Quo Vadis, Democrats?

[Barrister]

I have recently read that people who are well-educated, sophisticated thinkers are the least likely to change their opinions when presented with new facts.  These people are the best equipped to find ways to dismiss new information that conflicts with their opinions.

Recently read where?

I have changed my opinion many times based on new information. Hell even due to just different ways of thinking about old information, without any new facts presented at all. I must be a real poorly educated dumbass.

I think I could see Raz's point, although no idea if it's true or not.

Someone who is more educated, more well read - is much more likely to be more confident in their positions, and less likely therefore to change their opinion.

[Valmy]

I have recently read that people who are well-educated, sophisticated thinkers are the least likely to change their opinions when presented with new facts.  These people are the best equipped to find ways to dismiss new information that conflicts with their opinions.

Recently read where?

I have changed my opinion many times based on new information. Hell even due to just different ways of thinking about old information, without any new facts presented at all. I must be a real poorly educated dumbass.

I think I could see Raz's point, although no idea if it's true or not.

Someone who is more educated, more well read - is much more likely to be more confident in their positions, and less likely therefore to change their opinion.

And people develop egos and have careers based around certain things being true. The Max Planck Principle on scientific advancement for example:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ...

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth."

But that is very specifically about a subject one is an expert in and has a whole career built around something. Once somebody's self-identity gets involved, it can blind one to a lot. But that is hardly unique to just the highly educated. Even peasants were always extremely resistant to adopting new farming techniques, preferring their traditional ways.

I am not so sure it is true that just in general the better educated one is, the more resistant one is to new information. If that was true, how would you even become educated to begin with? Surely to become educated and become a "sophisticated thinker" one must have some intellectual curiosity.

But we will see what Raz's book has to say.

[crazy canuck]

I have recently read that people who are well-educated, sophisticated thinkers are the least likely to change their opinions when presented with new facts.  These people are the best equipped to find ways to dismiss new information that conflicts with their opinions.

Recently read where?

I have changed my opinion many times based on new information. Hell even due to just different ways of thinking about old information, without any new facts presented at all. I must be a real poorly educated dumbass.

I think I could see Raz's point, although no idea if it's true or not.

Someone who is more educated, more well read - is much more likely to be more confident in their positions, and less likely therefore to change their opinion.

I have recently read that people who are well-educated, sophisticated thinkers are the least likely to change their opinions when presented with new facts.  These people are the best equipped to find ways to dismiss new information that conflicts with their opinions.

Recently read where?

I have changed my opinion many times based on new information. Hell even due to just different ways of thinking about old information, without any new facts presented at all. I must be a real poorly educated dumbass.

I think I could see Raz's point, although no idea if it's true or not.

Someone who is more educated, more well read - is much more likely to be more confident in their positions, and less likely therefore to change their opinion.

No, quite the opposite.  If somebody is well educated, then they know question their assumptions.

This actually sounds more like Pop psychology that plays well on social media

[Barrister]

And people develop egos and have careers based around certain things being true. The Max Planck Principle on scientific advancement for example:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ...

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth."

But that is very specifically about a subject one is an expert in and has a whole career built around something. Once somebody's self-identity gets involved, it can blind one to a lot. But that is hardly unique to just the highly educated. Even peasants were always extremely resistant to adopting new farming techniques, preferring their traditional ways.

I am not so sure it is true that just in general the better educated one is, the more resistant one is to new information. If that was true, how would you even become educated to begin with? Surely to become educated and become a "sophisticated thinker" one must have some intellectual curiosity.

But we will see what Raz's book has to say.

I'm sure you could think of some right-wing examples, but take Noam Chomsky.  I'm not qualified to analyze his findings in the field of linguistics, but given how many times he's been wrong in the field of politics over the decades you'd think he might gain a certain amount of humility - but no.

Or take Naomi Wolf.  She has degrees from Yale and Oxford, but she infamously got some very basic facts wrong in a 2019 book  She was confused over the Victorian legal term "death recorded" and said it represented numerous gay men being put to death - when in fact it actually meant that the death penalty was not being applied.  She accepted a "minor correction" to one particular story but despite her entire book being pulped in the US just still went on to have a "corrected" version published in the UK despite numerous other factual errors.

[PJL]

Re scientific theories and holdouts to new ones, Fred Hoyle is a good example of someone who never believed in the Big Bang theory, preferring the Steady State theory, right up to his death in 2001.

