Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Reading this made me sad. It’s the perfect illustration of the dominance of the Us vs Them, Good vs Evil mindset that is now dominate in American politics. And sadly, it is expanding to other western nations.

I can’t read [Daily Caller] b/c it blocks my ad blocker.

Count your blessings....


The two articles are indeed an interesting juxtaposition. One is an inside-the-beltway view, and the other is an example of an article from a publication that thrives on the current polarization. (Yes there are liberal publications that also benefit from and increase polarization).


As I said - gonna get worse before it gets better.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This is what is fascinating about the days we live in. There’s never been a time when we all have access to more information and more data. Yet despite this (or likely because of it) ignorance and “fake news” appear to be on the rise.

Maybe it is as you, and I think Tom Nichols, are saying; that today’s Internet allows us to easily find support for whatever notion we already believe. And with the rise of algorithms geared more to keeping us happy (mostly to sell us more stuff), we’ve created the perfect information environment to put our collective confirmation bias on steroids. These social media and search tools are delivering us a world based on our own biases, so we rarely see anyone challenging our beliefs.

I just finished Jonathan Haidt’s latest book: “The Coddling of the American Mind.” One of the more disturbing facts he highlights is how academia in the USA (and probably Canada), especially in the social sciences, has dramatically shifted to the political left. The historically small ‘politically right’ voice has now been reduced to a tiny whisper in many faculties and institutions.

This is bad if “truth" is valued, as should be the case at all universities. And to bring it back to our theme here, it is hard to be intellectually humble when you’re not even exposed to alternative ideas.

You've correctly highlighted the paradox of the internet, namely the way in which unprecedented access to information has likely increased entrenched bias & partisanship. And this segways into your astutely recognizing what many also believe is a disturbing problem in academia. It's refreshing to read such objectivity these days, but I agree that neither hat removals nor bows are warranted. Instead, and regardless of one's own political slant, years of teaching younger generations WHAT to think as opposed to HOW to think explains some of this paradox. I think it's also contributing to the polarization, and is unfortunately dumbing down debates over all sorts of ideological issues which would otherwise be amenable to compromise & middle ground. In fact, I'd argue it's more critical than less for educators & others who may have strongly held positions outside the mainstream -- left or right -- to prepare students to effectively counter the pushback they are sure to receive in the real world.

In the absence of critical thinking, humans tend to fall back into their more instinctive states of following the herd & conformity. This inevitably results in a heightened vulnerability to simpler, seductive, and often rigid ideologically based views which, rather than being able to effectively articulate their own message, thrive instead on labeling people with opposing views as the "enemy." This plays out with stereotyping, personal slights, shaming, and claims of "moral" superiority which are not only alienating, but completely counter-productive to influencing others to change their perspective or at least see it in a different light. Such tactics often forget that their "enemies" often share the same goals, have the same ideals, but merely differ on how to realize them. What I find odd is this seems to afflict younger generations more than others, but rather than following the example of their forebears to "question authority," there seems to be little questioning at all of their settled dogmas.

Democracy is often chaotic & messy, in practice and by design, and reflects the diversity of experience, background, and perspective of its citizens. So imho anyway, the most important thing educators can do is to help prepare younger generations to handle it. Partisanship has little to do with it, or at least shouldn't. What's happening instead is a mere shouting match, with partisans no more effective in the long run than diehard fans at the Super Bowl.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Count your blessings....


The two articles are indeed an interesting juxtaposition. One is an inside-the-beltway view, and the other is an example of an article from a publication that thrives on the current polarization. (Yes there are liberal publications that also benefit from and increase polarization).


As I said - gonna get worse before it gets better.

Both highly partisan, but neither are without value to learning about the underlying issues. Bias from just about every source these days is the norm. Better to recognize and discount appropriately than simply shun sources that don't comport with your own world view or partisan loyalties.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Better to recognize and discount appropriately than simply shun sources that don't comport with your own world view or partisan loyalties.

Bias isn't a toggle switch (off, on, nothing in between). There are degrees of bias. Some have more bias than others; some publications even boast of their bias. There are such things as accuracy, honesty and integrity. All articles and sources can and must be judged for how good they are. If no-one is willing to be discerning and to hold all sources (whether or not they share your bias) to a higher standard, we will remain vainly trying to pick out peanuts of value from a media flood of s#1t.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Reading this made me sad. It’s the perfect illustration of the dominance of the Us vs Them, Good vs Evil mindset that is now dominate in American politics. And sadly, it is expanding to other western nations.


