SanityProject

“Fake news” and reality bubbles

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged journalism psychology SanityProject on by

In banning three major news outlets from the White House, Donald Trump made some of his broadest claims about “fake news.” He wrote on Truth Social:

Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow.

The legality of his action has been discussed elsewhere. What I want to look at here is a broader goal than banning insubordinate reporting. His bigger aim is to make his followers disbelieve any reporting that comes from sources he hasn’t approved of. Here, as he’s done so often, he isn’t asserting particular claims are false; he wants his cult to treat the news as fiction intended to deceive them. A court declares Trump’s actions illegal? FICTION. ICE harasses people exercising their right to criticize it? FAKE NEWS. Thousands of people are protesting its fictional actions without getting paid? LIES.

Let’s grant that journalism is in poor shape. News writers often can’t separate facts from opinions. The selection of facts is often biased, and the phrasing is technically accurate but misleading. Stories are padded with canned material about past events, with inadequate details about what just happened. Reporters experience outrageous pressure to deliver stories quickly; read this unusually serious piece by Dave Barry. Headlines are the worst, being written to pull in readers rather than to summarize the story accurately. Sometimes stories have outright errors. But this is a long way from the news being outright fiction, as Trump claims.

People who believe his assertions drift into a reality bubble, where things are true only if they fit his narrative. We’re all susceptible to that kind of thinking, but for some it’s the whole of their world. It’s not that they have a different, self-consistent set of alleged facts. Rather, whenever they encounter something that doesn’t fit their manufactured reality, their minds go blank.

We can see the same kind of thinking in apocalyptic religious cults. Their leader is right. The world will end on Saint Melvin’s Day. Doubts aren’t allowed. When the world fails to end, the leader has an explanation and reschedules the Apocalypse. Only a few followers drift away. Religions that say you must believe to avoid Hell damage people’s cognitive health, often from childhood.

On the left, there’s the “guilty until proven guilty” phenomenon. It’s forbidden to question certain kinds of accusations. As I’ve noted before, a popular Mastodon site bans defending people against accusations of racism, even to the extent of presenting a devil’s advocate argument. Recently I’ve seen several Bluesky posts quoting New Hampshire Senate candidate John Sununu as apparently advocating a work requirement for Medicare. He later said he misspoke and meant Medicaid. That’s plausible; after all, Medicare is specifically for retired people, and a work requirement wouldn’t make sense. Thinking that people might not have seen the correction, I replied to a couple pointing it out. One of them replied saying the Democrats were “fighting fire with fire”, taking pride in the attempt to trick readers like me. There are also the persistent assertions as fact that Trump is a child molester, though the evidence is weak and he’s never faced formal charges.

Social pressure and rational ignorance help to create and sustain reality bubbles. “Rational ignorance” is a technical term, not necessarily indicating rational thought; it means not having reasons to expend the effort to learn something. Truly rational ignorance says “I don’t know,” but it’s a slippery slope from there to agreeing with what some influential person claims. When everybody you know says something is true and your disagreement won’t improve anything, it’s easier to agree than to question it.

Distrust of elites is a factor. People with experience and expertise are often seen as adversaries trying to impose their will on ordinary people. “Influencers” who sound like regular folks know how to persuade people that everybody else is lying to them. Their lack of expertise can actually enhance their credibility with some groups.

For many people, truth has a weak connection to objective reality. This shows up in the rhetoric of the right and the left. On Truth Social, posts are automatically called “truths.” On the left, people talk about “their truths,” implying that they’re different from other people’s truth.

It isn’t easy to pop someone’s reality bubble. The very fact of disagreeing with it makes you untrustworthy, if not outright evil. But understanding why people think that way can make them less bewildering.

Further reading:

SUBSCRIBE

Enter your email address to subscribe and get notifications of new posts by email.

Publicizing those worth publicizing

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged psychology SanityProject on by

Many people on social media put their efforts into pointing out ridiculous or nasty statements. Sometimes denunciation is necessary, but it shouldn’t be anyone’s main focus. It gives publicity to bad ideas. When a lot of people do it, it makes them part of the dominant dialogue. It draws attention away from people with more reasonable and better argued positions. Some people will find the nonsense interesting and even convincing.

