epistemic closure

[kaysixteen]

Several years ago, during the time of the Mueller investigation of Russia collusion, but before the report came out, I read an article in (I think) Salon, could have been Vox, which was headlined, 'What if Mueller proves his case, but it does not matter?'  The article was on epistemic closure in this country, essentially saying that many Americans are so bought in to their side's (i.e., mostly, party's, but also religion's/ denomination's, etc.) views and public champions/ representatives thereof, that they will not brook or even consider evidence that they might be wrong, their guy might be corrupt, incompetent, etc., or that the other side's positions might be better.  I confess I am underwhelmed by the Democrats' 2022 election campaign strategy, which seems to have been missing several avenues of attack which might, at least in theory, attract some of the white working class voters who have been Trumpified in recent years (actually GOP-ized for several cycles before Trump, for that matter), such as the real state of the economy, what Biden and the Dems have done positively (esp for the middle class and lower groups), and what the real effects of decades of GOP voodoo economics have been (and what a return to their rule would mean going forward), whereas the Dems seem to have decided to go all abortion, or at least all abortion and progressive sexual views.  That said, even if the Dems did not campaign *at all*, such voters, if they actually looked at facts and evidence, not only wrt bad GOP economics, but also deep corruption, that should be enough to send them back to the Dems.  But they are not doing this.   Many will not even examine, look at, read, etc, evidence/ news (e.g., Jan 6 hearings) that would be disconfirming (and the fact that most Americans nowadays, at least most not possessing of a postgraduate degree, more or less never read anything that is actually printed on paper, and most have not read any books since the last time they had been forced to do so in a school setting), but even those who do look at such evidence, will largely refuse to believe it (this is not those who do believe it, such as wrt the uniquely unfit for office Herschel Walker, who do believe it but just do not care, if it is their guy), and strongly resist any attempts, no matter how politely and respectfully made, to show them how they may be wrong.   What can be done about this?

[Hegemony]

Under the circumstances, I think emphasizing the abortion question is a good strategy — there's no questioning the fact that abortion has been made illegal in a number of states, and will be made illegal in more if the GOP has its way. For people who oppose that, it is a very real, concrete, and immediate issue. And the consequences are clear and definable.

As for the larger question — what to do about people who will not believe their side can be wrong on something — that is possibly the question of our time. I think most of us underestimated how people can get stuck in contrary-to-fact belief systems and will not be budged, whether it's QAnon, political corruption, nano-robots that allow Bill Gates to control you via your vaccination, election results, or what have you.

[Stockmann]

As for the larger question — what to do about people who will not believe their side can be wrong on something — that is possibly the question of our time. I think most of us underestimated how people can get stuck in contrary-to-fact belief systems and will not be budged, whether it's QAnon, political corruption, nano-robots that allow Bill Gates to control you via your vaccination, election results, or what have you.

Extremists have always had dogmatic beliefs impervious to evidence or logic, even as such beliefs got cast as somehow being scientific. Whether it's "Aryan Physics" and racial pseudobiology on the Right, or Lysenkoism or belief in "Scientific Socialism" despite the endless list of wrong predictions on the Left, this has long characterized extremists. Our time is different in that the political center is looking awfully empty and fact-proof belief is I think now commonplace among less extreme folks than before. I have no idea what to do about it - this seems to be the era of turkeys voting for Xmas and of the most serious leader of the age probably being a former stand-up comedian in a famously corrupt and feeble country.

[Hegemony]

the most serious leader of the age probably being a former stand-up comedian in a famously corrupt and feeble country.

I don't think this is right. He was a sitcom comedian, not a standup comedian.

Of course this is a way of making him seem contradictory — a country run by a former TV celebrity, who ever heard of that! But Zelenskyy does have a law degree, which is more than Trump or Reagan could say.

[mamselle]

And he's stayed put and kept communicating with his own people, and everyone else, at horrific cost.

M.

[mahagonny]

Under the circumstances, I think emphasizing the abortion question is a good strategy — there's no questioning the fact that abortion has been made illegal in a number of states, and will be made illegal in more if the GOP has its way. For people who oppose that, it is a very real, concrete, and immediate issue. And the consequences are clear and definable.

Especially when people who might end up being aborted don't vote. But I'm not even sure you're right. Stacey Abrams is tanking in the polls after saying there's no fetal heartbeat at six weeks.