I can’t read this b/c it blocks my ad blocker.

Yep, nothing to see here. Move along.
Nothing worth seeing if you have to see and advertisement along side the story. The HORROR !

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

...Instead, and regardless of one's own political slant, years of teaching younger generations WHAT to think as opposed to HOW to think explains some of this paradox. I think it's also contributing to the polarization, and is unfortunately dumbing down debates over all sorts of ideological issues which would otherwise be amenable to compromise & middle ground. …

Agreed. I think there is something rotting in the core of too many faculties these days. I think ideology has usurped knowledge-based teaching (there’s probably a better term for this).

When I was living on land I would usually attend undergrad classes at whatever local university happened to be in my area. I’ve done this for decades, usually taking classes either in the sciences (physics, geology, astronomy) or social sciences/humanities (philosophy, political science, economics). In the last couple of years I began to notice an odd difference in some of the social science students. I recall getting into discussions which would turn on notions of “if I feel something, then it must be real.” And even more dangerous (to me) was the equating of insult and offence to harm and even violence.

I’ve been delving further into these trends, and lets just say I share your concerns about how some faculties are teaching WHAT to think, not HOW to think. Some faculties have morphed into agents of social change. I believe it is not a good development for academia, or society in general.

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Yep, nothing to see here. Move along.
Nothing worth seeing if you have to see and advertisement along side the story. The HORROR !

Uhmmm … I agree?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I don’t see any such “WSJ” article by Kimberly Strassel.
➥ https://www.wsj.com/news/author/kimberley-a.-strassel

What I do see is a Twitter bomb, as reported in Tucker Carlson’s “Daily Caller” Website ➥ https://twitter.com/KimStrassel?ref_...Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Overall, we rate the Daily Caller strongly right biased based on story selection that almost always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks. The Daily Caller is a source that needs to be fact checked on a per article basis. ➥ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/

Thanks for contributing.

"The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and the owner of the site, Dave Van Zandt, as an 'armchair media analyst.'"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

You might first want to check the bias of who you're relying on to judge bias.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Bias isn't a toggle switch (off, on, nothing in between). There are degrees of bias. Some have more bias than others; some publications even boast of their bias. There are such things as accuracy, honesty and integrity. All articles and sources can and must be judged for how good they are. If no-one is willing to be discerning and to hold all sources (whether or not they share your bias) to a higher standard, we will remain vainly trying to pick out peanuts of value from a media flood of s#1t.

I'm not sure who you have in mind to hold sources of information to your undefined "higher standard," or how you would go about judging what "good" is. If it's high degrees of "accuracy, honesty and integrity," that's something most would agree on but there would hardly be any media outlets left if somehow enforced. You could go with a more totalitarian model and only allow sources approved by the govt, but that's hardly in the tradition of Western-style democracy. You could have some lesser degree of censorship, but who decides and what are their biases?

Nope, it's up to each & every one of us to judge for ourselves I'm afraid, except we all make such judgments through our own biased lenses. Sorry, but it's just another one of the costs of living in a free society that values openness and the free exchange of ideas. But no need to fret, history has shown that it's usually the best way of ultimately getting to the truth.

[transmitterdan]

So we are just going to ignore the intellectual vacuum of OAC because the Daily Caller is a right wing news site. Is that the intellectually humble approach we desire?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

So we are just going to ignore the intellectual vacuum of OAC because the Daily Caller is a right wing news site. Is that the intellectually humble approach we desire?

That seems to be the desired result from these broad brush vilifications of media outlets. The issue being reported on is what's being reported on by all the news outlets, namely OAC introducing the 'Green New Deal' with other Dems signing on. Whatever its merits or lack thereof, it could be the best news the Trump reelection campaign has received thus far.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

"The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and the owner of the site, Dave Van Zandt, as an 'armchair media analyst.'"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check
You might first want to check the bias of who you're relying on to judge bias.

