I have read many of John's articles in Braver Angels and listened to his podcast. This is the first time I have found his presentation nuanced and complete. As a 70-year-old Black woman who grew up in a racially segregated community and raised my children in an integrated neighborhood in the shadow of Northwestern University, I recognize that my lived experience is different from that of Black folks who grew up in economically segregated communities. As an urban/suburban resident, I realize that I have no notion of the joys and challenges of rural living. As a college student in the 70s whose children matriculated in the 2010s, I have no exposure to an academic culture where voices are silenced and ideas are shamed. I have read about the changes that have occurred and I am not sure that I would finance a quarter of a million-dollar education to have my child sheltered from thoughts.
Thank you for this balanced presentation. It was a job well done and has changed my mind about continuing to read your work.
There's a lot to agree with, and even admire, in this essay. Still, I suspect that the focus on economic equity is misplaced and often harmful. I'm one of those who hold what the author calls "a shallow nostalgia for civility", and while we may one day "unite in pursuit of the common good", our fallen world has no unified opinion of what the common good is.
Civility is, I think, an indication of respect -- or at least a pretense of respect, which over time moves us, at least a little, in the direction of the real thing. And respect for everyone, for nothing more than being human, goes a long way toward making our behavior more just and our lives more liveable.
Civility, and the respect it entails, are not at all easy to achieve, making the author's casual denigration particularly unfortunate. It is helped along greatly by conformance to social norms that, too, are often smirked at by the cognoscenti. "Donny" and the Sri Lankans would probably have benefitted from it.
And while extreme poverty makes it almost impossible for a person to maintain the kind of dignity that he or she deserves, government subsidies won't necessarily help. Supporting the poor without taking away their dignity -- or encouraging dependency, or blaming the rich, or encouraging materialism, or discouraging excellence -- is one of life's many conundrums. And as such it may be better left to smaller units of society than the federal government. Some people will end up not being helped. Some people are not helped now and will not be helped under any system you can come up with. We need to try to help them all and accept that we can't -- at least to the extent of not breaking other parts of our lives in a desperate attempt at perfection in this one.
I think your first point on respect is well-made ("Civility is, I think, an indication of respect..."). Your second point on respect ("Civility, and the respect it entails....") points to a misunderstanding of civility -- perhaps the same misunderstanding at which the cognoscenti smirk.
Civility may be used by the speaker to indicate their respect for their interlocutor. However, it does not entail respect; rather the reverse: that respect should entail civility (I'm not so sure I agree that respect should entail civility in all cases, but probably in most).
The problem with respect and civility is exactly that of performance versus reality. If you civilly fail to listen to someone, fail to seriously consider and value their ideas, and civilly dismiss them, you have not actually shown them respect. Civility is a performance of respect, but without the actual respect behind it, it has no meaning and isn't worth doing.
A recent degradation in civility is not a sign of a recent degradation in respect; the degradation in respect occurred long ago. The degradation in civility is simply many people dropping the act as the people whose positive regard they desire no longer place value on the appearance of respect for those with whom they disagree. This degradation in civility tracks with the transition from "opponent" to "immoral enemy" -- one should be civil to someone with whom one has a disagreement; there is no need to be civil to one's immoral enemy.
Thank you. I had explained that I think civility entails respect "over time", "at least a little". I don't suppose there are no exceptions to that, but it wasn't worth breaking the flow to hedge.
More substantively, the fact that civility often doesn't convey actual respect is a feature, not a bug. If we're going to insist that everyone be good from the get-go, well, we will have something resembling the world we're living in, wherein people are often neither good nor civil.
Respect is stratified. The first respect is not pretense. It is the default position of respect one extends to all human beings in deference to the dignity of that common position.
There is no reason why the federal government can’t do so. It has successfully done so for some time. Drives to locality and fragmentation are drives to corruption.
Why, exactly, would a smaller number of people to whom you're more likely to have a connection and who have less authority be more subject to corruption than a larger number of people to whom you're less likely to be connected and who have greater authority?
That's a nice breakdown of the moving parts, but I assume you're trying to support your point that local governance is more prone to corruption than national governance, and I don't see how you've done that.
1) That is what you are asserting on my behalf. It is not in fact what I wrote.
2) It isn't a breakdown of moving parts. It is a breakdown of the structural deficits in your framing. If one does not draw an accurate picture of the problem, one is unlikely to arrive at an efficacious solution -- except by accident.
3) What I actually wrote was that drives to locality and fragmentation are drives to corruption. This goes to the observation that corruption is not a complicated problem, but rather a complex problem.
While it is true that complexity can and does exist at the local level and at the federal level, the lack of standardization, which is to say the increase in heterogeneity, from state to state, and the removal of a unifying layer of (potential) oversight, result in the increase of potential for corruption at the local level versus the Federal level.
If we're being picky (and at least one of us is) I asserted nothing on your behalf; I made an explicit assumption about your intention. In any case, I still can't figure what you're trying to say, so I'll leave it here.
