an unconscious bias called motivated reasoning. In the 2004 Bush-Kerry contest, brain scans showed that Republicans judged John Kerry harshly but not George W. Bush. Similarly, Democrats judged Bush harshly but not Kerry. Scans showed brain areas associated with reasoning had little activity when the partisans made their judgments.

Brain scan of people reacting to bad information about the opposition candidate

That’s just how human cognitive and social biology normally operate when it comes to politics. Normal mental operation about politics easily distorts reality and common sense or how we think about what we perceive. That usual state of affairs can be called a pro-bias mind set. Although the pro-bias process was often a messy and bloody affair, it did get humans to where they are today from where we were in our evolutionary beginning.

A fundamental question: Which is more compelling, the logic-based argument that says “we can live with our actual, somewhat piecemeal, approach to moral reasoning and moral reform”? Or, is a biology-based argument that our pro-bias nature is too strong for moral reform to ever have a chance to make a meaningful difference in politics in terms of (i) more effective and/or less costly policy choices, (ii) less conflict and human misery, and/or (iii) enhanced social cohesion or harmony?

B&B orig: 11/18/16

Post truth politics: Signs that truth is irrelevant

The disconnect between reality and Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric was beyond anything in this observer's memory. Evidence now begins to accumulate to verify that we are truly in an era of post truth politics. Truth has become mostly or completely irrelevant to political campaigns.

Lie #1: Trump's famous wall with some built in doors, may have been just a garden-variety politician's lie to the American people. According to Trump advisor Newt Gingrich, a key player in the passage of NAFTA in the 1990's, “He’ll spend a lot of time controlling the border. He may not spend very much time trying to get Mexico to pay for it, but it was a great campaign device.”

Right. “A great campaign device.” Great campaign device. Got it. Just another politician's lie to deceive voters. Let's wait and see how that blither turns out. Time will tell.

Lie #2: Trump was adamant and consistent that he would completely repeal Obamacare and replace it with some completely unspecified who knows what. It looks like that 'campaign lie' just might turn out to be a real world lie.

Trump said in a Wall Street Journal interview that he would like to keep some parts of the Obamacare law and only “amend the statute rather than repeal it. Trump said he came to the conclusion after Obama, during Trump’s Oval Office visit Thursday, suggested areas of the law that should be preserved. Trump suggested provisions that prevent insurers from refusing coverage for preexisting conditions and which allow children to stay on their parents’ health plans until age 26 should stay. 'I like those very much,' he said.”

Repealing Obamacare is just another Trump campaign lie, at least so far.

Lie #3: Trump seems to also be backing away from another pledge to lock crooked Hillary up: “Trump also avoided answering whether he would follow through on a campaign vow to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state. “It’s not something I’ve given a lot of thought, because I want to solve health care, jobs, border control, tax reform,” he said.”

Locking crooked Hillary up is shaping up to be just another of Trump's many campaign lies.

Some context: And, for context about how meaningless political rhetoric really is, Trump said this in 2012: “The electoral college is a disaster for democracy.”

It's a good bet that Donald Trump wouldn't say that today** since he lost the popular vote and owes his election entirely to the electoral college he called a “disaster for democracy.”

Pragmatism yet?: Are we ready for reality-based pragmatic politics yet? No? OK, we'll do more of these little fireside chats as events unfold. Patience is a virtue. The handwriting on the wall is pretty clear from here, but more time is needed to shed more light and more certainty. These are just early days in Trump's dance of the lies. Questions: Do lies in campaigns matter since they are constitutionally protected free speech and all is fair in political war? Do political ends justify the means, i.e., lies, manipulation and deceit? If so, where is the line, or is there no line if the cause is just and/or in the name of what God wants or demands?

B&B orig: 11/12/16

Pragmatic ideology: The rational politics power shifting goal

I have described some of the core logic that underpins a pragmatic 'anti-bias' political ideology based on cognitive and social science knowledge. The point is an attempt to foster cognitive and social beliefs that would tend to reduce biases and distortions in (i) perceptions of reality and facts, and (ii) the subjective, personal conscious reason we apply to the reality and facts we think we see.

The basic anti-bias concept envisions replacing the morals or principles of standard 'pro-bias' ideologies**, e.g., liberalism, conservatism, socialism, capitalism, libertarianism, populism, etc, with core morals or principles that foster a more open, less biased mind set. Evidence that such a mind set can exist and can foster more rational, less biased thinking has also been described, e.g., Philip Tetlock's finding of superforecasters and their relatively open (~anti-bias) mind sets.

** Pro-bias ideologies are a major source of unconscious confirmation bias and the more powerful powerful unconscious fact and reason distorting bias called motivated reasoning.

None of that sheds light on any purpose for anti-bias political ideology or mind set. The science only provides a rational for the possibility (not certainty) of reducing subjectivity in politics by reducing distortions in perceptions of reality and in application of common sense. So, the question remains: What's the purpose?