[Razgovory]

The three works cited are:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2779567


https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-04786-005


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajps.12624


I don't know if I can access them though.  The quote from the book
"Moreover, those who are highly educated, intelligent, or rhetorically skilled are significantly less likely than most others to revise their beliefs or adjust their positions when confronted with evidence or arguments that contradict their preferred narratives or preexisting beliefs.  Precisely in virtue of knowing more about the world or being better at arguing, we are equipped to punch holes in data or narratives that undermine our priors, come up with excuses to "stick to our guns" irrespective of the facts, or else interpret threatening information in a way that flatters our existing worldview.  And we typically do just that."

-We Have Never Been Woke by Musa Al-Gharbi pg 199.

[crazy canuck]

Here is an educated person had to say about questioning one's beliefs

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DEaUll3IBjA/?igsh=MTQ3azJnZjVvOXJjNw==

[crazy canuck]

The three works cited are:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2779567


https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-04786-005


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajps.12624


I don't know if I can access them though.  The quote from the book
"Moreover, those who are highly educated, intelligent, or rhetorically skilled are significantly less likely than most others to revise their beliefs or adjust their positions when confronted with evidence or arguments that contradict their preferred narratives or preexisting beliefs.  Precisely in virtue of knowing more about the world or being better at arguing, we are equipped to punch holes in data or narratives that undermine our priors, come up with excuses to "stick to our guns" irrespective of the facts, or else interpret threatening information in a way that flatters our existing worldview.  And we typically do just that."

-We Have Never Been Woke by Musa Al-Gharbi pg 199.

Unfortunately, the citations don't support the quote in the book. Those citations stand for the proposition that once somebody identifies with a particular political party or ideology. It is difficult to get them to change their views about their political beliefs.

The second citation is particularly interesting in that regard as it dispelled the myth that the right was much less likely to change their views, and it turns out it is a problem with those who strongly identify with both right and left.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't know if I can access them though.  The quote from the book
"Moreover, those who are highly educated, intelligent, or rhetorically skilled are significantly less likely than most others to revise their beliefs or adjust their positions when confronted with evidence or arguments that contradict their preferred narratives or preexisting beliefs.  Precisely in virtue of knowing more about the world or being better at arguing, we are equipped to punch holes in data or narratives that undermine our priors, come up with excuses to "stick to our guns" irrespective of the facts, or else interpret threatening information in a way that flatters our existing worldview.  And we typically do just that."

My problem with this assertion is it doesn't distinguish between true and untrue new information. If someone had data that the highly educated ignored true new information at a higher rate I would worry.

[Barrister]

-We Have Never Been Woke by Musa Al-Gharbi pg 199.

How is that book?  Sounds like you're reading it.



From the Amazon summary:

How a new "woke" elite uses the language of social justice to gain more power and status—without helping the marginalized and disadvantaged

Society has never been more egalitarian—in theory. Prejudice is taboo, and diversity is strongly valued. At the same time, social and economic inequality have exploded. In We Have Never Been Woke, Musa al-Gharbi argues that these trends are closely related, each tied to the rise of a new elite—the symbolic capitalists. In education, media, nonprofits, and beyond, members of this elite work primarily with words, ideas, images, and data, and are very likely to identify as allies of antiracist, feminist, LGBTQ, and other progressive causes. Their dominant ideology is "wokeness" and, while their commitment to equality is sincere, they actively benefit from and perpetuate the inequalities they decry. Indeed, their egalitarian credentials help them gain more power and status, often at the expense of the marginalized and disadvantaged.

We Have Never Been Woke details how the language of social justice is increasingly used to justify this elite—and to portray the losers in the knowledge economy as deserving their lot because they think or say the "wrong" things about race, gender, and sexuality. Al-Gharbi's point is not to accuse symbolic capitalists of hypocrisy or cynicism. Rather, he examines how their genuine beliefs prevent them from recognizing how they contribute to social problems—or how their actions regularly provoke backlash against the social justice causes they champion.

A powerful critique, We Have Never Been Woke reveals that only by challenging this elite's self-serving narratives can we hope to address social and economic inequality effectively.

So I can see how the section Raz quoted fits in with the general thesis - see the bolded section.

[Sheilbh]

I'm sure you could think of some right-wing examples, but take Noam Chomsky.

Or just take a look at social media. I can't think of any professions whose respect in the public eye has possibly suffered more from social media than academics and lawyers. Very clever people in their very specific area routinely committed to showing themselves up on literally any other issue (with the quite grace and humility we all associate with lawyers and academics ) - often taking the very strong confidence of their expertise in one area and applying it to another.

