Instead of posting here, DP has been engaging at the Disqus, mostly at the politics channel Harlan's Place over the last couple of months.
https://disqus.com/home/channel/harlansplace/discussion/channel-harlansplace/a_republican_party_split/
https://disqus.com/home/channel/harlansplace/discussion/channel-harlansplace/trump_and_cultural_economic_disconnects/
https://disqus.com/home/channel/harlansplace/discussion/channel-harlansplace/the_us_israel_alliance/
https://disqus.com/home/channel/harlansplace/discussion/channel-harlansplace/the_partisan_debate_over_obamas_nominee/
https://disqus.com/home/channel/harlansplace/discussion/channel-harlansplace/analysis_reinstitute_the_institute_for_propaganda_analysis/
https://disqus.com/home/channel/philosophy/discussion/channel-philosophy/is_it_possible_to_nudge_politics_in_the_direction_of_objectivity/
https://disqus.com/home/channel/harlansplace/discussion/channel-harlansplace/is_political_free_speech_more_harmful_than_helpful_to_the_public_interest/
https://disqus.com/home/channel/harlansplace/discussion/channel-harlansplace/should_americans_pay_their_taxes/
https://disqus.com/home/channel/harlansplace/discussion/channel-harlansplace/prickly_questions_about_healthcare/
https://disqus.com/home/channel/harlansplace/discussion/channel-harlansplace/is_liberal_conservative_or_pragmatic_ideology_best/
https://disqus.com/home/channel/harlansplace/discussion/channel-harlansplace/unlocking_the_iphone_disastrous_for_privacy_or_not/
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Can a society be 50% rational about politics?
In his 2012 book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, social scientist Johnathan Haidt touched on the topic of just how rational (objective) humans can be as a sentient species. Dissident Politics is aware of no precise way to measure the ratio of subjectivity-intuition to objectivity-reason in individual people. Regardless, Dr. Haidt interpreted the research described in his book as consistent with most or nearly all people being somewhere in the range of about 75.1% to 99% intuitive-subjective and about 1% to 24.9% rational-objective.[1]
At one point in his book, Haidt asserts that 99% of human cognitive activity is unconscious:
That statement strongly implies that we are highly intuitive or subjective about how we see and think about the world and issues we encounter. Because unconscious mental processes is where subjectivity or intuition arises in human cognition, that accords with Haidt's belief that we are overwhelmingly intuitive or subjective in all of our activities, including politics and religion.
The influential Scottish empiricist philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) postulated that humans are 100% intuitive and 0% rational, arguing that “reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” Hume's reference to the passions is taken as a reference to human intuition and emotion.
On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), while contemplating his personal moral struggle about whether to engage in an extramarital affair, hypothesized that intuition or emotion and reason are co-equals, implying that we are about 50% intuitive and 50% rational. Being a very informed person, Jefferson presumably was aware of Plato's and Hume's opinions on the subject.
For Dissident Politics, that just doesn't seem right. Social scientists have identified small numbers of people, superforecasters, who are truly talented at predicting future events. Those people were not trained analysis experts, but instead were average people with time on their hands for a four-year experiment to test their ability to predict the future.
Analysis of superforecaster personal traits show that, among other things, they are heavily biased toward being open-minded, rational-objective and self-questioning. Those few people appear to have figured out ways to reduce the fact- and logic-distorting of their own unconscious intuitive impulses, mainly by exerting conscious efforts to be disciplined and rational. That doesn't sound like people being just 1-10% rational.
The other group that seem to be fairly rational is scientists, especially scientists who are in hard sciences such as math, physics and chemistry and maybe even biology, including the social sciences (psychology, cognitive neuroscience, cognitive linguistics, political science, etc). It is easy to see that intuition can sometimes drive insights and even breakthroughs in the sciences. However, it is equally easy to see that translating insights into widely accepted beliefs requires discipline, reason and adherence to undistorted facts and unbiased logic. In addition, discipline and reason dominates the routine experimentation that sometimes leads to new knowledge and insight. Both reason and intuition are at play at the same time and which dominates is not obvious.
Changes in personal ways of looking at the world as people pass through life also seem to reflect the influence of reason on intuition. For example, if intuition were so dominant, then why do people occasionally reverse their fundamental ideology or morals, e.g., change from liberal to conservative or religious to atheist? A big role for reason in such changes seems to be present.
