So I am having a convo with a young man (30) at our church luncheon today. He identifies as a libertarian, and was homeschooled by his fundamentalist parents. I was talking about the guy in the church who died of *obviously covid-exacerbated/ accelerated cancer last month*, and he denied that covid could have done this. He went on to ask me whether I regularly view any youtube political clips, and I told him I clearly did not do so-- YT is excellent for music and old tv show streams, perhaps a few other things, but political news and commentary, nein danke. I tried to get him to see that real newspapers (I mentioned WaPo, to which I subscribe online and which I believe to be the best paper in the country) are much more reliable sources of news and commentary, but he was having nought of it, and really believes his ability to analyze stuff he sees, reads, and hears to be spot-on (he never went to college). He is a bright guy, but his hs background is less than academic, etc., and he is often a pretty decent exemplar of Dunning-Krueger. But I found myself at somewhat of an impasse and was actually grateful when his wife appeared with their 1yo and told him that he was cranky and they needed to go home. Still, on leaving, I was pondering things and figured I would ask here if anyone had any thoughts about teaching people about expertise, what it really is, and why one should trust experts....? I have my own thoughts but would be interested in any others here...
I think people of certain personality types, possibly exacerbated by certain kinds of upbringing, believe they don't need any "official" sources of expertise.
Arguably this was the mindset that contributed to the Protestant revolution.
Of course they do actually believe certain experts — if Google Maps tells them it's 25 miles to Albuquerque, they probably won't say, "I'll assess that for myself, thank you very much! I'm guessing more like 1000!" They accept a lot of experts as factual without questioning.
I'd also guess that their convictions that they don't need conventional experts are more likely applied to certain kinds of information than others, information that has a political dimension especially.
Quote from: Hegemony on May 15, 2022, 10:23:40 PM
I'd also guess that their convictions that they don't need conventional experts are more likely applied to certain kinds of information than others, information that has a political dimension especially.
I think this applies to pretty much everyone in some way or another; we all have areas where we are skeptical of any "expert" who contradicts our experience. It takes a lot of mental effort to listen and consider there might be
some kernel of truth to information that contradicts our current view.
Recognizing those blind spots of our own is helpful in dealing with others, because it reminds us how difficult entrenched ideas are to give up for
anyone.
I have a family member, highly educated, who just won't hear anything on certain issues. There's just no point in bringing them up any more. Sometimes I fear that if he votes for Trump again then I only have myself to blame for staying quiet this time, but that's ridiculous.
If he considers himself both a Christian and a libertarian, as that word is typically used in the U.S., then he's got more fundamental problems than not being willing to believe in some kinds of expertise. The New Testament is abundantly clear that Christians are to consider themselves subject to human authorities, saving only those occasions when the human authorities try to make them do something in direct contradiction to what God wants. It also makes it clear that we owe many duties to our fellow human beings, especially those less fortunate than ourselves, which libertarianism seems strongly disinclined to recognize. Libertarian "social" Darwinism is far more inherently Godless than actual biological Darwinism.
He needs to unplug from YouTube and the rest of internet, and start seriously and prayerfully reading through his New Testament. David Platt's Radical, and Francis Chan's Crazy Love could also be helpful, if he'd be willing to read either. Note that David Platt is a Baptist in good standing, although not everybody welcomes his prophetic stance on what Christian commitment really looks like.
There's a lot of social psychology on expertise and how people reason, deference to epistemic authority.
One question is whether, in a world of near universal education in the US, is whether things have improved from a century ago. Has the arrival of the internet and social media made things worse? That's not an easy question to answer empirically, though many have opinions on it.
Is it possible to get someone who is reasoning badly to see the error of their ways? Probably not when it is an area of thought where they have a strong emotional investment in their beliefs. People seek corroboration of their cherished beliefs, not disconfirmation.
Especially in the US, academic expertise does not hold much sway at the best of times. It has some, but only with a portion of the population.
Quote from: downer on May 16, 2022, 07:36:07 AM
There's a lot of social psychology on expertise and how people reason, deference to epistemic authority.
One question is whether, in a world of near universal education in the US, is whether things have improved from a century ago. Has the arrival of the internet and social media made things worse? That's not an easy question to answer empirically, though many have opinions on it.
Is it possible to get someone who is reasoning badly to see the error of their ways? Probably not when it is an area of thought where they have a strong emotional investment in their beliefs. People seek corroboration of their cherished beliefs, not disconfirmation.
Especially in the US, academic expertise does not hold much sway at the best of times. It has some, but only with a portion of the population.
