Sometimes, we get the meme that meets the moment. Of course, social media being the force for clarifying the terms of debate that it is, we also have a rebuttal. As is often the case, these memes have taken off because they reflect something that’s obvious and clear from our current moment. It’s difficult to see an ideological connection between supporting child soldiers in Ukraine and putting American children in a bubble out of fears of COVID, but somehow many of the same people seem to support both.
It would probably also be sensible not to be involved in politics at all. As Patri Friedman argued years ago, our intuitions regarding political activism were shaped by a long history in much smaller tribes. Now we are in MUCH larger polities that as individuals we are very unlikely to influence.
Agreed: However there are a couple approaches I have heard bandied about one in particular which is a derivation of "desperate times require desperate measures" which understand but do not live by, however, since I come from the school of seasoned reason and years of dealing with "desperate" times I find it far better to let events unfold when the events are so far out of control that all we can do is stand there and gasp, pray or be an armchair warrior. I do agree with opining about the current situations, but will it do any good? I really like the Jefferson quote considering he was involved with writing the Constitution as well as quite the historian as well as attempting to rewrite parts of the Bible. As a Virginian, my son went to UVA. and I went to George Mason and grew up steeped in both politics and Virginia history: but back to your point: I do as I have mentioned before I do try to maintain as much as possible refrain from Judgement as I have never been to war. I have been the daughter, wife, spouse and what is known in the military communities for the spouses: SUPPORT ACTIVITY together with good dose of the IF poem which I keep on my office door along with my favorite quote from Romans in the Bible. As far as influencer: one never knows how and when one can actually "influence" a person, situation or event: like a soldier once told me: Ya gotta try. :) Good commenting. :)
That’s not true in a vacuum because Pro-Current Thing is way more likely to have proscriptive policy positions, while Anti-Current Thing usually already believes in “that’s not worth wasting my time” or “we shouldn’t worry about it.” That means you need to care at least enough to stop the first group from getting what they want.
I think we might agree there’s no reason to get emotionally invested in the issue beyond your ability to actually enact a solution. The truth is that conservatives (or dissidents or whatever) are mostly powerless, and their inability to realize that fact is paradoxically what stops them from changing anything.
This is a great point. The most mentally healthy people tend to be interested in their families and work, are somewhat conservative, and show up every two year to vote (mostly R) but otherwise don't obsess about politics.
Sadly I'm already obsessed with politics, but I realize it's because I love arguing/debating, and I don't let it affect my everyday happiness. I seem to be one of few people who can admit that my government is terrible and everyone sucks, but I'm still living in the best country in the world at the best time in history.
I don’t think so because being anti-CurrentThing is still actively engaging with day to day news. For most people it doesn’t matter much if Current or anti-Current is more correct.
I understand what you’re saying and many are forced to engage but I think most people can in practice avoid engaging with no consequence. Heck it’s probably the case that most people already don’t engage with them. Not everyone is on Twitter!
I'm a contrarian myself (which maybe is why I'm arguing the contrary view here), but....
One should generally be sympathetic to the "current thing" and here's why.
1. Be sympathetic. Any current issue can be addressed sympathetically and from whatever political/philosophical perspective you come from. Like, I tend to be a conservative libertarian. The whole point of why I think this is the correct view is that it's the best answer to most social problems. That means I can give a sympathetic response on any issue. Even if it's a contrarian one about the means of fixing it.
2. If you want to have influence, the worst way to do it is to shut off discussion. This is one of the biggest problems with Wokeism as a culture. Every discussion tends to be started with a statement of perspective "as a white/black/gay/straight/liberal/conservative/man/woman/transgender/salamander..." that is, I think, designed to preempt the discussion itself by giving cues to control thought. The best way to avoid that is not to play.
So, it's not always possible, but I find that it's usually quite possible to make a "libertarian" or "conservative" case for most every subject. What's more, if you don't say it's "conservative" or "libertarian" to start out with, and just say, "here's a way to help Group or Situation X" many people will unexpectedly agree with it.