Respect is stratified. The first respect is not pretense. It is the default position of respect one extends to all human beings in deference to the dignity of that common position.
Thank you for this. I needed it. I just participated in an emotionally-charged school committee meeting in my hometown convened to discuss whether our high school should move to de-track or de-level academic classes, and shift toward a more inclusive model, wherein all students in our economically bifurcated resort region would have the chance to determine for themselves who they are, and what they want. As it is now the tracks -- College Prep and Honors-- don't represent ability groupings so much as social class differentiations that were established long before anyone entered high school. (I know because I taught College Prep English, and in each class there were a few verbally gifted kids who would not have thought to sign up for Honors classes because they "don't want to be with the rich kids.")
I realized in the course of the school committee conversation about the new plan, titled "Equity and Access for All", that we revert to speaking in terms of race even when it's not relevant, or at least the most salient criterion -- this area is only 15% non-white, but 30% poor-- because we still have no common recognition of or common language for the privilege that adheres to relative wealth and familial education level. There is no longer any responsible way to deny racial disparities. But we're still keen to pretend the financial ones don't matter. One woman was indigant that anyone would even bring up socioeconomic distinctions. "This is a PUBLIC school. 'Socioeconomic' isn't relevant."
Side note: can you advocate that they teach statistics as a CRO math concept and make trig and calculus optional? Society would be much better off. In high school I was very good at higher math but never learned statistics. Now as an adult I have no use for calculus but am confronted with statistics every day in the news.
It might be better to focus on how to vet any source of information one consumes. One could aspirationally aim at having the populace be uniformly possessed and competent data scientists, but it doesn't seem as if it is about to happen.
Sometimes studies use calculus. Sometimes they use statistics. Sometimes they use sophisticated algorithms / models. One needn't be a practitioner of any of the above to get an idea of what is going on around one. One need merely understand how research and information are developed, vetted, and deployed.
The single most important next step is: reject anything that isn't a primary source.
Sure, but my understanding from people who've taken statistics classes is one of the first things they teach is to ignore news headlines and look at the data source.
My understanding is that statistics is not the same thing as digital literacy, or epistemology. Typically it is taught as a math course, no? In other words, if you are in a statistics class that focuses on news headlines, you aren't in a statistics class.
Maybe. But it seems to me that, unlike with calculus, case studies using real data from the real world and current events are abundant. All my friends who took it say they quickly learned to take all statistics in the news with large doses of salt. I don't think it's an accident that a political novice like Nate Silver was able to make a lot of headway applying statistics. Before starting 538 he was a baseball guy who didn't pay much attention to politics.
Any digital literacy course will go far to disabusing you of misapprehensions about the credibility of information from any but primary sources. This of course is not to say that primary sources are infallible.
In other words, there is nothing about statistics that will ensure you have good information. Statisticians are wrong all the time.
The good ones understand that there are no 'true' or 'right' outputs, just ones that are more useful than the output of other models or random guessing.
The success of Nate Silver is that he doesn't confuse data with politics. He doesn't try to apply statistical techniques to politics. As such whether or not he is a political novice is irrelevant.
When he was interested in baseball, he wasn't applying statistical techniques to baseball. He was applying them to data.
A theme seems to emerge...
In any case, one doesn't have to take a statistics course to understand what statistics are, what they aren't, how they are used, and how they are misused.
If all your friends needed a statistics course to understand that they were insufficiently skeptical of news outlets, they have larger problems than a statistics course will solve.
I grew up in a small town in Georgia but have lived my entire adult life in blue cities. I know lots of “rednecks” (my older brother epitomizes them) and honestly part of the reason I left Georgia was to get away from them.
BUT... a few years ago I came to realization that we shouldn’t look down on or make fun of them. I think of it almost like a an ethnicity. It’s okay for them to make jokes about themselves (a la Jeff Foxworthy), but not for outsiders. It’s the same dynamic with Black and Jewish people. They tell hilarious jokes about their tribes! But it’s not cool for outsiders to do it.
John, I love the sentiment here, but we are in a situation where both sides see the culture wars as a zero sum struggle over values and resources.
We can't even agree on the facts. So few people of color are actually killed by police (check the WaPo stats if you don't believe me) even compared to whites who are killed by police - yet powerful politicians are out SUPPORTING riots and looting as an acceptable (or even desired) outgrowth of this protest. Relatively small numbers of legitimate issues regarding policing tactics are being used as a cudgel against police across the country - and do you know what the result is? More black people are dying because cops will no longer properly police their neighborhoods because they are one decision or bad camera-edit away from complete personal destruction. And, they're not getting support from the craven, cowardly politicians who run these cities for fear of being called out by the progressive hive mind who is selling this garbage. If you don't believe me, look at the stats in most cities with high levels of black populations.
Sadly, this is all about power, control, and resources...and I fear we are headed to armed conflict in the manner of the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland on a large scale. It's going to be ugly...
