Donald Trump – The President Of Vice (12-4-24)

01:00 Vice is bad, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/04/opinion/donald-trump-vice-voters.html
03:00 Commentary mag: There Are Nations in Crisis—Just Not Ours, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqSB6OeDxow
08:20 Among Transition hiccups, Trump survives stuff that no political mortal could survive, says Mark Halperin, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/among-transition-hiccups-trump-survives-stuff-that/id1573813504?i=1000679240142
12:00 Humor & Morality, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=158042
19:00 Variations in Moral Concerns across Political Ideology: Moral Foundations, Hidden Tribes, and Righteous Division, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=158050
24:20 Does Hunter Biden need a pardon to save himself from triggers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme1_gt4GJM
29:00 Covid & Epistemic Coercion, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=158056
55:10 Kip joins to talk about the horror of editing one’s own thoughts
1:00:00 The SS St Louis ship is denied entry to the USA in 1939, but was it welcomed by anyone?, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis
1:26:00 Asabiyyah, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asabiyyah
1:30:40 Israel’s elite is quite different from the Israel majority, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkKsENN0S2M
1:34:14 The primacy of military power
1:36:30 What’s going on in Syria?

Posted in America | Comments Off on Donald Trump – The President Of Vice (12-4-24)

Epistemic Coercion

Stephen Turner writes in Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2024, vol. 61, no. 3:

“Words such as state, republic, society, class, as well as sovereignty, constitutional state, absolutism, dictatorship, economic planning, neutral or total state, and so on are incomprehensible if one does not exactly who is to be affected, combatted, refuted, or negated by such a term. Above all the polemical character determines the use of the word political regardless of whether the adversary is designated as non-political (in the sense of harmless), or vice versa if one wants to disqualify or denounce him as political in order to portray oneself as non-political (in the sense of the purely scientific, purely moral, purely aesthetic, purely economic, or on the basis of similar purities) and therefore superior.”
[Carl Schmitt, (1932) 1996, pp. 31–32].

* …the regimes of science and expertise are ineradicably political and coercive. But if regimes of science and expertise are ineradicably political and coercive, what remains
is the problem of our choice of regimes, and how to accommodate them in a democratic order. We must come to a reckoning with the disillusion from the idea of the purity of science and the neutrality of expertise. We cannot simultaneously valorize “the science” as a real institutional fact and insist on “following the science,” and ignore the practical meaning of the imperfect institutional processes that make it up, and the value choices that are made within science, which may diverge from the values that derive from democratic processes.

* …The Covid pandemic saw the development and widespread use of actual means of knowledge suppression and epistemic engineering, both within science and with respect to expert claims, within nominally free societies….The rationale for the use of these means was that malinformation, misinformation, and disinformation were sufficiently pervasive in the digital world that they produced harms that justified not merely correction or disagreement but intervention to alter the cognitive climate. The reasoning produced a novel concept, “cognitive security,” as well as a plethora of new jargon terms, many of which were designed to conceal the partisan nature of the technical interventions under such bland terms as “curation” and treating interventions as forms of cybersecurity.

* New revelations about the role of governments and drug companies in these interventions, and their extent, occur almost daily. And in each case they show that the interventions cross whatever line still exists between partisanship and scholarship, fact and value, and claims warranted by sufficient evidence as distinct from plausible assumptions that might warrant policy preferences, and any line between coercion and persuasion. And under Covid, in medicine, we have seen unambiguously direct coercion: taking the licenses of doctors for failing to abide by problematic guidelines, or censorship based on definitions of misinformation which were themselves based on policy agendas with little evidence behind them. What is especially important in the presence of novel technologies of persuasion is the question of whether these are novel instruments of epistemic control or coercion, and whether they require new forms of control, and new forms of resistance, in order to serve the purposes we expect discourse, either in science or the public sphere, to achieve.

* Power also comes in two basic forms: commands which are enforceable and hegemonic power which takes the form of pervasive conditions of constraint that are unconsciously internalized as normal and then serve as self-imposed limits on thought and behavior that are not even recognized as such.