Unfortunately, the citations don't support the quote in the book. Those citations stand for the proposition that once somebody identifies with a particular political party or ideology. It is difficult to get them to change their views about their political beliefs.

But also educated people are more likely to identify with political parties or ideologies or have strong views.

How is that book?  Sounds like you're reading it.

Yeah interested to hear.

I have Olufemi Taiwo's Elite Capture on my shelf which sounds like it covers similar territory but from a slightly different angle. Also interesting to see what it's doing with that title and Latour's We Have Never Been Modern.

[Razgovory]

The three works cited are:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2779567


https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-04786-005


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajps.12624


I don't know if I can access them though.  The quote from the book
"Moreover, those who are highly educated, intelligent, or rhetorically skilled are significantly less likely than most others to revise their beliefs or adjust their positions when confronted with evidence or arguments that contradict their preferred narratives or preexisting beliefs.  Precisely in virtue of knowing more about the world or being better at arguing, we are equipped to punch holes in data or narratives that undermine our priors, come up with excuses to "stick to our guns" irrespective of the facts, or else interpret threatening information in a way that flatters our existing worldview.  And we typically do just that."

-We Have Never Been Woke by Musa Al-Gharbi pg 199.

Unfortunately, the citations don't support the quote in the book. Those citations stand for the proposition that once somebody identifies with a particular political party or ideology. It is difficult to get them to change their views about their political beliefs.

The second citation is particularly interesting in that regard as it dispelled the myth that the right was much less likely to change their views, and it turns out it is a problem with those who strongly identify with both right and left.

You read the papers?

[Razgovory]

-We Have Never Been Woke by Musa Al-Gharbi pg 199.

How is that book?  Sounds like you're reading it.



From the Amazon summary:

How a new "woke" elite uses the language of social justice to gain more power and status—without helping the marginalized and disadvantaged

Society has never been more egalitarian—in theory. Prejudice is taboo, and diversity is strongly valued. At the same time, social and economic inequality have exploded. In We Have Never Been Woke, Musa al-Gharbi argues that these trends are closely related, each tied to the rise of a new elite—the symbolic capitalists. In education, media, nonprofits, and beyond, members of this elite work primarily with words, ideas, images, and data, and are very likely to identify as allies of antiracist, feminist, LGBTQ, and other progressive causes. Their dominant ideology is "wokeness" and, while their commitment to equality is sincere, they actively benefit from and perpetuate the inequalities they decry. Indeed, their egalitarian credentials help them gain more power and status, often at the expense of the marginalized and disadvantaged.

We Have Never Been Woke details how the language of social justice is increasingly used to justify this elite—and to portray the losers in the knowledge economy as deserving their lot because they think or say the "wrong" things about race, gender, and sexuality. Al-Gharbi's point is not to accuse symbolic capitalists of hypocrisy or cynicism. Rather, he examines how their genuine beliefs prevent them from recognizing how they contribute to social problems—or how their actions regularly provoke backlash against the social justice causes they champion.

A powerful critique, We Have Never Been Woke reveals that only by challenging this elite's self-serving narratives can we hope to address social and economic inequality effectively.

So I can see how the section Raz quoted fits in with the general thesis - see the bolded section.

I found it really interesting.  I don't care the for the title, but it apparently it references a classic in sociology.  Democrats have basically lost the working class.  The question is why.  Rather than blaming Trump, or the media, or Elon Musk or racism or sexism I think we should instead examine ourselves.  The book takes a very critical look at the main demographic of Democrats, what he calls symbolic capitalists, and it while it isn't pretty, he makes a point not to judge.  The negative reviews of the book mostly came from conservatives who were expecting a political screed not an academic text.

[Valmy]

Well I thought I knew why, that they abandoned the working class to cozy up to big business.

But Biden did a lot of pretty pro-worker things and that didn't seem to do the Dems that much good.

Or maybe it just wasn't enough to overcome inflation. Or just didn't go far enough in general.

But if I knew for sure what the answer is I would probably be out having my lucrative political consulting career.

I do think they need to develop a policy on the border and immigration and aggressively sell it to the American people just because that seems to be a winning issue for the right. But, again, what do I know?

[DGuller]

I think it's hard for professional class to identify with the working class.  The more the left became identified with the professional class, the more the working class became alienated, and the more the left became incapable of perceiving that the working class is alienated from them.