[mahagonny]

con't

I confess I am underwhelmed by the Democrats' 2022 election campaign strategy....

I think they are doing the best they can with what they have. Wokeness is holding them hostage. Some of them know it's a dead end, but they don't know what to do about it. Others are all in and bond easily with their congregation, so they get a lot of approval. But, as usual, the question is, what will the swing voters do.

[Parasaurolophus]

I really wish we wouldn't misappropriate academic terms because they sound smart. Epistemic closure does not mean what everyone seems to think it means--in fact, it's in many ways the opposite of what people seem to think. I know that ship basically sailed before it even left port, but it still drives me to distraction. Misusing fancy words doesn't make you look smart. /rant    (FWIW, I'm directing this at the political commentariat in general, not at kaysixteen in particular.)


On topic: like you, I'm underwhelmed by the Democratic "strategy". It seems to me that the abortion issue is an important and useful plank, but it can't comprise the whole floor on its own. Especially when the "strategy" is to yell about it really loudly without presenting much by way of solutions or, indeed, presenting a united front around with respect to a concrete set of measures. And that's a failing that seems to be echoed with respect to pretty much every issue, from voting rights and democracy to healthcare, education, and the environment (let alone "the economy", but I won't get started on that). As an outside observer, it doesn't seem to me like the party is treating these issues with the urgency they require and, thus, I think it's going to be hard for them to win much of anyone over.

[dismalist]

...

On topic: like you, I'm underwhelmed by the Democratic "strategy". It seems to me that the abortion issue is an important and useful plank, but it can't comprise the whole floor on its own. Especially when the "strategy" is to yell about it really loudly without presenting much by way of solutions or, indeed, presenting a united front around with respect to a concrete set of measures. And that's a failing that seems to be echoed with respect to pretty much every issue, from voting rights and democracy to healthcare, education, and the environment (let alone "the economy", but I won't get started on that). As an outside observer, it doesn't seem to me like the party is treating these issues with the urgency they require and, thus, I think it's going to be hard for them to win much of anyone over.

That is surely descriptively true. Question is why. I don't think it's incompetence.

My guess is that the broad coalition the Democrats have or are trying to put together to win contains such diverse interests that a unified position on many of these issues can't be formed. Broad abortion rights, but without getting into divisive details, seems to be the most promising for a united stand. I could go down the list, but just to illustrate the problem with one issue: On the environment, some Democrats or potential Democratic voters want low fuel prices, while others worry about greenhouse gas emissions.

If correct, this also helps explain the continuing focus on Trump. It's apparently the one thing that unifies Democrats.

Maybe a Bridge too Far. We shall see.

[Stockmann]

the most serious leader of the age probably being a former stand-up comedian in a famously corrupt and feeble country.

I don't think this is right. He was a sitcom comedian, not a standup comedian.

Of course this is a way of making him seem contradictory — a country run by a former TV celebrity, who ever heard of that! But Zelenskyy does have a law degree, which is more than Trump or Reagan could say.

My bad, yes, a sitcom comedian.

[mahagonny]

On topic: like you, I'm underwhelmed by the Democratic "strategy". It seems to me that the abortion issue is an important and useful plank, but it can't comprise the whole floor on its own. Especially when the "strategy" is to yell about it really loudly without presenting much by way of solutions or, indeed, presenting a united front around with respect to a concrete set of measures. And that's a failing that seems to be echoed with respect to pretty much every issue, from voting rights and democracy to healthcare, education, and the environment (let alone "the economy", but I won't get started on that). As an outside observer, it doesn't seem to me like the party is treating these issues with the urgency they require and, thus, I think it's going to be hard for them to win much of anyone over.

Here's a long shot effort to find common ground: suppose we as society started to once again cultivate the 1950's-ish belief that everyone should do things in this order:
1. Finish school before getting married
2. Get married before getting pregnant
3. Learn how to avoid bad relations with the police
4. Stay away from substance abuse
5. Pay your bills on time

We would then have fewer abortions less, crime, more solvency, etc, why wouldn't progressives like that?
But this kind of advice is associated with people they hate, like Larry Elder. But if you take culture war out of the equation, the ideas might just be palatable.

