Excellent and brave article! If institutions want to win back trust, they need to be honest about mistakes, what they don't know- and incentives. The author didn't mention covid misinformation unfortunately. Here are a few examples: Long school closures are necessary and reduce infection levels ( no, Europe and Florida didnt do that and it made no difference). Natural immunity is irrelevent ( again Europe recognized natural immunity). Children and young people are in danger from covid ( wrong). If you get vaccinated you won't pass on covid to others ( said by our president). Wrong, you can still be infected and can still infect others. ETC.
This is an excellent, well-reasoned, and thoughtful essay that illustrates why I continue to subscribe to Persuasion. I look for serious people who offer perspectives other than my own. My own awareness of the grooming gang scandal came from reading The Wall Street Journal. Notable is that the WSJ reported on it many years before Musk did. Perhaps a decade. Ironically, the general awareness of a massive grooming scandal only happened because of the progressive obsession with Musk. I suspect that the ruling class of the highly educated did not care because the people trafficked were poor white children. Too bad they were more interested in the antics of one billionaire instead of poor kids.
"Institutions can fall prey to groupthink. That doesn’t mean they’re inherently flawed."
Not only is there an argument to conclude that yes, these institutions are flawed with groupthink, they also risk causing massive unnecessary harm like we experienced during the pandemic.
I'm hungry for ideas/proposals about how to go about reforming our set of existing institutions to address these issues. Is there any 'centralized' way of doing it or a policy set or educational reform, etc. that might make it easier; or are we largely counting on (as with Persuasion) intellectually and morally ambitious people (like Yascha) to act entrepreneurially and found new institutions in our current intellectual and political environment?
I worry there isn't a public appetite for it, so it may be impossible (or, at least, a very slow process). I don't see an alternative, so I'm not suggesting such difficulties would be a reason against working for these changes.
This is a good piece. Saved in my archives. Highbrow misinformation and “Nobel lies” are good labels to cover the entire enterprise. And I think it is an enterprise. It is missing one of the two catalysts. You cover the progressive ideology track. But you did not mention the globalist oligarchy track (i.e., big money). Like for the highbrow misinformation during the global pandemic… that got sucked up as a progressive ideological weapon (because progressives are the Karens that believe that everyone but their collective committee suck and making good choices while they destroy the place with a stream of bad choices)… but there was the Wall Street and globalist corporatist catalyst. This is the other part of the corruption of institutions to push highbrow misinformation.
I remember watching the TV show Billions, and how the billionaire hedge fund manager and the federal Attorney General were both trying to destroy each other until the end when they shook hands over a media story that they pushed that would benefit both of them in power and money acquisition. Control of the information that flows through our institutions provides for control of the people. This is why highbrow misinformation is 1000000 times worse than is populist misinformation. Frankly, the former is relatively new… the latter has existed since the human animal could mumble some words.
Dan Williams opens with a critique of the fashionable panic over “misinformation,” arguing that elite institutions, while lamenting public ignorance, ignore their own complicity in spreading “high-brow misinformation”which are errors born not of deceit but of moral vanity and institutional conformity. By attributing populism to manipulation, these institutions insulate themselves from responsibility and assume that truth resides only within their own epistemic class. The argument resonates strongly with Max Weber’s warning in Science as a Vocation (Weber 1919) that science must remain a disciplined method rather than a creed.
As Weber observed, “Our age is characterised by rationalisation and intellectualisation, and above all, by the disenchantment of the world. Its resulting fate is that precisely the ultimate and most sublime values have withdrawn from public life.”
This diagnosis captures the modern crisis of knowledge: once the wissenschaftliche Weltanschauung,the scientific worldview that sought to banish metaphysics，becomes metaphysical itself, it reproduces the very dogma it displaced. Dan Williams identifies this paradox of modern rationalism: when science assumes moral authority, it loses the humility that once gave it legitimacy. The call, therefore, is not to abandon science but to restore it as method rather than faith，reviving empirical inquiry as a humane and self-critical pursuit rather than a sermon of ideological or populist virtue.
While not disagreeing with your observation that there is biased groupthink within legacy media companies and that it needs to be addressed and policed constantly, I do object to equating those particular flaws with the bile of the malinformation* industry. The difference in content is a difference in kind, not degree. Early in the 20th century, journalism became a more respected industry and began to attracted more highly-educated writers, many from the Ivies. This trend to hiring more educated journalists led to the very kind of liberal bias that conservatives revile. The Fairness Doctrine was the Republican's idea after all, even if it eventually proved no help to their big business, free trade, low taxes ideology and was abrogated by Reagan in 1987. Two years later Rush Limbaugh gave birth to the malinformation industry which, after 30+ years of curdling media illiterate brains, has grown into a behemoth monster with poisonous tentacles in print, broadcasting and the Internet. Any comparison to that industry and the legacy media is simply wrong.