I think you are overstating your case and contributing to a dialogue that exacerbates the conflict that you worry about. Blacks are killed by police at 2.6x the rate of whites. This is the last 5 years and reported here: https://news.yale.edu/2020/10/27/racial-disparity-police-shootings-unchanged-over-5-years. There around around 1150 police killing a year, but the issue is not just interactions that end in death, but police treatment of Black people in general. Pew has recent data about how differently Blacks and Whites describe their interactions with police. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/03/10-things-we-know-about-race-and-policing-in-the-u-s/. Also there is clear data in 2 other areas: Blacks are much more likely to be arrested for low level drug use than whites despite the fact that whites use drugs at higher rates. This is one data point against your assertion that police aren't policing Black neighborhoods enough. Another is a study done at Tufts that showed that Black neighborhoods are overpoliced but underserved by emergency services: https://now.tufts.edu/articles/how-racial-segregation-and-policing-intersect-america Lastly, Blacks get more severe sentences for crimes committed than Whites. You assert that Black neighborhoods aren't policed heavily, but on what basis do you make that assertion? In fact, bodycams protect police so that a deceptively edited video can't destroy a cop's career. Frankly, one of the major issues is that it is very difficult to hold police accountable, regardless of what they do, and this is why the Chauvin verdict was so impactful. I'm very open to viewpoints beyond what I interpret, but I don't think you are providing much convincing data or logic, at least in my view. I have 2 retired police officers in my family. They are good people, as are most police. However I'm quite happy citizens are stepping up to be witnesses and try to hold police accountable for criminal actions; I'm not really worried about what "craven, cowardly politicians" are saying.
I agree on the transparency issue, and I agree with reforms that drive accountability. The data does not justify rioting and looting. These activists are pushing an agenda about power and control disconnected from the facts, and more about their feelings.
Oh, by the way, let's get of ALL public sector unions to ensure greater accountability and transparency. Would you go for that? Hmmmmm......
This essay rests on the assumption that everyone’s fate is tied to one another, and the author charges people of goodwill to continually strive to find common ground with their fellow citizens – especially the “other” whom they feel they don’t have much in common. It is the polar opposite of the message of today’s demagogues who assume that life is a zero sum game with winners and losers, and whose appeal rests on exploiting people’s fears and suspicions of the “other”. The only chance the uniters stand against the demagogues is for those on the left and right sides of the political spectrum to muster the courage to start calling out demagoguery when it shows up on their side. Demagogues relish harsh criticism from their opponents because it provides the opportunity demonize the other side. Eventually, when called out by enough on their own side, the demagogues will be exposed for what they are and will be sent to the ash heap of history where they belong. I fear it is an uphill battle, but one which must be undertaken with haste and vigor.
A truly beautiful and thoughtful essay. Empathy for all is the key. Admittedly, is extremely difficult to have empathy for a group whose values you detest and whose actions offend, but when it's most difficult to have empathy, THAT is precisely when it is most important. (Nod to Wittgenstein's famous comment to Norman Malcolm.) Loving your enemy is harder, but more important, than loving your friend.
I have seen this dynamic of marginalizing others play out in my work life. The company I worked for in Connecticut acquired one in Maine. I was part of a project to convert their computer system to ours. After the first few conference calls with them, somebody would mock the accent of participants from Maine. Their assumption was that these folks were ignorant. Before too long I spoke up and mentioned how my parents were from Maine, and that we should probably give our new coworkers the benefit of the doubt. They became highly valued members of the team.
Yes, kindness, respect for the other, good will are essential to overcoming the hate that is fueling the deep polarization we are experiencing. Wood's piece opens the door to conversation and dialogue among those of us who hold strong opinions, certain analysis and have more power to effect change. We who are committed. I'm not inclined to operate from spirituality, but in my own dialogic work it is Thich Nhat Hanh who offers the besy advice. Don't bother if your purpose is not to change yourself but to change the other. In this regard, I'd love to hear more from those most connected with Persuasion about what they need to change in themselves - corporately and individually. So many new messiahs prepared to change others. the room is getting crowded but not closer.
Frances, I'm thinking about this from the perspective that it is the polarization that is fueling the hate, not the other way around. Our polarization seems largely structural to me (Ezra Klein explains this well in his book Why We're Polarized), and leads to hate. I don't think we can solve these issues primarily focused at the individual level. For example, racial bigotry is real, but structural issues around socio-economics fuel and feed that bigotry. I agree with your point about changing self vs. changing other as there are too many on the left side (including me) who project our unowned bigotry and privilege onto those on the right and this just hardens everybody's position. I am trying to get better at this and look at myself and others similar to me, instead of knee-jerk blaming of others. I think of this level of change as necessary but not sufficient. The structural change is harder and I wonder how we will get there. I think we will get there.
Actually I don't know that there has been any causal link established between hate and division. The primary drivers appear to be self-contempt and fear. I would have to reach for those studies.
