May I make a suggestion? You're very good at explaining the mechanics that are often invisible to people. In my view, this is the most important thing a public writer or thinker does, and not enough do it.
Pieces like this would be even better with a concrete (even if made up or hypothetical) example. For instance, a fully written out piece of "congenial bullshit" where the nugget of truth is clearly identified, and the superfluous bullshit that accretes around it is specifically pointed out.
This is an insightful essay which could be of great value in assessing the reliability of expert opinon. Beware of political or bureaucratic opinion based on expertise in a matter for which truth is a weak social signal. If that opinion comes from a politician or some other person who stands to profit directly, then presume the opinon is wrong.
Your point about reality tests is very well made. Reality provides some constraint for me in my research because I am a commercial law academic, and there are a vast number of practising lawyers and real decisions. That being said, it depends what you are looking for. If I come up with a very elegant theory and well expressed theory which bears little relation to actual case law and legislation, I may well be cited by other academics admiring of my theory, particularly if I have a group of admirers. Practitioners, however, will not find my work useful. I like to be useful: I want my work to be of service to the public. Also, I have never really liked grand theories. So hence my own path was set.
In all seriousness, they are a plague on the land. Their malign influence is a stronger argument against electoral democracy than the knuckle-dragging illiterates the midwits so love to mock.
Amazing article, one of your best yet. You very succinctly boiled down game theory, consequences, and examples of this incredibly prevalent phenomenon. "incentives matter"
I can't help but think of this in the context of the many "scientific" journals that exist in a nearly 100% theoretical realm which effectively become factories of self deception and manipulation for personal aggrandizement.
You pulled out the DEI context here, but I think of the media at large are a clear example of this now that journalistic standards are not in vogue. Constantly referring to reality testing the public can't do themselves, or delaying the adoption of the "test results" and shifting the goalposts on what to expect until there are few social consequences for having been wrong all along. Whether it's the Taibbi described "bombholes", or the more recent silent edits and gaslighting.
Interesting that someone like Will Storr, who teaches how to see through BS, unquestioningly accepts certain "truths" as received wisdom. I guess he has his own social status to maintain.
Just a short note to say that Lorenzo will respond to people's comments - however, it's a bank holiday in Australia (Good Friday) and he has just come off a month's very intense work that's included a lot of travel & working weekends.
Can't wait for an exposition of "evolutionary novelty of abandoning presumptive sex roles and the accompanying feminisation of institutions and social mores." As we watch the birth rate decline among the "best and brightest" who will create the next technology wave?
This is fantastic. I see this in a few facebook groups which end up being just peuedo intellectual bullshit. What you capture highlights much of what underpins what I wrote about in 'You Know Nothing.' which is the mainfestation of this foundation.
“If the costs of error are low, then the efficient level of self-deception, the level of self-deception that enables us to be more persuasive and more able to moralise and rationalise our self-interest, is going to be high.”
I suggest a small change: “If the costs of error are low or if the costs are borne by people other than those whom we are trying to persuade,…” Luxury beliefs are luxuries only if someone else is taking out the trash, keeping the lights on, and paying the tab.
Excellent, Lorenzo.
May I make a suggestion? You're very good at explaining the mechanics that are often invisible to people. In my view, this is the most important thing a public writer or thinker does, and not enough do it.
Pieces like this would be even better with a concrete (even if made up or hypothetical) example. For instance, a fully written out piece of "congenial bullshit" where the nugget of truth is clearly identified, and the superfluous bullshit that accretes around it is specifically pointed out.
This is an insightful essay which could be of great value in assessing the reliability of expert opinon. Beware of political or bureaucratic opinion based on expertise in a matter for which truth is a weak social signal. If that opinion comes from a politician or some other person who stands to profit directly, then presume the opinon is wrong.
Congenial bullshit is a magnificent phrase! I wouldn't be surprised if it were cited by future historians as the hallmark of this era.
Glad to have discovered your writing. Your insight, depth and originality are appreciated.
I bought Harry Frankfurter’s book years ago.
Lies and bullshit kill people. I don’t know what we can do if we can’t follow the bullshit back to punish the source.
Your point about reality tests is very well made. Reality provides some constraint for me in my research because I am a commercial law academic, and there are a vast number of practising lawyers and real decisions. That being said, it depends what you are looking for. If I come up with a very elegant theory and well expressed theory which bears little relation to actual case law and legislation, I may well be cited by other academics admiring of my theory, particularly if I have a group of admirers. Practitioners, however, will not find my work useful. I like to be useful: I want my work to be of service to the public. Also, I have never really liked grand theories. So hence my own path was set.
Will no one rid me of these turbulent midwits?
In all seriousness, they are a plague on the land. Their malign influence is a stronger argument against electoral democracy than the knuckle-dragging illiterates the midwits so love to mock.
Amazing article, one of your best yet. You very succinctly boiled down game theory, consequences, and examples of this incredibly prevalent phenomenon. "incentives matter"
I can't help but think of this in the context of the many "scientific" journals that exist in a nearly 100% theoretical realm which effectively become factories of self deception and manipulation for personal aggrandizement.
You pulled out the DEI context here, but I think of the media at large are a clear example of this now that journalistic standards are not in vogue. Constantly referring to reality testing the public can't do themselves, or delaying the adoption of the "test results" and shifting the goalposts on what to expect until there are few social consequences for having been wrong all along. Whether it's the Taibbi described "bombholes", or the more recent silent edits and gaslighting.
In any case, fantastic.
Interesting that someone like Will Storr, who teaches how to see through BS, unquestioningly accepts certain "truths" as received wisdom. I guess he has his own social status to maintain.
"It seemed obvious that the pandemic would all but wipe out ardent anti-vaxxers – who’d turn down a jab during a global plague?" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/mind/power-solitude-alone-doesnt-mean-lonely/
Just a short note to say that Lorenzo will respond to people's comments - however, it's a bank holiday in Australia (Good Friday) and he has just come off a month's very intense work that's included a lot of travel & working weekends.
Can't wait for an exposition of "evolutionary novelty of abandoning presumptive sex roles and the accompanying feminisation of institutions and social mores." As we watch the birth rate decline among the "best and brightest" who will create the next technology wave?
This is fantastic. I see this in a few facebook groups which end up being just peuedo intellectual bullshit. What you capture highlights much of what underpins what I wrote about in 'You Know Nothing.' which is the mainfestation of this foundation.
https://polymathicbeing.substack.com/p/you-know-nothing
“If the costs of error are low, then the efficient level of self-deception, the level of self-deception that enables us to be more persuasive and more able to moralise and rationalise our self-interest, is going to be high.”
I suggest a small change: “If the costs of error are low or if the costs are borne by people other than those whom we are trying to persuade,…” Luxury beliefs are luxuries only if someone else is taking out the trash, keeping the lights on, and paying the tab.