Academia is in some ways a sheltered world. In-groups abound. But why not? Aren’t academicians just people subject to the same kinds of desires, social pressures, and insecurities that pervade our species? Aren’t professors just as limited through inculcation by the like-minded as much as any fundamentalist group is limited in perspective?
Say what?
Yes, I’m accusing academicians, including former academicians like me of oversimplification, of axiomatic thinking, of making unfalsifiable statements, and, woe is me, of intolerance. In fact, I’m accusing everyone on the planet and everyone who ever lived on the planet of being somewhat or sometimes intolerant. Face it; it’s difficult to accept all ideas with equal magnanimity. Surely, you have at times thought without impolitely saying aloud, “You’re an idiot!” You might be thinking that right now. That’s okay because sometimes I am. “To tolerate” in many instances is just another way of saying “to put up with until it goes away.”
My own four decades in academia can’t be much of a guide when I rely on them to convince you that the intellectual “world” is peopled by many intolerant individuals. I could tell tales, but anecdotes fail as inductive thinking usually fails because no one can account for all possibilities. No one has an infinite number of stories to relate, and stories that contradict a narrative are beyond count, also. Nevertheless, I will note here that I witnessed many ad hominem and non sequitur discussions in the hallowed halls and conference rooms of academia in personal attacks and biases that became manifest both overtly and subtly. I suppose with honest reflection, I could recount, also, times when I failed to see the errors in my own axiomatic thinking that made me intolerant of others’ ideas, times when I expressed not logical refutation but petty sarcasm. For my own past “offenses” I apologize.
The “sheltered world” I mentioned above now has a name: “Epistemic Bubble.” Coined by Princeton researchers, it applies to online social networks of polarized groups. I can oversimplify it: Birds of a feather flock together. The researchers studied Twitter data to show how people unconsciously separate themselves into networks of the like-minded. The dipolar world is becoming more intensely dipolar as opposing political parties repel like similar ends of bar magnets.
Are you surprised that people separate themselves into the like-minded? I confess to having one of those “duhhhhh” moments when I perused some of the research by the Princeton profs. Can you name a day since Cain and Abel without polarization? “Yeah,” you say, “the day after Cain killed Abel the world was temporarily a monopolar society. One bar magnet has nothing to repel.” Can you point to an era of pervasive and enduring peace and cooperation? Some era of unmitigated tolerance? I can’t. I assume—maybe wrongly—on the basis of personal experience and learning that tolerance has always been local and temporary and always occurred where societies are most homogeneous; and when tolerance prevails, it exists with caveats, even in homogeneous groups.
Sorry; call my historical perspective a character fault if you want. Call it the product of anecdotal induction that casts a shadow of pessimism over my otherwise cheery and optimistic perspective. Epistemic Bubbles? Who is surprised? Polarized people? Who-da thunk differently save the idealists? My gosh, even the “saintly” Franciscan Order broke into suborders that broke further into suborders in both Catholic and Protestant traditions. What’s going on? Could the friars and nuns of medieval and modern times have learned from Rodney King’s 1992 post-riot question, “Can’t we all just get along?”
Apparently not, Rodney. Apparently not, Brother Francisco. Apparently not, Princetonians.
Anyway, take a look at collated research on the subject of polarization recently reviewed in an AAAS news release (6 Dec 2021) that reveals findings by members of the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs and Arizona State University. *
Consider this title that appears in the collection of articles: “Conservative Swings in Public Opinion Ramp Up Republican Lawmaker Extremism.” The heading overlies a short summary of research by Naomi Ehrich Leonard, Keena Libsitz, Edwin S. Wilsey, and Anastasia Bizyaeva. ** I’ll note that I do not doubt part of the group’s finding that “swings in public opinion” are “typically slightly larger and more prolonged [among conservatives] than liberal swings.” They seem to have acquired evidence for that conclusion. However, “Republican lawmaker extremism” is an unqualified term. What is “extreme”? Are reactions to Democrat policies extreme? Is, for example, the general philosophy—not always the practiced policy—of Republicans to limit government’s powers an “extremist position”? Take the current movement among liberals to swing toward socialism. Is that in any way extreme? Is Republican “extremism” the underlying assumption for the Princetonians’ conclusion. Did they start with a polarizing label before trying to prove a rule they accepted rather than trying to disprove an assumption or perspective? What kind of “science” is that?
