Not-Thinking Out Loud
My sister said to me once, that we were living in the era of the Op-ed. My time in Mexico, impressed my sisters description on me further. Just as meal delivery apps have sprung up in the past half decade as a convenient solution to the time poor individual, the abundance of Op-ed (opinion editorial) content provides a convenient solution for the time poor individual to participate in a discourse while ensuring their toilet break does not exceed a mandated 4 minutes.
And of course I would surmise, that it isn't just stressed out 6-8 workers utilizing the convenience of outsourced opinions, convenience is beguiling to all. I would be surprised if uber eats wasn't popular with the long term unemployed slipping into a malaise where the stress and stigma from their situation makes it harder and harder to pull themselves away from soothing video games, not to mention the calming salts, fats and sugars of takeout that we seldom include when we cook at home. Just so, I imagine there may be people with plenty of time on their hands that will still prefer the sheer convenience of reading and sharing someone else's thoughts as a substitute for their own.
The person who has food delivered for years is unlikely to lose their ability to cook bolognese, pancakes or cubes of ice. And I don't know the neuroscience as to whether our neural pathways for cooking gradually go extinct with neglect or whether it's like riding a bike. But one is not likely to develop culinary skills in the interim. I do not imagine it is a frequent experience however that one is called upon to cook in their life; at least I can't conceive of a situation where one cannot instantly excuse themselves with 'I can't cook'.
Yes there's no Saw-like scenarios to my knowledge where someone has regained consciousness in a deathtrap that requires them to make a croquembuche or be baked themselves. I'm not arguing that eating out is good for you, nor harmless, just relatively inconsequential.
Because it strikes me as more likely that if one doesn't practice thinking, reasoning, argumentation, rhetoric, negotiation, writing, communication, presentation etc. these skill sets atrophy. However encountering a situation where, being able to do the cognitive equivalent of assembling a croquembouche, will be both more likely and incredibly consequential. Whether it is saving yours or another's life, avoiding financial ruin, casting a vote, or being able to sleep at night. Thinking is much more consequential than cooking, evidently so, because thinking can be used as to produce or substitute for a recipe.
What's interesting to me is that we live in a social environment that discourages thinking. The measure of nations remains Economical, with perhaps the solitary exception of Bhutan with its gross national happiness. This hasn't caught fire, nor do people of nations appear particularly impressed or perturbed by OECD human development indexes. My nation has never had a political leader come forth proposing we should run our nation more like Italy, given their greater longevity.
The proxy-measure for progress has been for quite some time 'Gross National Product' or GNP. It measures the total number of finished goods produced over a time period for the primary market, or at least that's my understanding of it. If you purchase a brand new fridge, the economy gets some credit for it. If you purchase a second hand fridge, the powers that be don't care.
This is significant because play conforms to the rules of a game. My former principle used an analogy of handing out darts to students and predicting they would throw them anywhere in any direction, into trees, walls and probably... fellow students. The moment though he paints a target on a wall, the darts will be thrown at it. This by the way is distinct from the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. What it means is that if your boss's boss's boss's boss cares exclusively about GNP then eventually you will learn to care exclusively about GNP.
This seepage down of incentives inevitably shapes society, until you have office buildings built on top of food courts and social media filled with shared op-eds. Simply because if you consume less that's bad for GNP. Buying ingredients from the grocery shows up in GNP, however preparing that food for yourself doesn't. Paying someone else to prepare your food does. The economy just by rewarding consumption, creates a blind migration to a society where nobody does anything for themselves if they can consume a good or service instead.
Not in some diabolical puppet master string pulling way, but just from the simple fact that if one is not paid to sit down, order their thoughts and articulate a position it doesn't show up in GNP. However, if someone pays a website for attracting eyeballs that see their ads, or attracting eyeballs to convert to subscriptions or donations, that website will likely start paying people to do thinking for others, or even articulation for others so they don't have to.
In an apolitical, and even amoral way, it is the exact same blind process that has us pay a premium to 7-Eleven for freezing and grinding up beverages for us, but extending into our mental lives.
