Persuasion on platform censorship and on power; Michael Huemer on why professors lean left; Freddie deBoer rants again; Bryan Caplan moves; Joseph Paul Forgas on the psychology of populism
That Forgas essay is a great example of two things.
First, why the use of the term 'populist' should be completely retired as it has become meaningless and degraded "to the level of a swearword" as Orwell described hilariously in "What is Fascism?" 78 years ago.
Second, that it is
both dangerous and counterproductive to psychologize differing political opinions, as all it does it provide an excuse to engage in behavior one is purportedly trying to avoid, which is to dehumanize opposition and dissent and prevent the possibility of reasoned engagement in civil discourse because the other guy's beliefs are just a bunch of dumb primitive impulses which can be dismissed out of hand as unworthy of consideration by us, the good smart people. Sticking to the merits of object level claims can be annoying and exhausting, but the alternative is the road to the political abuse of psychiatry.
Note that the Michael Huemer essay also, in some sense, attempts to psychoanalyze political beliefs. In his case though, I think he recognizes the speculative nature of his inquiry.
I've long struggled with the question of when is it appropriate to psychoanalyze someone's political beliefs. I have three criteria:
1. Is the psychoanalysis neutral with respect to who is correct on the object-level issue?
2. Is the psychoanalysis intended to predict behavior, and does do so successfully?
3. Would the psychoanalysis be accepted as basically correct by the faction(s) is purports to describe?
For every baby of a valuable and accurate insight about politics we can learn from evolutionary social psychoanalysis, there is an ocean of bathwater, some seas of which are toxic and shark infested.
Notice how no one making these claims for other people accepts them as descriptive of the origin of his own opinions, passionate disagreements, and animosities, which are totally different and valid and not tribal primitivism because reasons.
I think Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt have done a reasonably good job of trying to articulate psychological foundations for political beliefs, though I am pessimistic about most everyone else in the field.
Even then, one shouldn't take such models as deterministic. For instance, personality theory would predict that I would be an atheist, but I'm a religious Christian.
No, Haidt is doing a terrible job, which I've been explaining for 10 years since The Righteous Mind and all along the way of his many related projects. As Hanania, me, and others have pointed out, if the mass counterexamples of the way people on right and left behaved during the pandemic -something plainly visible to everyone in countless instances of direct observation, - doesn't put the final nail the coffin of his erroneous thesis, nothing will. Unfortunately there is insatiable demand in the lucrative market for confirmation bias. Anyway, today is Ukraine, so I'll drop this for now.
The Foregas essay reminds me of Jan-Werner Muller's What is Populism? Another tract about how people voting in their own interest is some how anti-liberal and anti-democratic. One wonders what the many people who have voted at one time or another for a candidate who has been branded with the scarlet "P," but nevertheless appeared to be the lesser of two evils, are supposed to respond. If we are to be lumped in with the "ascendant and in-power populist movements from fascism, Marxism, cancel culture, the Proud Boys, Antifa, and woke-ism" because our "evolutionary vulnerabilities" have been manipulated, I suppose we must recognize our deficiencies, suffer in silence, and watch the evening news to be instructed on how we must vote.. As the great populist philosopher Simone Weil once said "Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity," so we should all just be grateful anyone pays attention to us at all.
According to Foregas, Weil would have to be considered manipulated and mentally defective because she fought against Franco for the Durruti Column during the Spanish Civil War. The Durruti Column was after all, the most recognized and popular group in the fight and she, gasp, embraced egalitarianism, collectivism, and individualism! Simultaneously! How ideologically confused! Obviously anti-liberal! Obviously anti-democratic! Nevertheless, I would hazard that one Weil has been worth more to the human intellectual endowment than a 100,000 or more of Foregas and his anti-populist ilk. But that was the Spanish Civil War. This is now.
Of course I do not mean to disparage Cochrane in anyway and undoubtedly he would eschew the populist label. I am just saying that I, as an avowed populist, would want someone with Cochrane's psychology,courage, analytical ability, work ethic, and attitude to be the sort of person that best represented what I think of as populism. But I am a pluralist populist and I am sure that other people who identify with populism have their own ideas of the sort of people we wish that we had representing us. Nevertheless, if there is anything that unites people who identify as populists, I would guess that it is that the government spending a lot of money on things that don't yield broad benefits makes our hemorrhoids flare. So there, psychoanalyze that.