*malinformtion: Content produce with malicious intent.
I believe the author addressed the “our misinformation is well-intentioned while theirs is malicious” argument. It’s self-deluded, self-serving, and ultimately pointless.
Yes, the topic was touched on. Thanks for pointing out that brief narrative. I'm not so sure, however, that legacy media misinformation is always "well-intentioned". But I would also submit that it's very rare.
Wait that gender parity issue is way grosser than it sounds. To my "highbrow" understanding, it's true (exact numbers unclear but I've seen tech company pay dumps) and it's caused by all these other factors like selecting different jobs, women marrying men ~2 years older and subsequently making more career sacrifices, tax rules that favor the lesser earner doing childcare.
To a dumbass, the fact that these other factors exist disproves sexism? I'm not feeling a well of empathy and sensitivity to my own failures here. More like we're in a battle of wits against Jordan Peterson to better manipulate the uneducated. Not really the moral aspirations of this article but I think that wasn't exactly the "gotcha" that the author imagined.
Just for fun, one highbrow misinformation that circulated among tech workers is something like "Amazon is bad for only inventing stuff that saves people time." This became mimetic common knowledge for a few lazy reasons: no one really feels like defending Amazon, it let all the non-Amazon tech workers hate on *just* Amazon, it also let the Amazon tech workers hate on Amazon (lol), it played well to pro-labor politics (Bernie) because Amazon has more laborers than Google. But it's obviously a completely wrong argument to say "saving people time" counts as a non-invention.
Much of this is liberal writers pushing against the massive conservative misinformation machine lead by oligarchs like Murdoch. Sure some is over the top but most is karmically justified 😎
Much of this stuff comes from having to over simplify a complex situation with a simple narrative or statistic that is meant to shock people. Climate change and the gender pay gap are perfect examples. It’s obvious that fossil fuel industry has been denying the reality of climate change but climate change alarmists are demanding insanely high levels of de carbonization and putting out this doomsday scenario if we don’t do anything in an unrealistic timeframe. We need to invest in renewable energy and develop even stronger technologies but we also need to preserve our fossil fuel industry because given our need for energy, we need both for a long time. And unfortunately we are seeing the pushback to this alarmism in our administration’s energy policy.😣
Excellent and brave article! If institutions want to win back trust, they need to be honest about mistakes, what they don't know- and incentives. The author didn't mention covid misinformation unfortunately. Here are a few examples: Long school closures are necessary and reduce infection levels ( no, Europe and Florida didnt do that and it made no difference). Natural immunity is irrelevent ( again Europe recognized natural immunity). Children and young people are in danger from covid ( wrong). If you get vaccinated you won't pass on covid to others ( said by our president). Wrong, you can still be infected and can still infect others. ETC.
This is an excellent, well-reasoned, and thoughtful essay that illustrates why I continue to subscribe to Persuasion. I look for serious people who offer perspectives other than my own. My own awareness of the grooming gang scandal came from reading The Wall Street Journal. Notable is that the WSJ reported on it many years before Musk did. Perhaps a decade. Ironically, the general awareness of a massive grooming scandal only happened because of the progressive obsession with Musk. I suspect that the ruling class of the highly educated did not care because the people trafficked were poor white children. Too bad they were more interested in the antics of one billionaire instead of poor kids.
Musk cried wolf once too often 🤣
"Institutions can fall prey to groupthink. That doesn’t mean they’re inherently flawed."
Not only is there an argument to conclude that yes, these institutions are flawed with groupthink, they also risk causing massive unnecessary harm like we experienced during the pandemic.
I'm hungry for ideas/proposals about how to go about reforming our set of existing institutions to address these issues. Is there any 'centralized' way of doing it or a policy set or educational reform, etc. that might make it easier; or are we largely counting on (as with Persuasion) intellectually and morally ambitious people (like Yascha) to act entrepreneurially and found new institutions in our current intellectual and political environment?
I worry there isn't a public appetite for it, so it may be impossible (or, at least, a very slow process). I don't see an alternative, so I'm not suggesting such difficulties would be a reason against working for these changes.
This is a good piece. Saved in my archives. Highbrow misinformation and “Nobel lies” are good labels to cover the entire enterprise. And I think it is an enterprise. It is missing one of the two catalysts. You cover the progressive ideology track. But you did not mention the globalist oligarchy track (i.e., big money). Like for the highbrow misinformation during the global pandemic… that got sucked up as a progressive ideological weapon (because progressives are the Karens that believe that everyone but their collective committee suck and making good choices while they destroy the place with a stream of bad choices)… but there was the Wall Street and globalist corporatist catalyst. This is the other part of the corruption of institutions to push highbrow misinformation.