Of course you've probably already thought of numerous exceptions where having someone opine for us is immensely valuable, just as having caterers feed 40 people for us, or having someone clean our office for us etc. is a good thing. We could call this, deferring to expert opinions, which is distinct from the appeal to authority. I do not for example advocate home surgery or just giving flying a passenger jet a go, or defending yourself in a criminal trial.
Enter an expert problem though, which is identifying experts. We have domains where expertise either does not exist, or possibly even cannot exist. I'm not sure if this is what is known as the expert problem, but I can conceive of few other candidates. It's namely the expertise required to identify an expert. Say you want to invest your savings to provide for your retirement and request an ethical fund. Lacking a degree of expertise in finance and investment you will be at the mercy of your expert. Are they an advocate of modern portfolio theory or value investing? Do they have a fiduciary obligation to advise in your interests? How are they determining your risk profile? What is their criteria for 'ethical' and does it map with yours?
If the Dunning-Kruger effect means we are blind to our own incompetence, surely this extends to our ability to detect competence in others. One particularly active and outspoken individual I see in my feeds urges me not to be 'brainwashed' but how does one know if they are brainwashed or not? Surely being successfully brainwashed requires one to believe they are not brainwashed? I can conceive of brainwashed individuals urging others not to be brainwashed.
As a poignant example of this expert problem consider this article that sticks in my memory for the very reason that cursory scrutiny of the article reveals it has no content. The additional effort of clicking a link reveals the assertions made are written by a non-expert. It is an Op-ed in the most literal sense, the thesis inferred is simply 'I encountered someone who voices opinions counter to my own, these opinions must be obstructed in order for my opinions to be unobstructed in the path to unanimity.'
One could be forgiven for thinking it contains content, if a list of unjustified assertions is confused for argumentation, where premises are established and conclusions follow. There is, with a little cognitive effort an interesting idea within the editorial and that is: "Toxic masculinity describes ...most importantly: the right and masculine way of engaging with the world." which though still an assertion, alludes to a weak inference that the very concept of argumentation, rhetoric, philosophy if attributed to toxic masculinity excuses the need for anything beyond an assertion, such that one cannot even use an argument to establish that philosophical argument and reason produce value and therefore cannot be defined as toxic.
That's really sophisticated though, and most probably unintentional given it isn't explicitly stated. But hopefully it highlights an expert problem, or appeal to authority. Is the average person competent to notice when subjective opinion is being presented as objective fact?
This is one of my chief misgivings about the recent surge of Video Essay content. With an economically driven reduction in the barriers to production, many non-experts have learned through trial and error and imitation and competition to present mere opinion in a convincingly authoritative way.
About a year ago, I got interested in why nobody I know condemns Antifa, who just seem shit, let alone shit at opposing fascism. They seem to pass in civil society under a veil of ignorance. 'They're Anti-fascist? Well then they must be good!' I have to admit I was largely ignorant regarding Antifa, kind of just assuming they were like Melbourne's shitty activist group 'the Socialist Alternative'. Seeking to get myself more informed, I eventually found an hour long video explaining the 'Philosophy' of Antifa. Which was very informative, but upon reflection I felt was again, ultimately contentless.
I couldn't share this video as an appeal to authority, to defer to, as a better articulation as to why and how fascism must be opposed, because I thought about it.
For the purposes of illustration, its most interesting idea and articulate argument was to substantiate a double standard, (justify a belief that fascism needs to be opposed by any means necessary) - is that fascists can choose to stop being fascists and go about their lives, whereas Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies etc. whoever fascists target; are required to cease to exist in order for fascists to be happy.
This though was undermined earlier in the piece where the auteur addressed dogwhistles, such that one need not identify as fascist or white supremacist to be justifiably targeted by Antifa. The video also attempts to justify a slippery-slope argument, that there is no form of white supremacy that does not result in violence.