A balance of power shift to the public interest:The purpose of an anti-bias ideology is to shift, to some meaningful extent, the balance of power from where it is now in America's representative democracy to the public interest (a public interest conception is described below). Specifically, social science research clearly shows that:

1. Power in the sense of dictating policy choices does not reside with voters or the will of the people -- average people or public sentiment have no statistically detectable impact on setting policy, while organized special interests (including both political parties) exert essentially all policy setting power; and
2. The most powerful tool the existing two-party status quo has at it's disposal is a constitutionally-protected free speech right to influence and distort average people's perceptions of reality and their conscious reason by fostering normal pro-bias cognitive and social identity traits by lying, deceiving, misinforming, irrational emotionalizing and etc.

In other words, the two-party system plays on normal human biology by deceiving people with misinformation, deceit, lies, emotional appeals and other spin tactics that are constitutionally protected free speech. The two-party system relentlessly and crucially relies heavily on (i) distorted perceptions of reality and facts, and (ii) distorted or flawed conscious reason that is applied to its distorted perceptions of reality and facts. The hypothesis is that we are being heavily manipulated by shrewd appeal to human cognitive and social biology.

If one accepts that it is basically true that we are being played and the resulting deceit keeps the balance of power tipped in favor of special interests and both major parties at the expense of the public interest, then what can one do about it?

Logic would seem to argue that if deceit and the distorted reality and conscious reason that flows from it keeps power in the hands of the elites, then adopting an anti-bias mind set to partially reduce reality and conscious reason distortions would better empower average people. In politics, unbiased information and unbiased reason is power. Thus, instead of liberals and conservatives endlessly fighting over unresolvable ideological differences, the pragmatic anti-bias mind set would be focused on less distorted reality and less personally biased conscious reason in an effort to serve the public interest, not in an effort to vindicate and defend liberal or conservative political morals or principles.

In other words, people would be less distracted and less deceived by endless, unstoppable status quo deceit. In an anti-bias scenario, the focus would be more on finding the shape of reality for any given issue and then devising a roughly same-shaped policy choice to deal with the issue. As it is now, liberals see issues as liberal-shaped pegs (distorted reality) and they try to pound those pegs into liberal-shaped holes. Conservatives do the same. The problem with those pro-bias mind sets is that reality doesn't care about liberal- or conservative-shaped pegs. Reality just is what it is and it has its own reality- or human-shape.

Is it credible to argue that the two parties shrewdly use liberal and conservative ideology to distract and to build and maintain false reality and flawed reason to keep the public polarized and distrustful, while leaving elites free to exert power? Or, is it the case that only the liberal or conservative side does this, while the other side is mostly honest and rational?

Serving the public interest -- one conception: One vision of service to the public interest: Service to the public interest means governance based on identifying a rational, optimum balance between serving public, individual and commercial interests based on an objective, fact- and logic-based analysis of competing policy choices, while (1) being reasonably transparent and responsive to public opinion, (2) protecting and growing the American economy, (3) fostering individual economic and personal growth opportunity, (4) defending personal freedoms and the American standard of living, (5) protecting national security and the environment, (6) increasing transparency, competition and efficiency in commerce when possible, and (7) fostering global peace, stability and prosperity whenever reasonably possible, all of which is constrained by (i) honest, reality-based fiscal sustainability that limits the scope and size of government and regulation to no more than what is needed and (ii) genuine respect for the U.S. constitution and the rule of law with a particular concern for limiting unwarranted legal complexity and ambiguity to limit opportunities to subvert the constitution and the law.

B&B orig: 11/18/16

Fear and anger are more powerful than hope and empathy

Hauya elegans - Mexico

Dr. Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, authored a short analysis piece for Scientific American magazine on the psychology of political pessimism. In his article, Shermer observes that based on several objective measures, now is the best time in human history to be alive. Despite that, many or most Americans seem to believe that we are in very bad times or even on the verge of collapse and/or civil war.

As previously noted, economist Bryan Caplan pointed to irrational pessimism as one of the biases that cause systematic (not random) irrationality in the economic realm. There is “a pessimistic bias that leads to underestimation of current economic conditions, often expressed as a nostalgia for earlier times with conditions not as good as people usually imagine they were.” Something akin to that bias seems to play out about the same way for politics.

Part of this is due to the press-media usually presenting bad news ranging from car accidents and social mayhem to the brutality of war. That preference for bad news plays into an unconscious bias that social scientist Daniel Khaneman called the “what-you-see-is-all-there-is” bias. Simply put, when people see or hear mostly bad news, they tend to think that’s all there is.

Shermer points out the influence of three other unconscious biases at play. They are (i) “loss aversion”, which causes people to generally feel that “losses hurt twice as much as gains feel good”, (ii) the endowment effect, in which people put more value on something they own than what they don’t own, and (iii) the status quo effect, in which people generally prefer “existing personal, social, economic and political arrangements over proposed alternatives.”

Those three biases are grounded in human evolution. According to Shermer: “. . . . in our evolutionary past there was an asymmetry of payoffs in which the fitness cost of overreacting to a threat was less than the fitness cost of underreacting. The world was more dangerous in our evolutionary past, so it paid to be risk-averse and highly sensitive to threats, and if things were good, then the status quo was worth maintaining.” In other words, evolution has biased humans to varying degrees to resist change.