You’re probably guessing now that I have found something to complain about in these Princeton studies. Consider my own intolerance and assumptions in the following question: “Do you find it odd that at Princeton, that bastion of tolerance, academicians are concerned about polarization?” Note my own illogic, as I succumb to sarcasm at the outset. Does this mean my apology above is null and void?
Why should I continue to join two magnets by their north ends? Shouldn’t I simply acknowledge that in the social world as in the physical world all magnetism is dipolar and that there are repulsive forces?
I’ll acknowledge that polarization exists between networked opposing groups. Polarization in American (and maybe in every) society is evident everywhere because almost every aspect of our lives has become politicized under the aegis of social media and agenda-driven media—even the weather. But opposing views aren’t in every instance necessarily extremist, be they Democratic or Republican views. The researchers see a “tipping point” or point of no return when the forces of polarization overwhelm the forces that try to mitigate polarization. [There’s some teleology in their description] Anyway, according to the researchers, Republican lawmakers “may have passed” this point, headed as they are toward their version of “extreme,” whereas Democrats in the view of the researchers are “quickly approaching it” but have not yet reached that point of no return to normality and middle ground. If I were to submit these findings to Republican lawmakers, I am sure that I would hear just the opposite, that Democrats have reached the tipping point of polarization and are already immersed in extremism.
The “research” by the Princetonians appears to me to violate Karl Popper’s famous principle of falsification, that science isn’t science if it cannot be subjected to falsification. But how can one falsify a finding on unqualified “extremism”? What is “extreme” in political ideology and action? Is it an “all of nothing” approach, say for example, eliminating all taxes and initiating a full laissez faire capitalism? Is it imposing high taxes and highly restrictive regulations? Is Capitalism in itself a form of Extremism? Is Socialism in itself a form of Extremism? Does either side of the American political spectrum aim for completely Rightest or completely Leftist policies? Or, even in a highly polarized society, are there gray areas of subtle unity and weak attraction?
As cognitive and experimental psychologists tell us, most people tend to verify assumptions, principles, and rules rather than falsify them. Call such thinking confirmation bias if you like. Cognitive experiments demonstrate that when given a choice to support a rule rather than falsify it, most people choose the former, as in the “four card” test that says, “Cards with an ‘A’ on one side have a ‘3’ on the other side.” On the upturned faces of cards in the test, two of the cards show ‘A’ and ‘3,’ and two have ‘P’ and ‘7’. Most people choose to turn over the cards marked ‘A’ and ‘3’ to prove the rule, rather than turn over the other cards to disprove it.
People appear to be more secure in demonstrating the proof of what they know and believe rather than in demonstrating their own potential fallacies in thought and faith. But don’t consider this finding to be a universal principle since it, too, relies on a finite number of experiments, suggesting a tendency, but not an absolute principle that universally applies to everyone. Some people might be more inclined to disprove the assumptions and beliefs du jour. Some people do not choose the cards with ‘A’ and ‘3.’
And lest you associate the Princetonians in my description with a despairing Whitman Wail or agonizing Holder Howl for which the campus is famous, I should note that the studies on polarization include attempts to objectify their studies in the spirit of Popper’s falsification principle. To wit: the review of “Complex Systems Theory can [sic.] Lead to Deeper Understanding, Better Design of Lasting Reforms to American Democracy” by Sam Wang and others contains this statement of purpose: “Our core objective was to translate the American political system into a mathematical complex-systems framework…We want to encourage natural scientists to build models that reproduce political phenomena, create simulations to explore alternative scenarios, and design interventions that may improve the function of democracy.” In short, they want to treat the political system as a system of parts that can be understood the way engineers understand and improve machines.
But if Popper were alive, he might point to a flaw that I find throughout these and other social science studies: Turning human thought and behavior into numbers is based on the assumption that what are largely subjective matters can be objectified by assigning numerical values. Numbers might show tendencies, but as political polls of late have demonstrated, such numbers can lie. Just look at the polls predicting the outcome of the 2016 US election.
Long read to get here. Sorry. Leave with this: Even if we want a tolerant world, we can’t achieve it when we start with polarized and polarizing assumptions.
Notes:
*EurekAlert! AAAS. Like a natural system, democracy faces collapse as polarization leads to loss of diversity. Princeton University. 6 Dec 2021. Online at https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/937038 Accessed December 8, 2021.
**Kelly, Morgan. 6 Dec 2021. Like a natural system, democracy faces collapse as polarization leads to loss of diversity. High Meadows Environmental Institute. Online at https://environment.princeton.edu/news/like-a-natural-system-democracy-faces-collapse-as-polarization-leads-to-loss-of-diversity/. Accessed December 8, 2021.
