The following is an edited transcript from the Making Sense podcast:
There is a topic on which I appear to have offended many people—about which many of these offended people appear profoundly confused. I think this topic lies somewhere near the center of our most pressing cultural problems—especially the shattering of our information landscape and the resulting hyperpolarization of our politics. The result of this shattering, especially on the right, is an increasingly conspiratorial view of the world. Rather than recognize that bad outcomes are often due to ignorance or incompetence, many people on the right see malevolent competence and coordination everywhere. This shattering is also fueling widespread contempt for institutions. Needless to say, any response to this contempt from the institutions themselves tends to be dismissed as just more sinister machinations on the part of the elites. Some of this populist backlash is understandable—but increasingly, this seems like a cultural death spiral to me. Our institutions simply must regain public trust. The question is, how can they do this?
At the core of this problem lurks a fundamental question about the nature of intellectual authority. When do we rely on it, and when are we right to ignore it, or even repudiate it?
Everyone knows that you shouldn’t argue from authority. You can’t say, “What I’m saying is true because I am saying it,” or “It’s true because Einstein said it,” or “It’s true because it’s been published in a prestigious journal.” If a theory is true, or a fact is a really a fact, it is so independent of the source making the claim (leaving aside facts that merely relate to one person’s subjective experience). Consequently, no sane expert ever really argues from authority. What actually happens is something that is easily mistaken for this—which is that people often rely on authority as a proxy for explaining, or even understanding, why something is true. It’s a little like using money as a medium of exchange, rather than hauling around valuable objects or commodities. It’s easier to carry dirty paper in your pocket than a barrel of oil or a bushel of wheat. In the same way, it’s easier to say, or to think, that “gravity is identical to the curvature of space-time because Einstein proved it,” than it is to really understand the general theory of relativity. It’s a shortcut that’s necessary, for just about everyone, most of the time. The crucial point is that there is a difference between rejecting any argument from authority and rejecting the value, or reality, of authority itself.
For instance, I often speak with physicists on this podcast, and when I do, it is appropriate for me to assume that they understand their field better than I do—after all, that is what specialization is. If I spent as much time studying physics as a professional physicist, and proved competent at that task, I would be a physicist. And when talking to a physicist, it is important for me to understand that I’m not one.
Of course, this is true for any area of specialization. If I’m talking to Siddhartha Mukherjee about cancer, it is only decent and sane for me to acknowledge—if merely tacitly by asking questions and listening to the answers—that he, being a celebrated oncologist, knows more about cancer than I do. There is such a thing as expertise, and to not acknowledge this is just idiotic. To move through life not acknowledging it is to turn the whole world into a theater of potential embarrassment.
Relying on authority can produce errors, of course. (In the same way that some of the money in your wallet could prove to be counterfeit.) But not relying on it—shunning it, just “doing one’s own research”—is guaranteed to produce more errors, at least in the aggregate. After all, what is one doing when one is “doing one’s own research”—if not seeking out what the best authorities have to say on a given topic?
What the phrase “doing one’s own research” usually refers to are the efforts that people make to sort through information, mostly online, when they no longer trust what the most mainstream experts have to say. Usually, they have gone in search of other voices that are telling them what they want to hear—or perhaps what they don’t want to hear, but it’s now coming with a compelling, conspiratorial or contrarian slant. You don’t trust what the most respected doctors have to say—because you think they’ve all been captured by big pharma, perhaps—so you’ve found a guy in Tijuana who says he can cure your cancer. You don’t trust what the Mayo Clinic says about vaccines—and now you’re afraid to get your kids vaccinated—because you’ve listened to 14 hours of RFK Jr. on podcasts. And now you’ve started trusting him as… what?… a new authority.
We can’t break free of the circle of authority. Of course, I’m not denying that it’s possible to do truly original research—where you become the new authority—but that is not what we’re talking about here. Doing one’s own research almost never entails running the relevant experiments in virology oneself, or searching the Soviet archives oneself, or translating the speech from Arabic oneself, or interviewing the long-dead politician oneself. Most of the time, we simply have to trust that other people did their work responsibly, that their data isn’t fabricated, that they didn’t devote their entire careers to perpetrating an elaborate hoax. Again, there are exceptions—but they are simply not relevant most of the time. (That is what it means to be an exception.) Most of the time, if you no longer trust the experts, you’ve started trusting someone’s uncle.