By combining these points, one gets to be part of the discussion rather than standing outside it harrumphing that nobody listens to you.
Another way to put it is that when sensible people cede the floor to extremists and loudmouths, this is what you get. Taking your ball and going home isn't an answer.
This is well stated, to build on this I think finding the common ground as the starting point in any discussion is paramount. Without this, the anti current thing people will automatically be condemned. Being able to start there, with some common understanding is not generally being done as far as I can see. And you’re right, when the other side knows you are on the other side you are condemned without thought. This is difficult to overcome. I tend to now start a conversation with these folks from where I know we agree and build the trust as I introduce different thoughts. If there is any semblance of mutual respect, then the conversation can continue, otherwise it’s doomed.
Does solvability affect prioritization of problems? Aging is a nigh impossible problem to solve (at least in our current moment), but systematic issues of abuse - even if overblown quantitatively should at least theoretically be easier to solve? Basically lowest hanging fruit argument - but I also see how there will always be an endless stream of "current things" that can take away attention from seemingly intractable problems...
How solvable would aging look if we invested as much in fighting it as we have fighting terrorism or overcoming racism? There are many things we throw a lot of money at that we don’t appear to have any idea how to solve, like closing racial achievement gaps. But your larger point is right, “importance” is a kind of shorthand for things we should be worried about, which includes solvability.
The "I do not support the current thing" meme does not represent any real person. Most contrarianism is consistent because it is based on some sort of principles, this isn't true for the "current thing people" who will support positions and movements that contradict their previously espoused concerns. it's why they denounced anyone who went outside during lockdown as genocidal COVID spreaders but supported the BLM protests and riots.
All the things that I have observed but couldn’t quite articulate as well. This is quite clearly something that has bubbled to the surface but has always been there. Thank you for this essay Richard.
It's good to recognise that, yes, of course, nobody has the time or resources to actually discover everything themselves as a lone agent doing a Holden Karnofsky style No Trust Deep Dive. Confirmation bias is a scourge but that doesn't mean that you can't learn different sources are different levels of trustworthy and use that knowledge (it's irrational not to) or that you shouldn't be more sceptical of less likely claims (also irrational to not do this).
However, consider that one could have probably made this argument the opposite way round 25 years ago, and that people doing that is probably how we got here. When one side seemed fixated on the idea that evolution was a lie and talked itself into ever more utter insanity downstream of that, and the other side was milquetoast Clintonian centrism, the latter side probably looked *and was* a lot more trustworthy on random issue X.
Problem is that this a great *static* solution but a horrible *dynamic* solution. Because once you advertise that you trust a source, the incentives that sources faces shift, and it becomes more to its gain to deceive you. This won't happen all at once, but it will happen. The NYT didn't blatantly lie as much 25 years ago as it does now. But, gradually, as it became more and more clear that it was *trusted*, it became more and more possible for it to become less *trustworthy* without suffering the consequences it would have had it not been so trusted.
Gradually, the mantle of being reasonable and the place in the discourse that afforded it made it a dominant strategy for it to become entirely *unreasonable*. This couldn't have happened all at once; it's a gradual process of testing the boundaries of what you can get away with more and more, and bit by bit it dragged its supporters priors with it, as they trusted it to take them a little way from where they were before, and then a little way further, never re-evaluating whether they'd ended up in looneyville. This doesn't even have to have been planned or deliberate and probably wasn't - *internal* incentives faced by *individuals* within the NYT (indeed, the mainstream media at large) gradually made clear you wouldn't face consequences for being loose with the truth in the right direction. The payoff matrix shifted, shifting mainstream media behaviour, shifting readership priors, changing the payoff matrix further, and spiral down the toilet into Russiagate and Cambridge Analytica.
What you need to do to stop this is, yes, realise that most of the time you're going on trust and that who to trust and on what things and how much is most of the ballgame, because even if you were Holden Karnofsky (and few are), you still can't properly "think for yourself" on more than like one big thing per month. Admit you trust and distrust, be explicit, and own it as part of your reasoning - this is all good.
