Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Combatting Idiocy, a continuing series
Idiocy, not obesity, is the real epidemic of the 21st century. It's so much more global- look at the mess over the Danish cartoons. Look at the war in Iraq, look at your local DMV. Idiocy has pervaded our society in every form- the inability of people everywhere to understand complex situations.
First, before anyone accuses me of getting all ivory tower on their asses, let me be clear. Everyone is an idiot from time to time- it's the nature of humanity. But the problem is that our society, and the Earth, has grown so complex that idiocy has become more and more prevalent and its effects are getting stronger as well. For example, I'm an idiot about quantum physics, and as david demonstrated earlier, I'm also an idiot about constitutional law. The latter one may be a better example of the point I'm trying to make here. It's not just that I'm ignorant of constitutional law- it's that I know enough to form Dangerously Stupid Ideas (which I am now copyrighting/trademarking under DSI). The point (or DSI) I was somehow trying to argue was that we don't actually NEED the constitution because on many occasions the Justices simply voted their conscience. While this argument is superficially true, it totally ignores the finer details of reality- that without a basis in text there could be no starting point- there could be no common arguing ground, and there would generally be chaos.
Why did I make this argument? Well, being an outsider to con law, I wanted to distill the reality of what the constitution was into a simple one-liner-- something I could keep inside my skull all at once. It's much simpler to think that the Constitution is just an arbiter of right and wrong than to think that it is a murky mix of case law, textualism, strategic ambiguity, and ignored parts.
So this is the situation everyone finds themselves in today. Intelligent Design is another such Dangerously Stupid Idea. Evolution isn't a perfect theory, and as such, it has gaps in its explanatory power. (like the interpretation of the Constitution). But Intelligent design is a gross oversimplification of human/biological origins, and it totally ignores reality so that its supporters have an easier time inside their brains. And it's not just Intelligent design-- people everywhere are starting to have fundamental distrust of science.
This NY Times article documents a 24-year old journalism major who was appointed by W to NASA, who starting censoring all documents by adding "theory" to every mention of the Big Bang and global warming. It has obvious parallels to the ID movement, with people trying to claim everything is ''only a theory", which in its perjorative tone, manages to dismiss everything that science is about in three words. Science itself, is made of "only theories" and is itself a theory if you want to think about it in those terms.
So the question is why? We do it because we can't understand everything, so we distill, simplify, and stereotype. With very religious people, the idea of evolution and the Big Bang clashes with their view of how God created humans and the Universe-- many of them have very simple ideas that include Adam and Eve, and 6 days of creation. It's not that adding these theories would fill their brains- it's that they would add layers of complexity and would take a certain amount of work- so the obvious reaction is that these new 'theories' are wrong. And the funny thing is, there is room for both. Many scientists believe in God and are religious people- because they understand the science, they are able to integrate that into their views. Perhaps God created the Big Bang. Maybe God controls which of the four genes' from a parent gets passed down to the child. Or maybe, they revise their idea of what God is.
And when scientists publish 80 page studies that detail a certain experiment, newspaper editors, somtimes untrained, or 'idiots' about science, read and filter them. And that gets put into a headline- "Eating fat causes cancer." Then the next week a new headline-- "Fat cells do not cause cancer." To an idiot, the easy explanation is that science is untrustworthy, that they are simply playing tug-of-war, like politicians. And therefore anything they say can't be believed. It especially doesn't help when scientists outright lie about their research. But the bottom line is that it's easier to continue believing what you already believed.
And isn't it the same thing with the cartoon violence? One Danish newspaper publishes the cartoon, and therefore all Danish people hate Muslims. The French government doesn't support the war in Iraq, therefore, french fries and french toast are unpatriotic. We have these symbols that we cling to, because they are easy to remember, because their ideas and their ideals are clear. And sometimes, it's all we have to go on. Racism arises out of the same Dangerously Stupid Idea part of our brain- we know nothing about a person, but their skin color gives us the ability to make certain assumptions. If it wasn't skin color, maybe it would be nose size, or mouth shape. Humans have always found ways to oversimplify, even to the point of ridiculousness (and you KNOW what I'm talkin' about!) It's how the human brain works- always classifying (and hopefully into 2 groups). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't accept it. It means we have to watch out for it.
So what can you do to combat idiocy? Identifying situations in which it's present is only half the battle. I've found, however, that interrupting the offender by yelling "idiot alert!" and asking them to stop talking is surprisingly ineffective. I think the only way for people to be aware of it is through themselves, and thereby, through culture change- we should stop being appreciative of politicans being 'decisive', because really that just means they have already decided- they are not open to new ideas. And we shouldn't glorify news programs because they spout off their own opinions for being 'forceful' and 'powerful'. What we should prioritize is the people who filter the experts- people who can RELIABLY simplify complex situations, like Science-to-English, Legalese-to-English translators. And I suppose, on individual levels, we should learn to appreciate nuance, complexity, and subtlety. And if you don't think so, well, you're an idiot.