I am no fan of Fascism, and I am a fan of Democracy, Self-determinism, Secular Humanism, Philosophy and the Enlightenment etc. As such I would apply Tony Benn's five essential questions for power to any group tasked with defending Democracy from Fascism:
1. What power have you got?
Tentative answer: Unlimited powers to oppose fascism, in addition the unilateral ability to determine who is fascist.
2. Where did you get it from?
Autonomously self appointed.
3. In Whose interest do you exercise it?
Ostensibly everyone.
4. To Whom are you accountable?
Nobody.
5. How can we get rid of you?
Unknown.
These examples of content that can serve to outsource one's own thinking to, are but examples I've personally chosen of product that has evolved under the selective pressures of the market. Alas, there always has been, and always will be a market not only for reason, but rationalization. Rationalization is also I'm fairly confident a largely automatic process.
A problem with markets, (as outlined by economist Robert Schiller whose expertise was established by being on the very short list of economists recognized for predicting the Global Financial Crisis,) is that they will efficiently produce snake oil when the market demands snake oil. It doesn't mean it should be provided.
The libertarian defense to this phenomena is that if left to it's own devices the snake oil salesmen will eventually go out of business when their customers die. However, we could also just regulate the market by altering incentives to prevent the sale of snake oil. Furthermore, snake oil is a fucking metaphor, and if it takes the shape of something like cost cutting measures in construction, insurance fraud, or climate denial, the demand may not represent the ultimate consumers of the snake oil.
To the limits of my imagination, I can guarantee if you search the market you will always be able to find someone willing to tell you what you want to hear. They may even be able to value add by formulating arguments and articulating them where you could not yourself. They may add value by committing fallacies you yourself cannot detect.
The market for outsourced thinking, certainly adds value in the form of risk management. If you were to write out your manifesto as to why the West needs to abandon it's taboos regarding the consumption of monkey and dog meat, and your friends refuted it, I suspect that would feel quite personal. If you share someone else's opinion that you happen to be sympathetic to, and your friend refutes it, much less personal. Very similar to IBM's 80's campaign 'Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.' If you go with some bloggers opinion and it doesn't pan out, it's the bloggers fault. If you express your own opinion and it doesn't go well, it's your fault.
Sadly though, sooner or later someone will ask you to justify some belief you hold, and it's very rare for a belief to be self evident. I suspect you never want to confess 'I believe it because I want it to be true.'
I listen to others, I try to find experts, I defer. I watch debates, often in masochistic state of frustration, I have even been known to read up on a subject. None of that is bad. However, by analogy consider how schools teach students to solve math problems.
The teacher might demonstrate the problem on the board for the class. Then have them open a textbook, the textbook might have worked examples that walk the students through the problem. So far, learning resembles outsourced thinking, with designated authorities the students largely take on trust. You may then be given examples, and there's almost certainly answers at the back of the textbook you can check against or copy from.
At some point though, you will be handed a piece of paper that asks you to solve for something, and that you show your workings. In my highschool you got a mark for the write answer and marks for your workings. One might get four out of five marks just for the workings where a stupid error was made like rounding or getting a sign wrong.
I've been out of school for a while, but would be shocked and disturbed if schools in an effort to catch up to the internet age no longer instructed students to show their workings, but instead asked questions like 'use your smartphone to share a quadratic equation on social media.'
Arguably one of the objectives of Education in teaching basic mathematics is to empower students to not have to spend money paying someone to do quite basic mathematics for them. To not produce adults that need to pay people to read for them.
Sadly, we do live in a world where at best people are often sharing content they may have read, but not really scrutinized. I have a great appreciation now of the old proverb 'A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth even has its boots on.' It is not uncommon for me to see people sharing warnings about a misinformation campaign that has not nor ever will reach me, before then obliviously sharing misinformation themselves.
Perhaps most concerning though, is that often in the marketplace of ideas, when we outsource our thinking we often aren't even serving the interests of the people we think we are (ie. the author of an op-ed) nor even the employer of the author, nor the direct financial beneficiary like their advertises or sponsors, or the company that takes a cut of all the donations it facilitates. I mean, coincidentally yes, we may be unwittingly serving all these interests in the chain.