Focusing on people with good things to say and solid arguments behind them draws attention to them, and usually that’s helpful. People can learn something from them, which is more than they can do from the words of fools.

I’m not saying that “Any publicity is good publicity” is literally true. There have been plenty of cases where people have said unpopular things and suffered a loss of business and reputation. But repeatedly hearing an idea can make it seem more acceptable. Anyone who already felt sympathy for it might feel less marginalized.

People need to rally around good ideas more than they need to denounce bad ones. If they only hear that bad ideas are bad, they’ll become discouraged or cynical. Without good ones, you don’t even have a standard that lets you reject the bad ones. Tyranny is bad because freedom is good. Socialism is bad because individual autonomy is good. Murder is bad because human life is good. Bad ideas can be worth dissecting, but you need a framework to do it.

As George Washington may or may not have said, let’s raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair.

Note: I accidentally published a fragmentary draft on freedom of expression in Bow, NH. I immediately deleted it, so probably only the people who get email notifications saw it. Sorry.

SUBSCRIBE

Enter your email address to subscribe and get notifications of new posts by email.

Teaching the Bible (if necessary)

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged books education religion SanityProject on by

Some school districts now require teaching the Bible. The First Amendment requires not teaching it as religious indoctrination. What approach can a teacher take? Here are some thoughts, covering just the first chapter of Genesis. I’m not a teacher and have no teaching skills, so if you’re a teacher, apply whatever adjustments might be necessary.

The translation I’m using is the New Jerusalem Bible. It seems like a pretty good translation, avoiding the problems of outdated language. Other translations should work, as long as they’re accurate.

These questions should be raised in a spirit of inquiry, not mockery. I may not be a teacher, and I’m going against the spirit of the times, but I’m confident that ridiculing people’s beliefs isn’t an effective way to educate them.

“In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.”

At this point there was no light and no sun. What would the Earth have been like? What does “a formless void” mean? “Waters” are mentioned, but without a star, would they have been solid ice?

“God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. … God called light ‘day’, and darkness he called ‘night’. Evening came and morning came: the first day.”

There was no Sun until the fourth day, so how is this interpreted? Was there another light source? Why does it say he called the light day and the darkness night? Was he coining words for future humans?

“God said, ‘Let there be a vault through the middle of the waters to divide the waters in two.’ And so it was.” God made the vault, and it divided the waters under the vault from the waters above the vault. God called the vault ‘heaven’.”

What waters are being divided here? Perhaps the liquid water and the clouds? Keep in mind there is still no sun, so could water evaporate to form clouds?

“God said, ‘Let the waters under heaven come together into a single mass, and let dry land appear.’ And so it was.”

Same questions. This suggests that the Earth’s land was originally all under water. It also suggests that the water wasn’t solid ice, in spite of the lack of a star to warm the planet.

“God said, ‘Let the earth produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees on earth, bearing fruit with their seed inside, each corresponding to its own species.’ And so it was.”

Again, were plants, including trees, growing without sunlight?

“God said, ‘Let there be lights in the vault of heaven to divide day from night, and let them indicate festivals, days and years. Let them be lights in the vault of heaven to shine on the earth.’ And so it was. God made the two great lights: the greater light to govern the day, the smaller light to govern the night, and the stars.”

Until this point, there were no stars in the universe, and in particular no Sun. The Earth was hurtling through empty, dark space. The existence of light is mentioned, but without identifying its source. The Sun’s stated purpose isn’t to warm the Earth, but to enable a calendar. At this point there are still no people to hold festivals. Why are those purposes mentioned without reference to the Sun’s life-enabling role?

“God said, ‘Let the waters be alive with a swarm of living creatures, and let birds wing their way above the earth across the vault of heaven.’ And so it was.”

Animal life now appears. What is the reason for this sequence? Is it saying sunlight is necessary for animals but not for plants?

“God said, ‘Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild animals and all the creatures that creep along the ground. God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.”

What does “in the image of God” mean? Does God have a human-like appearance, or is “likeness” intended in a more abstract sense, such as the ability to think?