First, before anyone accuses me of getting all ivory tower on their asses, let me be clear. Everyone is an idiot from time to time- it's the nature of humanity. But the problem is that our society, and the Earth, has grown so complex that idiocy has become more and more prevalent and its effects are getting stronger as well. For example, I'm an idiot about quantum physics, and as david demonstrated earlier, I'm also an idiot about constitutional law. The latter one may be a better example of the point I'm trying to make here. It's not just that I'm ignorant of constitutional law- it's that I know enough to form Dangerously Stupid Ideas (which I am now copyrighting/trademarking under DSI). The point (or DSI) I was somehow trying to argue was that we don't actually NEED the constitution because on many occasions the Justices simply voted their conscience. While this argument is superficially true, it totally ignores the finer details of reality- that without a basis in text there could be no starting point- there could be no common arguing ground, and there would generally be chaos.
Why did I make this argument? Well, being an outsider to con law, I wanted to distill the reality of what the constitution was into a simple one-liner-- something I could keep inside my skull all at once. It's much simpler to think that the Constitution is just an arbiter of right and wrong than to think that it is a murky mix of case law, textualism, strategic ambiguity, and ignored parts.
So this is the situation everyone finds themselves in today. Intelligent Design is another such Dangerously Stupid Idea. Evolution isn't a perfect theory, and as such, it has gaps in its explanatory power. (like the interpretation of the Constitution). But Intelligent design is a gross oversimplification of human/biological origins, and it totally ignores reality so that its supporters have an easier time inside their brains. And it's not just Intelligent design-- people everywhere are starting to have fundamental distrust of science.
This NY Times article documents a 24-year old journalism major who was appointed by W to NASA, who starting censoring all documents by adding "theory" to every mention of the Big Bang and global warming. It has obvious parallels to the ID movement, with people trying to claim everything is ''only a theory", which in its perjorative tone, manages to dismiss everything that science is about in three words. Science itself, is made of "only theories" and is itself a theory if you want to think about it in those terms.
So the question is why? We do it because we can't understand everything, so we distill, simplify, and stereotype. With very religious people, the idea of evolution and the Big Bang clashes with their view of how God created humans and the Universe-- many of them have very simple ideas that include Adam and Eve, and 6 days of creation. It's not that adding these theories would fill their brains- it's that they would add layers of complexity and would take a certain amount of work- so the obvious reaction is that these new 'theories' are wrong. And the funny thing is, there is room for both. Many scientists believe in God and are religious people- because they understand the science, they are able to integrate that into their views. Perhaps God created the Big Bang. Maybe God controls which of the four genes' from a parent gets passed down to the child. Or maybe, they revise their idea of what God is.
And when scientists publish 80 page studies that detail a certain experiment, newspaper editors, somtimes untrained, or 'idiots' about science, read and filter them. And that gets put into a headline- "Eating fat causes cancer." Then the next week a new headline-- "Fat cells do not cause cancer." To an idiot, the easy explanation is that science is untrustworthy, that they are simply playing tug-of-war, like politicians. And therefore anything they say can't be believed. It especially doesn't help when scientists outright lie about their research. But the bottom line is that it's easier to continue believing what you already believed.
And isn't it the same thing with the cartoon violence? One Danish newspaper publishes the cartoon, and therefore all Danish people hate Muslims. The French government doesn't support the war in Iraq, therefore, french fries and french toast are unpatriotic. We have these symbols that we cling to, because they are easy to remember, because their ideas and their ideals are clear. And sometimes, it's all we have to go on. Racism arises out of the same Dangerously Stupid Idea part of our brain- we know nothing about a person, but their skin color gives us the ability to make certain assumptions. If it wasn't skin color, maybe it would be nose size, or mouth shape. Humans have always found ways to oversimplify, even to the point of ridiculousness (and you KNOW what I'm talkin' about!) It's how the human brain works- always classifying (and hopefully into 2 groups). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't accept it. It means we have to watch out for it.
So what can you do to combat idiocy? Identifying situations in which it's present is only half the battle. I've found, however, that interrupting the offender by yelling "idiot alert!" and asking them to stop talking is surprisingly ineffective. I think the only way for people to be aware of it is through themselves, and thereby, through culture change- we should stop being appreciative of politicans being 'decisive', because really that just means they have already decided- they are not open to new ideas. And we shouldn't glorify news programs because they spout off their own opinions for being 'forceful' and 'powerful'. What we should prioritize is the people who filter the experts- people who can RELIABLY simplify complex situations, like Science-to-English, Legalese-to-English translators. And I suppose, on individual levels, we should learn to appreciate nuance, complexity, and subtlety. And if you don't think so, well, you're an idiot.
