"The new public health despotism/Draconian rules are suppressing our humanity" by Matthew B. Crawford. There's much more at the link, but let me give you a little more below the fold:
The Nineties saw the rise of new currents in the social sciences that emphasised the cognitive incompetence of human beings. The “rational actor” model of human behaviour (a simplistic premise that had underwritten the party of the market for the previous half century) was deposed by the more psychologically informed school of behavioural economics, which teaches that our actions are largely guided by pre-reflective cognitive biases and heuristics...
The developments in psychology that gave rise to behavioural economics provided a necessary revision to our understanding of the human person, in the direction of realism....
In their book Nudge, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein point out that individual choices... are often sculpted by a “choice architecture” that may be more or less deliberate in its design, but generally operates beneath the threshold of awareness.... Why not exploit the power of choice architecture for the public good...?... It is a non-coercive way to improve people’s behaviour without having to persuade them of anything....
One example that Thaler and Sunstein call attention to, in their advice to administrators, is the “emerging norm” bias... [I]f you tell people that some new norm is emerging, they are more likely to identify with it.... The hygiene state propagandises a “new normal” of social distancing and face covering. Here is an outlandish medical morality of social atomisation, presented as something inevitable....
The political theorists of my generation did this under a rubric they called “deliberative democracy.”... [I]f you could just establish the right framing conditions for deliberation, the demos would arrive at acceptably liberal positions....
As it turns out, the best way to secure the discursive conditions for “deliberative democracy”, and install a proper choice architecture that will nudge the demos in the right direction, is to curate information.... Of all the platform firms, Google is singular.... Hundreds of people switched jobs back and forth [between Google and the Obama White House]... an unprecedented alignment of corporate power and the executive branch....
[E]arly in the pandemic we were told masks don’t work, because the priority was to preserve a scarce supply of masks for health workers. More recently, the relative risks of the virus versus the vaccine for different demographics has been dismissed as irrelevant, for the sake of combatting vaccine hesitancy. But such deceptions, however well-intended, can succeed only if you have control over the flow of information. So once you go down this road of departing from the truth, you’re committed to censorship and rigorous narrative enforcement, which is very difficult to do in the Internet era....
38 comments:
The preference cascade has started.
There are a lot of companies that are moving to Texas and Florida that told the Biden Regime to eat shit and die. These companies stood up for their employees against leviathan.
I am going to be applying for jobs at those companies.
All the other companies will be populated by kneelers.
Which companies do you think will be more successful?
And: "Populism happened because it became widely noticed that we have transitioned from a liberal society to something that more closely resembles a corrupt theocracy."
There may be quibbles, but on the whole he's put his finger on it.
As people like our Chuck keep pointing out...
IF, we All would just Mindlessly Accept, the fact that The State is our MASTER...
We could Finally beat Covid!
If Just 100% of americans, would:
Vaccinate
Mask
Distance
SUBMIT!
All the problems of the world, would be over
LONG LIVE BIG BROTHER!!
The quote is from Crawford's "The new public health despotism: Draconian rules are suppressing our humanity."
A little wordy and in need of an edit, if you ask me.
Much better written was the linked, "How race politics liberated the elites: If society is taken to be inherently oppressive, the notion of a common good disappears."
If you convince yourself your fellow citizens are irredeemable racists, you relieve yourself of your duty to compromise with them through traditional politics. Put differently, you can negotiate class interests but you can’t negotiate with evil.
I read the beginning of the article and could not get past the following:
1) The Mueller investigation was started because of lies created and deliberately spread by the Clinton campaign. The "Russia collusion" non-boringness is solely Clinton's fault. This is not mentioned by Lithwick at all.
2) Lithwick's text "It's not that Robert Mueller failed us" goes to an article with the headline, "Robert Mueller failed to do his duty." This article rehashes the Clinton campaign's lies as facts that everyone knew; it was also written by Biden's current chief of staff.
3) The "delight" wasn't ironic at the time. It was a gleeful anticipation of Trump being taken down.
4) Mueller's results were boring, so we had to move on to the next scandal-the phone call that lead to Trump's impeachment.
One of today's big controversies that Garland is parental participation at school boards. This a politicization of the DOJ; nothing boring about that.