Most of the time, real experts, who have been trained in the relevant disciplines, through real institutions, offer the best approximation of our knowledge within a field. This is no more debatable than that, most of the time, our best basketball players are in the NBA. Is it possible to find someone outside the NBA who’s amazing at basketball? Of course. Is it also possible to find someone in the NBA who shouldn’t be there? Probably. (Though it’s also safe to assume that such a person will spend most of his time sitting on the bench.) It simply is a fact that if you had to find the best basketball players in America, in some reasonable time frame, you could do a lot worse than grab the NBA all-stars from any given year. And so it is with scientists, historians, and other specialists at our most elite institutions.
There are two important caveats to this general rule: (1) There are fake disciplines, or those that are mostly fake—whole fields of scholarship that pretend to be scientific, or at least intellectually rigorous, but they are mostly, or entirely, a sham. And (2), there are real areas of scholarship that have been corrupted, to one or another degree, by politics or other bad incentives. For instance, you cannot, with any confidence, venture into a department of Middle Eastern studies at an American university and get a morally sane (much less accurate) account of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, or between western values and those of conservative Islam. But the reasons for that failure are also knowable, and ultimately correctable. One reason is that Qatar, an Islamic theocracy and patron of terrorists, has given more money to US universities than any other country on Earth has. This is a totally bizarre situation that fairly shrieks of intellectual corruption, if not suicide. But, again, the problem here is understandable and can be fixed. And it is simply one version of the problem of bad incentives.
The reason to worry about bad incentives is that we understand how they corrupt people. This is why the Upton Sinclair line is so famous, because it captures a perennial problem in society: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." In so far as it’s possible, you want to remove the bad incentives from your life—and, collectively, we have to worry about bad incentives distorting our view of what is important, or even of what is real.
Most of the current skepticism about establishment institutions, and about mainstream expertise generally, is the result of the various failures of scientific thinking and communication that occurred during the Covid pandemic. While many of these failures were significant, there is no question that they have been magnified and distorted by our politics. In a previous podcast, I made an invidious comparison between Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins—two doctors who are now widely demonized right of center—and RFK jr. My point wasn’t to absolve Fauci and Collins of all responsibility for mismanaging our response to Covid. For all I know, both men should be investigated—and I have no idea what we would find. I was simply pointing out that these guys exist within a culture of science where intellectual embarrassment—and worse—is still possible. RFK Jr. doesn’t. He is a crackpot and a conspiracy nut. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong about everything. And that doesn’t mean that turning him loose on the bureaucracy of the HHS might not do some good. Perhaps it will. Is he the best person to do that good? Of course not. But it is possible for the wrong person to occasionally do the right thing.
However, whatever good RFK Jr. may accomplish in the future, my point stands. Unlike Fauci or Collins, he has no intellectual reputation to maintain. He can drag a dead bear into Central Park and stage a fake bike accident with it, and it just serves to burnish his brand for his idiotic fans. He can also spread lies and misinformation about vaccines in a multi-decade, contrarian grift—and he will continue to thrive in a parallel reality where Andrew Wakefield, the fraud who originally linked the MMR vaccine with autism, is considered an unfairly maligned scientific authority. If Fauci and Collins, or any other scientists, are guilty of scientific misconduct, that is something that can be found out, and their reputations will really suffer—not among cultists and freaks, but among the people who hold their reputations in trust, other scientists. Real scientists, scholars, and journalists can be convicted of misconduct or hypocrisy or some other betrayal of intellectual standards, because they have such standards to betray. There are no standards of intellectual integrity in Trumpistan. And there are no standards of ethical integrity either. If you live there, it is literally impossible to a hypocrite. In Trump’s orbit, if you’re caught cheating on your wife or your taxes, you can say, “Who ever said I wasn’t going to cheat on my wife or my taxes? Fuck you!” And you win.
The truth is, RFK jr. doesn’t belong anywhere near the levers of power that govern health policy in America. But, again, this doesn’t mean that he’s wrong about everything. And it doesn’t mean he can’t possibly do some good. And I hope he does, if he actually gets confirmed. There are bad incentives in the business of medicine, medical insurance, and pharmaceuticals, and it would be very good for someone to try to sort them out.