[Anon1787]

Several years ago, during the time of the Mueller investigation of Russia collusion, but before the report came out, I read an article in (I think) Salon, could have been Vox, which was headlined, 'What if Mueller proves his case, but it does not matter?'  The article was on epistemic closure in this country, essentially saying that many Americans are so bought in to their side's (i.e., mostly, party's, but also religion's/ denomination's, etc.) views and public champions/ representatives thereof, that they will not brook or even consider evidence that they might be wrong, their guy might be corrupt, incompetent, etc., or that the other side's positions might be better.  I confess I am underwhelmed by the Democrats' 2022 election campaign strategy, which seems to have been missing several avenues of attack which might, at least in theory, attract some of the white working class voters who have been Trumpified in recent years (actually GOP-ized for several cycles before Trump, for that matter), such as the real state of the economy, what Biden and the Dems have done positively (esp for the middle class and lower groups), and what the real effects of decades of GOP voodoo economics have been (and what a return to their rule would mean going forward), whereas the Dems seem to have decided to go all abortion, or at least all abortion and progressive sexual views.  That said, even if the Dems did not campaign *at all*, such voters, if they actually looked at facts and evidence, not only wrt bad GOP economics, but also deep corruption, that should be enough to send them back to the Dems.  But they are not doing this.   Many will not even examine, look at, read, etc, evidence/ news (e.g., Jan 6 hearings) that would be disconfirming (and the fact that most Americans nowadays, at least most not possessing of a postgraduate degree, more or less never read anything that is actually printed on paper, and most have not read any books since the last time they had been forced to do so in a school setting), but even those who do look at such evidence, will largely refuse to believe it (this is not those who do believe it, such as wrt the uniquely unfit for office Herschel Walker, who do believe it but just do not care, if it is their guy), and strongly resist any attempts, no matter how politely and respectfully made, to show them how they may be wrong.   What can be done about this?

And those voters would rightly tell patronizing elitists like you to f*ck off. Why should anyone accept your priors as possessing epistemic certainty? Do you even have any particular expertise in economics or politics, or are you like many academics who presume to think that their postgraduate degree entitles them to pontificate authoritatively about any old topic?

[kaysixteen]

I look forward to reading the article on epistemic closure, which if para is correct, demonstrates that the article I was quoting from back in the day is misusing the term.   Perhaps it is-- truth be told, I had never heard the term before reading that article.

Now I am going to say a few things that would clarify and expand upon my arguments.   Put simply, the reason I agree with Bernie Sanders and think that the Demos should be emphasizing economic issues instead of abortion and sexual ones, is, well, twofold:

1) The Dems have indeed, in their two years in power, done real good for the country economically (there are rumpswab GOP congresscritters now, for instance, actually running ads emphasizing how many bucks will be coming home to the district via the Infrastructure bill, congresscritters who of course voted against said bill).  Inflation is the only thing bad now, economically, really, and Biden has little control over it.   The GOP of course is continuing to emphasize inflation in their campaigning, without a) telling us what they plan to do about it (of course, if they really had a great solution AND they cared about the lower-income folks they bamboozle into voting for them, they would share that great plan now, and let it be undertaken now), and b)telling us what their real economic governing agenda would be, because, of course, these plans would tank the economy for all but the superrich, etc., and would be massively unpopular things to campaign on.

2) Now here's the hard part-- my arguments against focusing on abortion and progressive sexual mores.  Put bluntly, most Americans that the Demos need to vote for them in districts that are not bright blue, *simply do not agree with the progressive  left's abortion and sexual mores extremism.   Really, they just do not. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not favor abortion being available at all times during a pregnancy and for any reason, and heavy majorities favor at least some restrictions on it.  It is deeply difficult for someone like me, a conservative evangelical who favors deep restrictions on abortion, to get enthusiastic about voting for an abortion-first candidate/ party-- I am going to swallow hard and do so because it is the lesser of two evils choice, taken as a whole, and in any case I have been coming over to an abortion incrementalism 'hearts and minds' position, where those opposing abortion on demand will have to spend time trying to convince our countrymen of the merits of our views, without which actions abortion just will not be going away.  And as to the sexual stuff, well let's just say now that one cannot insult the basic morality and values of people that you expect to vote for you, by forcing emphases on, let's face it, really radically innovative sexual ethics.

One more thing, with regard to the criticism that I am an elitist who is trying to preach to my intellectual inferiors.  Shut up.   Like it or not, people like us do know more than Trump's easily snookered 'poorly educated'.   And our education and intelligence does also give us better critical thinking skills.   When my car is broken, I take it to a mechanic, and defer to his judgment (helps that I know and trust my guy).  But that same mechanic, a part-time volunteer pastor at his church, lectured me, unsolicited, last fall, as to how Bill Gates has engineered mind-control microchips into the covid vax.   You get my point.