Say what?
Yes, I’m accusing academicians, including former academicians like me of oversimplification, of axiomatic thinking, of making unfalsifiable statements, and, woe is me, of intolerance. In fact, I’m accusing everyone on the planet and everyone who ever lived on the planet of being somewhat or sometimes intolerant. Face it; it’s difficult to accept all ideas with equal magnanimity. Surely, you have at times thought without impolitely saying aloud, “You’re an idiot!” You might be thinking that right now. That’s okay because sometimes I am. “To tolerate” in many instances is just another way of saying “to put up with until it goes away.”
My own four decades in academia can’t be much of a guide when I rely on them to convince you that the intellectual “world” is peopled by many intolerant individuals. I could tell tales, but anecdotes fail as inductive thinking usually fails because no one can account for all possibilities. No one has an infinite number of stories to relate, and stories that contradict a narrative are beyond count, also. Nevertheless, I will note here that I witnessed many ad hominem and non sequitur discussions in the hallowed halls and conference rooms of academia in personal attacks and biases that became manifest both overtly and subtly. I suppose with honest reflection, I could recount, also, times when I failed to see the errors in my own axiomatic thinking that made me intolerant of others’ ideas, times when I expressed not logical refutation but petty sarcasm. For my own past “offenses” I apologize.
The “sheltered world” I mentioned above now has a name: “Epistemic Bubble.” Coined by Princeton researchers, it applies to online social networks of polarized groups. I can oversimplify it: Birds of a feather flock together. The researchers studied Twitter data to show how people unconsciously separate themselves into networks of the like-minded. The dipolar world is becoming more intensely dipolar as opposing political parties repel like similar ends of bar magnets.
Are you surprised that people separate themselves into the like-minded? I confess to having one of those “duhhhhh” moments when I perused some of the research by the Princeton profs. Can you name a day since Cain and Abel without polarization? “Yeah,” you say, “the day after Cain killed Abel the world was temporarily a monopolar society. One bar magnet has nothing to repel.” Can you point to an era of pervasive and enduring peace and cooperation? Some era of unmitigated tolerance? I can’t. I assume—maybe wrongly—on the basis of personal experience and learning that tolerance has always been local and temporary and always occurred where societies are most homogeneous; and when tolerance prevails, it exists with caveats, even in homogeneous groups.
Sorry; call my historical perspective a character fault if you want. Call it the product of anecdotal induction that casts a shadow of pessimism over my otherwise cheery and optimistic perspective. Epistemic Bubbles? Who is surprised? Polarized people? Who-da thunk differently save the idealists? My gosh, even the “saintly” Franciscan Order broke into suborders that broke further into suborders in both Catholic and Protestant traditions. What’s going on? Could the friars and nuns of medieval and modern times have learned from Rodney King’s 1992 post-riot question, “Can’t we all just get along?”
Apparently not, Rodney. Apparently not, Brother Francisco. Apparently not, Princetonians.
Anyway, take a look at collated research on the subject of polarization recently reviewed in an AAAS news release (6 Dec 2021) that reveals findings by members of the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs and Arizona State University. *
Consider this title that appears in the collection of articles: “Conservative Swings in Public Opinion Ramp Up Republican Lawmaker Extremism.” The heading overlies a short summary of research by Naomi Ehrich Leonard, Keena Libsitz, Edwin S. Wilsey, and Anastasia Bizyaeva. ** I’ll note that I do not doubt part of the group’s finding that “swings in public opinion” are “typically slightly larger and more prolonged [among conservatives] than liberal swings.” They seem to have acquired evidence for that conclusion. However, “Republican lawmaker extremism” is an unqualified term. What is “extreme”? Are reactions to Democrat policies extreme? Is, for example, the general philosophy—not always the practiced policy—of Republicans to limit government’s powers an “extremist position”? Take the current movement among liberals to swing toward socialism. Is that in any way extreme? Is Republican “extremism” the underlying assumption for the Princetonians’ conclusion. Did they start with a polarizing label before trying to prove a rule they accepted rather than trying to disprove an assumption or perspective? What kind of “science” is that?
You’re probably guessing now that I have found something to complain about in these Princeton studies. Consider my own intolerance and assumptions in the following question: “Do you find it odd that at Princeton, that bastion of tolerance, academicians are concerned about polarization?” Note my own illogic, as I succumb to sarcasm at the outset. Does this mean my apology above is null and void?