I remember watching the TV show Billions, and how the billionaire hedge fund manager and the federal Attorney General were both trying to destroy each other until the end when they shook hands over a media story that they pushed that would benefit both of them in power and money acquisition. Control of the information that flows through our institutions provides for control of the people. This is why highbrow misinformation is 1000000 times worse than is populist misinformation. Frankly, the former is relatively new… the latter has existed since the human animal could mumble some words.
Dan Williams opens with a critique of the fashionable panic over “misinformation,” arguing that elite institutions, while lamenting public ignorance, ignore their own complicity in spreading “high-brow misinformation”which are errors born not of deceit but of moral vanity and institutional conformity. By attributing populism to manipulation, these institutions insulate themselves from responsibility and assume that truth resides only within their own epistemic class. The argument resonates strongly with Max Weber’s warning in Science as a Vocation (Weber 1919) that science must remain a disciplined method rather than a creed.
As Weber observed, “Our age is characterised by rationalisation and intellectualisation, and above all, by the disenchantment of the world. Its resulting fate is that precisely the ultimate and most sublime values have withdrawn from public life.”
This diagnosis captures the modern crisis of knowledge: once the wissenschaftliche Weltanschauung,the scientific worldview that sought to banish metaphysics，becomes metaphysical itself, it reproduces the very dogma it displaced. Dan Williams identifies this paradox of modern rationalism: when science assumes moral authority, it loses the humility that once gave it legitimacy. The call, therefore, is not to abandon science but to restore it as method rather than faith，reviving empirical inquiry as a humane and self-critical pursuit rather than a sermon of ideological or populist virtue.
Reference:
Weber, M. (1919) Science as a Vocation. Available at: https://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/assets/general/Max_Weber%2C_Science_as_Vocation_%28transl._Livingstone%29.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com [page 16] Accessed 11 November 2025).
While not disagreeing with your observation that there is biased groupthink within legacy media companies and that it needs to be addressed and policed constantly, I do object to equating those particular flaws with the bile of the malinformation* industry. The difference in content is a difference in kind, not degree. Early in the 20th century, journalism became a more respected industry and began to attracted more highly-educated writers, many from the Ivies. This trend to hiring more educated journalists led to the very kind of liberal bias that conservatives revile. The Fairness Doctrine was the Republican's idea after all, even if it eventually proved no help to their big business, free trade, low taxes ideology and was abrogated by Reagan in 1987. Two years later Rush Limbaugh gave birth to the malinformation industry which, after 30+ years of curdling media illiterate brains, has grown into a behemoth monster with poisonous tentacles in print, broadcasting and the Internet. Any comparison to that industry and the legacy media is simply wrong.
*malinformtion: Content produce with malicious intent.
I believe the author addressed the “our misinformation is well-intentioned while theirs is malicious” argument. It’s self-deluded, self-serving, and ultimately pointless.
Yes, the topic was touched on. Thanks for pointing out that brief narrative. I'm not so sure, however, that legacy media misinformation is always "well-intentioned". But I would also submit that it's very rare.
Wait that gender parity issue is way grosser than it sounds. To my "highbrow" understanding, it's true (exact numbers unclear but I've seen tech company pay dumps) and it's caused by all these other factors like selecting different jobs, women marrying men ~2 years older and subsequently making more career sacrifices, tax rules that favor the lesser earner doing childcare.
To a dumbass, the fact that these other factors exist disproves sexism? I'm not feeling a well of empathy and sensitivity to my own failures here. More like we're in a battle of wits against Jordan Peterson to better manipulate the uneducated. Not really the moral aspirations of this article but I think that wasn't exactly the "gotcha" that the author imagined.
Just for fun, one highbrow misinformation that circulated among tech workers is something like "Amazon is bad for only inventing stuff that saves people time." This became mimetic common knowledge for a few lazy reasons: no one really feels like defending Amazon, it let all the non-Amazon tech workers hate on *just* Amazon, it also let the Amazon tech workers hate on Amazon (lol), it played well to pro-labor politics (Bernie) because Amazon has more laborers than Google. But it's obviously a completely wrong argument to say "saving people time" counts as a non-invention.
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't really see any actual proposals here to counter this problem.
Much of this is liberal writers pushing against the massive conservative misinformation machine lead by oligarchs like Murdoch. Sure some is over the top but most is karmically justified 😎
Much of this stuff comes from having to over simplify a complex situation with a simple narrative or statistic that is meant to shock people. Climate change and the gender pay gap are perfect examples. It’s obvious that fossil fuel industry has been denying the reality of climate change but climate change alarmists are demanding insanely high levels of de carbonization and putting out this doomsday scenario if we don’t do anything in an unrealistic timeframe. We need to invest in renewable energy and develop even stronger technologies but we also need to preserve our fossil fuel industry because given our need for energy, we need both for a long time. And unfortunately we are seeing the pushback to this alarmism in our administration’s energy policy.😣