Until the rise of podcasts, twitter, and the various forms of independent media / journalism, people weren’t really aware how legacy media was influencing their thinking. I think people are finally waking up and may surprise you here, especially if more talk about it.
New formats for funneling information that caters to your cravings is not what I’d call enlightened. And those who couldn’t spot clearly dishonest actors before — think they’re wide awake now? The Twitter bio behind that quote begins with “Groupthink averse.”
It would never occur to him that everything in that Tweet is Groupthink 101.
That you don’t understand how you’re all being played is bad enough, but that you make it nearly impossible to explain it to you reflects how new media has hardened you even more than legacy did. None of these boxes of beliefs are entirely wrong, but bonding within them makes you think you’re entirely right (on everything).
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion … draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects or despises … in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.
— Francis Bacon, Novum Organum Scientiarum, 1650
Long before brain imaging to understand human behavior, we already had all the tools we needed for a hopeful humanity. We didn’t take advantage of the gifts were were given, and what a shocker — we don’t make good use of those fancy new insights either.
But failure is a pretty profitable enterprise these days — as overreacting is all the rage.
Pay no mind to the person who provided you with tools and insight that would have prevented or mitigated some of the events you’re reacting to. You’ll always have plenty of be outraged over, but wouldn’t it be smarter to learn from your mistakes — so you can build on that knowledge and perhaps solve some problems for measurable progress?
“Wut?”
In my youth, I could not have imagined a world in which even people with PhDs would debase themselves in such ways. That an entire country could take satisfaction in insulting your own intelligence on a daily basis just astounds me. In a culture that’s fallen so far: Run-of-the-mill methods aren’t gonna make a dent in the envelope of intransigence encasing hermetically sealed minds of our times.
“Wut?” — reflects a society tuning in to people who perpetuate problems under the pretense of seeking to solve them.
To be sure, some are sincere (or at least started out that way). But they all lose their way in the adulation and rewards from feeding the frenzy. Activity becomes the measure of progress — where success is the glory of the perpetual pursuit itself.
What amazes me is how proud these people are in slinging clichéd crap to slap their stamp on the world (destroying it while seeing themselves as saviors). “Next” is fitting for the times and the echo chambers that cater to their cravings: Where regurgitating garbage gets people to Like you — celebrating “victory” by clicking “bravo” to bad manners and bunk.
A world where the rush is everything:
- The rush to respond
- The rush you get from responding
- The rush to roll out the next issue of concern
- Repeat and never reflect
Never in my life have I behaved so childishly (even when I was a child). I’ve never treated anyone the way I’ve been invariably treated for 20 years on this topic.
At the helm of these cesspools of certitude — are influencers who peddle repeatedly rehashed insight their followers praise like these people split the atom. To be sure, much of it is insightful. But these “geniuses” are so full of wisdom that they’re oblivious to how they are feeding the very problems they’re ostensibly trying to solve. First time I ever heard of John McWhorter was in a 2017 interview. In talking about take a wild guess, he said:
He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement
A lot of that goin’ around!
The likes of Loury & McWhorter miserably fail to see how they are unwittingly conditioning people to act exactly as McWhorter’s quote above. I’m sure it’s intoxicating to amass a following and feel like you’re making a difference. But I’m gonna weigh your impact partly as a reflection of your community: How people behave — not what they believe.
If you can’t get that right, I don’t care how big your following gets — you’re taking this nation nowhere.
What’s more, you’re making matters worse and being rewarded for it. I’m going to show you how to fix the problem you don’t even know you have. And I assure you — the gains you get now pale in comparison to what awaits you.
All ya gotta do — is do what you say you do . . .
And my idea is a framework for debate that boxes you in to do exactly that. You won’t like it — but here’s the deal: Your opposition won’t either. And who knows, you might learn to love embracing challenge, changing your mind, and the fruits from demanding across-the-board accountability.
This — is not that
This — is Broadcasting Beliefs About That
In the rush to win, at no point does anyone even bother to ask, “Is any of this working?” (as in making a measurable impact on the atmosphere of America). Anyone who dares to ask such questions — will be met with apathy, contempt, or the kind of half-ass effort that prompted this post. I borrowed the title from the article below, as I couldn’t have put it better.
