Liberals Discover the Limits of Rationality- They Should Be Worried.

[Denter]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

I've recently become more and more amused at the supposed insult that something is irrational, or that people are acting illogically against what is "rationally" their own self interest, especially vis a vis politics. Increasingly, scientists are taking notice that reason is a tool and not a standard. The New Yorker felt compelled to write about this because Donald Trump won the election, which is something that Those Who Are Rational could not understand. Thus, their understanding of the power of Reason itself must be wrong:

Stripped of a lot of what might be called cognitive-science-ese, Mercier and Sperber’s argument runs, more or less, as follows: Humans’ biggest advantage over other species is our ability to coöperate. Coöperation is difficult to establish and almost as difficult to sustain. For any individual, freeloading is always the best course of action. Reason developed not to enable us to solve abstract, logical problems or even to help us draw conclusions from unfamiliar data; rather, it developed to resolve the problems posed by living in collaborative groups.

“Reason is an adaptation to the hypersocial niche humans have evolved for themselves,” Mercier and Sperber write. Habits of mind that seem weird or goofy or just plain dumb from an “intellectualist” point of view prove shrewd when seen from a social “interactionist” perspective.

Humans are of course, primarily concerned with context and not things. As George Lucas once said "A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." Meaning, roughly, that we are more social than we are scientist. Duh. But what's important is the borders of the group, NOT rationality of argument. They discover this.

This borderlessness, or, if you prefer, confusion, is also crucial to what we consider progress. As people invented new tools for new ways of living, they simultaneously created new realms of ignorance; if everyone had insisted on, say, mastering the principles of metalworking before picking up a knife, the Bronze Age wouldn’t have amounted to much. When it comes to new technologies, incomplete understanding is empowering.

Where it gets us into trouble, according to Sloman and Fernbach, is in the political domain. It’s one thing for me to flush a toilet without knowing how it operates, and another for me to favor (or oppose) an immigration ban without knowing what I’m talking about. Sloman and Fernbach cite a survey conducted in 2014, not long after Russia annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Respondents were asked how they thought the U.S. should react, and also whether they could identify Ukraine on a map. The farther off base they were about the geography, the more likely they were to favor military intervention. (Respondents were so unsure of Ukraine’s location that the median guess was wrong by eighteen hundred miles, roughly the distance from Kiev to Madrid.)

^ This is the most full throated argument against democracy since the Athenians voted to invade Sicily.

Surveys on many other issues have yielded similarly dismaying results. “As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding,” Sloman and Fernbach write. And here our dependence on other minds reinforces the problem. If your position on, say, the Affordable Care Act is baseless and I rely on it, then my opinion is also baseless. When I talk to Tom and he decides he agrees with me, his opinion is also baseless, but now that the three of us concur we feel that much more smug about our views. If we all now dismiss as unconvincing any information that contradicts our opinion, you get, well, the Trump Administration.

....

There must be some way, they maintain, to convince people that vaccines are good for kids, and handguns are dangerous. (Another widespread but statistically insupportable belief they’d like to discredit is that owning a gun makes you safer.) But here they encounter the very problems they have enumerated. Providing people with accurate information doesn’t seem to help; they simply discount it. Appealing to their emotions may work better, but doing so is obviously antithetical to the goal of promoting sound science. “The challenge that remains,” they write toward the end of their book, “is to figure out how to address the tendencies that lead to false scientific belief.”

My question would be what is more useful, false science in this instance, or true science in this instance? Is truth the correct atomic make up of an object, or its utility for group survival?

So here the well-meaning liberal encounters a seeming paradox; if "facts" (which is an almost useless term) fail to move someone, we are left with aesthetic and moral arguments. However, these are not rational arguments- and using them itself undermines the very pillar of Enlightenment rationality that our interlocutors at the New Yorker pray to quite religiously.

The smarter set realizes that when they were able to make reasoned arguments, it was due to a mutually held set of normative community values. This means all they have left is moral and aesthetic arguments.

Alistair MacIntyre's entire thesis is essentially that morality and ethics are socially derived and therefore not universal but rather irrational and normative to the community that produced them. What this means for our unfortunate bemoaners at the New Yorker is that the reason their rational arguments do not work, and why their moral arguments will not work, is because the other side no longer regards them as belonging to the same normative community.

In this context, it is easy to see why their arguments would be ignored; once belonging to a different moral group, arguments are seen much differently than if they come from within. The opposing group views such arguments suspiciously, and spots hypocrisy like an eagle, and concludes that such arguments are instruments for their division and destruction.

Their aesthetic arguments fail, of course, because they are ugly.