But: CALIBRATE. The more you trust something, the less often you have to do this, but just check. Do the Karnosfky. Not full on all the time, but *remember to do it a bit, some of the time*, and *update your trustworthiness matrix with the results*. That's the only way you can keep up with the shifting landscape of trustworthiness, and avoid getting dominated by the anti-inductive nature of the problem - by the fact that *to be trusted* is to *increase one's rewards for being untrustworthy* so any given thing responding to incentives will respond to being trusted by becoming less trustworthy.
Also, you can absolutely say this: "Source X was right on Y so I trust X more now". You can absolutely say this "Source X said Y and I trust source X so Y is more likely true". NEVER DO BOTH FOR ONE X, Y! That closes a sort of death loop in your head and then you become Carole Cadwalladr or worse.
> One thing I find odd about the anti-SJW crowd, say your median contributor to Quillette, is that they seem to believe that IQ is real and important and also that normal people with average IQs can be expected to think for themselves and reach reasoned conclusions about economics, geopolitics, and epidemiology.
You seem to be inferring that those beliefs are mutually exclusive, but they don't seem to be. IQ can be real and important, but the average IQ can still be sufficient to make reasoned conclusions about most things. I'd argue that the domain of things about which IQ is important is important is quite small.
The interesting question is why those that argue strenuously that IQ doesn't exist and isn't at all important are the generally the ones that argue the average person isn't competent in these fields, and that complicated, coercive regulations are required.
The most glaring double-think from the "IQ doesn't exist" crowd is that they're the first to go on and on about the effects of lead and pollution on IQ. Overall I'm on board with your take though (IQ doesn't matter that much).
"the average IQ can still be sufficient to make reasoned conclusions about most things. I'd argue that the domain of things about which IQ is important is important is quite small."
I mean what was the average Iq—or alternatively the midwit—position on something like the Iraq war. People only have so much time and your iq and processing speed dictate how many issues you can cover and comprehend within those narrow windows
I think your question itself show that IQ doesn't have much to offer there. There were plenty of smart people and plenty of dumb people on both sides of the debate.
Those are questions of value and simply not a question that can be answered by IQ. At any particular level of thought, people came up with pro/con justifications.
One reason I'm anti-current thing is because almost all current things in America are moral panics. The Salem Witch Trials were the current thing in 1691 Salem, MA. There were a few Great Awakenings. There were a few temperance movements. Our current year current things seem to incorporate the worst aspects of every moral panic in American history. We can't seem to shed the ghosts of every last badgering church lady and puritan killjoy.
Seems to me the “current thing” discourse’s biggest problem its moralizing nature which prevents rational cost-benefit reasoning. The anti-current thing alternative often suffers just the same way.
Basically this piece makes the case that since we aren't perfectly rational as individuals, we should focus on rationality at the society level. Currently the biases are towards conformity and to correct that and be more rational as a society we need more contrarians, even if they too have their own biases.
Happy to read this because the piece I’m currently writing explores the ‘current thing’ and the emotional contagion it spreads, through a lens of moral scepticism, groupish posturing and mindfulness. I’ll be lifting a quote or two (with credit) because you’ve identified an aspect I hadn’t thought of for my piece.
Expecting the same reaction (from Europeans... which many in the US are) to Middle Eastern tribal warfare vs Enemy Empire invading a European country and pulverizing major cities, with art and architecture, is peak insanity.
Now I know your heritage is different, but you do live in a European dominated culture, so do try to understand reality.
A better approach is to mostly ignore “The Current Thing” because for most people being obsessed with current news is unproductive and unhealthy.
Yes, Bryan Caplan argued against news here:
http://www.econlib.org/the-case-against-news/
And Thomas Jefferson argued it would be best for a man to read no newspapers at all:
http://www.econlib.org/jefferson-against-newspapers/
It would probably also be sensible not to be involved in politics at all. As Patri Friedman argued years ago, our intuitions regarding political activism were shaped by a long history in much smaller tribes. Now we are in MUCH larger polities that as individuals we are very unlikely to influence.
