Ten Strong Suggestions for Surviving the Age of Misinformation, PART TWO!
First, a quick apology. I’ve been on vacation with my family, so I haven’t Substacked in a bit. But I’m back to the once-a-week rhythm for the rest of the year!
And while I’m doing mea culpas, I wrote a post a few weeks ago with the headline “10 Very Strong Suggestions for Surviving the Age of Misinformation.” The post itself only contained five strong suggestions because they turned out to be a little lengthy.
I promised to save the other five strong suggestions for a future post. That future post is here!
(As a reminder, these are not Ten Commandments since one of my favorite strategies is to be wary of absolutist thinking).
ASK THYSELF, ‘WHAT WOULD CARL SAGAN DO?’
I am an enormous fan of the late astronomer/sage/Saturday-Night-Live-parody-fodder Carl Sagan.
First, I agree with Professor Sagan’s take on Star Wars. It seems a grave injustice that Chewbacca does not get a medal at the end. Luke Skywalker and Han Solo get medals. But Chewbacca, who risked his life alongside them? No medal. Sagan thought it was species-ist, or Wookiee-ist, or as he called it, an example of “human chauvinism.” Agree.
But I also love the way Carl Sagan thought about knowledge. Sagan said…
Humans should embrace “an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas.”
This is one of my favorite quotes of all time. We should be open to new ideas, because the universe can be far weirder than we imagine (e.g. antimatter, rat kings, and Rubik’s Cube foot-solving competitions). But also, we should only accept those ideas as true if there is evidence for them, not just because they make us feel good or seem right.
IT’S ESSENTIAL TO AVOID ESSENTIALISM
Okay, essentialism is a cumbersome word. But it’s kind of an ugly practice, so maybe it’s appropriate?
Here’s what I mean by essentialism. If you say someone is “an asshole,” you are implying that assholeness is an essential part of their being, now and forever. But the truth is usually more complicated. We’re all swayed by circumstances, and sometimes we behave like assholes, and other times we do not.
So if one of my sons says, “X is an asshole,” I suggest my son say instead, “X is acting in an asshole-ish manner this week.” After all, we don’t know the big picture. Maybe he’s having a horrible time at home.”
To which my son might respond, “You are acting in an annoying manner.” Fair enough.
But I stand by my anti-essentialism. It’s a crucial shift in viewing the world. If you see someone’s personality as more malleable, you’re more likely to find solutions and common ground. But when you assign nouns to people — idiot, right-winger, leftist — it flattens those people. Not to mention that labels are often self-fulfilling. They make it more likely the person will start to see themselves that way and live up to their label.
Over the decades, utopian linguists have tried to construct languages that more accurately represent reality by, in part, avoiding the PERSON-IS-NOUN sentence structure. But while we’re still speaking English, maybe just avoid sweeping labels. Otherwise, you are acting in an assholish manner.
THOU SHALT TRY OUT STEEL-MANNING
I’m a big fan of “steel-manning.” For those who haven’t heard this term, it’s the polar opposite of “straw-manning.” When you create a straw man, you take the other side’s argument and oversimplify it, distort it, or flat-out change it. Steel-manning is the opposite. You state the other side’s view in the strongest possible way.
I think steel-manning is better for both sides. It can help you come up with more accurate counterarguments. It can make your own views more nuanced. And you're more likely to change someone’s mind after a good steel-manning proves you’re acting in good faith.
In my book on the Constitution, I tried to steel-man the theory of originalism. Ultimately, I’m more of a believer in constitutional pragmatism (also called pluralism or living constitutionalism). But I wrote a chapter called “A Complete Listing of All Arguments For and Against Originalism That Everyone Will Agree is Absolutely Definitive and Error-Free.” I’ve found my discussions with originalists to be more productive because of that chapter (even though it turned out, shockingly, not everyone agreed my list was absolutely definitive).
By the way, a cousin of “steel-manning” is called the “Ideological Turing Test,” which I’m also a fan of.
IN MY OPINION, WE SHOULD STOP USING THE WORD ‘OPINION’
My problem with the word “opinion” is that it’s a suitcase word — a word that has multiple meanings all stuffed into a single container. And this can lead to epic confusion.
Here are two very different uses of the word “opinion”:
A) “Opinion” can be used as a synonym for personal taste, an aesthetic preference. “In my opinion, nectarines are delicious.” “In my opinion, The Legend of Zelda is the greatest video game ever made.”
B) “Opinion” can be used as a synonym for a hypothesis about the world. “In my opinion, global warming is not caused by humans.” “It is my medical opinion that you have asthma.” (This second sense is what people usually mean when they talk about “opinion journalism.”)
The hitch is that someone’s personal taste (option A) and someone’s hypothesis about reality (option B) are fundamentally different mental states. For starters, personal taste cannot be disproved. You can’t disprove that I love nectarines. I just do. On the other hand, a hypothesis can be supported or disproved with evidence.
When we use the word ‘opinion’ for both things, conversations can get mighty tangled.
New York senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, “You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”
I propose a corollary:
“You are entitled to your own opinion about what you like and don’t like, but you are not entitled to label your evidence-free hypothesis about the world as an ‘opinion’ and spread it around in conversation or social media.”
Catchy, right? Maybe not, but I find it a useful framework.
(NOTE: I also try to avoid what I believe is a related fallacy in which personal taste is presented as an objective fact about the world. I don’t say, “The Godfather Part II is the greatest sequel of all time,” but instead say, “The Godfather Part II is my favorite sequel.”)
THOU SHALT BE MORE LIKE A FOX THAN A HEDGEHOG
Perhaps you’ve heard of the famous essay by Isaiah Berlin titled “The Hedgehog and the Fox.” It’s based on an ancient Greek idea about two types of thinkers. A hedgehog views the world through a single lens, whether that’s Marxism or religion or free market economics. A fox views the world through multiple lenses, combining approaches and strategies.
I’m a fan of the fox approach. The world is complicated, and most things in life have many, many causes. I think the fox approach leads to more flexible thinking and better solutions and
Though I do find the parable paradoxical. The very idea of dividing the world into two distinct types of people? That’s a very hedgehog idea. The fox in me doesn’t like it.
Happy (still) summer!
AJ, thanks as always. Regarding the fox vs. the hedgehog, what about a hedge-fox? George Loewenstein, Roy Baumeister, and Kathleen Vohs argue (starting with the world of psychological research) that we shine most when we mix the two skillsets: be knowledgeable in a single field (like the hedgehog), but also be able to adapt strategies in varying contexts (like the fox). Is this too much of a middle ground thing to say? Maybe a bit of both could make us stronger.
Once again A.J. you hit it out of the ballpark - this is the BEST opinion piece ever! Ok, I need to restate that and say, in my opinion, this is one of the best written articles on overcoming misinformation that I've read this year. Great job!