Since we no longer inhabit the same moral communities, I do not see any solution, nor is any solution really advisable. The internal system that calibrated "rightist" (roughly speaking) ethics has been discombobulated for a very long time, and all that remains is shallow moralisms and ritual obeisance to the same symbols. Why would any "leftist" (roughly speaking) want to pay fealty to that to "re-unite the tribe"?

What do you think the limits of rationality are in the political realm? Do you see a solution?


EDIT: Nietzsche's description of an objective, rational man (if such a thing could exist):

The objective man, who no longer curses and scolds like the pessimist, the IDEAL man of learning in whom the scientific instinct blossoms forth fully after a thousand complete and partial failures, is assuredly one of the most costly instruments that exist, but his place is in the hand of one who is more powerful. He is only an instrument, we may say, he is a MIRROR--he is no "purpose in himself". The objective man is in truth a mirror accustomed to prostration before everything that wants to be known, with such desires only as knowing or "reflecting" implies--he waits until something comes, and then expands himself sensitively, so that even the light footsteps and gliding-past of spiritual beings may not be lost on his surface and film. Whatever "personality" he still possesses seems to him accidental, arbitrary, or still oftener, disturbing, so much has he come to regard himself as the passage and reflection of outside forms and events..... The objective man is an instrument, a costly, easily injured, easily tarnished measuring instrument and mirroring apparatus, which is to be taken care of and respected; but he is no goal, not outgoing nor upgoing...

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Alistair MacIntyre's entire thesis is essentially that morality and ethics are socially derived and therefore not universal but rather irrational and normative to the community that produced them. What this means for our unfortunate bemoaners at the New Yorker is that the reason their rational arguments do not work, and why their moral arguments will not work, is because the other side no longer regards them as belonging to the same normative community.

In this context, it is easy to see why their arguments would be ignored; once belonging to a different moral group, arguments are seen much differently than if they come from within. The opposing group views such arguments suspiciously, and spots hypocrisy like an eagle, and concludes that such arguments are instruments for their division and destruction.

I disagree with the underlined.

I mean, it's true from a very superficial point, but I think there's a common foundation that's universal.

We can all point to the hideous things that have happened in various societies throughout history that have been deemed acceptable and moral and conclude that yeah, morality is completely socially-derived. However, if you look at the stated arguments for even the worst practices, you'll see that they just about all had very nice-sounding, beneficial, and fair points.

For example, take a look at the arguments for Native American extermination, or even slavery and they had very humane justifications. It wasn't that it was fun owning people and separating them from their families. Africans were simply inferior people who were unable to fend for themselves and who were better off living under their masters where they took part in honest labor and contributed to a modern society.

Native Americans had to be pushed off their lands because god deemed Europeans as the race to take over the country and profit off of it. This is the same god that creates beautiful things and makes miracles happen so how can you really go against him? Besides, the Natives didn't understand commerce or private property so moving them to some corner somewhere wasn't really being cruel, they were just being moved so people that really knew how to take advantage of them could live.

Time after time you see the aggressor justify his acts on grounds of fairness, mercy, love, democracy, etc. Sure, you get a few pathological ones every so often that are unabashedly cruel, but they're very rare.

This leads me to believe that basic morality really is universal. We simply have to iron out what constitutes morality in each historical context.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Great OP, but this is well-traveled ground. We all have the capacity to reason so reason--unlike belief, for example, or "culture"--can work as a basis for a universalist society. And the proof is the spectacular success (by any conceivable metric) of Western society.

 

[Denter]

I disagree with the underlined.

I mean, it's true from a very superficial point, but I think there's a common foundation that's universal.

We can all point to the hideous things that have happened in various societies throughout history that have been deemed acceptable and moral and conclude that yeah, morality is completely socially-derived. However, if you look at the stated arguments for even the worst practices, you'll see that they just about all had very nice-sounding, beneficial, and fair points.

For example, take a look at the arguments for Native American extermination, or even slavery and they had very humane justifications. It wasn't that it was fun owning people and separating them from their families. Africans were simply inferior people who were unable to fend for themselves and who were better off living under their masters where they took part in honest labor and contributed to a modern society.

Native Americans had to be pushed off their lands because god deemed Europeans as the race to take over the country and profit off of it. This is the same god that creates beautiful things and makes miracles happen so how can you really go against him? Besides, the Natives didn't understand commerce or private property so moving them to some corner somewhere wasn't really being cruel, they were just being moved so people that really knew how to take advantage of them could live.

Time after time you see the aggressor justify his acts on grounds of fairness, mercy, love, democracy, etc. Sure, you get a few pathological ones every so often that are unabashedly cruel, but they're very rare.

This leads me to believe that basic morality really is universal. We simply have to iron out what constitutes morality in each historical context.

See I think this is a mischaracterization of a very broad subject.