"And while I was not shocked by the Covid pandemic – far worse plagues have happened before – I remain horrified by the reaction. In 2005, I would have predicted a shutdown of two weeks before life roughly returned to normal. So far, I’m off by a factor of fifty."
Back to normal... just minus a million people.
This is not to deny that the response to the pandemic was far beyond optimal in all sorts of ways, but the guy does not live in reality.
I thought I was clear about this, but the point is not that Caplan is wrong about policy, the point is that he's nuts. Nothing he's written about the pandemic ever betrayed an ounce of understanding of the fact that lots of people were at high risk. 54 million Americans are over 65. Life was not going to "roughly return to normal" for these people until vaccines were available, no matter what policy choices were made.
To clarify a bit more what I'm saying: Sometimes I agree with Caplan about the substance of his ideas, and I've come around much more to the idea that he was perhaps on the right track about covid policy. But even when I agree with him, his writing unfailingly displays warped perceptions and values that make me really worry about the guy's sanity.
Of course, "claiming to understand the true motives of the other side better than they understand themselves" will irritate them; it does not make for a productive discussion. But suppose your claim is correct?
I'm willing to assign some bi-partisan blame for the bi-partisan early pandemic stimulus bills. But as time went on and spending became ever more indefensible it also became a clearly partisan issue with nearly or totally party line votes by the dems to ram more spending through.
Yeah, plenty of blame to go around. If the inflation manufacturing factory is under new management, it's not reasonable to lay exclusive blame on the previous management when the new guys keep it running at full steam.
The Ukraine war is probably going to be a useful excuse going forward. Administration, "Well, price level growth *was* on track to get better, but then, the war, and Russia makes oil and aluminum, and this and that was disrupted, yadda yadda. Darn that Literally Putin!" Congress, "Well, we were going to tighten our belts and get rid of stimulus and bailouts, but then Literally Putin made the markets crash and we needed to ..." Fed, "Well, we were going to raise rates and stop printing money to buy more bonds, but then Literally Putin made certain capital markets seize up and we had to continue to accomodate ..."
That Forgas essay is a great example of two things.
First, why the use of the term 'populist' should be completely retired as it has become meaningless and degraded "to the level of a swearword" as Orwell described hilariously in "What is Fascism?" 78 years ago.
Second, that it is
both dangerous and counterproductive to psychologize differing political opinions, as all it does it provide an excuse to engage in behavior one is purportedly trying to avoid, which is to dehumanize opposition and dissent and prevent the possibility of reasoned engagement in civil discourse because the other guy's beliefs are just a bunch of dumb primitive impulses which can be dismissed out of hand as unworthy of consideration by us, the good smart people. Sticking to the merits of object level claims can be annoying and exhausting, but the alternative is the road to the political abuse of psychiatry.
Note that the Michael Huemer essay also, in some sense, attempts to psychoanalyze political beliefs. In his case though, I think he recognizes the speculative nature of his inquiry.
I've long struggled with the question of when is it appropriate to psychoanalyze someone's political beliefs. I have three criteria:
1. Is the psychoanalysis neutral with respect to who is correct on the object-level issue?
2. Is the psychoanalysis intended to predict behavior, and does do so successfully?
3. Would the psychoanalysis be accepted as basically correct by the faction(s) is purports to describe?
For every baby of a valuable and accurate insight about politics we can learn from evolutionary social psychoanalysis, there is an ocean of bathwater, some seas of which are toxic and shark infested.
Notice how no one making these claims for other people accepts them as descriptive of the origin of his own opinions, passionate disagreements, and animosities, which are totally different and valid and not tribal primitivism because reasons.
I think Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt have done a reasonably good job of trying to articulate psychological foundations for political beliefs, though I am pessimistic about most everyone else in the field.
Even then, one shouldn't take such models as deterministic. For instance, personality theory would predict that I would be an atheist, but I'm a religious Christian.
No, Haidt is doing a terrible job, which I've been explaining for 10 years since The Righteous Mind and all along the way of his many related projects. As Hanania, me, and others have pointed out, if the mass counterexamples of the way people on right and left behaved during the pandemic -something plainly visible to everyone in countless instances of direct observation, - doesn't put the final nail the coffin of his erroneous thesis, nothing will. Unfortunately there is insatiable demand in the lucrative market for confirmation bias. Anyway, today is Ukraine, so I'll drop this for now.