* we can find examples of explicitly coerced personal experiences that generate largely inarticulable knowledge: a paradigm case would be Eisenhower’s decision at the end of the Second World War to force Germans to watch films of the concentration camps by making it a condition of getting stamps to obtain food.

* Most of our explicit knowledge comes from others. We judge what we are told by a combination of two variables: our assessment of their trustworthiness (and motives) and our assessment of their competence to speak and their access to the subject.

* The mechanisms of power in science are familiar: they include exclusion, article rejection, failure to endorse, to fund, to employ, to allocate scarce resources to, failure to attend to, and so forth. There are also many rewards for cognitive conformity and conforming to standards of achievement. All of these are forms of censorship, in the sense that they are, like overt censorship, means of controlling and manipulating the cognitive environment.

* Changing minds is difficult. Silencing and excluding is not. The easiest point of coercive entry into the epistemic environment is at the moment of transmission. Preventing publication, delegitimating the sources, threatening the speakers, are all common means of exercising this kind of coercion. They were lavishly employed during the Covid pandemic.

Posted in Stephen Turner | Comments Off on Epistemic Coercion

Variations in Moral Concerns across Political Ideology: Moral Foundations, Hidden Tribes, and Righteous Division

From The Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology (2022):

* Traditional Conservatives (19 per cent). This group is patriotic, religious, moralistic, and tends to lament what it perceives as the gradual erosion of a bygone and glorified American way of life. They tend to believe that America is a fair society, and that people’s success is the result of hard work and effort rather than luck and circumstance. They strongly approve of Donald Trump’s job performance, and tend to agree in traditional notions of American identity, such as having two American parents, speaking English, and being Christian. They tend to get their news from Fox News and from talk radio, and are suspicious of traditional media, believing that it is biased in favour of liberal causes and tends to be anti – religious. Traditional Conservatives’ more important concerns are foreign tensions, jobs, and terrorism.
Devoted Conservatives (6 per cent). This group is highly active, highly engaged, uncompromising, and nationalistic in its views. Members of this group have a higher income than any other group, and feel significantly happier and more secure than the average American. They are staunchly supportive of Donald Trump and his ‘America First’ policies, including a ban on travel from Muslim – majority countries and a wall on the US — Mexico border. They tend to oppose compromise, and are the most likely to believe there is a need to ‘defeat the evil’ within our country. They feel the most pride in the American flag, and are deeply loyal to the ideals for which it stands. Their most important issues are immigration, terrorism, jobs, and the economy.
Overall, the results revealed a number of interesting insights regarding the psychological roots of political polarization in the United States:
Tribal membership predicts political views better than self – identified political labels…. For example, support for building a wall on the US – Mexico border was predicted better by tribal membership than by self – identified ideology (as measured by the question asking people to indicate their political on a scale ranging from ‘very liberal’ to ‘very conservative’). The same was true for overall approval of Donald Trump, and beliefs that racism and sexual harassment remain serious problems in the United States. In addition, when predicting concern for each of the moral foundations, tribal membership does a significantly better job at predicting four out of the five moral foundations (purity, authority, loyalty, and fairness) than self – identified ideology. (The one exception is harm, in which there is no significant difference between the models.) Overall, this helps confirm the notion that tribal membership (obtained directly from measurements of core beliefs) is a powerful predictor of explicit political attitudes. Moreover, it helps explain the seemingly unlikely election of Donald Trump by revealing the ‘hidden tribes’ in America that would be most susceptible to his message of threat and his expressed desire to return to the putative ‘golden years’ of American greatness.

* endorsement of the care foundation is most closely correlated with the view that hate speech is a real problem in America and that sexism is pervasive. Endorsement of fairness is associated with the views, for instance, that women are paid less solely because of their gender and that the world is a dangerous place. Endorsement of the loyalty foundation is associated with pride in seeing the American flag and feeling as though being American is central to one’s identity. The authority foundation is associated with support for the Muslim travel ban and the view that the police should be more protected than Black Lives Matter activists. Endorsement of the purity foundation is associated with opposition to gay marriage and the view that changing attitudes towards sex are causing American to lose its moral foundation. Overall, these results show a strong and intuitive relationship between people’s endorsements of various moral foundations and their professed views regarding a variety of current political issues. More broadly, the results show that moral foundations have important power in predicting not just people’s underlying ideology but also their political opinions.