What is your assertion based on? If the drivers are self-contempt and fear, how would your calculus change?
Dear Chui, my calculus would not change, it applies in all situations of serious difference and the need for change. That is that attempting to change others is one of the least effective means of bridging difference and developing unity. Change of any sort is hard, including changing yourself but it is the thing you ultimately have the most control over. In my own change oriented work, my first observation is that you can't even get people to change the seat they picked at the beginning of a dialogue without discomfort to them. And, not all people who say they want to change are willing to change themselves. As to the drivers of division, I am not sure I see much difference from your assertion that it is caused by self contempt and fear rather than hate. My sense is it has many causes that operate in a vicious circle: self contempt breeds hatred of others; sometimes, always sometimes. Arrogant wokeness breeds equally arrogant antiwokeness. Someone is always there to criticize, but not to look at themselves.
I don't know that the data agree with your dismissal on change with respect for others. One of the primary drivers of change in others has been identified as positive reinforcement.
In one study, the change desired was for physicians to adopt more rigorous hand washing regimes before and after interacting with a patient.
Even with a camera monitoring them (which they were aware of) the needle moved but little in response.
As an experiment, a feedback system was deployed where the physicians were shown messages of positive reinforcement as they washed. The needle jumped vigorously.
So what didn't work was negative reinforcement (it actually had a perverse effect), introducing the certainty of being 'caught' (which interestingly is the only effective deterrent for crime detected) didn't work, but encouragement and recognition -- worked to a significant degree.
So yeah -- we can change others. We just can't do it the way it sometimes seems like the majority of society wants to do it -- by opprobrium.
Hate is a symptom, not a cause. That is the difference. While it is true to say 'sometimes, always sometimes' it is more accurate to observe that "sometimes" is not a synonym for "never" or "in equal amounts".
Arrogant wokeness may well breed arrogant anti-wokeness. I doubt it always does or even that it does most of the time.
It is certainly interesting to note that you have moved from 'sometimes, always sometimes' to 'all-or-nothing' statements in the space of a sentence.
Dear Chui, we seem to agree that opprobium is less likely to change people than the accuser hopes (unless they are just being meanor pigheaded- apologies to pigs - then it is hopeless.) But do we really disagree that multiple strategies including positive reinforcement and changing ourselves contribute to changing others? My interest in my initial response was to add to the qualities that Wood discussed; perhaps that wasn't clear which is my fault. Wood notes the need to redress our own shortcomings; I added to the list. I am not sure that every value or quality needed to effect change can be researched, so perhaps we are just attuned to different concerns.
We don't. If you defer to the study(ies) that show the effect of positive reinforcement upon behavioral change, then you agree with those studies. I have simply observed they are there and what they have suggested.
At any given point, all we can do is make a best guess about this or that on available evidence. I am not the source of evidence in this domain, nor should I be confused with one.
I neither disagree or agree with your assertions that seek to establish a portfolio of change effectors, without evidence. What can you advance on those lines?
It may well be true that if your cognition is not weighted toward evidence, then we are attuned to different concerns.
Thank you for such a beautifully written and nuanced article. There is a lot to respond to, but here are 2 things I am thinking about:
1. The dynamic you describe is ubiquitous. When we are in the "insider" group we have to work to see our privilege, and we don't like to think about it and we don't know what to do with it. When we are in the "outsider" group we are quite aware of the challenges we face, and it can be hard to not think about it. We feel invisible sometimes, and also, like the insider we don't know what to do with that. The vast majority of us occupy both insider and outsider groups, so we understand this dynamic from both sides but we don't know quite to do with that either. The common ground we can stand on, has to hold this reality or it is the fake unity Mr. Wood speaks of.
2. You remind me of the intersection between race and socioeconomic class, and how powerful and clear Dr. King's vision was. It seems clear that race has been used as a wedge to put off a real focus on socioeconomic change. I think if we can deal with race more deeply (and I think we finally are) then we get to what is likely the biggest risk to our way of life - the wealth and income gap. I think, and hope, that this is where we are headed.
This missing leg on the stool of this essay is an under-expressed exploration of the role of epistemic breaks that have become the underpinning of what have become the culture wars. There is no common language, or common reality. It isn’t by accident. The intent is to defeat common cause and eliminate even its potentiality.
This post should be available to the public in order for members to distribute. I believe it would help Persuasion gain members.
Agreed! It went out separately to non-subscribers this morning!
I have read many of John's articles in Braver Angels and listened to his podcast. This is the first time I have found his presentation nuanced and complete. As a 70-year-old Black woman who grew up in a racially segregated community and raised my children in an integrated neighborhood in the shadow of Northwestern University, I recognize that my lived experience is different from that of Black folks who grew up in economically segregated communities. As an urban/suburban resident, I realize that I have no notion of the joys and challenges of rural living. As a college student in the 70s whose children matriculated in the 2010s, I have no exposure to an academic culture where voices are silenced and ideas are shamed. I have read about the changes that have occurred and I am not sure that I would finance a quarter of a million-dollar education to have my child sheltered from thoughts.