Why should I continue to join two magnets by their north ends? Shouldn’t I simply acknowledge that in the social world as in the physical world all magnetism is dipolar and that there are repulsive forces?
I’ll acknowledge that polarization exists between networked opposing groups. Polarization in American (and maybe in every) society is evident everywhere because almost every aspect of our lives has become politicized under the aegis of social media and agenda-driven media—even the weather. But opposing views aren’t in every instance necessarily extremist, be they Democratic or Republican views. The researchers see a “tipping point” or point of no return when the forces of polarization overwhelm the forces that try to mitigate polarization. [There’s some teleology in their description] Anyway, according to the researchers, Republican lawmakers “may have passed” this point, headed as they are toward their version of “extreme,” whereas Democrats in the view of the researchers are “quickly approaching it” but have not yet reached that point of no return to normality and middle ground. If I were to submit these findings to Republican lawmakers, I am sure that I would hear just the opposite, that Democrats have reached the tipping point of polarization and are already immersed in extremism.
The “research” by the Princetonians appears to me to violate Karl Popper’s famous principle of falsification, that science isn’t science if it cannot be subjected to falsification. But how can one falsify a finding on unqualified “extremism”? What is “extreme” in political ideology and action? Is it an “all of nothing” approach, say for example, eliminating all taxes and initiating a full laissez faire capitalism? Is it imposing high taxes and highly restrictive regulations? Is Capitalism in itself a form of Extremism? Is Socialism in itself a form of Extremism? Does either side of the American political spectrum aim for completely Rightest or completely Leftist policies? Or, even in a highly polarized society, are there gray areas of subtle unity and weak attraction?
As cognitive and experimental psychologists tell us, most people tend to verify assumptions, principles, and rules rather than falsify them. Call such thinking confirmation bias if you like. Cognitive experiments demonstrate that when given a choice to support a rule rather than falsify it, most people choose the former, as in the “four card” test that says, “Cards with an ‘A’ on one side have a ‘3’ on the other side.” On the upturned faces of cards in the test, two of the cards show ‘A’ and ‘3,’ and two have ‘P’ and ‘7’. Most people choose to turn over the cards marked ‘A’ and ‘3’ to prove the rule, rather than turn over the other cards to disprove it.
People appear to be more secure in demonstrating the proof of what they know and believe rather than in demonstrating their own potential fallacies in thought and faith. But don’t consider this finding to be a universal principle since it, too, relies on a finite number of experiments, suggesting a tendency, but not an absolute principle that universally applies to everyone. Some people might be more inclined to disprove the assumptions and beliefs du jour. Some people do not choose the cards with ‘A’ and ‘3.’
And lest you associate the Princetonians in my description with a despairing Whitman Wail or agonizing Holder Howl for which the campus is famous, I should note that the studies on polarization include attempts to objectify their studies in the spirit of Popper’s falsification principle. To wit: the review of “Complex Systems Theory can [sic.] Lead to Deeper Understanding, Better Design of Lasting Reforms to American Democracy” by Sam Wang and others contains this statement of purpose: “Our core objective was to translate the American political system into a mathematical complex-systems framework…We want to encourage natural scientists to build models that reproduce political phenomena, create simulations to explore alternative scenarios, and design interventions that may improve the function of democracy.” In short, they want to treat the political system as a system of parts that can be understood the way engineers understand and improve machines.
But if Popper were alive, he might point to a flaw that I find throughout these and other social science studies: Turning human thought and behavior into numbers is based on the assumption that what are largely subjective matters can be objectified by assigning numerical values. Numbers might show tendencies, but as political polls of late have demonstrated, such numbers can lie. Just look at the polls predicting the outcome of the 2016 US election.
Long read to get here. Sorry. Leave with this: Even if we want a tolerant world, we can’t achieve it when we start with polarized and polarizing assumptions.
Notes:
*EurekAlert! AAAS. Like a natural system, democracy faces collapse as polarization leads to loss of diversity. Princeton University. 6 Dec 2021. Online at https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/937038 Accessed December 8, 2021.
**Kelly, Morgan. 6 Dec 2021. Like a natural system, democracy faces collapse as polarization leads to loss of diversity. High Meadows Environmental Institute. Online at https://environment.princeton.edu/news/like-a-natural-system-democracy-faces-collapse-as-polarization-leads-to-loss-of-diversity/. Accessed December 8, 2021.
RSS Feed