These are very basic distinctions, but over on X—that paradise for free speech—and on many prominent podcasts, such distinctions appear impossible to understand.
There are edge cases, of course, that can be genuinely difficult to resolve. For instance, what about the possibility of the lone, self-taught genius, who just comes crashing through established orthodoxy bearing a new gospel? How do we recognize that when it arrives? Conversely, and much more common, what about the pedigreed expert who looks perfect on paper—he’s got all the right degrees and has published in good journals—but, due to some quirk in his wiring, he becomes a crank or a lunatic? Now he’s on Joe Rogan’s podcast, and somewhere around the 4-hour mark he divulges that he was once abducted, and lavishly probed, by extraterrestrials.
It should be obvious that, either way, mere credentialism isn’t a perfect filter. A Ph.D. from Cal Tech guarantees something: It more or less guarantees that a person is smart. But it can’t guarantee that they are sane. And it really is possible for someone come from outside a field and make important contributions within it. There is no formula for resolving doubt in such cases, beyond getting other smart people who are adequate to the conversation—that is, other real authorities—to render their judgment. Whether to spend time doing this oneself—and risk wasting time—or, harder still, whether to give such a person a public platform, so that many more people can hear and respond to their views, can be hard to decide. And I’ve made no secret of the fact that I think other prominent podcasters have screwed this up, repeatedly. Many have made a habit of talking to people who quite obviously don’t clear the bar, and it’s embarrassing. What’s more, it’s been damaging to the public conversation about several important issues. However, I’m probably guilty of having made some bad calls myself. And I will probably make mistakes in the future.
But these are edge cases for a reason—they are hard to figure out. My general policy is that the most respected, mainstream voices on most topics are generally worth listening to. Again, in many fields, on many topics, it’s like finding your next free-throw shooter in the NBA. Not a bad place to look. Of course, there are exceptions. But RFK Jr. on vaccines isn’t one of them. And neither is the comedian Dave Smith on U.S. foreign policy. Nor is Tucker Carlson on any topic, other than “what the hell happened to him”? Those are easy calls.
We are watching our political, intellectual, and even moral culture get torched, every hour of the day, on social media. And Elon Musk is now one of the greatest arsonists out there, while he and his fans pretend that he’s the fire marshal coming to the rescue. Elon is being celebrated by legions of credulous and self-deceived people as the person who is doing more than anyone to restore and protect the integrity of our public conversation, while he is probably doing more than anyone to sabotage it. He has become almost an apostle of a new religion, whose sacrament is algorithmically amplified bullshit. And like many religious figures, he simply does not care about misleading people. He isn’t noticing his errors, much less correcting them (to say nothing of apologizing for them). And if you notice them for him, you become his enemy, fit only to be smeared and lied about in his digital hall of mirrors.
You have to be able to hold two thoughts in your head at the same moment: Yes, the man is the most talented entrepreneur of his generation; and yes, he has become a total asshole. To call him reckless and irresponsible is an understatement. He simply does not care if he spreads dangerous, defamatory lies. And if you wonder whether I tried my best to get through to him in private before saying this sort of thing in public, I did.
And it has been nauseating to watch Elon pass the various loyalty tests laid out for him by Trump—minimizing the significance of January 6th, for instance. It’s interesting to wonder about what role incentives could play here: How has the richest and one of the most famous and powerful men on Earth been incentivized to behave this way? Well, as I’ve I said before, I think social media has played a major role. At some point, Elon became a kind of attention monster—which is what Trump has always been. I think it is safe to say that attention, especially adulation, from the wrong audience, is bad for you.
In any case, if you think that concerns about misinformation and disinformation, and the spread of conspiracy thinking, are just fake—they’re just smoke screens thrown up by people who don’t like free speech and favor government censorship—and you think all the freewheeling fuckery on social media from Trump and Elon is necessary and noble—you’re in a cult. Spreading obvious lies is not necessary or noble. Amplifying baseless and divisive conspiracy theories, ridicule, and hatred isn’t necessary or noble. But this is what both Trump and Elon have done, at scale, for years now.