Thank you for this balanced presentation. It was a job well done and has changed my mind about continuing to read your work.
There's a lot to agree with, and even admire, in this essay. Still, I suspect that the focus on economic equity is misplaced and often harmful. I'm one of those who hold what the author calls "a shallow nostalgia for civility", and while we may one day "unite in pursuit of the common good", our fallen world has no unified opinion of what the common good is.
Civility is, I think, an indication of respect -- or at least a pretense of respect, which over time moves us, at least a little, in the direction of the real thing. And respect for everyone, for nothing more than being human, goes a long way toward making our behavior more just and our lives more liveable.
Civility, and the respect it entails, are not at all easy to achieve, making the author's casual denigration particularly unfortunate. It is helped along greatly by conformance to social norms that, too, are often smirked at by the cognoscenti. "Donny" and the Sri Lankans would probably have benefitted from it.
And while extreme poverty makes it almost impossible for a person to maintain the kind of dignity that he or she deserves, government subsidies won't necessarily help. Supporting the poor without taking away their dignity -- or encouraging dependency, or blaming the rich, or encouraging materialism, or discouraging excellence -- is one of life's many conundrums. And as such it may be better left to smaller units of society than the federal government. Some people will end up not being helped. Some people are not helped now and will not be helped under any system you can come up with. We need to try to help them all and accept that we can't -- at least to the extent of not breaking other parts of our lives in a desperate attempt at perfection in this one.
I think your first point on respect is well-made ("Civility is, I think, an indication of respect..."). Your second point on respect ("Civility, and the respect it entails....") points to a misunderstanding of civility -- perhaps the same misunderstanding at which the cognoscenti smirk.
Civility may be used by the speaker to indicate their respect for their interlocutor. However, it does not entail respect; rather the reverse: that respect should entail civility (I'm not so sure I agree that respect should entail civility in all cases, but probably in most).
The problem with respect and civility is exactly that of performance versus reality. If you civilly fail to listen to someone, fail to seriously consider and value their ideas, and civilly dismiss them, you have not actually shown them respect. Civility is a performance of respect, but without the actual respect behind it, it has no meaning and isn't worth doing.
A recent degradation in civility is not a sign of a recent degradation in respect; the degradation in respect occurred long ago. The degradation in civility is simply many people dropping the act as the people whose positive regard they desire no longer place value on the appearance of respect for those with whom they disagree. This degradation in civility tracks with the transition from "opponent" to "immoral enemy" -- one should be civil to someone with whom one has a disagreement; there is no need to be civil to one's immoral enemy.
Thank you. I had explained that I think civility entails respect "over time", "at least a little". I don't suppose there are no exceptions to that, but it wasn't worth breaking the flow to hedge.
More substantively, the fact that civility often doesn't convey actual respect is a feature, not a bug. If we're going to insist that everyone be good from the get-go, well, we will have something resembling the world we're living in, wherein people are often neither good nor civil.
Respect is stratified. The first respect is not pretense. It is the default position of respect one extends to all human beings in deference to the dignity of that common position.
There is no reason why the federal government can’t do so. It has successfully done so for some time. Drives to locality and fragmentation are drives to corruption.
Why, exactly, would a smaller number of people to whom you're more likely to have a connection and who have less authority be more subject to corruption than a larger number of people to whom you're less likely to be connected and who have greater authority?
The path to that answer lies through establishing:
1) that corruption is a factor of size
2) that one is more likely to have a connection with a local representative than a federal one
3) that local government has 'less authority'
4) the link between connection and corruption
5) that federal government has 'more authority'
6) the link between authority and corruption
That's a nice breakdown of the moving parts, but I assume you're trying to support your point that local governance is more prone to corruption than national governance, and I don't see how you've done that.
1) That is what you are asserting on my behalf. It is not in fact what I wrote.
2) It isn't a breakdown of moving parts. It is a breakdown of the structural deficits in your framing. If one does not draw an accurate picture of the problem, one is unlikely to arrive at an efficacious solution -- except by accident.
3) What I actually wrote was that drives to locality and fragmentation are drives to corruption. This goes to the observation that corruption is not a complicated problem, but rather a complex problem.
While it is true that complexity can and does exist at the local level and at the federal level, the lack of standardization, which is to say the increase in heterogeneity, from state to state, and the removal of a unifying layer of (potential) oversight, result in the increase of potential for corruption at the local level versus the Federal level.
If we're being picky (and at least one of us is) I asserted nothing on your behalf; I made an explicit assumption about your intention. In any case, I still can't figure what you're trying to say, so I'll leave it here.
Respect is stratified. The first respect is not pretense. It is the default position of respect one extends to all human beings in deference to the dignity of that common position.
