I'm reading Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking, by Daniel Dennett (2013). This approach for criticizing a claim caught my eye:
How to compose a successful critical commentary:
1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
One immediate effect of following these rules is that your targets will be a receptive audience for your criticism: you have already shown that you understand their positions as well as they do, and have demonstrated good judgment (you agree with them on some important matters and have even been persuaded by something they said).
At Quillette, Vincent Harinam and David Kopel explain availability cascades. These can be harmful "to the survival of a society because they choke off accurate information and thoughtful discussion." I find this topic compelling in light of my recent essay regarding the resignation of Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept, of which he was co-founder. Here are some excerpts from Harinam and Kopel's much longer article:
When all available information seems to indicate that everyone is falling in line with a certain belief, we may be under the influence of an “availability cascade.” . . .
Two components make up an availability cascade: an informational cascade and a reputational cascade. An informational cascade creates genuine changes in people’s beliefs by providing plentiful but misleading information. A reputational cascade is a vicious cycle in which individuals feign expressions of conviction to retain social approval.
. . .
Availability cascades can only occur when an influence network exhibits a “critical mass” of early adopters. For an availability cascade to occur, a minimum number of individuals must first adopt it. Once this threshold is reached, the cascade becomes self-sustaining with more and more adopting it. Persons A and B declare support for a particular position. Person C disagrees but is worried about retaliation if he dissents; so, he pretends to agree with the position. Person D sees that C is going along, so D goes along too. As social media drives information flows and connects swaths of people, critical mass can be achieved much faster. Social media is a cascade builder.
According to a Cato Institute poll, 62 percent of Americans say that the current political climate prevents them from expressing their views. Majorities of Democrats (52 percent), independents (59 percent) and Republicans (77 percent) now self-censor. The only group where the majority did not feel pressured into silence were leftist Democrats. Another study found that the higher the level of education, the greater the self-censorship.
Moderates may be the worst off. Whereas the right wing and left wing can retreat to zones where their views are reinforced rather than vilified, moderates cannot. The moderate who rejects the dominant views of the Left and the Right is shouted down by both sides. For moderates, there exists no safe haven from the culture wars.
James Randi was an inspiration to me. He was one of the many magicians (including Penn Jillette) who also turned their attention toward exposing many paranormal claims. He was a first-rate debunker of those who prey on fear, ignorance and superstition, as well as an entertaining communicator. I was fortunate to be able to see "The Amazing Randi" make a presentation in person at the CSICOP Conference in Buffalo, NY in 1983.
It is awesome to see these charlatans fails so dramatically and so publicly
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.
I recently watched the new documentary, "The Social Dilemma." which has inspired me to cut my usage of Facebook. Rather than simply scold myself to cut FB usage, I decided to create more detailed guidance for myself (and anyone else who finds this useful):
Facebook Safe-Usage Product Warnings
A. Use FB no more than 10 minutes per day (extra time allowed for posting content I create and for exchanging private messages). Set a timer. This limited use will function like the rule many people use for potato chips: Put a handful into a small bowl instead of gobbling them out from the full bag.
B. Before any FB session, remind myself that FB is a valuable and useful platform with serious hidden dangers. Thus, using FB is like using a dangerous consumer product where the manufacturer failed to attach necessary usage warnings.
C. Remind myself that FB has been meticulously designed as a highly-sophisticated manipulation engine. In the short run, FB is addictive. In the long run, FB encourages us to think like teams instead of as individuals and this it is ripping our communities apart.
D. Only use FB intentionally, never out of boredom, out of habit or thoughtlessly. Don’t use FB unless I’m using it consciously. Avoid using FB when I’m tired or fatigued, because these are times when I am especially prone to go down the FB rabbit hole.
E. Before using FB, always ask myself whether there is a better use of my time, such as directly reaching out to a friend or choosing my own next thought process.
F. Do not access FB from my phone.
G. Keep all FB notifications turned off, except for private messages.
H. Use FB for several defined purposes only. If I stray from these purposes, turn FB off.
1. Checking out what is up with people I know well.
2. Interacting with thoughtful people.
3. Reading and sharing interesting, inspiring and light-hearted posts.
4. Connecting with special-interest FB Groups that I have consciously chosen to join.
5. Keeping an eye on FB Events that I might want to attend.
6. Sharing my photography and articles I’ve written at Dangerous Intersection.
7. Sharing well-written articles that I have found outside of FB.
I. Whenever on FB, I should strive to use the same tone and degree of kindness that I use when communicating with someone in person.
J. My FB friends will mostly be feeding me a steady diet of articles that reenforce my existing opinions. Therefore, I need to remind myself to always look beyond FB to seek out diverse sources of information, including news sources that are not in my comfort zone.
K. Repeatedly remind myself that FB’s algorithms delude users into believing that those with differing opinions are idiots who we are entitled to treat rudely.
L. Whenever I sense that I am caught in a cycle of doom-scrolling, I should shut off FB.
M. Always vet articles for accuracy before sharing anything on FB.
N. Remind everyone I meet to watch the important new documentary: The Social Dilemma.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