All of that raises the question of whether applying intuition to (1) the world at large and/or (2) mathematics based on or informed by, say, a Ph.D. in mathematics and 30 years of successful academic research experience, is truly irrational or is reason or objectivity that the human mind has integrated into its unconscious processing. It would not be the case that such knowledge, although unconscious, is purely irrational. That is intuition being informed by reason or objectivity.
Given that, it can be the case that most scientists are 20-80% rational most or all of the time at least about their science, if not politics as well. In other words, it may still be the case that Jefferson was more right than Hume at least for some people. But again, there is imprecision. The current data does show we are significantly intuitive creatures but doesn't make clear either how rational we or societies really are or possibly can be.
Assuming that reason or objectivity can exert influence over personal beliefs and behavior via both conscious-rational and intuitive-subjective mental processes, how objective[2] can societies, groups, tribes or individuals be? How rational can American society be about politics, given freedom of speech, which includes a prevalence of lies, intentional misinformation and withheld facts and context?
For better or worse, human cognition is both unconsciously intuitive and consciously rational. Each process affects the other. That’s just how our brains evolved. Our unconscious intuitive mental processes are capable of distorting fact and logic without our conscious knowledge. Even when we know we are being mostly or completely objective, fact-based and logical, that can easily be false knowledge. Our ideology or morals and our powerful innate biases (confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, personal knowledge bias, etc) can and often do overwhelm facts and logic. That distortion can and sometimes does make facts and logic fit with our intuitive-subjective personal ideology or morals, even if it simply isn't true.
Regardless of how rational a person, group or society can be about politics, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that being more rational would be better in the long run than staying with the high degree of intuitive false reality and distorted logic that drives intuitive American two-party politics.
Footnotes:
1. In social science, unconscious mental processes are understood to be where moral judgment and intuition (subjectivity) and the more extreme response of emotion arise. Unconscious mental processes can (i) foster intuitive distortion of reality (fact) and common sense (logic), and (ii) generate personal moral judgments, disdain and intolerance that guide personal beliefs and behaviors, including political polarization, distrust of political opposition and, as discussed before, lack of empathy and human conflict and war.
2. For this discussion, cognitive objectivity is defined as thinking and beliefs that are based on fact and logic that are not heavily biased or distorted by personal ideology or morals. some biasing seems to be unavoidable, but being aware biases and wanting to reduce their impacts does help. Some people don't want to reduce the effects of their biases on their beliefs for various reasons. Little or nothing can be done to help or change those people.
An example: Most people who deny that human activity is a significant cause of global climate change base that belief on their knowledge that (i) climate scientists are frauds, (ii) climate science and the data are too unsettled to be believable, (iii) the evidence of that climate scientists who deny a human connection is the truth and/or (iv) a significant minority or even a majority of climate scientists reject a human connection or that climate change is real. Most people who accept that human activity is an important cause, tend to believe as facts the opposite of every one of those four beliefs or facts. Given such stark differences in their perceptions of the facts, either one side or the other has to be objectively wrong about at least one of those four fact beliefs, if not all four. That is the case even though their four truths are taken by both sides to be objective fact or reality. Both sides can't possibly be completely right. That exemplifies the power of subjective ideology or morals to dictate perceptions of both facts and logic in cases where the perceptions are wrong.
At one point in his book, Haidt asserts that 99% of human cognitive activity is unconscious:
“. . . . the mind is divided, like a rider on an elephant, and the rider’s job is to serve the elephant. The rider is our conscious reasoning—the stream of words and images of which we are fully aware. The elephant is the other 99 percent of mental processes—the ones that occur outside of awareness but that actually govern most of our behavior.”
Three visions of reality: Plato, Hume & Jefferson
Haidt points out that other hypotheses were based on the knowledge of their times. Plato (428-348 BC) postulated that humans are are almost exclusively intuitive-subjective but that only philosophers could rise above that situation and be much more or almost exclusively rational-objective. Given the imprecision, it may be reasonable to assert that Plato thought that most people in a society are less than 50% rational, but a few could be maybe 80-99% rational with effort.The influential Scottish empiricist philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) postulated that humans are 100% intuitive and 0% rational, arguing that “reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” Hume's reference to the passions is taken as a reference to human intuition and emotion.
