The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between true and false no longer exist. Philosopher Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Intolerance is almost inevitably accompanied by a natural and true inability to comprehend or make allowance for opposite points of view. . . . We find here with significant uniformity what one psychologist has called ‘logic-proof compartments.’ The logic-proof compartment has always been with us. Master propagandist Edward Bernays, Crystallizing Public Opinion, 1923
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. . . . . My libertarianism also once clouded my analysis of climate change. I was a longtime skeptic, mainly because it seemed to me that liberals were exaggerating the case for global warming as a kind of secular millenarianism—an environmental apocalypse requiring drastic government action to save us from doomsday through countless regulations that would handcuff the economy and restrain capitalism, which I hold to be the greatest enemy of poverty. Then I went to the primary scientific literature on climate and discovered . . . . [that anthropogenic climate change is real]. Libertarian Michael Shermer describing his epiphany about the power of his ideology exerted to unconsciously distort objective truth and the conscious reason he applied to facts and evidence he thought he was seeing
. . . . the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. . . . cherished ideas and judgments we bring to politics are stereotypes and simplifications with little room for adjustment as the facts change. . . . . the real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations. Although we have to act in that environment, we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage it. Social scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels, Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government, 2016
We found ourselves at the end of chapter 3 with a dystopian assessment of democracy, an apparent ill-suited match between the mental apparatus of the public and the high-minded requirements of democracy: People should be well informed about politically important matters, but they are not. People should think rationally, but they most often do not. Political psychologist George Marcus, Political Psychology: Neuroscience, Genetics, and Politics, 2013
The success or failures of ideas depends on what they contribute to the robust experience of human life. We may generate the ideas, but reality decides if they are any good. Political psychologist George Marcus, Political Psychology: Neuroscience, Genetics, and Politics, 2013
I confess that I do not entirely approve this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it. . . . In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government is necessary for us. . . . . I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. . . . . It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this System approaching so near to Perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our Enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear how our Councils are Confounded, like those of the Builders of Babel, and that our States are on the Point of Separation, only to meet, hereafter, for the purposes of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and I am not sure that it is not the best. Benjamin Franklin, stating his consent to the new US Constitution, 1787
CONTEXT: From time to time, B&B and its predecessor site, Dissident Politics, discusses or explains the main concept this channel advocates as the core of a social engineering experiment. That concept amounts to an objective, pragmatic or anti-bias political ideology designed to reduce bias and distortion of conscious reason or logic and perceptions of reality and facts that normally arise from human cognition and from social influences. Distorting cognitive and social influences are reflections of the human evolutionary heritage and cannot be completely eliminated.
Prior discussions of the anti-bias or ‘pragmatic rationalist-realist’ ideology, or parts thereof, are here (https://disqus.com/home/discussion/channel-biopoliticsandbionews/pragmatic_ideology_a_12_point_explanation/ ), here (https://disqus.com/home/discussion/channel-biopoliticsandbionews/a_pragmatic_ideology/ ), here (http://dispol.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-pubic-interest-defined.html ), here (http://dispol.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-non-ideological-fact-and-reason.html ), here (https://ivn.us/2015/12/04/save-public-interest-two-party-politics/ ), here (http://dispol.blogspot.com/2015/08/objective-politics-criticisms-and.html ), and here (https://ivn.us/2015/09/24/opinion-two-party-politics-fails-serve-public-interest/ ). Criticisms of the rationalist or ‘objective’ ideology and rebuttals are here (http://dispol.blogspot.com/2015/08/objective-politics-criticisms-and.html ).
The anti-bias political ideology: The original anti-bias ideology conception posited three necessary core (highest) moral values or principles, (1) fidelity to trying to find and see facts and truth with less bias, (2) applying conscious effort to be less biased or partisan in thinking about the facts and truths we think we see, both of which are focused on (3) an ‘objective’ vision of service to the public interest, based on the idea of a transparent, fact- and logic-based competition among competing interests and ideas. Those three moral values are envisioned to better connect politics with reality and reason.
More recently, a fourth core moral value, willingness to reasonably compromise, became apparent as necessary for the ideology. The rationale for the compromise moral is simple: One can try to be more objective or rational about politics, but if there is no realistic political basis to apply it, there is no point in trying to rationalize politics at all. Unless political power is concentrated on one side, some degree of compromise is usually necessary. The ‘Faults’ Franklin referred to in his statement of consent included the bitterly contested compromises necessary for the Constitution to come into existence.
Underlying assumptions: The biological and social basis for an anti-bias ideology is grounded in a number of assumptions. First, bias, distortion and irrationality in politics arises mostly from a combination of normal innate mental or cognitive processes and from social institutions, customs and norms. It is possible that human thinking and intelligence could have evolved differently such that biological and social influences were less irrational and reality-distorting, but that is not the reality of the human condition.
Second, there is an urgent need for politics that is generally less subjective and more objective relative to what it is now, at least in America at this time. That assumes that more objectivity will lead to more peaceful and more sustainable policies and social outcomes in the long run compared to the situation now. Politics gone bad, as it has in America today, is a potential existential threat to civilization and the human species.
Third, it is clear from recorded and modern history that playing on normal human cognitive processes and relevant social contexts is a major pathway to power for authoritarians, tyrants, kleptocrats, oligarchs and other ‘bad leaders’. Bad leaders invariably intentionally manipulate human emotions and work ruthlessly to obliterate distinctions between fact and fiction, true and false and sound reasoning and incoherent partisan reasoning (drivel) to the extent they can do so. Bad leaders need to do that to foster social divisions and intolerance. By fostering unwarranted emotions, bad leaders dampen people’s recourse to conscious reason. Fear, anger, hate, racism, intolerance and other negative feelings tend to dampen conscious reason while increasing the mind’s susceptibility to lies, deceit and incoherent reason. Propagandists and bad leaders have been aware of the effectiveness of such tactics for millennia, even though science had not caught up with and started applying empirical data to explain the power of deceit and emotional manipulation phenomena until recently.