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/06/patri-friedman/beyond-folk-activism/
Agreed: However there are a couple approaches I have heard bandied about one in particular which is a derivation of "desperate times require desperate measures" which understand but do not live by, however, since I come from the school of seasoned reason and years of dealing with "desperate" times I find it far better to let events unfold when the events are so far out of control that all we can do is stand there and gasp, pray or be an armchair warrior. I do agree with opining about the current situations, but will it do any good? I really like the Jefferson quote considering he was involved with writing the Constitution as well as quite the historian as well as attempting to rewrite parts of the Bible. As a Virginian, my son went to UVA. and I went to George Mason and grew up steeped in both politics and Virginia history: but back to your point: I do as I have mentioned before I do try to maintain as much as possible refrain from Judgement as I have never been to war. I have been the daughter, wife, spouse and what is known in the military communities for the spouses: SUPPORT ACTIVITY together with good dose of the IF poem which I keep on my office door along with my favorite quote from Romans in the Bible. As far as influencer: one never knows how and when one can actually "influence" a person, situation or event: like a soldier once told me: Ya gotta try. :) Good commenting. :)
If it’s Girard’s mimetic desire then you can’t reason your way out of it.
That’s not true in a vacuum because Pro-Current Thing is way more likely to have proscriptive policy positions, while Anti-Current Thing usually already believes in “that’s not worth wasting my time” or “we shouldn’t worry about it.” That means you need to care at least enough to stop the first group from getting what they want.
I think we might agree there’s no reason to get emotionally invested in the issue beyond your ability to actually enact a solution. The truth is that conservatives (or dissidents or whatever) are mostly powerless, and their inability to realize that fact is paradoxically what stops them from changing anything.
This is a great point. The most mentally healthy people tend to be interested in their families and work, are somewhat conservative, and show up every two year to vote (mostly R) but otherwise don't obsess about politics.
Sadly I'm already obsessed with politics, but I realize it's because I love arguing/debating, and I don't let it affect my everyday happiness. I seem to be one of few people who can admit that my government is terrible and everyone sucks, but I'm still living in the best country in the world at the best time in history.
right.. totally my response is tongue in cheek.. and none the less IMO true.
I don’t think so because being anti-CurrentThing is still actively engaging with day to day news. For most people it doesn’t matter much if Current or anti-Current is more correct.
I understand what you’re saying and many are forced to engage but I think most people can in practice avoid engaging with no consequence. Heck it’s probably the case that most people already don’t engage with them. Not everyone is on Twitter!
You had to “mask up” whether you read the news or not.
I'm a contrarian myself (which maybe is why I'm arguing the contrary view here), but....
One should generally be sympathetic to the "current thing" and here's why.
1. Be sympathetic. Any current issue can be addressed sympathetically and from whatever political/philosophical perspective you come from. Like, I tend to be a conservative libertarian. The whole point of why I think this is the correct view is that it's the best answer to most social problems. That means I can give a sympathetic response on any issue. Even if it's a contrarian one about the means of fixing it.
2. If you want to have influence, the worst way to do it is to shut off discussion. This is one of the biggest problems with Wokeism as a culture. Every discussion tends to be started with a statement of perspective "as a white/black/gay/straight/liberal/conservative/man/woman/transgender/salamander..." that is, I think, designed to preempt the discussion itself by giving cues to control thought. The best way to avoid that is not to play.
So, it's not always possible, but I find that it's usually quite possible to make a "libertarian" or "conservative" case for most every subject. What's more, if you don't say it's "conservative" or "libertarian" to start out with, and just say, "here's a way to help Group or Situation X" many people will unexpectedly agree with it.
By combining these points, one gets to be part of the discussion rather than standing outside it harrumphing that nobody listens to you.
Another way to put it is that when sensible people cede the floor to extremists and loudmouths, this is what you get. Taking your ball and going home isn't an answer.
