Is "luxury beliefs" a useful category?

Riffing on Dan Williams' taxonomy, and agreeing with Rob Henderson that elites are guilty of harming others

When it comes to epistemology, I always start with we decide what to believe by deciding who to believe.

In a recent essay, Dan Williams writes,

Most beliefs simply make up our mental model of reality. There is milk in the fridge. People have eyes. Bananas are fruit. Sally is talking. London is in England. These and countless other bits of information are stored in your brain in various formats. They help you navigate reality effectively and achieve your goals.

Other than “London is in England,” all of these examples are beliefs about concrete things that are easily testable. “London is in England” is more abstract, but it, too, is easily testable.

By concrete, I mean a belief about something that is directly observable. The glass of water next to me is concrete in that sense.

The opposite of concrete is abstract, meaning something that is not so easily observable. Electrons are not directly observable. DNA is not directly observable. Concepts used in politics (“Constitutional,” “power”) or economics (“productivity”, “demand”) are not observable, although we may try to make them seem concrete by attaching definitions and numbers to them.

By testable, I mean that a belief can be falsified on the basis of experiments or logic. Even though I cannot see electrons, scientists can test beliefs about them.

Testability is not an either/or proposition. We can speak of beliefs that are more testable and beliefs that are less testable. That is, there are tests for some beliefs that are convincing and reliable, while some beliefs remain unproven no matter how much we try to test them. In economics, our beliefs about supply and demand tend to fall in the reliable category, while beliefs about the relationship between inflation and unemployment tend to elude conclusive testing.

In the realm of science, many beliefs are abstract but still testable. There are experiments that can test theories about electrons or DNA.

In the realm of religion, many beliefs are abstract and not testable. Beliefs about God or Hell, for example.

In the realm of politics and public policy, many beliefs are abstract and not nearly as testable as we would like them to be. We often deal with complex issues by means of simple slogans, such as “Defund the police” or “Secure the border.”

Beliefs are social

When we are very young, most of the things that our parents tell us are about topics that are concrete and testable. Because they turn out to be true, we choose to believe our parents.

In school, our teachers tell us about things that are concrete and testable, which gives them credibility. But they also try to convey ideas that are abstract. When we see how these ideas work, we believe our teachers.

With abstract, not-readily-testable beliefs, we choose what to believe (meaning who to believe) for social reasons. Williams writes,

We endorse these beliefs not to model the world accurately but to send social signals about the kinds of people we are. They are socially adaptive beliefs.

This signalling is simply an extension of much human behaviour. As ultra-social animals, the greatest determinant of our well-being and success is typically what others think of us. Are we liked and approved of? Do people want us as a partner or friend? Are we welcomed into the local tribe and respected and admired within it?

In that sense, your beliefs serve the same purpose as your style of dress. With a MAGA hat, you literally wear your belief signal. And when you use words like “privilege” or “microaggression” or “the patriarchy” you metaphorically wear your belief signal.

Williams discusses what he calls “fashionable beliefs.”

fashionable beliefs are a distinct kind—a proper subset—of beliefs that function as social signals.

…To be fashionable and make reliable evaluations about fashion—to have good “taste”—requires esoteric knowledge, a kind of cultural capital. Because people differ in their ability to access and exploit this knowledge, people differ in how fashionable they are. And because the relevant knowledge must constantly evolve to perform this distinguishing function, fashions must similarly change constantly.

Williams reminds me that I once talked about fashionable beliefs.

A fashionable belief is one that will raise, or at least maintain, your status among your peers, regardless of whether it makes sense. For example, I speculate that young, affluent teenagers are increasingly declaring themselves LGBTQ+ because it is fashionable to do so.

I was tempted to equate “fashionable beliefs” with Rob Henderson’s term “luxury beliefs.” But I would say that luxury beliefs are a subset of fashionable beliefs. Luxury beliefs require a lot of cultural capital to obtain. You typically have to go to a university in order to obtain the fashionable beliefs about “privilege,” “microaggression,” and “the patriarchy.”

Some fashionable beliefs appear to me to be reasonably testable and are false. Examples include the belief that gender is socially constructed and the belief that poor blacks would be better off if police were defunded. I think that one can examine those beliefs, test them, and determine that they are false. Others others may not agree on that point.

For signaling purposes, a false belief is not a problem. In fact, it may work better than a true belief as a signal of loyalty.

An important subset of false luxury beliefs consists of beliefs that, if you choose to live by them, you will be worse off. But you can espouse them at no cost. I think that this concept of luxury beliefs provokes Henderson’s critics.

Henderson’s critics, including Yascha Mounk and Ruxanda Teslo, argue that it is wrong to impute to elite holders of luxury beliefs an understanding that their beliefs cause harm. The critics are prepared to absolve elites of guilt for deliberately harming those who are less well off.

But let me give an example of a belief that might be particularly salient to Henderson, given his experience growing up in foster care. Call this luxury belief L*.

L*: the belief that children do not need to be raised in a traditional, stable, two-parent family in order to thrive.

I think that L* causes harm. I think that the elites who espouse L* cannot be ignorant that it causes harm. I think that the elites mostly choose to raise their children in stable, two-parent families. So I think that the elites are guilty of the charge that is implicit in Henderson’s concept of luxury beliefs.

substacks referenced above:

@

Fashionable ideas

@

Elites are mostly lazily well-intentioned

@

Luxury Beliefs are Real