Here’s a conjecture: the rise of “post-truth” politics (defined by the OED as a process whereby “objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than emotional appeals”) is in part the product of deindustrialization.
What I mean is that in manufacturing, facts defeat emotions and opinions. If your steel cracks, or your bottles leak or your cars won’t start, all your hopes and fancy beliefs are wrong. Truth trumps opinion.
Contrast this with sales occupations. In these, opinion beats facts. If customers think a shit sandwich is great food, it’ll sell regardless of facts. And conversely, good products won’t sell if customers think they’re rubbish. Opinion trumps truth.
(Finance is a mix of these. In trading and asset management, beliefs are constantly defeated by cold hard facts. In asset gathering, sales and investor relations, however, bullshit works.)
Isn’t it therefore possible that a shift from manufacturing to other occupations will contribute to a decline in respect for facts and greater respect for opinions, however ill-founded? In 1966 – when employment in UK manufacturing peaked – 29.2% of the workforce were in manufacturing. This meant that millions more heard tales from fathers, husbands and friends about how brute facts had fouled up their day. A culture of respect for facts was thus inculcated. Today, however, only 7.8% of the workforce is in manufacturing and many more are in bullshit jobs. This is an environment less conducive to a deference to facts.
How people live shapes how they think. A world in which many people work in manufacturing might, therefore, have different beliefs to one in which they don’t....Communications technology also has a large part to play? "The medium is the message," as Marshall McLuhan famously said.
Increased leisure made possible by technological advances was used chiefly to watch "the telly." Was that a factor in the great dumbing-down, especially when news became infotainment under the influence of Rupert Murdoch's highly successful business model based on tabloid "journalism?
Stumbling and Mumbling
Economic roots of post-truth politics
Chris Dillow | Investors Chronicle
29 comments:
Interesting theory. There is no doubt that occupations play a role in culture.
Farmers used to be very community minded. They had to be, because they depended on their neighbors to help them at harvest time, to build their barn, round up their cattle, etc.. Now machines have replaced neighbors, and farmers are mostly self-reliant. Farm politics used to lean left, but now they are conservative since farmers have become more self-reliant (and mostly rich).
Ranching culture has always been aristocratic and macho, and their politics conservative.
Engineering has its own culture, mostly focused on logical problem solving and concern for public safety.
Hobbies play a role, too. If you have a bullshit job, you can find a creative outlet in a non-bullshit hobby. Hobbies and pets are what keep me sane and make life worth living.
"The medium is the message"
Not in STEM...
It is more than one my realize. Many STEM people disregard everything that is not expressed in math, which is a medium of expression.
Here an example of STEM bias.
When Rebecca Goldin spoke to a recent class of incoming freshmen at George Mason University, she relayed a disheartening statistic: According to a recent study, 36 percent of college students don’t significantly improve in critical thinking during their four-year tenure. “These students had trouble distinguishing fact from opinion, and cause from correlation,” Goldin explained.
She went on to offer some advice: “Take more math and science than is required. And take it seriously.” Why? Because “I can think of no better tool than quantitative thinking to process the information that is thrown at me.” Take, for example, the study she had cited. A first glance, it might seem to suggest that a third of college graduates are lazy or ignorant, or that higher education is a waste. But if you look closer, Goldin told her bright-eyed audience, you’ll find a different message: “Turns out, this third of students isn’t taking any science.”
Quanta Magazine
Why Math Is the Best Way to Make Sense of the World
Ariel Bleicher
The claim should read, "Why math is the best way to make sense of the world when all relevant input is quantifiable and quantification can be rigorously substantiated as being correct."
The physicists and chemists that I've been acquainted with tended to place a lot of faith in theory, while engineers demand to see data.
To a STEM, math is a language.
How to teach critical thinking is an interesting proposition. I will only observe that you can't teach something you don't know.
How to teach critical thinking is an interesting proposition.
Math is a tool in critical thinking along with logic. But neither formal logic or math are very broadly helpful regarding most issues, since most of life involves quality in addition to quantity, as well as values and norms, much of which cannot be reduced to quantity or be put in a conceptual box using set theory satisfactorily. Even where this may be possible, it is not practical to do so rigorously. We generally reserve rigor for cases that necessitate it. Part of critical thinking is assessing this need and weighing the tradeoffs.