Thank you for this. I needed it. I just participated in an emotionally-charged school committee meeting in my hometown convened to discuss whether our high school should move to de-track or de-level academic classes, and shift toward a more inclusive model, wherein all students in our economically bifurcated resort region would have the chance to determine for themselves who they are, and what they want. As it is now the tracks -- College Prep and Honors-- don't represent ability groupings so much as social class differentiations that were established long before anyone entered high school. (I know because I taught College Prep English, and in each class there were a few verbally gifted kids who would not have thought to sign up for Honors classes because they "don't want to be with the rich kids.")
I realized in the course of the school committee conversation about the new plan, titled "Equity and Access for All", that we revert to speaking in terms of race even when it's not relevant, or at least the most salient criterion -- this area is only 15% non-white, but 30% poor-- because we still have no common recognition of or common language for the privilege that adheres to relative wealth and familial education level. There is no longer any responsible way to deny racial disparities. But we're still keen to pretend the financial ones don't matter. One woman was indigant that anyone would even bring up socioeconomic distinctions. "This is a PUBLIC school. 'Socioeconomic' isn't relevant."
Side note: can you advocate that they teach statistics as a CRO math concept and make trig and calculus optional? Society would be much better off. In high school I was very good at higher math but never learned statistics. Now as an adult I have no use for calculus but am confronted with statistics every day in the news.
It might be better to focus on how to vet any source of information one consumes. One could aspirationally aim at having the populace be uniformly possessed and competent data scientists, but it doesn't seem as if it is about to happen.
Sometimes studies use calculus. Sometimes they use statistics. Sometimes they use sophisticated algorithms / models. One needn't be a practitioner of any of the above to get an idea of what is going on around one. One need merely understand how research and information are developed, vetted, and deployed.
The single most important next step is: reject anything that isn't a primary source.
Sure, but my understanding from people who've taken statistics classes is one of the first things they teach is to ignore news headlines and look at the data source.
My understanding is that statistics is not the same thing as digital literacy, or epistemology. Typically it is taught as a math course, no? In other words, if you are in a statistics class that focuses on news headlines, you aren't in a statistics class.
Maybe. But it seems to me that, unlike with calculus, case studies using real data from the real world and current events are abundant. All my friends who took it say they quickly learned to take all statistics in the news with large doses of salt. I don't think it's an accident that a political novice like Nate Silver was able to make a lot of headway applying statistics. Before starting 538 he was a baseball guy who didn't pay much attention to politics.
Any digital literacy course will go far to disabusing you of misapprehensions about the credibility of information from any but primary sources. This of course is not to say that primary sources are infallible.
In other words, there is nothing about statistics that will ensure you have good information. Statisticians are wrong all the time.
The good ones understand that there are no 'true' or 'right' outputs, just ones that are more useful than the output of other models or random guessing.
The success of Nate Silver is that he doesn't confuse data with politics. He doesn't try to apply statistical techniques to politics. As such whether or not he is a political novice is irrelevant.
When he was interested in baseball, he wasn't applying statistical techniques to baseball. He was applying them to data.
A theme seems to emerge...
In any case, one doesn't have to take a statistics course to understand what statistics are, what they aren't, how they are used, and how they are misused.
If all your friends needed a statistics course to understand that they were insufficiently skeptical of news outlets, they have larger problems than a statistics course will solve.
Oof. CRO should be “core.”
The responsible way to deny racial disparities is to adopt a humanistic approach rather than a racist approach.
I grew up in a small town in Georgia but have lived my entire adult life in blue cities. I know lots of “rednecks” (my older brother epitomizes them) and honestly part of the reason I left Georgia was to get away from them.
BUT... a few years ago I came to realization that we shouldn’t look down on or make fun of them. I think of it almost like a an ethnicity. It’s okay for them to make jokes about themselves (a la Jeff Foxworthy), but not for outsiders. It’s the same dynamic with Black and Jewish people. They tell hilarious jokes about their tribes! But it’s not cool for outsiders to do it.
John, I love the sentiment here, but we are in a situation where both sides see the culture wars as a zero sum struggle over values and resources.
We can't even agree on the facts. So few people of color are actually killed by police (check the WaPo stats if you don't believe me) even compared to whites who are killed by police - yet powerful politicians are out SUPPORTING riots and looting as an acceptable (or even desired) outgrowth of this protest. Relatively small numbers of legitimate issues regarding policing tactics are being used as a cudgel against police across the country - and do you know what the result is? More black people are dying because cops will no longer properly police their neighborhoods because they are one decision or bad camera-edit away from complete personal destruction. And, they're not getting support from the craven, cowardly politicians who run these cities for fear of being called out by the progressive hive mind who is selling this garbage. If you don't believe me, look at the stats in most cities with high levels of black populations.
Sadly, this is all about power, control, and resources...and I fear we are headed to armed conflict in the manner of the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland on a large scale. It's going to be ugly...