* perceived threat subsequently correlated with such attitudes as support for the Muslim ban, and support for the US – Mexico border wall. Another important predictor of political attitudes was parenting style. Devoted Conservatives were a full three times more likely to endorse authoritative as opposed to permissive parenting values (for instance, preferring preferring ‘good manners’ to ‘curiosity’, and ‘respect for elders’ to ‘independence’) In turn, endorsement of authoritative parenting principles positively predicted a slew of political opinions, including opposition to gay marriage, being ‘pro – life’ in the abortion debate, and believing that people’s gender is fixed at birth.
A final important difference between the tribes was in views about personal responsibility. Corroborating the observations of past research, 86 per cent of Progressive Activists believed that people’s lives are determined by forces outside their control, while 98 per cent of Devoted Conservatives believe that people are largely responsible for their own outcomes in life. These viewpoints are subsequently correlated with a variety of policy decisions. For example, those who endorse the former perspective (vs those endorsing the second) are more than twice as likely to support expanding the government safety net, 25 per cent more likely to say that refugees are America’s moral responsibility, and 35 per cent more likely to believe that women are discriminated against in the workplace.

Conservatives tend to believe that it is only through disciplined and effortful adherence to a certain set of pre – established obligations — including one’s family, one’s country, one’s religion, and existing laws and traditions — that the individual may become a good and moral person. To the liberals, by contrast, true personal success is achieved not by taming the inner spirit, but by cultivating and freeing it. Progress, therefore, is achieved by releasing people from pre – existing moral obligations, and instead allowing them to pursue their own authentic path of self – expression.

Posted in America, Ethics | Comments Off on Variations in Moral Concerns across Political Ideology: Moral Foundations, Hidden Tribes, and Righteous Division

Humor & Morality

From The Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology (2022):

* when one is engaged humorously one adopts a certain static ‘state of mind, a way of seeing and being, a special mental ‘set’ towards the world and one’s actions in it’ that calls for nothing. …a paratelic state precisely to distinguish it from the telic states that underwrite more serious, goal – directed forms of activity. … in laughter we often lose control of our normal abilities to act voluntarily in goal – directed ways. In laughter, muscle tone decreases and, in extreme cases, it is accompanied by the non – voluntary production of tears, and even by incontinence…

* developed comic sensibilities are, like developed moral and linguistic sensibilities, highly culturally situated.

* Richard Wiseman’s ‘Laugh Lab’ 4 reports that people from Ireland, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand prefer jokes implicating word – play, such as:
patient : ‘Doctor, I’ve got a strawberry stuck up my bum.’
doctor : ‘I’ve got some cream for that.

Americans and Canadians, in contrast, prefer jokes that seem to turn on a sense of superiority, for instance:

texan : ‘Where are you from?’
harvard grad : ‘I come from a place where we do not end our sentences with prepositions.’
texan : ‘Okay — where are you from, jackass?’

Wiseman’s data also suggests that Europeans display a preference for ‘surreal’ jokes, and for jokes about subject matter that makes many Americans uncomfortable — jokes about death, and marriage, for example. And Germans, apparently, don’t display preferences for particular kinds of jokes, but like them all equally.

* people who dislike complexity, novelty, or symmetry display a relative preference for incongruity – resolution humour: those possessed of strong preferences for incongruity – resolution relative to nonsense forms of humour also tend to prefer simple art forms, and simple patterns of dots on a card, relative to ‘fantastic’ art forms and more complex dot patterns…

* Affiliative forms of humour tend to be more popular in collectivist cultures, which emphasize the interdependence among the members of social groups, while aggressive forms of humour are more highly appreciated in societies where the needs of individuals take precedence over the needs of the group or community…

* Laughing together often is consistently cited by successful couples as something that promotes the strength of their relationships…

* In an early but well – known evolutionary theory of humour, Gruner hypothesized that laughter originated in the ‘sexy’ vocalizations that signalled victory in aggressive conflicts among our male ancestors ( Gruner 1978 ; cf. Eibl – Eibesfeldt 1973 ). Laughter, Gruner reasoned, still functions as a dominance signal that’s been updated to reflect the ways that more complex linguistic capabilities have made it possible to ‘defeat’ others in conversation.