The justifications for bad behavior begin to take on a humanist and democratic bent at the exact same time that those philosophies gained power within a society. Prior to that, justifications for atrocity were religious, or based on violation of taboo, and prior to that, the invocation of some cosmic law (see the Assyrians).

Its true that every bad guy thinks they are the good guy, but how they rationalize their bad behavior varies with what they see as legitimate ethical authorities and ends. So I guess I mischaracterize MacIntyre in that way- he isn't arguing for full moral relativism. He is instead arguing for virtue ethics, sustained by virtue practices, which will themselves be culturally and socially determined, and therefore vary.

 

[Denter]

Great OP, but this is well-traveled ground. We all have the capacity to reason so reason--unlike belief, for example, or "culture"--can work as a basis for a society. And the proof is the spectacular success (by any conceivable metric) of Western society.

Western society is not based on reason.

 

[CargoKing]

So when are bible-toting conservatives who hate immigrants going to discover reason? How long after will they discover the limits of it?

 

[touchedbyjab]

So when will blue-headed SJW dykes wearing hijabs for feminism discover reason? How long after will they realize their hypocrisy?

 

[Limbo Pete]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

I've recently become more and more amused at the supposed insult that something is irrational, or that people are acting illogically against what is "rationally" their own self interest, especially vis a vis politics. Increasingly, scientists are taking notice that reason is a tool and not a standard. The New Yorker felt compelled to write about this because Donald Trump won the election, which is something that Those Who Are Rational could not understand. Thus, their understanding of the power of Reason itself must be wrong:



Humans are of course, primarily concerned with context and not things. As George Lucas once said "A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." Meaning, roughly, that we are more social than we are scientist. Duh. But what's important is the borders of the group, NOT rationality of argument. They discover this.



^ This is the most full throated argument against democracy since the Athenians voted to invade Sicily.



My question would be what is more useful, false science in this instance, or true science in this instance? Is truth the correct atomic make up of an object, or its utility for group survival?

So here the well-meaning liberal encounters a seeming paradox; if "facts" (which is an almost useless term) fail to move someone, we are left with aesthetic and moral arguments. However, these are not rational arguments- and using them itself undermines the very pillar of Enlightenment rationality that our interlocutors at the New Yorker pray to quite religiously.

The smarter set realizes that when they were able to make reasoned arguments, it was due to a mutually held set of normative community values. This means all they have left is moral and aesthetic arguments.

Alistair MacIntyre's entire thesis is essentially that morality and ethics are socially derived and therefore not universal but rather irrational and normative to the community that produced them. What this means for our unfortunate bemoaners at the New Yorker is that the reason their rational arguments do not work, and why their moral arguments will not work, is because the other side no longer regards them as belonging to the same normative community.

In this context, it is easy to see why their arguments would be ignored; once belonging to a different moral group, arguments are seen much differently than if they come from within. The opposing group views such arguments suspiciously, and spots hypocrisy like an eagle, and concludes that such arguments are instruments for their division and destruction.

Their aesthetic arguments fail, of course, because they are ugly.

Since we no longer inhabit the same moral communities, I do not see any solution, nor is any solution really advisable. The internal system that calibrated "rightist" (roughly speaking) ethics has been discombobulated for a very long time, and all that remains is shallow moralisms and ritual obeisance to the same symbols. Why would any "leftist" (roughly speaking) want to pay fealty to that to "re-unite the tribe"?

What do you think the limits of rationality are in the political realm? Do you see a solution?


EDIT: Nietzsche's description of an objective, rational man (if such a thing could exist):

Gonna have to go ahead and disregard this entire post over use of "vis a vis" in the first sentence for reasons I will be unable to articulate.

 

[Undying Poster]

Western society is not based on reason.

Why do you think this?

 

[CargoKing]

So when will blue-headed SJW dykes wearing hijabs for feminism discover reason? How long after will they realize their hypocrisy?

...psssst... the thread was already going after liberals.

 

[Denter]

So when are bible-toting conservatives who hate immigrants going to discover reason? How long after will they discover the limits of it?

My point is that I acknowledge the centrality of irrationality and aesthetics.

Most modern "rightists" in the US attempt to co-opt a rationalist framework and it doesn't really work.

 

[Denter]

Why do you think this?

Based on truth-in-action, not reason.

 

[CargoKing]

My point is that I acknowledge the centrality of irrationality and aesthetics.

Most modern "rightists" in the US attempt to co-opt a rationalist framework and it doesn't really work.

Do you think your title reflected that? Lol.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Western society is not based on reason.

That's its defining characteristic.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

I disagree with the underlined.

I mean, it's true from a very superficial point, but I think there's a common foundation that's universal.

