The elite’s shortcomings stem largely from ignorance and arrogance, both of which are fed by progressive ideas. For instance, the postmodern idea that reality is little more than a social construct leads to the notion that it can be reshaped by an act of will. Their attempts to move people as they would “move pieces on a chessboard” creates disinformation.
Minimum wage laws, price floors and ceilings, anti-gouging laws, and monetary manipulation all distort prices - those essential bits of “information wrapped in incentives.” Tariffs and subsidies sever feedback loops that tell companies when to alter course. Regulations force firms and consumers to ignore market signals. Welfare restrictions create perverse incentives and disincentives that discourage work and savings. DEI rules require discrimination based on skin color and sexual orientation rather than on acquired knowledge and skills. The disinformation generated by elite hubris creates dysfunction, uncertainty, and unrest.
Humans lack the physical ability to survive by adapting to nature, we survive by adapting nature to ourselves. Doing so takes knowledge. As such, we are information-based life forms, and cannot survive in a world of enforced ignorance.
I don’t care for the word disinformation. I’m not sure what it means and I don’t seem to have much use for it. Why would I use it as a verb? I do like the word subversion. Children can be skilled at subversion. Smart asses can be subversive. Elon Musk can be subversive. Donald Trump can be subversive. Arnold Kling can subversive. Jesus Christ was and still is — through the Bible —subversive. Subversion can be truth seeking. It can be a form of protest. It can be wielded by politicians to manipulate. Heretics and prophets are subversive; they challenge authority using various techniques. Steve Jobs was subversive. Subversion can be good or bad. I don’t have much to say about disinformation other than to ask, “What does it mean?”
I think the simple answer is it is claims that are wrong. Typically it is started by someone who knows it is wrong and has malicious intent but I'm not sure that is required. The better question is how do we determine which claims are disinformation?
Okay. “ The better question is how do we determine which claims are disinformation?”
The scientific method when applicable. Deference to freedom of religion when applicable. Skepticism in most cases. Knowing who to trust when we cannot — or don’t have time, interest, resources — to figure first hand.
We can go a step further and build a personal or private list of trustworthy people and people to be skeptical of.
Better primary and secondary education would be helpful to ward against deceptive people and organizations.
We can limit the federal government using the Constitution in cases when all the above methods fail.
Lastly we have our guns! Just in case.
What else can we do? You could start your own Substack.
I'd argue that very little of it is related to science or scientific method. It more a matter of whether something happened or not. Is covid coming from a lab disinformation? What about Biden? is it disinformation to claim he has dementia without ANY of the test results needed to make the best, still-not-great, guess?
According to Kling's Brokenism Axis heuristic from one week ago, Rauch is a moderate, left-of-center institutionalist. That's why he is pro-WashPo and anti-Trump, who he rightly sees as a disrupter. Rauch is more afraid of disrupting institutions than allowing ones that are not working very well to continue as they are.
Rauch likes the WaPo because he and his friends (Jurno-listers) are in control but they aren't in control of Congress. Did Rauch have the same opinion of Congress between 2016 and 2018?
So was Gingrich a bad actor because of his caustic words directed towards Clinton and other Dems or was he "good" because he actually worked with them to get legislation passed?
Was Obama "good" because his words were less nasty or one of the worst actors because he always put politics ahead of moving legislation forward? (Frontline did a piece on him reneging on a secret deal with Boehner in order to gain political points.)
I agree that Jonathan has a very thin definition of disinformation. A verb is a good way to pivot, and yet, deceive, divide, demoralize are all very different ends. The typical hybrid warfare definition might suggest that disorient is the main goal; deception is difficult and rarely necessary. Divide is another possible strategic goal. Once again, deception is often the hard way. Meanwhile, unity can be equally objectionable as a goal, depending on who is expressing opinions about whom, and can be served by truth or deception equally.
Jonathan is taking his own perspective on what ideal end would be achieved and making a definition of disinformation that serves as propaganda... The irony. It doesn't advance a better understanding of the issues, and there is no surprise that he would like to manipulate Congress as a lever of authority. The educational system can be an even stronger lever, as you say, but only if you can control it. Right now, the strongest families are bailing from public school because it has become a poor trade in terms of status vs indoctrination. People collectively aren't fast to pivot, but the trends are inexorable.
"I agree that lack of civic knowledge is a problem. Young people do not learn how government works, what the various branches are supposed to do and what constraints they face. Young people do not learn how to engage in fair debate, as opposed to dunking someone on social media."
No doubt young have less civic knowledge than older people. The more important question is whether than have less at when at the same age. I'm not aware of any evidence of this.
As for fair debate, the same question applies but I'd question how many older people have this ability too.
Interestingly Hanania recently posted a chapter draft taking a somewhat opposite perspective. He ends:
"All societies have had elites, but few until the Industrial Revolution had much in the way of Elite Human Capital. The societies that do have such individuals and sub-cultures have been the most successful in the history of humanity. One cannot draw from this fact alone the conclusion that Elite Human Capital is necessary for social stability, moral progress and economic growth. But given that there is a plausible connection to be made between the most admirable traits of our most prestigious institutions and how well democratic capitalism has functioned, we should maintain some skepticism towards attempts to tear them down or even significantly reduce their influence."