I think you are overstating your case and contributing to a dialogue that exacerbates the conflict that you worry about. Blacks are killed by police at 2.6x the rate of whites. This is the last 5 years and reported here: https://news.yale.edu/2020/10/27/racial-disparity-police-shootings-unchanged-over-5-years. There around around 1150 police killing a year, but the issue is not just interactions that end in death, but police treatment of Black people in general. Pew has recent data about how differently Blacks and Whites describe their interactions with police. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/03/10-things-we-know-about-race-and-policing-in-the-u-s/. Also there is clear data in 2 other areas: Blacks are much more likely to be arrested for low level drug use than whites despite the fact that whites use drugs at higher rates. This is one data point against your assertion that police aren't policing Black neighborhoods enough. Another is a study done at Tufts that showed that Black neighborhoods are overpoliced but underserved by emergency services: https://now.tufts.edu/articles/how-racial-segregation-and-policing-intersect-america Lastly, Blacks get more severe sentences for crimes committed than Whites. You assert that Black neighborhoods aren't policed heavily, but on what basis do you make that assertion? In fact, bodycams protect police so that a deceptively edited video can't destroy a cop's career. Frankly, one of the major issues is that it is very difficult to hold police accountable, regardless of what they do, and this is why the Chauvin verdict was so impactful. I'm very open to viewpoints beyond what I interpret, but I don't think you are providing much convincing data or logic, at least in my view. I have 2 retired police officers in my family. They are good people, as are most police. However I'm quite happy citizens are stepping up to be witnesses and try to hold police accountable for criminal actions; I'm not really worried about what "craven, cowardly politicians" are saying.
Agree about the data. Disagree that a society should cater to "police" who cannot function with transparency and accountability.
I agree on the transparency issue, and I agree with reforms that drive accountability. The data does not justify rioting and looting. These activists are pushing an agenda about power and control disconnected from the facts, and more about their feelings.
Oh, by the way, let's get of ALL public sector unions to ensure greater accountability and transparency. Would you go for that? Hmmmmm......
Why not? You are caught in the teeth of your assumptions about my view on unions. Always a rookie error.
The self-satisfied ending of the error in judgement makes it all the better.
This essay rests on the assumption that everyone’s fate is tied to one another, and the author charges people of goodwill to continually strive to find common ground with their fellow citizens – especially the “other” whom they feel they don’t have much in common. It is the polar opposite of the message of today’s demagogues who assume that life is a zero sum game with winners and losers, and whose appeal rests on exploiting people’s fears and suspicions of the “other”. The only chance the uniters stand against the demagogues is for those on the left and right sides of the political spectrum to muster the courage to start calling out demagoguery when it shows up on their side. Demagogues relish harsh criticism from their opponents because it provides the opportunity demonize the other side. Eventually, when called out by enough on their own side, the demagogues will be exposed for what they are and will be sent to the ash heap of history where they belong. I fear it is an uphill battle, but one which must be undertaken with haste and vigor.
A truly beautiful and thoughtful essay. Empathy for all is the key. Admittedly, is extremely difficult to have empathy for a group whose values you detest and whose actions offend, but when it's most difficult to have empathy, THAT is precisely when it is most important. (Nod to Wittgenstein's famous comment to Norman Malcolm.) Loving your enemy is harder, but more important, than loving your friend.
I have seen this dynamic of marginalizing others play out in my work life. The company I worked for in Connecticut acquired one in Maine. I was part of a project to convert their computer system to ours. After the first few conference calls with them, somebody would mock the accent of participants from Maine. Their assumption was that these folks were ignorant. Before too long I spoke up and mentioned how my parents were from Maine, and that we should probably give our new coworkers the benefit of the doubt. They became highly valued members of the team.
The 2nd half of John’s article should be shoved down the throat of the next SJW or Kendi speak-alike who demands fealty to color codes.
Yes, kindness, respect for the other, good will are essential to overcoming the hate that is fueling the deep polarization we are experiencing. Wood's piece opens the door to conversation and dialogue among those of us who hold strong opinions, certain analysis and have more power to effect change. We who are committed. I'm not inclined to operate from spirituality, but in my own dialogic work it is Thich Nhat Hanh who offers the besy advice. Don't bother if your purpose is not to change yourself but to change the other. In this regard, I'd love to hear more from those most connected with Persuasion about what they need to change in themselves - corporately and individually. So many new messiahs prepared to change others. the room is getting crowded but not closer.
Frances, I'm thinking about this from the perspective that it is the polarization that is fueling the hate, not the other way around. Our polarization seems largely structural to me (Ezra Klein explains this well in his book Why We're Polarized), and leads to hate. I don't think we can solve these issues primarily focused at the individual level. For example, racial bigotry is real, but structural issues around socio-economics fuel and feed that bigotry. I agree with your point about changing self vs. changing other as there are too many on the left side (including me) who project our unowned bigotry and privilege onto those on the right and this just hardens everybody's position. I am trying to get better at this and look at myself and others similar to me, instead of knee-jerk blaming of others. I think of this level of change as necessary but not sufficient. The structural change is harder and I wonder how we will get there. I think we will get there.