But ultimately, we are serving those few economists that pretended to know that GNP was the most suitable proxy measure of human utility.
And of course I would surmise, that it isn't just stressed out 6-8 workers utilizing the convenience of outsourced opinions, convenience is beguiling to all. I would be surprised if uber eats wasn't popular with the long term unemployed slipping into a malaise where the stress and stigma from their situation makes it harder and harder to pull themselves away from soothing video games, not to mention the calming salts, fats and sugars of takeout that we seldom include when we cook at home. Just so, I imagine there may be people with plenty of time on their hands that will still prefer the sheer convenience of reading and sharing someone else's thoughts as a substitute for their own.
The person who has food delivered for years is unlikely to lose their ability to cook bolognese, pancakes or cubes of ice. And I don't know the neuroscience as to whether our neural pathways for cooking gradually go extinct with neglect or whether it's like riding a bike. But one is not likely to develop culinary skills in the interim. I do not imagine it is a frequent experience however that one is called upon to cook in their life; at least I can't conceive of a situation where one cannot instantly excuse themselves with 'I can't cook'.
Yes there's no Saw-like scenarios to my knowledge where someone has regained consciousness in a deathtrap that requires them to make a croquembuche or be baked themselves. I'm not arguing that eating out is good for you, nor harmless, just relatively inconsequential.
Because it strikes me as more likely that if one doesn't practice thinking, reasoning, argumentation, rhetoric, negotiation, writing, communication, presentation etc. these skill sets atrophy. However encountering a situation where, being able to do the cognitive equivalent of assembling a croquembouche, will be both more likely and incredibly consequential. Whether it is saving yours or another's life, avoiding financial ruin, casting a vote, or being able to sleep at night. Thinking is much more consequential than cooking, evidently so, because thinking can be used as to produce or substitute for a recipe.
What's interesting to me is that we live in a social environment that discourages thinking. The measure of nations remains Economical, with perhaps the solitary exception of Bhutan with its gross national happiness. This hasn't caught fire, nor do people of nations appear particularly impressed or perturbed by OECD human development indexes. My nation has never had a political leader come forth proposing we should run our nation more like Italy, given their greater longevity.
The proxy-measure for progress has been for quite some time 'Gross National Product' or GNP. It measures the total number of finished goods produced over a time period for the primary market, or at least that's my understanding of it. If you purchase a brand new fridge, the economy gets some credit for it. If you purchase a second hand fridge, the powers that be don't care.
This is significant because play conforms to the rules of a game. My former principle used an analogy of handing out darts to students and predicting they would throw them anywhere in any direction, into trees, walls and probably... fellow students. The moment though he paints a target on a wall, the darts will be thrown at it. This by the way is distinct from the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. What it means is that if your boss's boss's boss's boss cares exclusively about GNP then eventually you will learn to care exclusively about GNP.
This seepage down of incentives inevitably shapes society, until you have office buildings built on top of food courts and social media filled with shared op-eds. Simply because if you consume less that's bad for GNP. Buying ingredients from the grocery shows up in GNP, however preparing that food for yourself doesn't. Paying someone else to prepare your food does. The economy just by rewarding consumption, creates a blind migration to a society where nobody does anything for themselves if they can consume a good or service instead.
Not in some diabolical puppet master string pulling way, but just from the simple fact that if one is not paid to sit down, order their thoughts and articulate a position it doesn't show up in GNP. However, if someone pays a website for attracting eyeballs that see their ads, or attracting eyeballs to convert to subscriptions or donations, that website will likely start paying people to do thinking for others, or even articulation for others so they don't have to.
In an apolitical, and even amoral way, it is the exact same blind process that has us pay a premium to 7-Eleven for freezing and grinding up beverages for us, but extending into our mental lives.