And this quote captures the premium people are willing to pay for for the illusion embedded in that opening Tweet touting the virtues of new media.
There are apparently a great many journalism consumers who aren’t willing to pay $5 a month to support the work of dozens of journalists at a single publication but are eager to pay $8 a month to patronize a single blogger.
They’re paying to feel connected in a way that legacy media doesn’t deliver. Content creators create the impression of purpose and participation — so concerned with the state of society and the need for new ideas, that when presented with one requiring real thought — they blow off what doesn’t fit the formula.
Curious writer & author . . . Fueled by free thought, inquiry, mischief & reason
How do you put something like that in a bio then show nothing of the kind in the face of ideas you expressed in an interest in having: “Wish I had a ready-made solution, could probably make a bundle.” Righting the trajectory of America by changing the dynamic of debate could be pretty profitable. That takes time and effort to understand — and an astute observer to see the bigger picture.
But this is a universe in which people ask questions they don’t want the answers to:
Why have things come so undone? And what can we do to rebuild them?
Courage means, first off, the unqualified rejection of lies. Do not speak untruths, either about yourself or anyone else, no matter the comfort offered by the mob. And do not genially accept the lies told to you. If possible, be vocal in rejecting claims you know to be false. Courage can be contagious, and your example may serve as a means of transmission.
We are living through an epidemic of cowardice. The antidote is courage. . . .
— Bari Weiss
I’ve seen no such courage in her community or any other. Following facts going in the direction you desire doesn’t count: Anybody can do that! But it’s all about keeping the illusion alive: The lofty bios, the sloganeering, Pro-Human Pledges, plastering websites with virtues, and empty overtures on courage and conviction:
It’s such a charade — the endless bullshit America is willing to believe in order to belong.
Hence The Substack Sector
One of a 15-part series on factions acting as force fields of fallacy for the Left & Right: Shielding you from the whole truth while you’re pursuing part of it believing you’re after all of it. And who has to time to consider fresh ideas that could change the course of the country:
When you’ve gotta get crackin’ on that next newsletter on the need for a new direction.
In this fantasyland where wishful thinking rules:
You can win an argument without even knowing what the issue is about. The person who inspired this post did exactly that — satisfied in full that she fulfilled her self-image. Substack is a waste to time, but an email came rolling in from a site I briefly followed — and since I was sick and needing a distraction, I decided to revisit my concerns.
I threw down the gauntlet, but rather than take the time to understand what she’s responding to, this is essentially her attitude: “I’m gonna not consider anything you have to say, but have you thought about this?”
Never mind this . . .
People really don’t listen.
People are just either not that interested in what you’re saying, or they are too focused on their own agenda. It’s ridiculous to see two people acting like they can’t really hear each other — by choice.
In “The Significance Principle,” authors Les Carter and Jim Underwood posit that we should listen past where the other person has finished. We should even pause before answering. Let them get their point, their story, their compliment, and even their criticism out. Completely. . . .
The ability to hear is a gift. The willingness to listen is a choice.”
— Mike Greene, Why you should first seek to understand — before trying to be understood
If you’re gonna blow off what someone has to say — then go all out by not even bothering to respond. But people love to participate with the least possible effort it takes to feel involved. Firing off whatever immediately comes to mind does not constitute conversation.
But in our Crap is King culture — who cares? You think I just imagined the behavior below?
- Rather than read and digest, people scan and dismiss — frantically seeking any fragment they can frame in their favor
- Sensible arguments are snubbed with meaningless replies that are utterly absent of thought — mercilessly torturing reason with trite talking points
- Even against overwhelming evidence served on a silver platter — they will swat it away in disdain without so much as glancing at the goods
- Any sound bite that can be manipulated to their liking will be repeated in endless cycles of certitude
- Always at the ready — they’ll gleefully “inform” you with 60 seconds of “research” — compiled by copying & pasting material disseminated by the equally uninformed
- They’ll look away from a mountain of evidence against their side — while nitpicking over pebbles to pounce on the other
- Their civility is a charade in their immovable contempt for correction — playing childish games that fit a formula designed to infuriate you (at which point they’ll pull the innocence card and haughtily condemn your tone)
- They want a presence without having to exert any effort to legitimately participate
- They peddle their opinions while shirking any responsibility to validate them
- They launch volleys of vitriol as fireworks for freedom
- They see themselves as conveyors of truth while dripping in duplicity
- They want respect without having to earn it
- Their hypocrisy knows no bounds
In fairness, the person in this recent exchange is a mild case of dismissiveness — but what she miserably fails to understand is how people just like her are unwittingly cultivating this crap. That’s at the core of the concerns I commented about — but in her race to respond, she felt no need to find that out.