Did you read the CJR article, upon which that comment in Wikipedia is based? The author, Tamara Wilner, made no mention of bias in MBFC ratings.
“We can probably measure media bias. But do we want to?”
➥ https://www.cjr.org/innovations/meas...s-partisan.php

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Did you read the CJR article, upon which that comment in Wikipedia is based? The author, Tamara Wilner, made no mention of bias in MBFC ratings.
“We can probably measure media bias. But do we want to?”
➥ https://www.cjr.org/innovations/meas...s-partisan.php

Yes I did, and the thrust of the article centered on how difficult it is to measure media bias and explained several reasons why. The author then commented on the "armchair academics" starting with MBFC, referring to their media analysis as an "amateurish attempt." A bias need not necessarily be political, but I also found other Google hits which made exactly such claims. Did you read from the MBFC website itself? It's basically a one-person show.

But the point is whether the opinion piece published in The Daily Caller or Twitter (or wherever) accurately & fairly covered the highlights of the 'Green New Deal.' More specifically, does it call for a prohibition on air travel, the wholesale rebuilding of homes & businesses, the mandatory conversion to renewable energy in an unrealistic timeframe, guaranteed govt jobs, etc.? Does it acknowledge the economic disruption this would create, contemplate remedies, factor in contingencies, outline costs? Or how about it's socialistic economic manifesto and calling for "Hands off Vezenuela!" In other words, is this a serious proposal or one merely worthy of valid criticism if not ridicule?

If it's the latter, then you can condemn The Daily Caller all you want, but that's a different issue than whether or not they accurately & fairly presented these facts.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I don’t see any such “WSJ” article by Kimberly Strassel.
➥ https://www.wsj.com/news/author/kimberley-a.-strassel

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-soc...ld-11549583738

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-soc...ld-11549583738

Well, I could read the lede at least, so that’s an improvement. But clearly don’t have to read the rest. I’m pretty sure I know what it’s going to say.

I don't put much stock in stuff like this, but then I pretty much refuse to read anything that is clearly just opinion. What do I care what some babbler thinks?

Unfortunately so much of “news” has now morphed into opinion, or analysis, or commentary … I basically ignore this stuff. Same with most of the so-called “news” shows on the boob tube or the youb tube.

Please, just give me the facts. I’ll do my own thinking.

I have to say, viewed from the outside the American use of “socialism!” as a fear tactic is quite funny. All western countries, including the USA, are socialist to some degree.

Socialism is just communal action. You know; stuff like the military, roads, airports, food inspection. We even have lots of private socialism, like pensions and insurance. Without socialism, civil society wouldn’t exist.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Well, I could read the lede at least, so that’s an improvement. But clearly don’t have to read the rest. I’m pretty sure I know what it’s going to say.

I don't put much stock in stuff like this, but then I pretty much refuse to read anything that is clearly just opinion. What do I care what some babbler thinks?

Unfortunately so much of “news” has now morphed into opinion, or analysis, or commentary … I basically ignore this stuff. Same with most of the so-called “news” shows on the boob tube or the youb tube.

Please, just give me the facts. I’ll do my own thinking.

I have to say, viewed from the outside the American use of “socialism!” as a fear tactic is quite funny. All western countries, including the USA, are socialist to some degree.

Socialism is just communal action. You know; stuff like the military, roads, airports, food inspection. We even have lots of private socialism, like pensions and insurance. Without socialism, civil society wouldn’t exist.

Yup, agreed about most "opinion" pieces, especially when the opinion pieces themselves become "news." Although there are some thoughtful pundits in print who I like to read because they're obviously smart and articulate well. Even when I don't agree there's often some educational value in my becoming clearer why I don't agree. Not only does reading opposing opinions not hurt, it doesn't even require band-aids.

I think socialism means different things to different people, and as a political system has been applied in different forms around the world. To many Americans I think it's associated with coercion if not repression. I've never been quite clear what it means to American politicians like Sanders & Ocasio-Cortez who have so identified themselves, but maybe that's because they themselves may not be sure what it means. I guess "socialism" to some is some level of "regulated capitalism" to others. I think it comes down to how much control the govt has over the production & distribution of goods & services, and how much of one's own money an individual gets to keep. In the political realm it has meanings beyond just communal action, but that may be a correct definition at its core.