Of course you've probably already thought of numerous exceptions where having someone opine for us is immensely valuable, just as having caterers feed 40 people for us, or having someone clean our office for us etc. is a good thing. We could call this, deferring to expert opinions, which is distinct from the appeal to authority. I do not for example advocate home surgery or just giving flying a passenger jet a go, or defending yourself in a criminal trial.
Enter an expert problem though, which is identifying experts. We have domains where expertise either does not exist, or possibly even cannot exist. I'm not sure if this is what is known as the expert problem, but I can conceive of few other candidates. It's namely the expertise required to identify an expert. Say you want to invest your savings to provide for your retirement and request an ethical fund. Lacking a degree of expertise in finance and investment you will be at the mercy of your expert. Are they an advocate of modern portfolio theory or value investing? Do they have a fiduciary obligation to advise in your interests? How are they determining your risk profile? What is their criteria for 'ethical' and does it map with yours?
If the Dunning-Kruger effect means we are blind to our own incompetence, surely this extends to our ability to detect competence in others. One particularly active and outspoken individual I see in my feeds urges me not to be 'brainwashed' but how does one know if they are brainwashed or not? Surely being successfully brainwashed requires one to believe they are not brainwashed? I can conceive of brainwashed individuals urging others not to be brainwashed.
As a poignant example of this expert problem consider this article that sticks in my memory for the very reason that cursory scrutiny of the article reveals it has no content. The additional effort of clicking a link reveals the assertions made are written by a non-expert. It is an Op-ed in the most literal sense, the thesis inferred is simply 'I encountered someone who voices opinions counter to my own, these opinions must be obstructed in order for my opinions to be unobstructed in the path to unanimity.'
One could be forgiven for thinking it contains content, if a list of unjustified assertions is confused for argumentation, where premises are established and conclusions follow. There is, with a little cognitive effort an interesting idea within the editorial and that is: "Toxic masculinity describes ...most importantly: the right and masculine way of engaging with the world." which though still an assertion, alludes to a weak inference that the very concept of argumentation, rhetoric, philosophy if attributed to toxic masculinity excuses the need for anything beyond an assertion, such that one cannot even use an argument to establish that philosophical argument and reason produce value and therefore cannot be defined as toxic.
That's really sophisticated though, and most probably unintentional given it isn't explicitly stated. But hopefully it highlights an expert problem, or appeal to authority. Is the average person competent to notice when subjective opinion is being presented as objective fact?
This is one of my chief misgivings about the recent surge of Video Essay content. With an economically driven reduction in the barriers to production, many non-experts have learned through trial and error and imitation and competition to present mere opinion in a convincingly authoritative way.
About a year ago, I got interested in why nobody I know condemns Antifa, who just seem shit, let alone shit at opposing fascism. They seem to pass in civil society under a veil of ignorance. 'They're Anti-fascist? Well then they must be good!' I have to admit I was largely ignorant regarding Antifa, kind of just assuming they were like Melbourne's shitty activist group 'the Socialist Alternative'. Seeking to get myself more informed, I eventually found an hour long video explaining the 'Philosophy' of Antifa. Which was very informative, but upon reflection I felt was again, ultimately contentless.
I couldn't share this video as an appeal to authority, to defer to, as a better articulation as to why and how fascism must be opposed, because I thought about it.
For the purposes of illustration, its most interesting idea and articulate argument was to substantiate a double standard, (justify a belief that fascism needs to be opposed by any means necessary) - is that fascists can choose to stop being fascists and go about their lives, whereas Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies etc. whoever fascists target; are required to cease to exist in order for fascists to be happy.
This though was undermined earlier in the piece where the auteur addressed dogwhistles, such that one need not identify as fascist or white supremacist to be justifiably targeted by Antifa. The video also attempts to justify a slippery-slope argument, that there is no form of white supremacy that does not result in violence.
I am no fan of Fascism, and I am a fan of Democracy, Self-determinism, Secular Humanism, Philosophy and the Enlightenment etc. As such I would apply Tony Benn's five essential questions for power to any group tasked with defending Democracy from Fascism:
1. What power have you got?
Tentative answer: Unlimited powers to oppose fascism, in addition the unilateral ability to determine who is fascist.