Internet and social media have made finding information (both good and bad) much easier. However, the fundamental assumption here is that the recipients of such information will be able to assess its validity. This requires critical thinking, which is something that the US education system does not offer. The way that the US is set up actually discourages critical thinking (there is a policy for everything, therefore people do not even need to think anymore--not even the ones creating a policy understand why they created such a policy and can rarely defend it or argue about its usefulness). The same applies to certain countries of Central/Northern Europe.
Experts have interests. Especially when we can't check up on veracity ourselves, it's wise to be skeptical.
Quote from: downer on May 16, 2022, 07:36:07 AM
Is it possible to get someone who is reasoning badly to see the error of their ways? Probably not when it is an area of thought where they have a strong emotional investment in their beliefs. People seek corroboration of their cherished beliefs, not disconfirmation.
This brings up a related but almost opposite problem I've encountered.
Often on the internet or in media there will be articles about the "results of a study" that mean X. Anyone who knows much about science knows that those kind of articles are either based on small sample sizes, or actually suggest something much more modest than what the article claims. However, some people will latch onto those "results" even when there are cases i
n their own experience which suggest that "X" is over-simplified.
Have other people seen this? (I call it "credentialism" since a statement by someone with an appropriate credential is treated as authoritative even in the absence of any contextualizing explanation.) It's not technically
anti-science; it's
oversimplified science.)
There's a whole Twitter thing devoted to it. It's called something like "Just say 'in mice'".
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 16, 2022, 12:25:09 PM
There's a whole Twitter thing devoted to it. It's called something like "Just say 'in mice'".
Yup. That makes sense. The problem is, the people who fall for it believe themselves to be
pro-science, so it's really hard to correct.
All good points. I especially appreciate apl's validation that libertarianism is essentially un-, or at least sub-christian, and I am very tired, and no small amount of depressed, at how godless libertarianism has infested evangelicalism in this country. This particular young man is playing with fire in his very own life, being a type-I diabetic, but the sad demise of the covid/cancer church guy is seemingly having little effect.
I recall, now that I think on it, that the pastor did let me teach a study on critical thinking and source evaluation several years ago-- I based it on a book, title escapes me but I do have it somewhere, written by Bruce Bartlett-- but, sadly, most of what I was saying just went in one ear and out the other for almost all of the folks. Critical thinking and source analysis, which I actually taught my students at the old Christian school, to great effect and positive response, seems to be something that mant of their *parents*/ members of parents' generation, seem to be eschewing. I wish I could get a good book/ periodical/ website/? that teaches 1) the need for such things and 2) how to go about it, authored from an *explicitly evangelical* or at least broadly Christian perspective...
Quote from: apl68 on May 16, 2022, 07:31:49 AM
If he considers himself both a Christian and a libertarian, as that word is typically used in the U.S., then he's got more fundamental problems than not being willing to believe in some kinds of expertise. The New Testament is abundantly clear that Christians are to consider themselves subject to human authorities, saving only those occasions when the human authorities try to make them do something in direct contradiction to what God wants. It also makes it clear that we owe many duties to our fellow human beings, especially those less fortunate than ourselves, which libertarianism seems strongly disinclined to recognize. Libertarian "social" Darwinism is far more inherently Godless than actual biological Darwinism.
As many libertarians would emphasize, statists conflate people having positive moral duties to help others with social engineers who try (and inevitably fail at enormous cost) to immanentize the eschaton via government coercion.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 16, 2022, 12:25:09 PM
There's a whole Twitter thing devoted to it. It's called something like "Just say 'in mice'".
I love this account: https://twitter.com/justsaysinmice
Quote from: kaysixteen on May 15, 2022, 08:38:40 PM
So I am having a convo with a young man (30) at our church luncheon today. He identifies as a libertarian, and was homeschooled by his fundamentalist parents. I was talking about the guy in the church who died of *obviously covid-exacerbated/ accelerated cancer last month*, and he denied that covid could have done this. He went on to ask me whether I regularly view any youtube political clips, and I told him I clearly did not do so-- YT is excellent for music and old tv show streams, perhaps a few other things, but political news and commentary, nein danke. I tried to get him to see that real newspapers (I mentioned WaPo, to which I subscribe online and which I believe to be the best paper in the country) are much more reliable sources of news and commentary, but he was having nought of it, and really believes his ability to analyze stuff he sees, reads, and hears to be spot-on (he never went to college). He is a bright guy, but his hs background is less than academic, etc., and he is often a pretty decent exemplar of Dunning-Krueger. But I found myself at somewhat of an impasse and was actually grateful when his wife appeared with their 1yo and told him that he was cranky and they needed to go home. Still, on leaving, I was pondering things and figured I would ask here if anyone had any thoughts about teaching people about expertise, what it really is, and why one should trust experts....? I have my own thoughts but would be interested in any others here...
