The Effects of the FB Filter-Bubble re Attitudes of Trump Voters

On Facebook, I recently posed a Tweet by Chloe Valdary, a kind-hearted even-keel peace-making thinker who is most definitely not pro-Trump.  She is willing to call out problems on the political left as well as the political right. I find her opinions thoughtful and instructive.

Here is how I introduced Chloe's Tweet (above) on FB:

I won't be voting for Trump, but I'm still concerned he might win re-election. I think many people feel similarly -- otherwise, why do so many people keep talking about the election and the polling? I've often wondered why so many people will vote for Trump, despite his many cataclysmic negative personal qualities. I'm glad that Chloe Valdary asked Trump voters to respond to her Twitter account by stating why they support Trump. She has received more than 300 responses that I found interesting to review. These responses don't change my mind about Trump, but I do see many Trump supporters in a different light.

In response, I saw a firestorm of anger from people on the political left. People who were angry with me that I would even consider what Trump voters think.  Many of them seem to be assuming that Trump voters are perfectly aligned with Trump. They vented at Trump voters as close-minded people who are, seemingly, identical to Trump in everything they think.

I see a big tent on on the right as well as on the left. Just as there are people who are going to hold their nose and vote for Biden, there are people on the right who are going to hold their nose and vote for Trump. I think it is a worthy project to ask those Trump supporters why they are voting for a man who I find to be so personally despicable. Yes, there are many Trump supporters who I do find deplorable (and some of those people on the left too), but there are many other people (some I know personally) who I like as human beings, who I disagree with on many issues, but who are going to vote for Trump.

Instead of curiosity in reaction to my FB post, I'm seeing lots of hostility for even asking the question, for inquiring. This unwillingness to be curious about the facts troubles me on many levels. In fact, this is self-defeating behavior suggesting an "analysis" that has been contaminated by roiling emotions. I understand the emotions and I understand the stakes of this election, but it seems that many of us could do much better. Rather than being smart, they are getting drunk on anger. They need to listen to Yoda:

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

“Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you, it will.”

Anger… fear… aggression. The dark side are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan’s apprentice.

They also need to consider this idea by Sun Tzu, from the Art of War":

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Continue ReadingThe Effects of the FB Filter-Bubble re Attitudes of Trump Voters

Pandemic #2: Divisiveness Caused by Social Media

For the first step in defeating Pandemic #2, please watch the new documentary, "The Social Dilemma." (You'll find it on Netflix).

As you use social media, try to cruise at 10,000 feet like a disinterested anthropologist and then ask yourself whether kind-hearted intelligent people should be talking at each other like much of what you will see.

Pandemic #2 is invisible, just like Pandemic #1, and you'll feel like you are in charge of your thoughts the entire time. Pandemic #2 quietly invades our minds, then erects filter bubbles around us that destroy the possibility of civil discourse on the most important issues facing us. Pandemic #2 destroys the possibility of e pluribus unum. We need to take action now, because huge misplaced financial incentives guarantee that Big Tech is not going to rescue us.

Continue ReadingPandemic #2: Divisiveness Caused by Social Media

A Quadruple Whammy That Results in Facebook Barking

Here's the quadruple whammy:

A) Confirmation Bias, B) Availability Heuristic and C) the Focussing Illusion and D) In-group loyalties.

These add up to an extremely dangerous personal hubris that we have no blindspots, that we know everything we need to know, and that our ideas are fully tested whereas we have simply enshrined them in our own brains, surrounding them with mental electrified fences. We need THIS daily vitamin: Our ideas need to be repeatedly tested by numerous uninterested or antagonistic OTHERS. We often commit medical malpractice when we pretend we are world-class doctors who can adequately diagnose our own thought processes.

I am fatiguing from meeting people who never ever doubt their mental hygiene and never worry about the need to run meaningful real-world tests on their own ideas. I'm getting worn out watching people bark at each other on FB instead of showing humility and a willingness to learn from each other. I want to ask so many people on FB: "Why are you here? To learn something new or merely to strut around looking for fully cooked allies?"

Continue ReadingA Quadruple Whammy That Results in Facebook Barking

Suggestions For Dealing with Know-it-Alls

In "How to converse with know-it-alls," Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay suggest techniques for dealing with know-it-alls. Know-it-allness is often caused by the Dunning-Kruger Effect (which the authors also call "the Unread Library Effect" and cognitive scientists call "the illusion of explanatory depth."

Kruger and Dunning proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:

1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill; 2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others; 3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy; 4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they can be trained to substantially improve.

How do you show know-it-alls that they don't know as much as they think they know? Boghossian and Lindsay suggest that we ask them to explain their claims in detail.

[R]esearchers asked people to rate how confident they were in their ability to describe how a toilet works. Once subjects provided answers, experimenters had them write down as many details as they could in a short essay, and then they were again asked about their confidence. Their self-reported confidence dropped significantly after attempting to explain the inner workings of toilets. People know there’s a library of information out there explaining things — they just haven’t read it! Exposing the flimsiness of their knowledge is a simple matter of letting them discover it for themselves.

One most easily does this by asking know-it-alls to explain their claims in detail:

Whether it’s gun control legislation, immigration policy, or China trade tariffs — and have them provide as many technical details as they can. How, exactly, does it work? How will change be implemented? Who will pay for it? What agencies will oversee it? . . . People become less certain, question themselves more, and open their minds to new possibilities when they realize they know less than they thought they knew.

Just politely ask straightforward question and insist on answers that you can understand. Keep an open mind.  Perhaps they will convince you that they are correct! If you are not convinced, however, be patient and follow up with more questions.  If the conversation goes on and on, don't allow your fatigue to get the best of you.  Don't ever indicate that you understand when you don't.  That would not be helping anybody.

As I was reading the above article, I researched other ideas I could add to this post. The authors of, "An expert on human blind spots gives advice on how to think" discussed the DK effect with David Dunning, who warned of the First rule of the Dunning-Kruger Club: "people don’t know they're members of the Dunning-Kruger Club." These people lack "Intellectual Humility."  In other words, they assume they are correct, which means (to them) that there is no need to seek out and correct their intellectual blind spots.

Dunning offered this additional advice for dealing with people in the DK Club. One bit of advice is to challenge the know-it-all to think in terms of probabilities:

[P]eople who think not in terms of certainties but in terms of probabilities tend to do much better in forecasting and anticipating what is going to happen in the world than people who think in certainties.

Dunning warns that many people don't "make the distinctions between facts and opinion." People are increasingly creating not only their own opinions, but their own facts.

Yet another problem listed by Dunning is that people are increasingly unwilling to say "I don't know." Trying to get people to say that they don't know when they don't know is a serious and so far unsolvable problem. It would seem, then, that cross-examining the know-it-all as to the source of their information is critical.

Dunning also suggests a downside to getting things correct: "To get something really right, you’ve got to be overly obsessive and compulsive about it." In other words, it's not easy to get facts correct on a complex issue.  It takes work.  Those people who are more accurate take the time to ask themselves whether and how they could be wrong. "How can your plans end up in disaster?"  Know-it-alls fail to show this concern that it often takes a lot of work to get to the truth.

Finally, in a nod to John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, Dunning states that it's important to realize that one is better off to invite others to test one's ideas.  Dunning states: "We’re making decisions as our own island, if you will. And if we consult, chat, schmooze with other

Continue ReadingSuggestions For Dealing with Know-it-Alls