2. Where did you get it from?
Autonomously self appointed.
3. In Whose interest do you exercise it?
Ostensibly everyone.
4. To Whom are you accountable?
Nobody.
5. How can we get rid of you?
Unknown.
These examples of content that can serve to outsource one's own thinking to, are but examples I've personally chosen of product that has evolved under the selective pressures of the market. Alas, there always has been, and always will be a market not only for reason, but rationalization. Rationalization is also I'm fairly confident a largely automatic process.
A problem with markets, (as outlined by economist Robert Schiller whose expertise was established by being on the very short list of economists recognized for predicting the Global Financial Crisis,) is that they will efficiently produce snake oil when the market demands snake oil. It doesn't mean it should be provided.
The libertarian defense to this phenomena is that if left to it's own devices the snake oil salesmen will eventually go out of business when their customers die. However, we could also just regulate the market by altering incentives to prevent the sale of snake oil. Furthermore, snake oil is a fucking metaphor, and if it takes the shape of something like cost cutting measures in construction, insurance fraud, or climate denial, the demand may not represent the ultimate consumers of the snake oil.
To the limits of my imagination, I can guarantee if you search the market you will always be able to find someone willing to tell you what you want to hear. They may even be able to value add by formulating arguments and articulating them where you could not yourself. They may add value by committing fallacies you yourself cannot detect.
The market for outsourced thinking, certainly adds value in the form of risk management. If you were to write out your manifesto as to why the West needs to abandon it's taboos regarding the consumption of monkey and dog meat, and your friends refuted it, I suspect that would feel quite personal. If you share someone else's opinion that you happen to be sympathetic to, and your friend refutes it, much less personal. Very similar to IBM's 80's campaign 'Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.' If you go with some bloggers opinion and it doesn't pan out, it's the bloggers fault. If you express your own opinion and it doesn't go well, it's your fault.
Sadly though, sooner or later someone will ask you to justify some belief you hold, and it's very rare for a belief to be self evident. I suspect you never want to confess 'I believe it because I want it to be true.'
I listen to others, I try to find experts, I defer. I watch debates, often in masochistic state of frustration, I have even been known to read up on a subject. None of that is bad. However, by analogy consider how schools teach students to solve math problems.
The teacher might demonstrate the problem on the board for the class. Then have them open a textbook, the textbook might have worked examples that walk the students through the problem. So far, learning resembles outsourced thinking, with designated authorities the students largely take on trust. You may then be given examples, and there's almost certainly answers at the back of the textbook you can check against or copy from.
At some point though, you will be handed a piece of paper that asks you to solve for something, and that you show your workings. In my highschool you got a mark for the write answer and marks for your workings. One might get four out of five marks just for the workings where a stupid error was made like rounding or getting a sign wrong.
I've been out of school for a while, but would be shocked and disturbed if schools in an effort to catch up to the internet age no longer instructed students to show their workings, but instead asked questions like 'use your smartphone to share a quadratic equation on social media.'
Arguably one of the objectives of Education in teaching basic mathematics is to empower students to not have to spend money paying someone to do quite basic mathematics for them. To not produce adults that need to pay people to read for them.
Sadly, we do live in a world where at best people are often sharing content they may have read, but not really scrutinized. I have a great appreciation now of the old proverb 'A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth even has its boots on.' It is not uncommon for me to see people sharing warnings about a misinformation campaign that has not nor ever will reach me, before then obliviously sharing misinformation themselves.
Perhaps most concerning though, is that often in the marketplace of ideas, when we outsource our thinking we often aren't even serving the interests of the people we think we are (ie. the author of an op-ed) nor even the employer of the author, nor the direct financial beneficiary like their advertises or sponsors, or the company that takes a cut of all the donations it facilitates. I mean, coincidentally yes, we may be unwittingly serving all these interests in the chain.
But ultimately, we are serving those few economists that pretended to know that GNP was the most suitable proxy measure of human utility.
No comments:
Post a Comment