Prior to touching on that topic a bit more — consider what I wrote on The Death of Expertise Division:
When a deservingly popular book didn’t make a dent in 7 years (and everything’s gotten worse to boot): I fail to understand your excitement for an expanded edition doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of making a dent either.
In the face of the above and people’s bottomless contempt for truth they don’t like: This — is your answer?
Coming this winter, the updated Death of Expertise . . .
I’m a big fan of the book
Just not of fanfare for what predictably failed and will again. Do I need to read the new edition to know that? Conventional approaches have repeatedly failed and won’t put a pinprick in the atmosphere of absurdity suffocating the country.
A person with a PhD running her own Substack — countered my comment on another book by suggesting that I should read it before judging its potential impact. If I were saying it’s a bad book without reading it — she’d be right. But had she considered the case I’m making about all efforts that rely on traditional methods, she would have seen what she does not understand. As I wrote about on another undoubtedly fine book:
In a blurb on yet another book on cognitive dissonance, a science-fiction writer wrote, “[The author] has seen the future.” If he had, he’d know his book has no chance of achieving its aims.
When countless others failed on the same topic — on what basis would you believe that yours won’t? I doubt that question is even part of the equation, because all the matters is what sells. And oh yeah, The Death of Expertise will sell.
Who gives a damn about some nobody who’s got an idea that won’t sell but will work? And here’s the funny part — the person who takes my idea and runs with it, would have a story for the ages.
And that would sell
When I politely called her out on her hypocrisy in blowing off what I had to say while suggesting I need to listen to this other lady (who ignored my efforts as well), the PhD replied in part:
You are correct. I didn’t attempt to understand your perspective before commenting. This is something that contradicts my own principles and practice so I appreciate you confronting me about that. . . . Given that perspective taking seems to be valued by both of us, would you say that you followed your own advice in response to [her] article?
So, you appreciate me confronting you — but not enough to consider what I have to say (which is the entire basis behind why I don’t need to read that book to know it’s not gonna move America one millimeter in the right direction). Once again — she reframes the discussion to put it back on me. Never mind that “my advice” is woven with insight & exhaustively detailed arguments backed by decades of experience that would enlighten her clichéd conclusions.
No doubt her overall knowledge on human behavior dwarfs mine, but it’s not a competition. And the issue isn’t her knowledge, it’s her attitude — and I’ve got these people pegged to a T:
She showed some promise at first, but in the end — she’s a bullshitter by definition:
Bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.
— Blurb to On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt
A lot of that goin’ around too
Wouldn’t this have been so much better below:
Look, I’m sorry I commented in the first place — but I’m not interested in anything you have to say. Good day!
It’s not nice — but it’s real
And I’ll gladly take that any day over the mealy-mouthed exchange that followed. In the end — she was still slinging her snippets of certitude (trying to get me to consider something while she considers nothing). I don’t know how people find the path of least resistance so satisfying — as I love the demands of difficulty and discernment.
To not step up my game in the midst of opportunity or challenge: Would be tantamount to treason upon my very existence.
When I saw Tom Nichols touting his upcoming book in a Tweet, I had to laugh — as the tragedy of it all is so comical anymore.
Looking forward to this, Tom. Like Serling, you were definitely ahead of the curve. I’ve referred to this book repeatedly since it first came out, so the idea of an updated version sounds very appealing.
No, he wasn’t — I was
Six years ahead of Social Dilemma and three ahead of his book that accomplished exactly what that doc did and everything else: Not a goddamn thing! In fact, it’s far worse — because you never learn anything from your failures, mistakes, and what doesn’t work. But what do I know? I’m just the guy with an impeccable track record for the truth and seeing the lay of the land in ways no one else did and still doesn’t.