Don't waste your time with people who selectively reject medical expertise, especially in the medical fields. The next time the same conversation comes up, just tell them that the next time they need to go to the emergency room, that they should continue to reject medical expertise & stay home. Then walk away and get your Sunday morning coffee and rolls.
Quote from: Anon1787 on May 16, 2022, 09:15:20 PM
Quote from: apl68 on May 16, 2022, 07:31:49 AM
If he considers himself both a Christian and a libertarian, as that word is typically used in the U.S., then he's got more fundamental problems than not being willing to believe in some kinds of expertise. The New Testament is abundantly clear that Christians are to consider themselves subject to human authorities, saving only those occasions when the human authorities try to make them do something in direct contradiction to what God wants. It also makes it clear that we owe many duties to our fellow human beings, especially those less fortunate than ourselves, which libertarianism seems strongly disinclined to recognize. Libertarian "social" Darwinism is far more inherently Godless than actual biological Darwinism.
As many libertarians would emphasize, statists conflate people having positive moral duties to help others with social engineers who try (and inevitably fail at enormous cost) to immanentize the eschaton via government coercion.
That belongs on a T-shirt. It's far more interesting than any of the other 3 word slogans.
Quote from: Anon1787 on May 16, 2022, 09:15:20 PM
Quote from: apl68 on May 16, 2022, 07:31:49 AM
If he considers himself both a Christian and a libertarian, as that word is typically used in the U.S., then he's got more fundamental problems than not being willing to believe in some kinds of expertise. The New Testament is abundantly clear that Christians are to consider themselves subject to human authorities, saving only those occasions when the human authorities try to make them do something in direct contradiction to what God wants. It also makes it clear that we owe many duties to our fellow human beings, especially those less fortunate than ourselves, which libertarianism seems strongly disinclined to recognize. Libertarian "social" Darwinism is far more inherently Godless than actual biological Darwinism.
As many libertarians would emphasize, statists conflate people having positive moral duties to help others with social engineers who try (and inevitably fail at enormous cost) to immanentize the eschaton via government coercion.
A mistake some politically-involved Christians are making as well. Me, I don't see any real need to try to immanentize the eschaton at a time when the eschaton shows lots of evidence of moving along briskly on its own.
Quote from: kaysixteen on May 16, 2022, 08:27:21 PM
I recall, now that I think on it, that the pastor did let me teach a study on critical thinking and source evaluation several years ago-- I based it on a book, title escapes me but I do have it somewhere, written by Bruce Bartlett-- but, sadly, most of what I was saying just went in one ear and out the other for almost all of the folks. Critical thinking and source analysis, which I actually taught my students at the old Christian school, to great effect and positive response, seems to be something that mant of their *parents*/ members of parents' generation, seem to be eschewing. I wish I could get a good book/ periodical/ website/? that teaches 1) the need for such things and 2) how to go about it, authored from an *explicitly evangelical* or at least broadly Christian perspective...
I understand what you would like to do. Critical thinking skills and a concern for selection of reliable sources of information are important in my field of work as well. I'm not sure to what extent those are appropriate weapons for a spiritual battle, though. Some things we can only deal with through much prayer for those involved, and through setting a Christian example before others. I've spent a lot of years praying that our church's pastor would not fall into any of the weird rabbit holes that seem to have caught so many others. Thankfully those prayers have been answered.
Like I said, what this confused "Christian libertarian" really needs is to put in some careful, prayerful study of God's word. To spend more time seeing what Jesus said and considering its consequences for our lives. To see what God's priorities are as expressed in the Word, as opposed to what our slick political and religious pundits tell us in their sound bites. That's the surest defense against error.
For example, the vaccination issue. Our pastor didn't try to mandate vaccination, but he encouraged it and set the example of being vaccinated himself. His younger daughter, who is a nurse, tried hard to convince him. The line of reasoning that worked best with him was that vaccination makes you less likely to spread the illness to others, and reassures others who must be around you, and is therefore the loving thing to do. And doing what best expresses love for others--as opposed to selfishly insisting on one's own "liberty" to do what one pleases--has always been a consistent theme in his ministry.
His getting vaccinated to set an example in all likelihood saved his life when he caught the Omicron variant and had a bad bout with it. Setting a Christian example can get you martyred in some parts of the world, but it can also have definite personal benefits. This following Jesus stuff works!
Quote from: lightning on May 17, 2022, 02:51:26 AM
Don't waste your time with people who selectively reject medical expertise, especially in the medical fields.
It's not that you need to explain information literacy to people like your friend----it's that you cannot explain away the things your friend wants to believe.
For whatever reason, your friend wants to believe that COVID is some sort of conspiracy, and nothing you say to him will break through that wall. You're better off trying to convince flat-earthers that the world is round or convince UFO nuts that flying saucers are actually airplanes, etc.
This type of behavior is nothing unusual for human nature.