Actually I don't know that there has been any causal link established between hate and division. The primary drivers appear to be self-contempt and fear. I would have to reach for those studies.
What is your assertion based on? If the drivers are self-contempt and fear, how would your calculus change?
Dear Chui, my calculus would not change, it applies in all situations of serious difference and the need for change. That is that attempting to change others is one of the least effective means of bridging difference and developing unity. Change of any sort is hard, including changing yourself but it is the thing you ultimately have the most control over. In my own change oriented work, my first observation is that you can't even get people to change the seat they picked at the beginning of a dialogue without discomfort to them. And, not all people who say they want to change are willing to change themselves. As to the drivers of division, I am not sure I see much difference from your assertion that it is caused by self contempt and fear rather than hate. My sense is it has many causes that operate in a vicious circle: self contempt breeds hatred of others; sometimes, always sometimes. Arrogant wokeness breeds equally arrogant antiwokeness. Someone is always there to criticize, but not to look at themselves.
I don't know that the data agree with your dismissal on change with respect for others. One of the primary drivers of change in others has been identified as positive reinforcement.
In one study, the change desired was for physicians to adopt more rigorous hand washing regimes before and after interacting with a patient.
Even with a camera monitoring them (which they were aware of) the needle moved but little in response.
As an experiment, a feedback system was deployed where the physicians were shown messages of positive reinforcement as they washed. The needle jumped vigorously.
So what didn't work was negative reinforcement (it actually had a perverse effect), introducing the certainty of being 'caught' (which interestingly is the only effective deterrent for crime detected) didn't work, but encouragement and recognition -- worked to a significant degree.
So yeah -- we can change others. We just can't do it the way it sometimes seems like the majority of society wants to do it -- by opprobrium.
Hate is a symptom, not a cause. That is the difference. While it is true to say 'sometimes, always sometimes' it is more accurate to observe that "sometimes" is not a synonym for "never" or "in equal amounts".
Arrogant wokeness may well breed arrogant anti-wokeness. I doubt it always does or even that it does most of the time.
It is certainly interesting to note that you have moved from 'sometimes, always sometimes' to 'all-or-nothing' statements in the space of a sentence.
What does that internal inconsistency suggest?
Dear Chui, we seem to agree that opprobium is less likely to change people than the accuser hopes (unless they are just being meanor pigheaded- apologies to pigs - then it is hopeless.) But do we really disagree that multiple strategies including positive reinforcement and changing ourselves contribute to changing others? My interest in my initial response was to add to the qualities that Wood discussed; perhaps that wasn't clear which is my fault. Wood notes the need to redress our own shortcomings; I added to the list. I am not sure that every value or quality needed to effect change can be researched, so perhaps we are just attuned to different concerns.
We don't. If you defer to the study(ies) that show the effect of positive reinforcement upon behavioral change, then you agree with those studies. I have simply observed they are there and what they have suggested.
At any given point, all we can do is make a best guess about this or that on available evidence. I am not the source of evidence in this domain, nor should I be confused with one.
I neither disagree or agree with your assertions that seek to establish a portfolio of change effectors, without evidence. What can you advance on those lines?
It may well be true that if your cognition is not weighted toward evidence, then we are attuned to different concerns.
Thank you for such a beautifully written and nuanced article. There is a lot to respond to, but here are 2 things I am thinking about:
1. The dynamic you describe is ubiquitous. When we are in the "insider" group we have to work to see our privilege, and we don't like to think about it and we don't know what to do with it. When we are in the "outsider" group we are quite aware of the challenges we face, and it can be hard to not think about it. We feel invisible sometimes, and also, like the insider we don't know what to do with that. The vast majority of us occupy both insider and outsider groups, so we understand this dynamic from both sides but we don't know quite to do with that either. The common ground we can stand on, has to hold this reality or it is the fake unity Mr. Wood speaks of.
2. You remind me of the intersection between race and socioeconomic class, and how powerful and clear Dr. King's vision was. It seems clear that race has been used as a wedge to put off a real focus on socioeconomic change. I think if we can deal with race more deeply (and I think we finally are) then we get to what is likely the biggest risk to our way of life - the wealth and income gap. I think, and hope, that this is where we are headed.
Thanks again for sharing this piece,
Mark
Brilliant. Thank you.
I know it's for paid subscribers only, but it feels wrong to deny it to others. Permission to share?
It went out separately to non-subscribers!
I'm glad of that! I'm just talking about sharing on social media. Big no-no?
This missing leg on the stool of this essay is an under-expressed exploration of the role of epistemic breaks that have become the underpinning of what have become the culture wars. There is no common language, or common reality. It isn’t by accident. The intent is to defeat common cause and eliminate even its potentiality.