# posted by Stuart @ 10:09 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Idiot Alert! Don't read the above post!
Thank you, thank you, but seriously: Stuart, you are on a roll. Keep em coming.
- Your point about not needing a Constitution is not as idiotic as you say. Well, it is, but not in so many ways. Courts, whether they realize it or not, often have no option but to impose their views on what should happen. Perhaps this happens only in the "hard" cases, but those are the important ones anyway. So your premise isn't just superficially true, and often is true while being superficially false. For centuries Courts operated without a constitution, or without much of one. There was the Magna Carta. At some point there was some sort of constitution regulating how the crown and parliament interact. Then, after the "Glorious Revolution," Britain adopted a bill of rights, finally codifying certain individual rights. But there were very few statutes - almost all law was developed in, and evolved in, the courts. Good old english common law.
But, it would be quite a DSI to not have a constitution. Its a good buffer agianst totalitarianism.
- that 24-year old journalism major actually lied about graduating from college. and threatened NASA employees who spoke of global warming publicly, in opposition to the administration's view on the subject.
Thank you, thank you, but seriously: Stuart, you are on a roll. Keep em coming.
- Your point about not needing a Constitution is not as idiotic as you say. Well, it is, but not in so many ways. Courts, whether they realize it or not, often have no option but to impose their views on what should happen. Perhaps this happens only in the "hard" cases, but those are the important ones anyway. So your premise isn't just superficially true, and often is true while being superficially false. For centuries Courts operated without a constitution, or without much of one. There was the Magna Carta. At some point there was some sort of constitution regulating how the crown and parliament interact. Then, after the "Glorious Revolution," Britain adopted a bill of rights, finally codifying certain individual rights. But there were very few statutes - almost all law was developed in, and evolved in, the courts. Good old english common law.
But, it would be quite a DSI to not have a constitution. Its a good buffer agianst totalitarianism.
- that 24-year old journalism major actually lied about graduating from college. and threatened NASA employees who spoke of global warming publicly, in opposition to the administration's view on the subject.
# posted by 
: 3:13 PM
: 3:13 PM
I agree with you Stu. But I think that you may be missing an even bigger issue.
I believe that you are correct that people desire neat, discrete, atomic information and this can lead to incorrect conclusions. But I think you are also missing people's desire to be right and I think this can lead to intentionally or unintentionally supporting faulty logic.
But more importantly, I think the very concepts of right and wrong are off the mark and that as a culture we need to examine this. I have thought about this for a while, and I haven't come to any conclusions but I think we need to start thinking more in terms of event probability.
I think everyone has a desire to know what is going to happen or to be able to control what is going to happen and this is where the idea of truth becomes very valuable. But when complex issues arise, truth is dead weight. It is useful because it is quick and easy and works fine in most situations. But not for complex situations.
I believe that you are correct that people desire neat, discrete, atomic information and this can lead to incorrect conclusions. But I think you are also missing people's desire to be right and I think this can lead to intentionally or unintentionally supporting faulty logic.
But more importantly, I think the very concepts of right and wrong are off the mark and that as a culture we need to examine this. I have thought about this for a while, and I haven't come to any conclusions but I think we need to start thinking more in terms of event probability.
I think everyone has a desire to know what is going to happen or to be able to control what is going to happen and this is where the idea of truth becomes very valuable. But when complex issues arise, truth is dead weight. It is useful because it is quick and easy and works fine in most situations. But not for complex situations.
I think that people's desire to cling to their opinion's as correct and right is part of the idiocy, but ultimately, not the cause. The desire for simple, easy-to-understand information is just one of the most important causes of idiocy. I highlighted it because I think it is the main flaw in my 'no constitution' idea and the 'science is bad' idea. Other ideas are grounded in equally dangerous desires like clinging to tradition.
But, I would say this: wanting to be right means that person already formed an opinion. For example, if I were a supporter of slavery, that opinion might be born out of racism- ignorance, fear, prejudice. (which as I argued above are indeed born out of oversimplicity) When people try to convince me of this, I dismiss their arguments as wrong- because I would want to be right. So the desire to be right pushes me further and further into idiocy, but I don't think that it's the root cause of the idiocy.
In fact, we can and probably should appreciate the desire to be right, because without it, there would be no need for open-mindedness, there would be no need for discussion. Everyone would be happy with their own opinion. Of course, we can and probably should appreciate simplicity too. sigh, I guess that in both cases they've just been perverted a bit.