If you’re politically right-of-center, and you believe that the problem of conspiracy thinking is exaggerated, what do you think about it over on the left? Admittedly, it’s not as big a problem over there, but it definitely exists. For instance, there are people who believe that Trump faked that first assassination attempt against him. Have you heard about this? Like most conspiracy theories, it’s ridiculous, but there are people who believe this. If you don’t like the phrase “conspiracy theory” when it stigmatizes some of the Trumpist garbage you’re attached to, do you resist its application here, to the truly ludicrous idea that Trump hired someone to shoot him in the ear? The shooter killed an innocent person and then got killed himself, for all the trouble he took to perfectly nick Trump’s ear… What do you think about a person whose adventures online, just doing his own research, have convinced him that this is the best explanation of what we all saw?
The problem of misinformation runs the other way too, and I have defended Trump against the most glaring instance of it. Not the so-called “Russiagate” or “Russia-collusion” hoax—any of you who have these phrases rattling around in your head are, again, in a cult, and you have forgotten, if you ever even knew, all the ways in which Trump and his 2016 campaign were compromised by weird connections to Russia. The fact that Paul Manafort was running his campaign, in and of itself, was worthy of investigation. Lobbying for foreign interests what that guy’s whole career. Even Republican Senators acknowledged that Manafort posed a serious counterintelligence risk. And he proved to be such an upstanding citizen that he was sentenced to years in prison. Of course, Trump then pardoned him. “Nothing to see here, fellas!” Trump’s corruption has always been in plain view and has never required allegations of a hidden, criminal conspiracy. And anyone who uses the phrase “Russiagate” or “the Russia-collusion hoax” is guaranteed to be wrong about what the Mueller Report actually said. The truth is, you have no idea what was in the Mueller report, and you don’t care. And ditto of the January 6th Commission Report. You’re not tracking any of this, because you’re in a cult. It’s the cult of “Who gives a shit, you elitist asshole? Burn it all down!”
The clearest case of misinformation against Trump that I’m aware of was the “very fine people on both sides” calumny. Almost everyone left-of-center still believes that, after the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, Trump praised the assembled neo-Nazis and white supremacists as “very fine people.” They believe this because a clip from one of his press conferences was edited to make it seem like he said this. We are being driven insane one misleading clip at a time. If you watch or read Trump’s remarks in context, you will see that that the claim that he was praising neo-Nazis and white supremacists is a lie. I have debunked this lie many, many times, both on this podcast, and in print, to the consternation of people on the left who just want to score points against Trump and Trumpism without any concern for their own ethical or intellectual integrity. Needless to say, I’ve done this not out of any love for Trump, or for his influence on our politics, but out of a hatred for lies.
But Trump and Elon, and the cults that they have built, are comfortable with lies, and half-truths, and endless bullshit. They are perfectly content watch our political culture succumb to an algorithmically-mediated delirium. And they seem to have no concern about destroying important institutions—and, in many cases, declare themselves eager to destroy them.
Again, I’m not rooting for these guys to fail. And nothing I’ve said here is predicated on the conviction that they will. All of my complaints about Trump, and Elon, and their leveraging of populist irrationality and rage, refer to harms that have already occurred, moral injuries to our society that we have already suffered, dangerous lies that were already told, with the full knowledge that they were lies. Who knows what will happen in the future? At least it will not be boring...
Thanks for listening.
Evangelicals vs. woke liberals
Save the Free press
Google blocking some news site links in California is a bullying tactic, reinforcing the need for legislation like the California Journalism Preservation Act.
Best explanation of Christianity s success, the western mind
Why Republicans are pressured to believe the election was stolen…this am lige
The power of thought / waking up
Why evangelicals support Trump despite his despicable character
Why (woke) liberals are …confused.
How Trump will destroy democracy
Why evangelicals and woke liberals are so polarized…285 American Division. Evangelical David French
Why evangelicals believe in the big lie…
Are white people better than black people
What's wrong with woke liberals
A balanced assessment on COVID-19 pandemic
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/scientists-should-own-up-to-their-pandemic-era-mistakes/
A non political opinion about Donald Trump
The biggest source of disinformation in our present environment.
The appeal of Donald Trump
The advantage of polarizing liberals and conservatives
Are institutions corrupt
https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/
Comments
Post a Comment