Both Sides of the Polyhedron

Am I alone in detesting the tendency of Americans to accept or even applaud either/or thinking?

Black and white thinking is one of the most common informal fallacies, and it’s also a hallmark of the typical America mind. I’m old enough to remember “America: Love It or Leave It” bumperstickers. Perhaps it’s our two party system, perhaps it’s some pervasive character flaw. Whatever its source, the American tendency to reduce the continuum of opinion on arguable issues to either/or terms exasperates me.

Are you liberal or conservative? Democrat or Republican? “Denier” or “Advocate”?

Beware of people who, if asked one of those questions, instantly chirp an answer, happily slapping on themselves a reductionist label.

I’m lucky enough to have a friend who when asked if he was liberal or conservative, thought for a moment and answered, “On what issue?” We need more like him. Unfortunately, he’s rare.

From what I can see most Americans are happy with the reductionist black and white thinking that’s so typical of the immature mind. Most educators know that either/or thinking is typical in teenagers. It’s something we grow out of—or should grow out of—as we grow older and see more of the world.

A solid education can do wonders to speed the process. Even a cursory study of critical thinking soon reveals that issues are rarely simple and almost never black and white. Instead of focusing on literacy, I wish the education community would address our dire need for improved critical thinking. For example, most of the followers of Socrates could not read, but he taught them to think, to view the world through the lens of reason and logic. Hence, they were illiterate, yet educated. Now we are aiding and abetting generations who read, write, and blog, but show their lack of education by falling into the simplest logical traps. In fact, the Internet is one of the worst offenders in perpetuating wild oversimplification and raw, often vile, emotion.

Even worse, while too many blogs indulge the author’s I-Am-Right/You-Are-Wrong attitude, most elements of the monetary-driven mainstream media muddy instead of clarifying issues by giving coverage to “the other side,” even when those on “the other side” are driven solely by faith, emotion, or ulterior motives. This bland, uncritical presentation of He-Is-Right/She-Is-Right masquerades as “balance,” but usually it is not. Too often it lacks the quantification or context that would help a watcher to evaluate the authority of the “sides.” This scares me even more than the vitriol found in partisan blogs. Most blogs attract only a few already convinced readers so their impact isn’t great. On the other hand, when major news media render complex issues in terms of presenting “both sides,” the country is in trouble. And I won’t even mention “news” sources that broadcast “infoganda.”

Important issues generally require detailed, nuanced, and often qualified answers. Developing that type of answer takes TIME–for thought, for research, for reflection. Unfortunately, Americans usually find instant answers more appealing. Too often we accept or reject without thinking, without reasoning, without questioning. Name-calling and propaganda are, alas, the hallmarks of contemporary American life.

Anti-intellectualism has been a hallmark of America since before we were a country, but the tone today is the worst I can remember. Instead of recognizing that most significant issues are, at minimum, dodecahedrons of arguable or testable viewpoints to investigate, explore, analyze, and debate, too many in America just want to cheer a coin flip.

Here’s one of the links that inspired this post: “Featuring Skeptics in News Media Stories Reduces Public Beliefs in the Seriousness of Global Warming”

And, for the record, yes, for a number of reasons I can explain at length, I think it’s almost certain that anthropogenic climate change is already negatively affecting human life. And I can also explain why I think cap-and-trade is a bad idea. So there.

Cassandra

From Wealth of Nations

I’m working my way backward through my Modern Library edition of Wealth of Nations. These are a few of my favorite lines from Book V, Chapter III, On Public Debts.