[mahagonny]

I'm pretty sure inflation is easier to start than it is to stop, but I guess if the republicans start running things then it's their liability. And I wouldn't put it past Joe Biden to have planned it that way. He is not particularly an honorable man. Kicking the can down the road.

2) Now here's the hard part-- my arguments against focusing on abortion and progressive sexual mores.  Put bluntly, most Americans that the Demos need to vote for them in districts that are not bright blue, *simply do not agree with the progressive  left's abortion and sexual mores extremism.   Really, they just do not. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not favor abortion being available at all times during a pregnancy and for any reason, and heavy majorities favor at least some restrictions on it.  It is deeply difficult for someone like me, a conservative evangelical who favors deep restrictions on abortion, to get enthusiastic about voting for an abortion-first candidate/ party-- I am going to swallow hard and do so because it is the lesser of two evils choice, taken as a whole, and in any case I have been coming over to an abortion incrementalism 'hearts and minds' position, where those opposing abortion on demand will have to spend time trying to convince our countrymen of the merits of our views, without which actions abortion just will not be going away.  And as to the sexual stuff, well let's just say now that one cannot insult the basic morality and values of people that you expect to vote for you, by forcing emphases on, let's face it, really radically innovative sexual ethics.

Agree with this, and it astonishes me how progressives cannot see how out of the mainstream they have positioned themselves.

[Anon1787]

I look forward to reading the article on epistemic closure, which if para is correct, demonstrates that the article I was quoting from back in the day is misusing the term.   Perhaps it is-- truth be told, I had never heard the term before reading that article.

Now I am going to say a few things that would clarify and expand upon my arguments.   Put simply, the reason I agree with Bernie Sanders and think that the Demos should be emphasizing economic issues instead of abortion and sexual ones, is, well, twofold:

1) The Dems have indeed, in their two years in power, done real good for the country economically (there are rumpswab GOP congresscritters now, for instance, actually running ads emphasizing how many bucks will be coming home to the district via the Infrastructure bill, congresscritters who of course voted against said bill).  Inflation is the only thing bad now, economically, really, and Biden has little control over it.   The GOP of course is continuing to emphasize inflation in their campaigning, without a) telling us what they plan to do about it (of course, if they really had a great solution AND they cared about the lower-income folks they bamboozle into voting for them, they would share that great plan now, and let it be undertaken now), and b)telling us what their real economic governing agenda would be, because, of course, these plans would tank the economy for all but the superrich, etc., and would be massively unpopular things to campaign on.

2) Now here's the hard part-- my arguments against focusing on abortion and progressive sexual mores.  Put bluntly, most Americans that the Demos need to vote for them in districts that are not bright blue, *simply do not agree with the progressive  left's abortion and sexual mores extremism.   Really, they just do not. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not favor abortion being available at all times during a pregnancy and for any reason, and heavy majorities favor at least some restrictions on it.  It is deeply difficult for someone like me, a conservative evangelical who favors deep restrictions on abortion, to get enthusiastic about voting for an abortion-first candidate/ party-- I am going to swallow hard and do so because it is the lesser of two evils choice, taken as a whole, and in any case I have been coming over to an abortion incrementalism 'hearts and minds' position, where those opposing abortion on demand will have to spend time trying to convince our countrymen of the merits of our views, without which actions abortion just will not be going away.  And as to the sexual stuff, well let's just say now that one cannot insult the basic morality and values of people that you expect to vote for you, by forcing emphases on, let's face it, really radically innovative sexual ethics.

One more thing, with regard to the criticism that I am an elitist who is trying to preach to my intellectual inferiors.  Shut up.   Like it or not, people like us do know more than Trump's easily snookered 'poorly educated'.   And our education and intelligence does also give us better critical thinking skills.   When my car is broken, I take it to a mechanic, and defer to his judgment (helps that I know and trust my guy).  But that same mechanic, a part-time volunteer pastor at his church, lectured me, unsolicited, last fall, as to how Bill Gates has engineered mind-control microchips into the covid vax.   You get my point.

The "only" bad thing is inflation. Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln? That's what you get with Magic Money Tree economics. You're as clueless about economics and morality as Bernie.