The Foregas essay reminds me of Jan-Werner Muller's What is Populism? Another tract about how people voting in their own interest is some how anti-liberal and anti-democratic. One wonders what the many people who have voted at one time or another for a candidate who has been branded with the scarlet "P," but nevertheless appeared to be the lesser of two evils, are supposed to respond. If we are to be lumped in with the "ascendant and in-power populist movements from fascism, Marxism, cancel culture, the Proud Boys, Antifa, and woke-ism" because our "evolutionary vulnerabilities" have been manipulated, I suppose we must recognize our deficiencies, suffer in silence, and watch the evening news to be instructed on how we must vote.. As the great populist philosopher Simone Weil once said "Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity," so we should all just be grateful anyone pays attention to us at all.
According to Foregas, Weil would have to be considered manipulated and mentally defective because she fought against Franco for the Durruti Column during the Spanish Civil War. The Durruti Column was after all, the most recognized and popular group in the fight and she, gasp, embraced egalitarianism, collectivism, and individualism! Simultaneously! How ideologically confused! Obviously anti-liberal! Obviously anti-democratic! Nevertheless, I would hazard that one Weil has been worth more to the human intellectual endowment than a 100,000 or more of Foregas and his anti-populist ilk. But that was the Spanish Civil War. This is now.
So who would a typical populist today hold up as our living poster person representing the best of populism? Personally I would take John Cochrane and offer his column on Biden's "infrastructure" bill as a fine example of a populist mind at work: https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2022/01/infrastructure-does-not-mean-roads-and.html
Of course I do not mean to disparage Cochrane in anyway and undoubtedly he would eschew the populist label. I am just saying that I, as an avowed populist, would want someone with Cochrane's psychology,courage, analytical ability, work ethic, and attitude to be the sort of person that best represented what I think of as populism. But I am a pluralist populist and I am sure that other people who identify with populism have their own ideas of the sort of people we wish that we had representing us. Nevertheless, if there is anything that unites people who identify as populists, I would guess that it is that the government spending a lot of money on things that don't yield broad benefits makes our hemorrhoids flare. So there, psychoanalyze that.
Caplan on covid never ceases to amaze:
"And while I was not shocked by the Covid pandemic – far worse plagues have happened before – I remain horrified by the reaction. In 2005, I would have predicted a shutdown of two weeks before life roughly returned to normal. So far, I’m off by a factor of fifty."
Back to normal... just minus a million people.
This is not to deny that the response to the pandemic was far beyond optimal in all sorts of ways, but the guy does not live in reality.
I thought I was clear about this, but the point is not that Caplan is wrong about policy, the point is that he's nuts. Nothing he's written about the pandemic ever betrayed an ounce of understanding of the fact that lots of people were at high risk. 54 million Americans are over 65. Life was not going to "roughly return to normal" for these people until vaccines were available, no matter what policy choices were made.
To clarify a bit more what I'm saying: Sometimes I agree with Caplan about the substance of his ideas, and I've come around much more to the idea that he was perhaps on the right track about covid policy. But even when I agree with him, his writing unfailingly displays warped perceptions and values that make me really worry about the guy's sanity.
Of course, "claiming to understand the true motives of the other side better than they understand themselves" will irritate them; it does not make for a productive discussion. But suppose your claim is correct?
I'm willing to assign some bi-partisan blame for the bi-partisan early pandemic stimulus bills. But as time went on and spending became ever more indefensible it also became a clearly partisan issue with nearly or totally party line votes by the dems to ram more spending through.
Yeah, plenty of blame to go around. If the inflation manufacturing factory is under new management, it's not reasonable to lay exclusive blame on the previous management when the new guys keep it running at full steam.
The Ukraine war is probably going to be a useful excuse going forward. Administration, "Well, price level growth *was* on track to get better, but then, the war, and Russia makes oil and aluminum, and this and that was disrupted, yadda yadda. Darn that Literally Putin!" Congress, "Well, we were going to tighten our belts and get rid of stimulus and bailouts, but then Literally Putin made the markets crash and we needed to ..." Fed, "Well, we were going to raise rates and stop printing money to buy more bonds, but then Literally Putin made certain capital markets seize up and we had to continue to accomodate ..."