The American people want boring; leftists won't allow it.
Ann, you seemed to have inadvertently linked to a different article by Matthew Crawford - I believe you intended to link to this one: https://unherd.com/2021/10/the-new-covid-despotism/.
It is pride that makes men difficult to govern.
It is despotic hubris that makes some men seek to "govern" others.
It is fortitude and an appreciation that the true end of government is not to rule over people, but to secure their natural rights and liberty, that makes men resistant to the control of others who would impose power over them.
Well...both of Matthew Crawford's articles that you quote/link to are outstanding and seem to cover our current state of society. Which is to say, none of what we're seeing now just occurred by happenstance. It did not just form itself. It has been carefully nurtured, developed, and curated for public consumption. What the Wuhan virus did was to seal the deal and allow the already separated from national interest elites, to progress with their plans uninhibited. The combination of the Wuhan virus and the complete power of social and corporate media to control the flow of information has led us to this point.
And to Mr. Crawford's point: once you've committed to censorship, how do you draw it back?
China does not have to invade us. We are becoming them, willingly. Possibly even more dangerous than them.
You link to the wrong article, but that article is worth reading too. Of course, no need to publish this comment.
The language is typical Psychology bullshit. Alan Sokol could translate it. I just give up. These people have lost what common sense they were born with. Maybe their parents were at fault.
My son is trying to get custody of his two daughters from his ex-wife who is a Psychology professor. She is a nut. Their private school called Child Protective Services because the girls looked neglected.
‘What we got, in the end, without anyone really intending it, may fairly be called a propaganda state that seeks to manipulate without persuading...." ‘
Meh… what we got in the end was what we got in our ends: propaganda, with a not so gentle shove. As was always intended.
[E]arly in the pandemic we were told masks don’t work, because the priority was to preserve a scarce supply of masks for health workers.
We were told masks didn't work. Maybe the need to save them for health workers was mentioned, but my understanding is that we were told that we didn't need masks because masks didn't work very well and the story about the scarcity and need to reserve them for health care workers came later when mask-wearing was mandated and was intended to hide the policy zigzag.
Matthew B. Crawford is the author of Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry Into the Value of Work. He sounds more aware of what's going on than George Will, author of Statecraft as Soulcraft.
"Soulcraft" was the philosophy of William Dudley Pelley, who became the leader of an American fascist movement. Maybe the word is ripe for cancellation.
As it turns out, the best way to secure the discursive conditions for “deliberative democracy”...is to curate information.
And part of that curation is suppression of dissent. Only one voice may speak, the Voice of Authority.
Now they postponed releasing the Kennedy assassination papers because.....you guessed it...Covid. Why Covid is the reason they are using is beyond me, but at this point, what difference does ANYTHING make?? They will continue to lie to us, and withhold information from us because they think they are our rulers...not public servants like they CLAIM to be.
The patronizing paternalism of the whole thing is what is infuriating. I'm at the point where I will reflexively oppose whatever it is "they" want until I can obtain enough information to make my own decision about it. And if they censor, withhold, obfuscate that information then I won't change my mind away from stubborn opposition.
The boot on my face grinds on, forever. My opinions of the boot or the one wearing it or the action of grinding my face matters not at all, forever. That is what they would have me believe. I suggest they stop before I am annoyed enough to make them.
So once you go down this road of departing from the truth, you’re committed to censorship and rigorous narrative enforcement, which is very difficult to do in the Internet era....
It’s not just difficult, but impossible, and poisons the well for the future. The respect and deference normally given to the CDC, NIH, USPHS, and FDA has been largely squandered in the corner of the health care industry in which I work, and that goes triple if Democratic politicians and their news media parrots take up the cry.
FYI - Your link goes to the wrong article. I believe your post is about The New Covid Despotism by the same author.
https://unherd.com/2021/10/the-new-covid-despotism/
Ms. Althouse, you linked is to a much older essay by Crawford. Here is the right link
CNN has now apparently gone a month without breaking a million nighttime viewers a night per show. Why? One big reason is that they are lying hypocritical POSes, willing* to say or do anything in furtherance of the Aden party narrative. Remember Fredo Cuomo’s fake quarantine? Or him slobbering over interviews with his brother? Etc.