This is well stated, to build on this I think finding the common ground as the starting point in any discussion is paramount. Without this, the anti current thing people will automatically be condemned. Being able to start there, with some common understanding is not generally being done as far as I can see. And you’re right, when the other side knows you are on the other side you are condemned without thought. This is difficult to overcome. I tend to now start a conversation with these folks from where I know we agree and build the trust as I introduce different thoughts. If there is any semblance of mutual respect, then the conversation can continue, otherwise it’s doomed.
Does solvability affect prioritization of problems? Aging is a nigh impossible problem to solve (at least in our current moment), but systematic issues of abuse - even if overblown quantitatively should at least theoretically be easier to solve? Basically lowest hanging fruit argument - but I also see how there will always be an endless stream of "current things" that can take away attention from seemingly intractable problems...
How solvable would aging look if we invested as much in fighting it as we have fighting terrorism or overcoming racism? There are many things we throw a lot of money at that we don’t appear to have any idea how to solve, like closing racial achievement gaps. But your larger point is right, “importance” is a kind of shorthand for things we should be worried about, which includes solvability.
The "I do not support the current thing" meme does not represent any real person. Most contrarianism is consistent because it is based on some sort of principles, this isn't true for the "current thing people" who will support positions and movements that contradict their previously espoused concerns. it's why they denounced anyone who went outside during lockdown as genocidal COVID spreaders but supported the BLM protests and riots.
All the things that I have observed but couldn’t quite articulate as well. This is quite clearly something that has bubbled to the surface but has always been there. Thank you for this essay Richard.
It's good to recognise that, yes, of course, nobody has the time or resources to actually discover everything themselves as a lone agent doing a Holden Karnofsky style No Trust Deep Dive. Confirmation bias is a scourge but that doesn't mean that you can't learn different sources are different levels of trustworthy and use that knowledge (it's irrational not to) or that you shouldn't be more sceptical of less likely claims (also irrational to not do this).
However, consider that one could have probably made this argument the opposite way round 25 years ago, and that people doing that is probably how we got here. When one side seemed fixated on the idea that evolution was a lie and talked itself into ever more utter insanity downstream of that, and the other side was milquetoast Clintonian centrism, the latter side probably looked *and was* a lot more trustworthy on random issue X.
Problem is that this a great *static* solution but a horrible *dynamic* solution. Because once you advertise that you trust a source, the incentives that sources faces shift, and it becomes more to its gain to deceive you. This won't happen all at once, but it will happen. The NYT didn't blatantly lie as much 25 years ago as it does now. But, gradually, as it became more and more clear that it was *trusted*, it became more and more possible for it to become less *trustworthy* without suffering the consequences it would have had it not been so trusted.
Gradually, the mantle of being reasonable and the place in the discourse that afforded it made it a dominant strategy for it to become entirely *unreasonable*. This couldn't have happened all at once; it's a gradual process of testing the boundaries of what you can get away with more and more, and bit by bit it dragged its supporters priors with it, as they trusted it to take them a little way from where they were before, and then a little way further, never re-evaluating whether they'd ended up in looneyville. This doesn't even have to have been planned or deliberate and probably wasn't - *internal* incentives faced by *individuals* within the NYT (indeed, the mainstream media at large) gradually made clear you wouldn't face consequences for being loose with the truth in the right direction. The payoff matrix shifted, shifting mainstream media behaviour, shifting readership priors, changing the payoff matrix further, and spiral down the toilet into Russiagate and Cambridge Analytica.
What you need to do to stop this is, yes, realise that most of the time you're going on trust and that who to trust and on what things and how much is most of the ballgame, because even if you were Holden Karnofsky (and few are), you still can't properly "think for yourself" on more than like one big thing per month. Admit you trust and distrust, be explicit, and own it as part of your reasoning - this is all good.