On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), while contemplating his personal moral struggle about whether to engage in an extramarital affair, hypothesized that intuition or emotion and reason are co-equals, implying that we are about 50% intuitive and 50% rational. Being a very informed person, Jefferson presumably was aware of Plato's and Hume's opinions on the subject.
Hume was mostly right . . . . or was he?
Haidt argues that existing cognitive science data is more consistent with
Hume’s vision than Jefferson or Plato, i.e., we are inherently or
biologically much more intuitive than rational because that’s how we evolved. Obviously, there is imprecision in such simple descriptions. Hume
called reason a slave to the passions but Haidt said that “went
too far.” Based on the foregoing, Haidt may believe that we are roughly 1-10% rational or objective and thus about 90-99% intuitive or subjective, including in our dealings with politics.For Dissident Politics, that just doesn't seem right. Social scientists have identified small numbers of people, superforecasters, who are truly talented at predicting future events. Those people were not trained analysis experts, but instead were average people with time on their hands for a four-year experiment to test their ability to predict the future.
Analysis of superforecaster personal traits show that, among other things, they are heavily biased toward being open-minded, rational-objective and self-questioning. Those few people appear to have figured out ways to reduce the fact- and logic-distorting of their own unconscious intuitive impulses, mainly by exerting conscious efforts to be disciplined and rational. That doesn't sound like people being just 1-10% rational.
The other group that seem to be fairly rational is scientists, especially scientists who are in hard sciences such as math, physics and chemistry and maybe even biology, including the social sciences (psychology, cognitive neuroscience, cognitive linguistics, political science, etc). It is easy to see that intuition can sometimes drive insights and even breakthroughs in the sciences. However, it is equally easy to see that translating insights into widely accepted beliefs requires discipline, reason and adherence to undistorted facts and unbiased logic. In addition, discipline and reason dominates the routine experimentation that sometimes leads to new knowledge and insight. Both reason and intuition are at play at the same time and which dominates is not obvious.
The plastic brain
Another consideration that Haidt doesn't explicitly account for is the fact that our intuitive minds can learn from our rational or conscious thinking. The human brain is plastic and does learn from experience and/or conscious effort to learn. This happens all the time in all sorts of fields. Master chess players become more intuitive about chess with time and practice. The same is true for athletes, scientists and fire fighters, who sometimes gain great insight from years of on the job experience.Changes in personal ways of looking at the world as people pass through life also seem to reflect the influence of reason on intuition. For example, if intuition were so dominant, then why do people occasionally reverse their fundamental ideology or morals, e.g., change from liberal to conservative or religious to atheist? A big role for reason in such changes seems to be present.
All of that raises the question of whether applying intuition to (1) the world at large and/or (2) mathematics based on or informed by, say, a Ph.D. in mathematics and 30 years of successful academic research experience, is truly irrational or is reason or objectivity that the human mind has integrated into its unconscious processing. It would not be the case that such knowledge, although unconscious, is purely irrational. That is intuition being informed by reason or objectivity.
Given that, it can be the case that most scientists are 20-80% rational most or all of the time at least about their science, if not politics as well. In other words, it may still be the case that Jefferson was more right than Hume at least for some people. But again, there is imprecision. The current data does show we are significantly intuitive creatures but doesn't make clear either how rational we or societies really are or possibly can be.
Confusing terminology
Unfortunately, the labels used to describe these concepts seem to be confusing. The confusion obscures the question and how to think about the question. Reframing might ask questions this way:Assuming that reason or objectivity can exert influence over personal beliefs and behavior via both conscious-rational and intuitive-subjective mental processes, how objective[2] can societies, groups, tribes or individuals be? How rational can American society be about politics, given freedom of speech, which includes a prevalence of lies, intentional misinformation and withheld facts and context?
For better or worse, human cognition is both unconsciously intuitive and consciously rational. Each process affects the other. That’s just how our brains evolved. Our unconscious intuitive mental processes are capable of distorting fact and logic without our conscious knowledge. Even when we know we are being mostly or completely objective, fact-based and logical, that can easily be false knowledge. Our ideology or morals and our powerful innate biases (confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, personal knowledge bias, etc) can and often do overwhelm facts and logic. That distortion can and sometimes does make facts and logic fit with our intuitive-subjective personal ideology or morals, even if it simply isn't true.
Regardless of how rational a person, group or society can be about politics, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that being more rational would be better in the long run than staying with the high degree of intuitive false reality and distorted logic that drives intuitive American two-party politics.