We can all point to the hideous things that have happened in various societies throughout history that have been deemed acceptable and moral and conclude that yeah, morality is completely socially-derived. However, if you look at the stated arguments for even the worst practices, you'll see that they just about all had very nice-sounding, beneficial, and fair points.

For example, take a look at the arguments for Native American extermination, or even slavery and they had very humane justifications. It wasn't that it was fun owning people and separating them from their families. Africans were simply inferior people who were unable to fend for themselves and who were better off living under their masters where they took part in honest labor and contributed to a modern society.

Native Americans had to be pushed off their lands because god deemed Europeans as the race to take over the country and profit off of it. This is the same god that creates beautiful things and makes miracles happen so how can you really go against him? Besides, the Natives didn't understand commerce or private property so moving them to some corner somewhere wasn't really being cruel, they were just being moved so people that really knew how to take advantage of them could live.

Time after time you see the aggressor justify his acts on grounds of fairness, mercy, love, democracy, etc. Sure, you get a few pathological ones every so often that are unabashedly cruel, but they're very rare.

This leads me to believe that basic morality really is universal. We simply have to iron out what constitutes morality in each historical context.

I'll sum up Pissum Jenkins post for everyone: WHITE PEOPLE ARE BAD AND THEY JUSTIFY THEIR BAD ACTIONS BY OFFERING A ALTERNATIVE LOOK THAT THEY THINK IS OK FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE BUT REALLY THEY ARE JUST BAD PEOPLE.

The majority of man kind has been all races--most cultures/nations--enslaving each other, pillaging and destroying/misplacing. Africans misplaced their own--just like most humans out of our short existence on Earth--as slaves to Euros for their own advancement.

These last 300 years are a tiny blip in human history. Go back much further and deeper into human history and you'll find that White people aren't so bad after all, it's humans as a whole living in harsher environments with a less enthused outlook on the preservation of humanity--much lower emotional and apathy evolution than current day humans--and you will understand people more. You can find today people who act like people from the 6th century and you don't even need a time machine.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

See I think this is a mischaracterization of a very broad subject.

The justifications for bad behavior begin to take on a humanist and democratic bent at the exact same time that those philosophies gained power within a society. Prior to that, justifications for atrocity were religious, or based on violation of taboo, and prior to that, the invocation of some cosmic law (see the Assyrians).

Its true that every bad guy thinks they are the good guy, but how they rationalize their bad behavior varies with what they see as legitimate ethical authorities and ends. So I guess I mischaracterize MacIntyre in that way- he isn't arguing for full moral relativism. He is instead arguing for virtue ethics, sustained by virtue practices, which will themselves be culturally and socially determined, and therefore vary.

True, pre-Enlightenment aggression didn't use the same language or justifications of progress and fairness but I do think they used a form of morality for justification and didn't just outright rely on cruelty or strength.

So when they used religious or cosmic arguments they were still deferring to a higher power or higher consciousness. We're taking over your village because our emperor has been sent by god (or is a god himself) to rule over everyone. Don't mean anything by it, we're just doing our religious duty.

In this time, atrocities only happened when the conquered resisted. I really don't think there are a lot of instances when annihilation for its own sake was the norm. Even the most rapacious societies were nice to you if you submitted and played the game their way.

This near universal need to justify aggression and domination suggests that there is an innate morality in all humans. Whether it's the stars, god, the king, the fatherland, civilization or democracy, there's always a greater good that will come out of the violence being perpetrated.

 

[lfd0311]

Western society is not based on reason.

Uh... what?

 

[Jim Bob]

So when are bible-toting conservatives who hate immigrants going to discover reason? How long after will they discover the limits of it?

Not against legal immigration. My wife is an immigrant! You better know who is coming across your borders though.

 

[CargoKing]

-Not against legal immigration. My wife is an immigrant! You better know who is coming across your borders though.

So can I politely ask why you responded? I named a certain kind of conservative. You're a man right? But if I addressed something to "murdering bisexual pedophile man" you wouldn't respond, because you're not that kind of man.

Why do we no longer do this in politics and political discussions? It really isn't just conservative/liberal the same way it isn't simply man/woman, black/white.

Honestly not trying to be a dick I just genuinely want someone to see what I'm seeing.

 

[dontsnitch]

So can I politely ask why you responded? I named a certain kind of conservative. You're a man right? But if I addressed something to "murdering bisexual pedophile man" you wouldn't respond, because you're not that kind of man.

Why do we no longer do this in politics and political discussions? It really isn't just conservative/liberal the same way it isn't simply man/woman, black/white.

Honestly not trying to be a dick I just genuinely want someone to see what I'm seeing.

It reads more like a strawman. If I would ask, "when are nihilistic liberals who love criminals entering illegally going to stop hating America?" I would be sure to get a response or two.