When I was teaching critical thinking, it was de rigeur to use an intro to logic text likeCopi, which is now in its 12th edition — kind of like Samuelson in Econ 101 back in the day.
Formal methods are important mostly if one is going to major in philosophy or STEM, including life and social sciences, and business. Then different methods are advised depending on the field and specialization.
Very few people are going to use formal methods in thinking in life, or take the time to apply them in most cases even if they do. Transaction cost. It's only needed in big ticket items and then one can consult with a professional on it.
Understanding the logic of ordinary language is most helpful, and so it the study of informal fallacies and cognitive biases.
A large part of critical thinking is understanding the logic of justification and process of substantiation.
The method of philosophy is the method of inquiry broadly speaking. The basis of this in critical thinking.
Critical thinking is important only in approaching the communications of others. it is also an important and necessary ingredient in creative thinking. See Feynman's essay on cargo cult science, for instance. The purpose of critical thinking is to avoid being fooled and fooling oneself.
Math and science are important tools for creative and critical thinking but they are not exclusive and they are generally not the tools turned to most because they are overkill in most situations.
For example, on the battlefield, one doesn't work out Bayesain solutions in a firefight, but one does use Bayesian-like heuristics using implicit knowledge — what Michael Polanyi, Karl's brother, called tacit knowledge — applied to fast-changing observations. How does one learn to do this. Repeated realistic training exercises.
Engineers use heuristics all the time before they sit down to work out the details rigorously. This is based partly on "book learning" and partly on experience.
But the real challenge in teaching critical thinking is making it relevant and fun. Copi doesn't cut it on this level. The teacher has to be creative. However, the teaching materials tend to more engaging now, so that is a plus. On the other hand, that often involves dumbing down. Mixed bag.
One former employer had a PhD. in math to oversee their quality control program. For years each process engineer had been empowered to determine the statistical process control rules for his department, but then Mr. PhD. insisted that ally departments follow a certain 30 day moving average for process control limits, rather than basing the limits on long term averages. His theory said that was the best way to do it (there's actually several acceptable methods to calculate statistical control limits).
In reality, my machines' performance shifted due to normal maintenance cycles. After a semi-annual maintenance "tune-up," machine performance jumped up, then performance would slowly degrade until the next tune-up. To anyone who understood how the machine worked, those particular performance changes made perfect sense and were nothing to worry about.
But after Mr. PhD's rule was implemented, the machine could not pass quality control after a tune-up because the performance had shifted (improved) outside the 30-day moving limits. It did no good to point out that the shift was an improvement in performance, or that there was an assignable cause.
Mind you, I was not at all opposed to statistical process control (SPC). I was a fan of SPC before SPC was cool. What bugged me was the rigid, dogmatic thinking -- "there is only one way to do things and you must follow orders or else."
Shortly after that I was let go in a round of downsizing. :-)
You'd have a hard time convincing me that employers really want employees capable of critical thinking.
Stem is taught through active methodology repetitive problems while non stem disciplines are taught via rote under the threat of a failing grade Which is how dogma survives
Students who took my philosophy course who were used to rote education and testing with precise answers struggled with my instructions and requirements about writing papers that required investigating and reporting on issues with different sides from different perspectives. They complained that they could not relate to a procedure that did not pose objective questions requiring a precise answer as in math and science. Too bad for them. They had to learn to think and express themselves in writing that demonstrated the ability to handle the process of inquiry. STEM doesn't prepare students for that. It's about computational problems, word problems, proofs, and plugging values into formulas, as well as selecting the correct formulas to use in specific situations. I view that as being rote.
Tom, STEM is about 3 main things:
No. 1, material,
No. 2, material,
And, No. 3, material....
That stuff you taught was not about material... so rote can work,
Why do football players lift weights? And not just play football....
Think of baseball players hitting 1,000s of baseballs off tees and soft toss in the tunnels....
Boxers jump rope and work the bag....