The Biden Administration, including the Senile One himself, has regularly lied to the American public, in big matters and small. There is a new American pastime - analyzing what they say and exposing the lies. New/old joke:
Q: How can you tell that Biden/Harris/Psaki/Pelosi/etc is lying?
A: Because their lips are moving!
It’s not good. They routinely lie about the pandemic and fighting it, ivermectin, the “vaccines”, about Afghanistan, China, domestic “terrorism”, 1/6, school boards, AntiFA, the FBI, IRS, etc. Fewer and fewer, esp outside their Dem party stalwarts (and our local LLR) believe anything they say. Maybe there might possibly be some benefit from being vaccinated with their novel gene therapy, but we will likely never know, because they have lied so constantly and consistently about about COVID-19, that no rational person trusts them anymore. We are rapidly devolving into a society of sheeple who believe anything, no matter how far fetched, that they say, and everyone else. But since the Dems keep amping up their propaganda and lies, as they become ever more egregious,nags fewer and fewer believe them, their supporters become ever more desperate and deranged.
Related to this topic, and an optimistic take on where we actually are right now.
Lots of good stuff. Liberals never want to look back at Hobbes and say he was a liberal. He wants people to give up civil war and submit to the state for the sake of peace. But he urges us to re-discover fear for ourselves, for our own lives. We have every right to overthrow a government as soon as our personal lives are threatened--of course, it may be too late. Locke may add to Hobbes that we have a right to revolt when our neighbours are under attack, before we are under attack ourselves. We have a right to be vigilant, to watch without acting, even to take precautions. (I debate with my friends about Hobbes vs. Locke on gun control). The only purpose of government is to protect the lives of subjects/citizens, and the only moral basis of government is the consent of these people. It is an elaboration of liberal doctrine, not something entirely different, to say we want some kind of checks on actual people in government, and elections may be a check. We still want a strong government, to keep down the ambitions of "random" people, and allow us to spend time on peaceful pursuits more or less related to the body, rather than wasting time on religious disputes and the soul. If Hobbes could see today's governments, he might say it is almost a miracle that candidates who are defeated in an election accept this peacefully. Hah hah.
So: the rational individual is a matter of naive faith, the understanding that people want to join mobs of opinion is realistic. True but not new: Plato's cave of ignorance. Hobbes and Locke were realistically trying to provide some firepower opposed to mobs of opinion: the firepower of thinking rationally about oneself, one's life and (Locke adds) one's property. Hobbes says fear is a better teacher than hope; fear might save us from fads or movements that would endanger us. On the other hand, the Swamp, government and private sector combined, can use technology to excite the fears that serve their purposes.
I did not realize there was a close association between the Obama administration and Google. Chilling. It’s the Obama alumni who are running things now for Biden.
link is not to the source of the text you quoted
“So once you go down this road of departing from the truth, you’re committed to censorship and rigorous narrative enforcement”
Feature or bug?
In their book Nudge, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein point out that individual choices... are often sculpted by a “choice architecture” that may be more or less deliberate in its design
Except the "studies" underlying those claims have uniformly turned out to be crap.
The "replication crisis" started with people trying to replicate those studies, and failing
Four years of chants of fuck Trump, and now they are worried about vulgarities?
"It is pride that makes men difficult to govern."
Pride. Short way of saying "innate desire for individual Freedom."
----------
"What we got, in the end, without anyone really intending it, may fairly be called a propaganda state that seeks to manipulate without persuading...."
Not finding propagandizing, manipulating, nor persuading amongst the powers granted to the State in the Constitution.
But seriously. The State - with power to deprive citizens of Property, Liberty, and Life - is free to Manipulate without recourse to propaganda or persuasion.
Pride. Short way of saying "innate desire for individual Freedom."
No. Pride is a short way of saying "pride."
"Ann, you seemed to have inadvertently linked to a different article by Matthew Crawford - I believe you intended to link to this one: https://unherd.com/2021/10/the-new-covid-despotism/."
Oops. Sorry. That's from too much clicking about while copying and pasting. What an egregious error!
Fixed
Thanks to all who pointed out my error.