Footnotes:
1. In social science, unconscious mental processes are understood to be where moral judgment and intuition (subjectivity) and the more extreme response of emotion arise. Unconscious mental processes can (i) foster intuitive distortion of reality (fact) and common sense (logic), and (ii) generate personal moral judgments, disdain and intolerance that guide personal beliefs and behaviors, including political polarization, distrust of political opposition and, as discussed before, lack of empathy and human conflict and war.
2. For this discussion, cognitive objectivity is defined as thinking and beliefs that are based on fact and logic that are not heavily biased or distorted by personal ideology or morals. some biasing seems to be unavoidable, but being aware biases and wanting to reduce their impacts does help. Some people don't want to reduce the effects of their biases on their beliefs for various reasons. Little or nothing can be done to help or change those people.
An example: Most people who deny that human activity is a significant cause of global climate change base that belief on their knowledge that (i) climate scientists are frauds, (ii) climate science and the data are too unsettled to be believable, (iii) the evidence of that climate scientists who deny a human connection is the truth and/or (iv) a significant minority or even a majority of climate scientists reject a human connection or that climate change is real. Most people who accept that human activity is an important cause, tend to believe as facts the opposite of every one of those four beliefs or facts. Given such stark differences in their perceptions of the facts, either one side or the other has to be objectively wrong about at least one of those four fact beliefs, if not all four. That is the case even though their four truths are taken by both sides to be objective fact or reality. Both sides can't possibly be completely right. That exemplifies the power of subjective ideology or morals to dictate perceptions of both facts and logic in cases where the perceptions are wrong.
Friday, February 12, 2016
The cognitive biology of empathy and war
An NPR affiliate, KBPS, broadcast this interview on February 10, 2016 with a cognitive neuroscientist who is working on understanding what generates and stifles empathy among individuals in groups who have a potential to enter into a new conflict. The scientist's comments at the end of the interview suggest that existing conflicts may be beyond the reach of cognitive science to affect.
The following are taken from the 15:26 interview at the times indicated. The comments speak for themselves about the fundamentally subjective nature of human cognition and how we both distort and think about the world and world events.
5:40-6:10: As humans, we have biases that we may not always be willing or able to admit to. A large portion of our brain is implicit and what happens we don't have conscious control over (including our biases or prejudices). This aspect of how our brain works is to respond to the world and guide behavior without our knowledge or ability to control the process.
6:10-6:40: An empathy gap can arise when people in one group encounters opinions or arguments that run counter to the group's beliefs. That tends to make even well-reasoned counter opinions not persuasive for most people.
6:40-7:32: There are biases that prevent people from reasoning objectively and lead instead to subjective reasoning. This happens all the time in politics where democrats and republicans have completely different interpretations of the exact same event. In those situations, people tend to uncritically accept arguments and interpretations of event that favor their opinions while critically examining opposing interpretations and arguments. These biases are endemic and part of who we are. It isn't inevitable that biases always dominate, but our brains are potentiated or sensitized to think and act in accord with personal biases.
7:33-7:54: Research has found some people who can overcome their group prejudices but what drives that is not understood and being studied now.
8:50-9:32: Conflicts that arise in different places, cultures and contexts appear to have more in common than not in terms of brain function and the influence of human biases. Externalities such as different languages, religions, reasons for conflict and ethnic groups seem to be less important as drivers of conflict.
9:35-10:18: Our biases are biological and real, not something intangible. However, the brain is plastic or can change and there is evidence that once people become aware of their own biases, they can overcome them to some degree.
10:20-10:57: Can knowledge of biases and how they work be used to reduce conflicts and increase empathy among groups in conflict situations? That does happen in some people and if that anecdotal evidence could be used to understand this aspect of our cognitive biology then that knowledge may be translatable to most people in groups in conflict.
The following are taken from the 15:26 interview at the times indicated. The comments speak for themselves about the fundamentally subjective nature of human cognition and how we both distort and think about the world and world events.
5:40-6:10: As humans, we have biases that we may not always be willing or able to admit to. A large portion of our brain is implicit and what happens we don't have conscious control over (including our biases or prejudices). This aspect of how our brain works is to respond to the world and guide behavior without our knowledge or ability to control the process.