As to the other issue- that right and wrong are 'incorrect', I largely agree. Many religions indoctrinate the idea that there is a moral absolute- that God is a perfect Arbiter of Justice, and that there is a clear choice between right and wrong. This, is, I think, a continuation of the oversimplicity flaw. Take the Ten Commandments-- a nice, easy, simple set of rules, and try to apply them. Thou shalt not kill? Well, people talk of justified murder, who ostensibly believe in the Ten Commandments. Why? Because the ten commandments don't work in reality, they're too idealistic. What happens if someone is holding someone, or a lot of people hostage- is it morally right to kill him to save many? Well, most people would say yes- in violation of the Ten Commandments. They'd reason that it was the lesser of two evils, that given no other options, it is ok to kill. But the Ten commandments doesn't say 'Thou shalt not kill unless in self-defense, or in convicted criminal executions, and also excepting cases where the state's compelling interest is to kill.'
So killing is wrong. But it's ok to kill sometimes. Usury is wrong- but the western capitalist system is ok because back when the bible was around, compound interest didn't exist. So you're right. As a rule of thumb, 'don't kill' is pretty good, but as you said, 'not for complex situations.'
Probability is an interesting case too. I think people have to learn to think in terms of probability as well. I know you and I have had more formal probability training in things such as conditional probabilities, independence, and correlation, so it may be that it is simply easier for us to think in that way. (I know that experts in their fields tend to view reality through that lens- Einstein rejected the Prime Ministership of Israel on the grounds that politics was fleeting and equations are forever. or something like that) For many people, I think probability faces the same problem as science- it's not easy to grasp, and there are lots counter-intuitive things about it. People see 99% probability, and they think that means it's guaranteed. What they don't realize is that when 1% applied to huge numbers, like the population of the world, is still 600+ million people. That's why people who try to drum up fear of bird flu don't say- "A random person has a 99% chance of living." Nobody would care, right? They'd all think it would happen to someone else. Despite all that, I think the ideas of percentages, odds, and numbers do fit well within the human mind. In our own minds we do these calculations- "what are the odds of me getting in a car crash if I talk on my cell phone, vs. the benefits I would get from using my cell phone right now?" Sometimes people make logical decisions, sometimes they don't.
Post a Comment
But, I would say this: wanting to be right means that person already formed an opinion. For example, if I were a supporter of slavery, that opinion might be born out of racism- ignorance, fear, prejudice. (which as I argued above are indeed born out of oversimplicity) When people try to convince me of this, I dismiss their arguments as wrong- because I would want to be right. So the desire to be right pushes me further and further into idiocy, but I don't think that it's the root cause of the idiocy.
In fact, we can and probably should appreciate the desire to be right, because without it, there would be no need for open-mindedness, there would be no need for discussion. Everyone would be happy with their own opinion. Of course, we can and probably should appreciate simplicity too. sigh, I guess that in both cases they've just been perverted a bit.
As to the other issue- that right and wrong are 'incorrect', I largely agree. Many religions indoctrinate the idea that there is a moral absolute- that God is a perfect Arbiter of Justice, and that there is a clear choice between right and wrong. This, is, I think, a continuation of the oversimplicity flaw. Take the Ten Commandments-- a nice, easy, simple set of rules, and try to apply them. Thou shalt not kill? Well, people talk of justified murder, who ostensibly believe in the Ten Commandments. Why? Because the ten commandments don't work in reality, they're too idealistic. What happens if someone is holding someone, or a lot of people hostage- is it morally right to kill him to save many? Well, most people would say yes- in violation of the Ten Commandments. They'd reason that it was the lesser of two evils, that given no other options, it is ok to kill. But the Ten commandments doesn't say 'Thou shalt not kill unless in self-defense, or in convicted criminal executions, and also excepting cases where the state's compelling interest is to kill.'
So killing is wrong. But it's ok to kill sometimes. Usury is wrong- but the western capitalist system is ok because back when the bible was around, compound interest didn't exist. So you're right. As a rule of thumb, 'don't kill' is pretty good, but as you said, 'not for complex situations.'
Probability is an interesting case too. I think people have to learn to think in terms of probability as well. I know you and I have had more formal probability training in things such as conditional probabilities, independence, and correlation, so it may be that it is simply easier for us to think in that way. (I know that experts in their fields tend to view reality through that lens- Einstein rejected the Prime Ministership of Israel on the grounds that politics was fleeting and equations are forever. or something like that) For many people, I think probability faces the same problem as science- it's not easy to grasp, and there are lots counter-intuitive things about it. People see 99% probability, and they think that means it's guaranteed. What they don't realize is that when 1% applied to huge numbers, like the population of the world, is still 600+ million people. That's why people who try to drum up fear of bird flu don't say- "A random person has a 99% chance of living." Nobody would care, right? They'd all think it would happen to someone else. Despite all that, I think the ideas of percentages, odds, and numbers do fit well within the human mind. In our own minds we do these calculations- "what are the odds of me getting in a car crash if I talk on my cell phone, vs. the benefits I would get from using my cell phone right now?" Sometimes people make logical decisions, sometimes they don't.
<< Home