Politicians and partisans play on our pessimism biases. They argue that “once upon a time things were bad, and now they’re good thanks to our party” or “once upon a time things were good, but now they’re bad thanks to the other party.” For better or worse, “. . . . bad information is processed more thoroughly than good. Bad impressions and bad stereotypes are quicker to form and more resistant to disconfirmation than good ones.”

Finding a way to a less biased, more positive reality is the trick.

PS: For those interested in a bit of the cognitive science. Some of our unconscious biases are hard wired and acquired from evolution. Loss aversion is one example. A loss aversion curve from Daniel Khaneman’s book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, is here (scroll down to figure 10). Note its asymmetry, with the slope of response to loss in the lower left quadrant being steeper than the response to gain in the upper right quadrant. The asymmetric S shape is based on human response data to risk-reward questions. Khaneman comments on the curve: “. . . . losses loom larger than gains. This asymmetry between the power of positive and negative expectations or experiences has an evolutionary history. Organisms that treat threats as more urgent than opportunities have a better chance to survive and reproduce.” The asymmetry was one of the three characteristics of Prospect Theory that Khaneman, a psychologist, proposed as an alternative to the dominant Utility Theory in economics. He received a Nobel Prize in economics for his Prospect Theory contributions.

B&B orig: 11/4/16

Motivated reasoning in politics

“We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.” Chris Mooney, science journalist referring to unconscious defense reflexes to unpleasant or disagreeable information

Motivated reasoning is an unconscious bias that’s associated with people who hold strong personal or ideological beliefs. According to one source, “motivated reasoning leads people to confirm what they already believe, while ignoring contrary data. But it also drives people to develop elaborate rationalizations to justify holding beliefs that logic and evidence have shown to be wrong. Motivated reasoning responds defensively to contrary evidence, actively discrediting such evidence or its source without logical or evidentiary justification. Clearly, motivated reasoning is emotion driven.”

fMRI Brain scans - speaking, finger tapping, listening

One observer notes that scientists have found that “one insidious aspect of motivated reasoning is that political sophisticates are prone to be more biased than those who know less about the issues. . . . . when we think we're reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing. We may think we're being scientists, but we're actually being lawyers. Our ‘reasoning’ is a means to a predetermined end—winning our ‘case’—and is shot through with biases.”

What’s the evidence?: It’s fair to ask if there’s any tangible evidence that unconscious motivated reasoning bias is real. There is. In 2006, researcher Drew Westin and colleagues published a paper showing brain activity in committed political partisans during the 2004 presidential election (Bush’s re-election). The paper, Neural Bases of Motivated Reasoning: An fMRI Study of Emotional Constraints on Partisan Political Judgment in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, vol. 18, issue 11, pages 1947-1958, looked at implicit (unconscious) brain activity for information that was threatening to their own candidate, the opposing candidate or an individual who was neutral to the partisan.

The researchers summarized their results like this: “Research on political judgment and decision-making has converged with decades of research in clinical and social psychology suggesting the ubiquity of emotion-biased motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning is a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives. . . . As predicted, motivated reasoning was not associated with neural activity in regions previously linked to cold reasoning tasks and conscious (explicit) emotion regulation.”

fMRI brain scanner (functional magnetic resonance imaging)

That was the first neuroimaging evidence for motivated reasoning, implicit emotion regulation, and psychological defense. The brain imaging data suggested that “motivated reasoning is qualitatively distinct from reasoning* when people do not have a strong emotional stake in the conclusions reached.” In other words, when partisans were presented with threatening information, they unconsciously reacted emotionally, not consciously.

* Meaning conscious thought or thinking about information that was positive or neutral for the partisan’s candidate – “cold reasoning tasks” and conscious emotion control.

Despite motivated reasoning’s power to distort perceptions of reality or facts and how we apply common sense to what we think we perceive, simply knowing about its existence can help the conscious mind reduce the distortions. Of course, doing that requires a will or mind set that’s motivated to reduce unconscious distortions.

It all boils down to one’s personal mind set. One libertarian partisan became aware of the distorting influence his own strongly held political ideology had on his perceptions of facts and his common sense in thinking about the facts. He described his experience like this: “Ever since college I have been a libertarian—socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility. I also believe in science as the greatest instrument ever devised for understanding the world. So what happens when these two principles are in conflict? My libertarian beliefs have not always served me well. Like most people who hold strong ideological convictions, I find that, too often, my beliefs trump the scientific facts. This is called motivated reasoning, in which our brain reasons our way to supporting what we want to be true. Knowing about the existence of motivated reasoning, however, can help us overcome it when it is at odds with evidence.”

Questions: Does being a responsible citizen come with a moral obligation to be aware of human biases and their tendency to distort reality and common sense so that they can try to reduce the distortion? Or, because facing unbiased reality is psychologically uncomfortable and threatening to personal self-image and self-esteem, there is no obligation for citizens to care about their own unconscious biases and to operate on the false belief that they in fact do not bias facts or common sense?

B&B orig: 10/27/16