6:10-6:40: An empathy gap can arise when people in one group encounters opinions or arguments that run counter to the group's beliefs. That tends to make even well-reasoned counter opinions not persuasive for most people.
6:40-7:32: There are biases that prevent people from reasoning objectively and lead instead to subjective reasoning. This happens all the time in politics where democrats and republicans have completely different interpretations of the exact same event. In those situations, people tend to uncritically accept arguments and interpretations of event that favor their opinions while critically examining opposing interpretations and arguments. These biases are endemic and part of who we are. It isn't inevitable that biases always dominate, but our brains are potentiated or sensitized to think and act in accord with personal biases.
7:33-7:54: Research has found some people who can overcome their group prejudices but what drives that is not understood and being studied now.
8:50-9:32: Conflicts that arise in different places, cultures and contexts appear to have more in common than not in terms of brain function and the influence of human biases. Externalities such as different languages, religions, reasons for conflict and ethnic groups seem to be less important as drivers of conflict.
9:35-10:18: Our biases are biological and real, not something intangible. However, the brain is plastic or can change and there is evidence that once people become aware of their own biases, they can overcome them to some degree.
10:20-10:57: Can knowledge of biases and how they work be used to reduce conflicts and increase empathy among groups in conflict situations? That does happen in some people and if that anecdotal evidence could be used to understand this aspect of our cognitive biology then that knowledge may be translatable to most people in groups in conflict.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Objective politics: A short definition
American politics is mostly subjective and personal to the individual. Both facts and logic are personal too. That's why disagreements between liberals, conservatives and other competing ideas and interests never resolve. The combatants simply do not understand each other, or if they do, differences among personal morals prevent agreement. Political subjectivity is a major component of what's tearing America apart.
The Founding Fathers are a great example: They bitterly disagreed on many or most major issues and their differences (i) never resolved in their lifetimes and (ii) still echo today in the endless, unresolvable left vs. right or liberal vs. conservative disputes. Political fights over subjective ideology and morals are more like religious disputes than reasoned debates on secular topics. That's why subjective political ideology or morals is more bad for politics than good. Being objective would be much better.
There is at least one way to make the mostly subjective public interest concept materially more objective. One does that by subjecting all significant subjective ideology or moral beliefs to a transparent competition among policy choices to find the best choice based on the unbiased facts and logic, i.e., all policy choices have to win on the objective merits, not on people's subjective beliefs. Human cognitive biology does not allow for near-perfect objectivity, except maybe for a very few people with unusual brain structure or function, so this is about the best that be done in view of (i) how the human brain evolved and works and (ii) a political system that is dominated by constitutionally protected spin (lies, misinformation, deceit, opacity, withheld information, etc) and detachment from both unspun reality and unbiased common sense.
All significant ideological/moral political beliefs in American politics currently includes liberal, conservative, capitalist, socialist, libertarian and various strains of Christianity and Judaism. Moderate beliefs are not included because moderates mostly hold a mix of extreme liberal and conservative morals or ideological beliefs. Apparently, there are few or no real political moderates in America.
If anyone can conceive of, or is aware of, a better conception of how to inject more fact- and logic-based objectivity into politics based on current understanding of our fundamentally intuitive-subjective (and morally judgmental and intolerant) human cognitive biology, Dissident Politics would very much like to hear about it.
The Founding Fathers are a great example: They bitterly disagreed on many or most major issues and their differences (i) never resolved in their lifetimes and (ii) still echo today in the endless, unresolvable left vs. right or liberal vs. conservative disputes. Political fights over subjective ideology and morals are more like religious disputes than reasoned debates on secular topics. That's why subjective political ideology or morals is more bad for politics than good. Being objective would be much better.
Political objectivity defined
To be at least reasonably objective within the limits of human cognitive biology, politics has to be (1) based on
facts (reality) and logic (common sense) that are as unbiased by
subjective personal political ideology or morals and/or self-interest as
human cognitive biology can reasonably allow and (2) those unbiased
facts and logic must be focused on service to an objectively defined
conception of the public interest (general welfare).There is at least one way to make the mostly subjective public interest concept materially more objective. One does that by subjecting all significant subjective ideology or moral beliefs to a transparent competition among policy choices to find the best choice based on the unbiased facts and logic, i.e., all policy choices have to win on the objective merits, not on people's subjective beliefs. Human cognitive biology does not allow for near-perfect objectivity, except maybe for a very few people with unusual brain structure or function, so this is about the best that be done in view of (i) how the human brain evolved and works and (ii) a political system that is dominated by constitutionally protected spin (lies, misinformation, deceit, opacity, withheld information, etc) and detachment from both unspun reality and unbiased common sense.