But: CALIBRATE. The more you trust something, the less often you have to do this, but just check. Do the Karnosfky. Not full on all the time, but *remember to do it a bit, some of the time*, and *update your trustworthiness matrix with the results*. That's the only way you can keep up with the shifting landscape of trustworthiness, and avoid getting dominated by the anti-inductive nature of the problem - by the fact that *to be trusted* is to *increase one's rewards for being untrustworthy* so any given thing responding to incentives will respond to being trusted by becoming less trustworthy.
Also, you can absolutely say this: "Source X was right on Y so I trust X more now". You can absolutely say this "Source X said Y and I trust source X so Y is more likely true". NEVER DO BOTH FOR ONE X, Y! That closes a sort of death loop in your head and then you become Carole Cadwalladr or worse.
> One thing I find odd about the anti-SJW crowd, say your median contributor to Quillette, is that they seem to believe that IQ is real and important and also that normal people with average IQs can be expected to think for themselves and reach reasoned conclusions about economics, geopolitics, and epidemiology.
You seem to be inferring that those beliefs are mutually exclusive, but they don't seem to be. IQ can be real and important, but the average IQ can still be sufficient to make reasoned conclusions about most things. I'd argue that the domain of things about which IQ is important is important is quite small.
The interesting question is why those that argue strenuously that IQ doesn't exist and isn't at all important are the generally the ones that argue the average person isn't competent in these fields, and that complicated, coercive regulations are required.
The most glaring double-think from the "IQ doesn't exist" crowd is that they're the first to go on and on about the effects of lead and pollution on IQ. Overall I'm on board with your take though (IQ doesn't matter that much).
"the average IQ can still be sufficient to make reasoned conclusions about most things. I'd argue that the domain of things about which IQ is important is important is quite small."
I mean what was the average Iq—or alternatively the midwit—position on something like the Iraq war. People only have so much time and your iq and processing speed dictate how many issues you can cover and comprehend within those narrow windows
I think your question itself show that IQ doesn't have much to offer there. There were plenty of smart people and plenty of dumb people on both sides of the debate.
Those are questions of value and simply not a question that can be answered by IQ. At any particular level of thought, people came up with pro/con justifications.
One reason I'm anti-current thing is because almost all current things in America are moral panics. The Salem Witch Trials were the current thing in 1691 Salem, MA. There were a few Great Awakenings. There were a few temperance movements. Our current year current things seem to incorporate the worst aspects of every moral panic in American history. We can't seem to shed the ghosts of every last badgering church lady and puritan killjoy.
Seems to me the “current thing” discourse’s biggest problem its moralizing nature which prevents rational cost-benefit reasoning. The anti-current thing alternative often suffers just the same way.
Captain Hastings:
Why don't you get yourself some turned-down collars, Poirot? They're much more the thing, you know.
Hercule Poirot:
The thing, Hastings? You think Poirot concerns himself with mere thingness?
Captain Hastings:
Aah, no.
Hercule Poirot:
Hmm.
Captain Hastings:
No, I, I, I see that, Poirot.
Hercule Poirot:
The turned-down collar is the first symptom of decay of the grey cells!
If someone is trying to manipulate you -- as the media plainly are -- it only makes sense to lean the other way.
Basically this piece makes the case that since we aren't perfectly rational as individuals, we should focus on rationality at the society level. Currently the biases are towards conformity and to correct that and be more rational as a society we need more contrarians, even if they too have their own biases.
I concur.
I am referring to this: https://youtu.be/rNcCXI2kpeo
Classic discussion, keep for all time.
Happy to read this because the piece I’m currently writing explores the ‘current thing’ and the emotional contagion it spreads, through a lens of moral scepticism, groupish posturing and mindfulness. I’ll be lifting a quote or two (with credit) because you’ve identified an aspect I hadn’t thought of for my piece.
Ukraine is European. Yemen is not.
Expecting the same reaction (from Europeans... which many in the US are) to Middle Eastern tribal warfare vs Enemy Empire invading a European country and pulverizing major cities, with art and architecture, is peak insanity.
Now I know your heritage is different, but you do live in a European dominated culture, so do try to understand reality.