Fourth, for long-term human survival (millions of years) and well-being, the concept of service to the public interest is a highly pro-self and pro-civil society moral force or moral belief. It is something the human species can strive to adopt, implement and live by. That said, conceptions of the public interest always have been and probably always will be heavily biased and distorted by narrower economic, social and ideological interests. Conflicts are unavoidable. Special interests will fight for their interests. That is an unavoidable aspect of being human. Bad leaders can use brute force to resolve disagreements, but compromise among competing interests is the best way to resolve dispute with a minimum of coercion.
Fifth, looking at politics leads to an inescapable conclusion that, for the most part, civilized liberal democratic politics is ‘made of’ perceived facts and truths, which can be true, false or ambiguous, unconscious thinking and to a smaller extent, conscious thinking (roughly, reason), some conception of self and/or society the facts and thinking is designed to serve in some way, and compromises when there is significant disagreement. By focusing to two key components, facts and logic, it should be possible to partially rationalize politics and somewhat narrow the bases for intractable disagreements by draining some of the emotion and false reality from the process. Also, for people who believe in a need for at least some degree of compromise in many situations, that moral value arguably will sometimes help some people approach political issues with a more open mindset.
Service to the public interest: This concept is the most complicated of the four moral concepts. Although there will be disagreements about all four morals, the public interest is impossible to pin down in precise terms. Disagreement is inherent in the concept. All four concepts are going to be contested to an extent that will vary with specific circumstances. That is an inevitable consequence of the human condition.
One conception of service to the public interest envisions it as trying to see and employ less biased facts and reality, and less biased (partisan) logic to assess and implement competing ideas for governance in a transparent competition that balances considerations of efficiency, freedoms and fairness among competing individual, public, private, national, social, global and environmental interests to the extent that relevant circumstances can sustainably support for the long run. It amounts to a more transparent, more honest merit-based competition of ideas than is at play now. Clearly, more complex articulations of the concept are possible.[1]
Can it ever work?: Some major obstacles are obvious. One is human cognitive biology and social behavior. Past efforts to make politics more objective have all failed. Why would this concept fare any better? The main difference between now and the past is the new empirical knowledge of the biological and social bases from which irrationality and uncivil and ineffective politics flow. Two considerations suggest that partial rationalization is possible at least in theory. The first is evidence that some people naturally are more rational about their approach to the world and those people can be taught to get better. Maybe that can translate to whole societies and nations. The second is the fact that if a social institution in support of anti-bias as a social value can be built, it would be expected to exert a powerful motivating influence on perceptions of reality, thinking and behavior just like other social institutions do now and always have.
Another major obstacle is constitutionally protected dark free speech (DFS). DFS includes lies, deceit, unwarranted emotional manipulation, mainly fomenting unwarranted fear, anger, hate, intolerance, racism and other polarizing and reason-killing states of mind. The power of dark free speech to de-rationalize politics has been amplified by social media and the rise of relentless propaganda attacks on the American people by enemy states including Russia and China. On top of ruthless external enemies, there are ruthless internal interests who are hostile to the idea of citizens being better able to defend themselves by adopting an anti-bias moral mindset that is inherently hostile to DFS.
Hostile domestic interests include (1) President Trump and the Trump brand of the republican party, (2) authoritarians and kleptocrats of all political beliefs, (3) most of the business community that at least significantly relies on propaganda and opacity to manipulate the public, while buying favors from the two-party system, (4) political and religious ideologues who see ideological or moral threat in fact- and reason-based rationality, and (5) America’s two-party system itself, which has repeatedly employed DFS against the public just as ruthlessly as America’s external enemies.
The only apparent defense against DFS that could be at least partially effective is adopting an anti-bias moral mindset. To a significant extent, that mindset will neutralize ideological extremism and undue special interest influence because ideological fantasy and narrow influence is more difficult to sustain when facts and logic are contradictory.
Another concern is that, even if the anti-bias mindset does gain public acceptance and come to exert significant political power on the national level for an extended period of time, would it work well enough to actually make a detectable difference for the better? There is no way to know that in advance. One can argue that it is reasonable to think that more rational politics ought to be better than less rational. Nonetheless, that is just a hypothesis. There appears to be no empirical evidence for this based on nations operating with an anti-bias political mindset.[2] There is only limited experimental data that seems to suggest some measure of success would flow from pro-rational politics.
If nothing else, the sources and intensity of opposition to an anti-bias moral mindset reflect politics that operate with completely different morals and political agendas. Among other things, anti-bias is focused on a more civil, equitable, sustainable world than the goals the opposition strives for. That argues the moral superiority of anti-bias morals compared to the competition. That aside, the open question is will reality decide that the anti-bias moral mindset is good and it survives and grows or it is bad and it remains obscure.
Footnotes:
1. 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 or less than what is needed and (ii) 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.
2. A caveat is that some modern nations may be operating on politics that are close enough to the anti-bias ideology to constitute real world evidence of success or failure. It is also possible that some nations or societies in the past operated similarly. In either case, there could be some probative evidence about an anti-bias mindset or something closer to it than what passes for politics now. One thing that is certain on this point is that the concept has not been tested with modern America under its current circumstances. That alone arguably constitutes a separate, unique social engineering experiment.
B&B orig: 12/2/18