All significant ideological/moral political beliefs in American politics currently includes liberal, conservative, capitalist, socialist, libertarian and various strains of Christianity and Judaism. Moderate beliefs are not included because moderates mostly hold a mix of extreme liberal and conservative morals or ideological beliefs. Apparently, there are few or no real political moderates in America.
If anyone can conceive of, or is aware of, a better conception of how to inject more fact- and logic-based objectivity into politics based on current understanding of our fundamentally intuitive-subjective (and morally judgmental and intolerant) human cognitive biology, Dissident Politics would very much like to hear about it.
Monday, February 8, 2016
Is evidence-based politics possible?
If one asks conservatives, liberals and others if their personal politics and policy choices are mostly rational and evidence-based, most (maybe about 95%) would say yes. If one asks one side whether the opposition's politics is mostly rational and evidence-based, most (maybe about 90%) would say no. It is reasonable to assume that about 35% of adult Americans are more or less liberal, about 35% are more or less conservative and about 20% are a mix of the two or something else.
Presumably most people, > 50%, in the mixed/other group sees maybe about half of liberal and conservative politics and policy choices as mostly rational and evidence-based, with the other half not so rational and evidence-based.
From Dissident Politics' objective point of view[1], that situation is reasonably accurate. It constitutes compelling evidence that the politics and policy choices of at least 50% of Americans is not mostly rational and evidence-based. That's just simple math and logic.
The Economist was arguing for using the randomized controlled trial concept that guides new medicine development to political policy development. DP has argued for the about same thing. The concept of evidence-based politics is simple, easy to apply and injects a degree of objectivity into politics that currently doesn't exist.
From DP's public interest point of view, there is no logic in opposing evidence-based politics.
Despite a powerful rationale to adopt evidence-based politics in American politics from an objective point of view, it simply isn't possible now. Overwhelmingly powerful forces oppose both objective evidence and unbiased reason in politics. For example, conservatives and/or threatened special interests oppose generating data that they believe would undermine their ideology and/or economic interests. That is true for gun control, objective policy analysis, climate science and other topics. Research shows that the political power of economic (and maybe ideological) special interests backed by money utterly trumps both public opinion and any desire for objectivity:
“In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover … even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.”
That sad reality reflects the fact that American politics is dominated by wealthy, organized special interests who want their own needs and desires attended to. Service from the two-party system to those interests occurs with little or no regard to objective evidence or an objectively defined conception of the public interest. Instead, special interests simply assert what they want best serves the public interest and our political leaders and both parties in power provide the demanded services in return for the money.
Other than parties, politicians and special interests in the two-party system, no one denies that American politics is a pay-to-play system:
Reason or logic and evidence have nothing to do with the situation. That's why evidence-based politics is impossible for the time being.
Footnote:
1. An objective point of view: Politics has to be (1) based on facts (reality) and logic (common sense) that are as unbiased by subjective personal political ideology or morals and/or self-interest as human cognitive biology can reasonably allow and (2) those unbiased facts and logic must be focused on service to an objectively defined conception of the public interest (general welfare).
There is at least one way to make the mostly subjective public interest concept materially more objective. One does that by subjecting all significant subjective ideology or moral beliefs to a transparent competition among policy choices to find the best choice based on the unbiased facts and logic, i.e., all policy choices have to win on the objective merits, not on people's subjective beliefs. Human cognitive biology does not allow for near-perfect objectivity, except maybe for a very few people with unusual brain structure or function, so this is about the best that be done in view of (i) how the human brain evolved and works and (ii) a political system that is dominated by constitutionally protected spin (lies, misinformation, deceit, opacity, withheld information, etc) and detachment from both unspun reality and unbiased common sense.
All significant ideological/moral political beliefs in American politics currently includes liberal, conservative, capitalist, socialist, libertarian and various strains of Christianity and Judaism. Moderate beliefs are not included because moderates mostly hold a mix of extreme liberal and conservative morals or ideological beliefs. Apparently, there are few or no real political moderates in America.