* There is some evidence supporting a sexual selection model of humour. Women tend to laugh more than men do, and to seek out men who make them laugh; men tend to tell more jokes, and to seek out women who will laugh at their jokes ( Provine 2000 ; Lundy, Tan, and Cunningham 1998 ). Greengross and Miller (2011) found that intelligence predicts humour ability, that humour ability predicts mating success, and that males, relative to females, have more humour ability.

* comedians tend to be more suspicious than average, more intelligent, angrier, and more depressed. The early lives of the professional comedians interviewed were, moreover, typically characterized by intense feelings of isolation and deprivation. Subsequent research also suggests that many of the same familial conditions that predispose to the development of gelotophobia characterize the early lives of professional humourists: in general, comedians tend to describe their mothers very negatively, and in fact it appears that the mothers of children that go on to become professional humourists are selfish, controlling, less kind, and less likely to be intimately involved in the lives of their children than the average… the comedic skills of professional humourists are developed as a tool to cope with uncongenial family environments — in particular, as a way dealing with feeling of anxiety and rejection, and of gaining the attention and approval of otherwise dismissive parents. Following Ruch and Proyer (2009), it has been suggested that those who professionally seek out the laughter of others might be called gelotophilic. Gelotophiles more generally seek out or cultivate situations in which they can elicit the laughter of others, which is experienced as a source of joy and validation.

* self – disparaging forms of humour can facilitate depressive etiologies, and professional humourists score unusually highly on measures of psychotic traits, even relative to other creative artists and performers…

* Comic sensibilities may, then, be developed in different ways as tools to cope. But it remains unclear whether having a good sense of humour provides a good strategy for coping across the board. Abilities to produce comic materials are associated with premature mortality, and that link — like that between comedy and tragedy — may have deep roots. In a seminal study of young children, it was found that high ratings of a child’s sense of humour, from both parents and teachers, predicted a greater likelihood of dying over seven decades ( Friedman et al. 1993 ). A much more recent study found an inverse relationship between comedic talent and longevity, in a cohort of professional male comedians from Britain and Ireland ( Stewart et al. 2016 ). And it’s not just that the lifestyles of professional humourists from the UK are riskier than the average; it looks as though their level of comedic talent also matters: the funnier the comedian, the more likely they were to die prematurely. In the case of comic duos, the funnier of the two comedians was three and a half times more likely to die prematurely, relative to their partner, even after adjusting for differences in age ( Stewart et al. 2016 ).

Posted in Humor | Comments Off on Humor & Morality

The rise of the “substackademic”

Chris Bickerton writes:

A successful academic entrepreneur must make themselves their primary focus. In an odd way, the academic entrepreneur is the realisation of Foucault’s call for a “cultivation of the self”. The constant curation of one’s status as a source of insights is the route to success…

To whom do academic entrepreneurs address themselves exactly? Instead of creating a new public through the elaboration of a distinctive body of thought, academic entrepreneurs more often than not address each other and a small quasi-public drawn from a narrow social elite, such as those who will pay for the insights the academic entrepreneur provides. The “substackademic” will struggle to go beyond a relatively closed conversation with like-minded individuals, one where the conversation itself is driven by the search for Likes and Up-votes.

The final and perhaps greatest danger is that by breaking free from the academy, the academic entrepreneur is exposed to all the vagaries of corporate and political power. Political and social elites are the core audience for the academic entrepreneur, making them dependent upon their interest and goodwill. Speaking truth to power when one is entirely dependent upon its munificence is a perilous enterprise.

…research in the social sciences is dominated by lots of little dots; what is missing are the threads to bring these dots together. Many of today’s thinkers are not from within the academy at all. They are professional writers, or occasionally journalists who have risen above the cut and thrust of chasing news to devote themselves to writing.

News and intellectual labor rarely pay for themselves.

Posted in College | Comments Off on The rise of the “substackademic”