“God saw all he had made, and indeed it was very good. Evening came and morning came: the sixth day.”

What are these “days”? Does this chapter mean God literally made everything from the universe to Homo sapiens in a week? What was a “day” before the Sun was created?

Are there alternative readings beyond a literal account that make this narrative more comprehensible? Could it, for example, have been consciously offered as a myth? Some say the Bible is literally true throughout, in which case the account is difficult to understand. If infallibility isn’t assumed, we have to read it in the context of the scientific knowledge of the time. If we read it as mythology, then we have to look at the ancient Hebrew culture rather than science to understand it.

 
Teaching anything resembling this approach will probably get a teacher in a lot of trouble in any district that requires teaching the Bible. In principle, this is a way for teachers to follow the requirements while keeping their integrity. I can’t say whether it’s feasible. Proceed at your own risk.

SUBSCRIBE

Enter your email address to subscribe and get notifications of new posts by email.

Principles, not parties

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged liberty SanityProject on by

It’s easy to get depressed as the elections come closer. Some of us hoped the Democrats would recognize a golden opportunity to unite the country against a corrupt, dishonest, and brutal administration. Instead, they seem to think voters are desperate enough to vote against Republicans no matter how outrageous their opponents’ policies are. This will leave us with poor choices in November, with both sides offering illusory safety and security at the expense of liberty. Even if the Democrats get control of Congress, they won’t use it to put enduring limits on executive power.

Focusing on backing a party and its candidates is a mistake. An individual candidate may occasionally be worth backing, but even there caution is necessary. All candidates are good on some issues and bad on others, except for those who are bad on everything. Standing behind one can lead to ignoring or supporting the bad positions. It’s far better to support the right principles, regardless of who currently supports them.

Organizations that stand for causes are more likely to be consistent than people trying to get elected. A donation to FIRE or the Institute for Justice will accomplish more than one to a candidate. Organizations can drift too, but their shifts are usually more visible to the public than a candidate’s behind-the-scenes deals.

Finding facts and making them known becomes harder as things get worse. Journalism is in miserable shape, with news sources failing to distinguish reporting from opinion. Rumors and distortions spread on social media. Checking the reliability of a report isn’t easy, but it’s still possible to compare stories, separate facts from emotional language, see what sources they used, and consider what biases could have affected them.

As we fall into the Long Night, it’s easy to fall into “lesser evil” thinking. Let’s not forget that the lesser of two evils is still an evil. Finding ways to accomplish positive good is harder, but the worse things get, the more important it is.

“The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.” — George Washington’s farewell address

Speech limits on your property

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged ethics SanityProject on by

The First Amendment applies only to governments. You are free to banish people from your property if you don’t like what they say, provided the law otherwise allows it. That doesn’t mean it’s always a good idea, though.

A few years ago, some stores posted announcements that they’d banish customers who expressed racist ideas. This was a bad idea, and it’s rare today. Untrained employees would have to eavesdrop on conversations, and they could easily misunderstand what they overheard. And once you start going down that road, is there any reason to stop with just one idea? Banning people for expressing socialist ideas would make as much (or little) sense. Best not to try to police people’s opinions. People can still be kicked out for being disruptive or harassing people, regardless of what opinions motivate them. It’s bad business to 86 customers for their ideas.

In your home, you have more leeway, but courtesy imposes some limits. If someone expressed ideas I strongly objected to, I might explain why I thought they were wrong, or I might say that I don’t want to have that discussion here. If the visitor persisted, I might have to say, “Drop it or take it outside,” and follow through if necessary. Be careful about debating such people. A well-prepared person with lots of memorized arguments can often out-debate a more reasonable person who doesn’t have a stock of comebacks and citations at hand.

I’d object less strongly to abstract ideas than to proposals for violence. Anyone who advocates direct violence except for defensive purposes will be lucky to get a warning from me. Supporting racial pseudo-science in the abstract would annoy me, but I’d be more polite about it.

On the Internet, I can block, mute, or ignore people who say disgusting things. I make frequent use of this option, though I try to remember that letting them see what I say may lead them to better thinking. My own peace of mind has to come first, though.