If anyone can conceive of, or is aware of, a better conception of how to inject more fact- and logic-based objectivity into politics based on current understanding of our fundamentally intuitive-subjective (and morally judgmental and intolerant) human cognitive biology, Dissident Politics would very much like to hear about it.
Presumably most people, > 50%, in the mixed/other group sees maybe about half of liberal and conservative politics and policy choices as mostly rational and evidence-based, with the other half not so rational and evidence-based.
From Dissident Politics' objective point of view[1], that situation is reasonably accurate. It constitutes compelling evidence that the politics and policy choices of at least 50% of Americans is not mostly rational and evidence-based. That's just simple math and logic.
Evidence-based politics is possible in theory
If there is a political will politics can be made to be much more objective than it is now. In a recent article, In Praise of Human Guinea Pigs, The Economist observed that to "live in a modern democracy is to be experimented on by policymakers from cradle to grave." Citing education and prison policy and experimental medicine, The Economist went on to argue that "without evidence, those setting policy for schools and prisons are little better than a doctor relying on leeches and bloodletting. Citizens, as much as patients, deserve to know that the treatments they endure do actually work."The Economist was arguing for using the randomized controlled trial concept that guides new medicine development to political policy development. DP has argued for the about same thing. The concept of evidence-based politics is simple, easy to apply and injects a degree of objectivity into politics that currently doesn't exist.
From DP's public interest point of view, there is no logic in opposing evidence-based politics.
Evidence-based politics is impossible in practice . . . .
because American politics is not public interest-oriented
Unfortunately, there are "rational" arguments to not implement evidence-based politics from other points of view. Those points of view are personal ideology and/or economic self-interest. Despite a powerful rationale to adopt evidence-based politics in American politics from an objective point of view, it simply isn't possible now. Overwhelmingly powerful forces oppose both objective evidence and unbiased reason in politics. For example, conservatives and/or threatened special interests oppose generating data that they believe would undermine their ideology and/or economic interests. That is true for gun control, objective policy analysis, climate science and other topics. Research shows that the political power of economic (and maybe ideological) special interests backed by money utterly trumps both public opinion and any desire for objectivity:
“In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover … even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.”
That sad reality reflects the fact that American politics is dominated by wealthy, organized special interests who want their own needs and desires attended to. Service from the two-party system to those interests occurs with little or no regard to objective evidence or an objectively defined conception of the public interest. Instead, special interests simply assert what they want best serves the public interest and our political leaders and both parties in power provide the demanded services in return for the money.
Other than parties, politicians and special interests in the two-party system, no one denies that American politics is a pay-to-play system:
"There's no shame anymore. . . . . We've blown past the ethical
standards; we now play on the edge of the legal standards. . . . . money and its pursuit [have] paralyzed Washington. . . .
. Nothing truly important for the country is getting done."
Reason or logic and evidence have nothing to do with the situation. That's why evidence-based politics is impossible for the time being.
Footnote:
1. An objective point of view: Politics has to be (1) based on facts (reality) and logic (common sense) that are as unbiased by subjective personal political ideology or morals and/or self-interest as human cognitive biology can reasonably allow and (2) those unbiased facts and logic must be focused on service to an objectively defined conception of the public interest (general welfare).
There is at least one way to make the mostly subjective public interest concept materially more objective. One does that by subjecting all significant subjective ideology or moral beliefs to a transparent competition among policy choices to find the best choice based on the unbiased facts and logic, i.e., all policy choices have to win on the objective merits, not on people's subjective beliefs. Human cognitive biology does not allow for near-perfect objectivity, except maybe for a very few people with unusual brain structure or function, so this is about the best that be done in view of (i) how the human brain evolved and works and (ii) a political system that is dominated by constitutionally protected spin (lies, misinformation, deceit, opacity, withheld information, etc) and detachment from both unspun reality and unbiased common sense.
All significant ideological/moral political beliefs in American politics currently includes liberal, conservative, capitalist, socialist, libertarian and various strains of Christianity and Judaism. Moderate beliefs are not included because moderates mostly hold a mix of extreme liberal and conservative morals or ideological beliefs. Apparently, there are few or no real political moderates in America.
If anyone can conceive of, or is aware of, a better conception of how to inject more fact- and logic-based objectivity into politics based on current understanding of our fundamentally intuitive-subjective (and morally judgmental and intolerant) human cognitive biology, Dissident Politics would very much like to hear about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)