STEM students get the REPS which then transfer into other abilities which you don't get in the non STEM...
So when the monetarists say that the QE is going to cause hyper inflation which they got via rote, then prices collapse instead of hyper inflation, they don't have the ability to see that effect was false... because t hey have never rigorously trained in doing problems which you either get right or wrong.... when you get it wrong you get no credit, you are rigorously trained to see that wrong answers are of no value....
No argument there, Matt. But that is only part of life and actually a rather small but very important part.
Most people will never be concerned with it and it's "most people" that elect representatives that select people. At the same time, a lot of STEM trained people do get appointed to key positions and screw things up royally. STEM training doesn't ensure competence. There are different kinds of smarts and they are appropriate for different situations.
Philosophy studies the whole. It is the soft side of systems thinking. But it is very difficult to formalize large scale systems that are non-ergodic and especially those that are emergent.
The policy people ("whiz kids") and Pentagon types tried to game strategy with formal approaches wrt Vietnam and they got their asses handed to them. They were highly competent at what they did, but they chose the wrong approach as history showed. More significantly, they got sucked into the same quagmire that the French did and for similar reasons.
I would have liked to have taken your class, Tom.
But regardless of what is taught in school, once on the job one has to do things the boss's way.
Getting back to the original topic of how our jobs affect our culture, well if you are working for an authoritarian boss in an hierarchical company culture, with no job security because you live in a "fire at will," "right-to-work" state, and you had to sign a non-compete agreement, and submit urine samples on demand, and your coworkers are competing with you instead of supporting you, hell yes that is going to affect you. You might rebel against it, but more likely you're going to internalize that workplace culture, especially if you aspire to "succeed" in the company.
STEM advocates don't understand the limits of their world view. STEM is what it is because it is based on deterministic laws that make prediction possible. Too many refuse to recognize (in the tradition of Thomas Malthus) that human affairs are not deterministic in the same manner and assume they can develop solutions to human ills based on methodologies and secondary assumptions identical to those used in the sciences.
Carter was a STEM grad. Reagan was an actor. Who understood people better?
Dan that workplace sounds straight out of Darwin...
If you believe Darwinism is true you shouldn't have a problem with it...
"Survival of the fittest!"
Here socialism is material oriented:
https://socialistworker.org/2011/10/28/why-was-marx-a-materialist
Material systems require STEM people to administer....
Non material issues require NON stem people....
Why put non stem people in material positions??
Yeah have one if those students at Mason take some stem and then get in a course with one of the Mercatus profs and write down "money printing does NOT cause inflation" and see what grade they get! LOL!
Some problems are mostly materials oriented. But most of the significant one's aren't. Ask product engineers and architects. It's not just building something that effectively and efficiently mets the design problem. The major is in product design is crating something that people want to purchase. The major issue in architecture is enhancing the appearance of the environment. While the material issues are important they are secondary to the overall purpose involved in design.
Another illustration in the orientation of the policy makers and military in war. Materials are of utmost important,and logistics and supply chains are crucial to victory in any sustained environment, especially abroad. The US excels at this, even though it has a far-flung empire and fights many wars simultaneously at great distance from the home country and even the forward bases.
A big reason that the US hasn't done well in its military endeavors since WWII is on account of this materials orientation that assumes more is better — more bombs, more troops, etc. is the preferred solution even in the face of failure.
When I got clued into Vietnam by studying it in depth 1964-1967, which was the beginning of the ramp up, I predicted failure because the US was making the same mistake as the French did about the important of materials against little brown people in pajamas.
The US was obsessed with body counts, for example, first because it was assumed that large losses would break the spirit of the enemy if not reduce their ability to fight effectively after significant losses, secondly because fighting against military superiority is a fool's errand that it was assumed the VC leadership would realize and give up, and thirdly, that heavy losses would affect the material resources of the USSR, which was resupplying the VC.
Predictably that did not happen owing to the experience of the French. This was all explained by Bernard B. Fall, an expert on Indochina, whose works I studied and who was killed when he stepped on a VC mine while embedded with US forces in 1967. In the end, the US could not sustain the war for "lack of will," which the right attributed to a backstabbing anti-war left.