Chesterton's fence applies here as it does in so many other areas -- even though intellectual elites are themselves a threat to some other Chesterton fences that ought to also be protected.
It is interesting how "the elites" are rarely named.
At the highest level, maybe the political (the fixers within and between the parties, who have been in DC forever), military/intelligence (non-elected but some nominated), and administrative state, including the Federal Reserve, communities. Murray (2015) characterizes the administrative state bureaucrats well and fairly, primarily from a public choice perspective. In other words, all those who work for the federal government and have influence on policies and regulations. These groups, excluding military/intelligence and Fed Reserve, are replicated at the state level.
The next tier are those who benefit from access to and get barriers to entry from governments (e.g., owners, executives, and top talent at legacy media, K-12 and higher Ed, the "Bigs" Pharma, Ag, etc.). Best not to bite the hand that feeds you, so grumble in private but follow the uni-party line in public.
Last but not least, those with professional degrees (JD, MBA, PhD, MD, etc.) who may know everything about a narrow topic, assume this gives them greater insight into areas outside their expertise, and assume those with similar credentials have those greater insights too and noble motives. A good example are the letters signed by Nobel prize winners. This bottom tier may not have "juice" with the policy makers and regulators but they sure do benefit from the barriers to entry and complexity that those policies and regulations engender. As "experts," they unsurprisingly value "expertise," even when it turns out to be incompetent for the problems it tries to tackle even in good faith (Hayek, 1945),
Maybe we are elites in a broader sense but no doubt the use here is directed to a narrower group with more significant influence. It probably refers to a particular set of beliefs too though I'm rather fuzzy in my understanding of which beliefs that would be.
The elite’s shortcomings stem largely from ignorance and arrogance, both of which are fed by progressive ideas. For instance, the postmodern idea that reality is little more than a social construct leads to the notion that it can be reshaped by an act of will. Their attempts to move people as they would “move pieces on a chessboard” creates disinformation.
Minimum wage laws, price floors and ceilings, anti-gouging laws, and monetary manipulation all distort prices - those essential bits of “information wrapped in incentives.” Tariffs and subsidies sever feedback loops that tell companies when to alter course. Regulations force firms and consumers to ignore market signals. Welfare restrictions create perverse incentives and disincentives that discourage work and savings. DEI rules require discrimination based on skin color and sexual orientation rather than on acquired knowledge and skills. The disinformation generated by elite hubris creates dysfunction, uncertainty, and unrest.
Humans lack the physical ability to survive by adapting to nature, we survive by adapting nature to ourselves. Doing so takes knowledge. As such, we are information-based life forms, and cannot survive in a world of enforced ignorance.
I don’t care for the word disinformation. I’m not sure what it means and I don’t seem to have much use for it. Why would I use it as a verb? I do like the word subversion. Children can be skilled at subversion. Smart asses can be subversive. Elon Musk can be subversive. Donald Trump can be subversive. Arnold Kling can subversive. Jesus Christ was and still is — through the Bible —subversive. Subversion can be truth seeking. It can be a form of protest. It can be wielded by politicians to manipulate. Heretics and prophets are subversive; they challenge authority using various techniques. Steve Jobs was subversive. Subversion can be good or bad. I don’t have much to say about disinformation other than to ask, “What does it mean?”
I think the simple answer is it is claims that are wrong. Typically it is started by someone who knows it is wrong and has malicious intent but I'm not sure that is required. The better question is how do we determine which claims are disinformation?
Okay. “ The better question is how do we determine which claims are disinformation?”
The scientific method when applicable. Deference to freedom of religion when applicable. Skepticism in most cases. Knowing who to trust when we cannot — or don’t have time, interest, resources — to figure first hand.
We can go a step further and build a personal or private list of trustworthy people and people to be skeptical of.
Better primary and secondary education would be helpful to ward against deceptive people and organizations.
We can limit the federal government using the Constitution in cases when all the above methods fail.
Lastly we have our guns! Just in case.
What else can we do? You could start your own Substack.
I'd argue that very little of it is related to science or scientific method. It more a matter of whether something happened or not. Is covid coming from a lab disinformation? What about Biden? is it disinformation to claim he has dementia without ANY of the test results needed to make the best, still-not-great, guess?
True. I use the word science informally to mean what you said above in addition to the formal scientific method.
According to Kling's Brokenism Axis heuristic from one week ago, Rauch is a moderate, left-of-center institutionalist. That's why he is pro-WashPo and anti-Trump, who he rightly sees as a disrupter. Rauch is more afraid of disrupting institutions than allowing ones that are not working very well to continue as they are.
Rauch likes the WaPo because he and his friends (Jurno-listers) are in control but they aren't in control of Congress. Did Rauch have the same opinion of Congress between 2016 and 2018?
The trouble is you can opportunistically describe Congress as heavily weighted toward crooks and demagogues and you’ll never, ever be wrong.
So was Gingrich a bad actor because of his caustic words directed towards Clinton and other Dems or was he "good" because he actually worked with them to get legislation passed?