ON HUMAN NATURE

There is not, perhaps, any selfish pleasure so frivolous, of which the pursuit has not sometimes ruined even sensible men. (981)

[B]ounty and hospitality very seldom lead to extravagance; though vanity almost always does. (983)

ON JUSTICE IN GOVERNMENT

Commerce and manufactures, in short, can seldom flourish in any state in which there is not a certain degree of confidence in the justice of government. (985)

ON PUBLIC DEBT

In the payment of the interest of the public debt, it has been said, it is the right hand which pays the left. The money does not go out of the country. It is only a part of the revenue of one set of the inhabitants which is transferred to another; and the nation it not a farthing the poorer. This apology is founded altogether in the sophistry of the mercantile system, and after the long examination which I have already bestowed upon that system, it may perhaps be unnecessary to say any thing further about it. It supposes, besides, that the whole public debt is owing to the inhabitants of the country, which happens not to be true; the Dutch, as well as several other foreign nations, having a very considerable share in our public funds. But though the whole debt were owing to the inhabitants of the country, it would not upon that account be less pernicious. (1005)

ON TAXATION

But it ought to be remembered, that when the wisest government has exhausted all the proper subjects of taxation, it must, in cases of urgent necessity, have recourse to improper ones. (1007)

ON SOVEREIGN DEFAULT

When national debts have once been accumulated to a certain degree, there is scarce, I believe, a single instance of there having been fairly and completely paid. The liberation of the public revenue, if it has ever been brought about at all, has always been brought about by a bankruptcy, sometimes by an avowed one, but always by a real one, though frequently by a pretended payment. (1008)

More quotations and perhaps even amateur commentary later.

For now, I recommend Gavin Kennedy’s site: Adam Smith’s Lost Legacy

Cassandra

Masters of Arrogance

Americans tend to think we’ve got a hammerlock on everything–especially smarts and the market. Unfortunately, this isn’t true. In fact, sometimes our naive trust that we are the Masters of the Free Market actually reveals a stunning ignorance and lack of foresight.

Don’t believe me? Read this article from Newsweek:

“Defending against Drones: How Our New Favorite Weapon in the War on Terror Could Soon Be Turned against Us.”

Anyone reading the title should guess the gist of the article.

When something like this turns up in Newsweek, a mainstream, toe-in-the-water, general audience publication that requires perhaps a 10th grade reading level, it’s a safe bet that specialists and researchers have been aware of the problem for a long time.

In this case, the article mentions a study done by the U.S. Air Force that

concluded that similar systems are “an ideal platform” for dirty bombs containing radioactive, chemical, or biological weapons—the type of WMDs that terrorists are most likely to obtain.

Well, duh. This is NOT news, folks.

We’ve been assuming we were the Masters of the Universe for too long. Our hubris had to turn against us. Anyone who thinks our enemies are ignorant bumpkins who couldn’t possibly figure out how to design, build, and use high-tech weapons against us, needs to wake up. The US no longer has a hammerlock on robotics technology or science or much of anything. We’ve outsourced pretty much everything, including our good sense.

Don’t believe me? Read this from the same Newsweek article:

Already a growing number of American defense and technology firms rely on hardware from China and software from India, a clear security concern.

Outsourcing worried me even before the Black Beret incident of 2001. Anyone else remember that one?

You can buy the full military report from Storming Media, a reseller of Pentagon Reports. Or you can read about it here:
“Army Black-Beret Brouhaha Still Simmers”

If you don’t want to bother, here’s the short version: The Pentagon decided to outfit the whole US Army with black berets, and they contracted with China to manufacture them.

Those who set up the contract apparently saw their decision as the way of the free market. The Chinese-made black berets were, like, uh, cheaper. And they, like, uh, looked cool, so why not give them to everyone? Good marketing strategy for recruiters.

Those who had earned their black berets, American made ones at that, were not happy. When the bit about China came out, lots more people were unhappy. The beret contract was eventually pulled, but BUY AMERICAN is not the main point here.

The grim point from the abstract for the 2006 Pentagon report “Black Berets and the Berry Amendment: Politics, Parochialism, and the Press” remains and has become even more significant today:

[I]t shows how this one seminal event caused doubt about the Defense Logistic Agency’s ability to deliver goods in time of war.

Don’t worry about the foreign and homegrown terrorists who may well be building a drone in a garage in Indiana. Think nice thoughts about countries like China and India: the safety of our country may well depend upon their willingness to arm us.

Sleep well.

Cassandra