The US knew about this, of course, but US strategists assumed the US military could overcome by amping up the amount of material and troops deployed and the amount of ordinance delivered, which became huge. The US lost tens of thousands and this tore the country apart at home.
The US is still relying on the materials approach in its strategy and the US military is still failing to achieve its objectives — to the degree that some speculate that the actual strategy is creating chaos. That, however, is a fall back strategy when victory cannot be secured. Then the next best thing is denying clear victory to the adversary.
Of course, this is not to denigrate the importance of materials/technology and a materials/technological approach but rather to show the limitations of this approach. It has its place but it is not a panacea, as too often assumed. It is also difficult to implement well in a highly political environment, in which ideology prevails on the opposing sides. Then the whole process gets skewed with biases and political maneuvering. Add to that lack of accountability and the results are obvious — boondoggling and repeated failures followed by rationalized excuses and deflected blame.
Precision strike has led to use of LESS ordinance Tom...
Look at our military response to September 11th attacks.... not many dead in response...
ROW should have had maybe 100M to 200M dead based on historic precedent ...
Look at our military response to September 11th attacks.... not many dead in response..
Wut? Iraq? Viet-ghanistan? Yemen?
Precision strike has led to use of LESS ordinance Tom...
Right, Matt. Now the materials approach to strategy no longer depends as much on volume of ordinance delivered or manpower committed, but rather emphasizing high-level technological superiority and weapons of the future like weaponizing space, which is a very bad idea as Russia and China are saying.
It will come to the same dismal end because it relies chiefly on materials thinking when the problem is more complicated and requires a more nuanced solution, as both XI and Putin and their colleagues realize and have been insisting to deaf US ears.
The Anglo-Americans are blinded by their training STEM and assumptions based on it. Defense secretary Ash Carter, a Phd in theoretical physics and "one of the smartest guys around," was a poster boy for it. The other Atlanticists are less so but so far are forced to play along with the Anglos. That is coming to an end as they see the obviously poor outcome for them.
The problem is that the US ruling elite is not interested in a mutually beneficial solution and assumes it can bully its way to achieving and maintaining global hegemony because American exceptionalism, which is akin to superstitious religious faith — "doing God's work."
ROW should have had maybe 100M to 200M dead based on historic precedent ...
And that would have solved what?
Well you could design a very small undetectable drone that could fly in and find the key people and have barbed claws that would latch on to the scalp and either a shape charge explosion towards the skull or inject a toxin right into the head/brain.... only kill the ringleader(s)...
By any historic precedent, ROW got off lightly and continues to get off lightly in terms of death in response to 9/11/01... this is due to massive advances in surveillance tech and precision strike...
Well you could design a very small undetectable drone that could fly in and find the key people and have barbed claws that would latch on to the scalp and either a shape charge explosion towards the skull or inject a toxin right into the head/brain.... only kill the ringleader(s)...
"Decapitation" is a tactic that has been in use. The US military does that just about everyday according to news reports, and it makes no difference. New people just step in.
It's still better than saturation bombing....
It's still better than saturation bombing....
Depends on the situation. Saturation bombing can be very effective in many cases and it is the best tactic option. But turning a tactical option into a strategy is a mistake. Saturation bombing was very successful against the Wehrmacht in WWII, but then it was turned to a strategy in Korea and thereafter. It hasn't succeed since.
Neither has decapitation.
Notice that the US threaten NK with destruction from the air and also assassination of the leadership. Neither is going to accomplish what the US really wants to do, which is unify Korea under the South Korea regime that the US controls.
China will never, ever permit that.
The obvious way to resolve the crisis is through negotiating and making a deal with Kim that benefits all parties involved. This is what NK says it wants (not reported in the US press) and what SK, China and Russia are pushing. It's the no-brainer. But this would upset the US objetive of taking over the Korean pennisula and putting US forces on China's border.
"Neither has decapitation."
Well at least you're not killing a bunch of nearby people who aren't directly involved...
Well at least you're not killing a bunch of nearby people who aren't directly involved...
Well, that would be an improvement.
Post a Comment