A rare response of reasonableness on Twitter (or anywhere, for that matter):
Your documentary was ahead of its time
The Social Dilemma was “viewed in 38,000,000 homes within the first 28 days of release.” Educational and enjoyable — and accomplished absolutely nothing. But that doesn’t stop the “Have you seen The Social Dilemma?” crowd. By all means, share away — but when given the opportunity to act on those concerns instead of being entertained by them:
Get involved by considering ideas that demand something from your mind for a change.
Viewed in 38,000,000 homes within the first 28 days of release
So why don’t ya Tweet about it some more — because surely the reason it didn’t work is insufficient exposure for a documentary damn near everyone in America knows about. If you advertise your concerns enough — surely that’ll magically make a dent someday.
And if it doesn’t, at least you got your fix for feeling like you’re participating in addressing a problem you’re perpetuating by the very nature in which you participate.
All day, every day
Repeated viewings for that
None for a story that shaped all that . . .
To learn to ask: ‘Is that true?’
Maybe there’s something to what she just said. Let me think about it. That’s interesting. Maybe I should change my mind.’” . . .
When is the last time you can honestly remember a public dialogue — or even a private conversation — that followed that useful course?
Every once in a blue moon, someone wonders in such ways. Not long before this Tweet — this guy was condemning my efforts like all the rest that day.
And then he opened the doc . . .
And believe it or not
He did that in response to this . . .
If you don’t wanna watch my documentary that’s chock-full of facts on this fiasco for the ages, that’s your prerogative. But don’t bitch about what you don’t see when you refuse to look.
Instead of whining about it — he took the hit and rose to the occasion. And by the way, the ability to take criticism (harsh or otherwise) — is at the core of what this nation so desperately needs:
Not this babysitting below . . .
Just Roll It Around Is All I Ask!
Alas, we never get that far
Or anywhere even in the ballpark. To see the solution, you have to understand the multiple dimensions of the problem. And who has time for that when you’re so busy listening to influencers say the same thing over and over again? The operate only within their wheelhouse — as if all these issues exist in a vacuum.
The problems that plague America are interrelated — and anything short of addressing that is going nowhere. But why bother doing the work it takes to solve problems when it’s so much easier to endlessly complain about them?
Tweeting about critical thinking is not critical thinking:
Naturally, there’s a faction for this folly too:
It ended as it began
With the PhD wanting to win whatever it took (as long as it didn’t take any actual effort, of course). All that mattered was satisfying her self-image. As I was challenging the foundation upon this these people prosper, she had to fault elsewhere. The whole thing was about them from the get-go — but every step of the way, she turned it around on me.
Never once considering what this is all about — or having the courtesy to ask a single question in the interest of understanding.
They all pull the same stunt . . .
Right on cue | Never fails
And oh yeah, there’s a faction for this crowd too:
The Cognitive Dissonance Camp is another clown factory flooding the internet with quips like “the cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.” This faction is seemingly competing for who can say, “cognitive dissonance” the most. No doubt many of ’em know much more about it than I do (which isn’t saying much since I’m no scholar on it).
But congratulating yourselves for Tweeting about it is not what I call serious-minded conversation (or even qualifying as conversation at all). Add in professionals promoting what they’ve published that’ll accomplish exactly what all their other efforts did (along with their colleagues across their industry combined):
Absolutely nothing that’ll move America a millimeter in the right direction.
It’s just another charade like all the other factions: Rehashing run-of-the-mill ideas that don’t that have a snowball’s chance in hell of making a dent. In America’s rush to feel right — you breeze on by anything that doesn’t instantly compute: Exponentially compounding problems that were created with that mentality in the first place.
V for Victory — How Fitting . . .
Imagine America as an engine and you come along with a cross-section of it to explain why it’s not working. Since your audience shares your concerns, you’d think they’d be interested in understanding the internals of the problem. But they spend all their time talking about parts made by people they don’t like — never considering the defects in their own parts. And even though you’ve got a rock-solid idea for how to fix the engine (or at least make it run on reason):
They’d rather spend the rest of their lives complaining about problems than take responsibility for their part in creating them.
To concisely capture the absurdity that’s canon across these echo chambers: Imagine a club for international travel made up entirely of people without a passport. Day after day, they talk about their love of going somewhere — with no interest in anyone who’s been somewhere.
I defy you to find a single source of any kind with the same commitment to objective scrutiny aimed at all of America: Not to mention that it’s all part of a idea that everybody’s best interest.
Pick One!
One Voice Became Two 