Was Obama "good" because his words were less nasty or one of the worst actors because he always put politics ahead of moving legislation forward? (Frontline did a piece on him reneging on a secret deal with Boehner in order to gain political points.)
https://substack.com/home/post/p-153625056?selection=abf8eda3-db57-471d-a842-e91cdead0fca
Remember, these are the people worried about disinformation.
Arnold,
I agree that Jonathan has a very thin definition of disinformation. A verb is a good way to pivot, and yet, deceive, divide, demoralize are all very different ends. The typical hybrid warfare definition might suggest that disorient is the main goal; deception is difficult and rarely necessary. Divide is another possible strategic goal. Once again, deception is often the hard way. Meanwhile, unity can be equally objectionable as a goal, depending on who is expressing opinions about whom, and can be served by truth or deception equally.
Jonathan is taking his own perspective on what ideal end would be achieved and making a definition of disinformation that serves as propaganda... The irony. It doesn't advance a better understanding of the issues, and there is no surprise that he would like to manipulate Congress as a lever of authority. The educational system can be an even stronger lever, as you say, but only if you can control it. Right now, the strongest families are bailing from public school because it has become a poor trade in terms of status vs indoctrination. People collectively aren't fast to pivot, but the trends are inexorable.
"I agree that lack of civic knowledge is a problem. Young people do not learn how government works, what the various branches are supposed to do and what constraints they face. Young people do not learn how to engage in fair debate, as opposed to dunking someone on social media."
No doubt young have less civic knowledge than older people. The more important question is whether than have less at when at the same age. I'm not aware of any evidence of this.
As for fair debate, the same question applies but I'd question how many older people have this ability too.
Arnold
Chantel del sol, French professor, wrote that
“Ontology is epidemiology “
If we are just chemical robots (Descartes) we just need the correct algorithm, valid programming, and find answer. No free-will. No responsibilities.
If we are smart animals (Darwin) we need submission to dominate ones. Evolution will indicate which. No free-will. No responsibility.
If we are made in image of God (Moses) we need to our free-will correctly to find answer. We incur responsibility.
Also, Charles renouvier, French philosopher, makes point with out free -will no possibility finding truth.
Who now believes in free-will?
Thanks
Clay
I would LOVE to see you debate Rauch!
Provide the petition link and I’ll sign it. Provide the GoFundMe link and I’ll kick in.
"Let us stipulate that Mr. Trump lies regularly and that the Post, while biased, usually stops short of pushing falsehoods"
WaPo, NYT & all the other 'Inside the Beltway' pundits pushed the lies about Biden's mental acuity since the 2020 election campaign
'Disinformation' takes two to tango
Sorry to see you at the dance!
Interestingly Hanania recently posted a chapter draft taking a somewhat opposite perspective. He ends:
"All societies have had elites, but few until the Industrial Revolution had much in the way of Elite Human Capital. The societies that do have such individuals and sub-cultures have been the most successful in the history of humanity. One cannot draw from this fact alone the conclusion that Elite Human Capital is necessary for social stability, moral progress and economic growth. But given that there is a plausible connection to be made between the most admirable traits of our most prestigious institutions and how well democratic capitalism has functioned, we should maintain some skepticism towards attempts to tear them down or even significantly reduce their influence."
Chesterton's fence applies here as it does in so many other areas -- even though intellectual elites are themselves a threat to some other Chesterton fences that ought to also be protected.
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/the-origins-of-elite-human-capital
Who are “the elites?” Aren’t all of us on Substack members? Should we be ashamed of our education or ability to express our thoughts in writing?
It is interesting how "the elites" are rarely named.
At the highest level, maybe the political (the fixers within and between the parties, who have been in DC forever), military/intelligence (non-elected but some nominated), and administrative state, including the Federal Reserve, communities. Murray (2015) characterizes the administrative state bureaucrats well and fairly, primarily from a public choice perspective. In other words, all those who work for the federal government and have influence on policies and regulations. These groups, excluding military/intelligence and Fed Reserve, are replicated at the state level.
The next tier are those who benefit from access to and get barriers to entry from governments (e.g., owners, executives, and top talent at legacy media, K-12 and higher Ed, the "Bigs" Pharma, Ag, etc.). Best not to bite the hand that feeds you, so grumble in private but follow the uni-party line in public.
Last but not least, those with professional degrees (JD, MBA, PhD, MD, etc.) who may know everything about a narrow topic, assume this gives them greater insight into areas outside their expertise, and assume those with similar credentials have those greater insights too and noble motives. A good example are the letters signed by Nobel prize winners. This bottom tier may not have "juice" with the policy makers and regulators but they sure do benefit from the barriers to entry and complexity that those policies and regulations engender. As "experts," they unsurprisingly value "expertise," even when it turns out to be incompetent for the problems it tries to tackle even in good faith (Hayek, 1945),
Maybe we are elites in a broader sense but no doubt the use here is directed to a narrower group with more significant influence. It probably refers to a particular set of beliefs too though I'm rather fuzzy in my understanding of which beliefs that would be.
No disagreement.