Pride is the deadliest of all deadly sins.
Historically people have been willing to trade quite a bit of freedom for security. Nor is it difficult to find examples where public health restrictions and reactions were far more severe than now.
The difference is, the tradeoff is not there: we get an authoritative public-health establishment in-the-face bullying daily, yet few see any evidence this establishment has delivered the expected quid-pro-quo of reduced risk.
Why, then, is anyone surprised that much of the public is increasingly unwilling to trade any freedom for security, when this public-health establishment has shown it is unable to deliver the expected quid-pro-quo of substantially increased security?
As for public officials lying “for your own good,” Fauci has already all but admitted to doing this yet seems unwilling to accept the obvious price: yes, the public did (somewhat) do what he wanted, but now no one believes him. And now he (and his fellow-travelers and supporters) expect the public to believe them? Why would it? Surely a rational person would understand that getting caught lying to achieve short-term goals can only come with the cost of sacrificing long-term credibility?
So, in the end-state stalemate the public pretends to believe what the public health establishment says (and in any case is unable to publicly disagree due to the stifling restrictions on speech in most public forums), and the public-health establishment then pretends to believe the public still trusts it (although even they must know it does not).
Let this inaugurate the Era of Ostentatious Noncompliance. I hope and with admittedly motivated reasoning think the nudgers have moved too fast, too soon and are very vulnerable to a preference cascade. In any event they can’t win, only lose, but in the process we are all losing so much so fast. Unlike Achilles, I’m not confident we’re seeing a preference cascade yet, but let a thousand ostentatious noncompliance blossoms bloom.
In the list of the seven deadly, Pride leads the procession.
From the post:
"One example that Thaler and Sunstein call attention to, in their advice to administrators, is the “emerging norm” bias... [I]f you tell people that some new norm is emerging, they are more likely to identify with it.... The hygiene state propagandises a “new normal” of social distancing and face covering. Here is an outlandish medical morality of social atomisation, presented as something inevitable....
The political theorists of my generation did this under a rubric they called “deliberative democracy.”... [I]f you could just establish the right framing conditions for deliberation, the demos would arrive at acceptably liberal positions...."
Brave New Abnormal.
"As it turns out, the best way to secure the discursive conditions for “deliberative democracy”, and install a proper choice architecture that will nudge the demos in the right direction, is to curate information.... Of all the platform firms, Google is singular.... Hundreds of people switched jobs back and forth [between Google and the Obama White House]... an unprecedented alignment of corporate power and the executive branch...."
Isn't that what the Progressive movement claimed to be against?
"[E]arly in the pandemic we were told masks don’t work, because the priority was to preserve a scarce supply of masks for health workers."
The same rationale - scarcity of supply - was used to prohibit the use of HCQ as a therapeutic by some governors in their states, along with the excuse that it's effectiveness was "unproven."
"More recently, the relative risks of the virus versus the vaccine for different demographics has been dismissed as irrelevant, for the sake of combatting vaccine hesitancy. But such deceptions, however well-intended, can succeed only if you have control over the flow of information. So once you go down this road of departing from the truth, you’re committed to censorship and rigorous narrative enforcement, which is very difficult to do in the Internet era...."
They can't be serious.
Caligula said...
The difference is, the tradeoff is not there: we get an authoritative public-health establishment in-the-face bullying daily, yet few see any evidence this establishment has delivered the expected quid-pro-quo of reduced risk.
Why, then, is anyone surprised that much of the public is increasingly unwilling to trade any freedom for security, when this public-health establishment has shown it is unable to deliver the expected quid-pro-quo of substantially increased security?
Ding ding ding
The TSA gets away with their security theater because normal pre-9/11 security in fact did the job (other than the idiotic thought that you shouldn't resist the hijackers). So people look at airplane security and decide "it must be working"
The problem for the health security theater people is that:
1: There's not one national standard, so people can compare and contrast
2: The garbage they come up with does not in fact make things better, and people are seeing that
It would be like going through all the 'take off your shoes" BS, and still having show bombs go off every week. That's what happens when 'everyone must have the 'vaccine'", but people with it are still getting Covid, and dying of Covid.
The "fix" creaky doesn't work
Post a Comment