Friday, November 25, 2016
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Bubble
I'm living in a bubble. I've been told that I'm probably living in a bubble many, many times before - see the Red Tribe. And I've acknowledged on an intellectual level that this was almost certainly true. But it never sunk in before now.
Now, I read this: You are still crying wolf. It points out that an omnipresent running narrative about Trump, namely that he is racist, is manifestly false. This is not simply the "Let's be charitable, he might not be so bad" spirit - I think this is just what it feels like to slowly pull out of a media bubble that I've been caught in for months. He's against immigration, but it really seems like that is all he is - against immigration. When I go back and read his quotes, and then I remember what I felt about those self-same quotes when I heard them reported initially, the feeling is completely different. It was reported as "Trump says Mexico is sending illegal immigrant rapists to America" What Trump actually said is that Mexico's best people are staying in Mexico, and that some of the illegal immigrants are criminals and rapists. This is probably true. I disagree with the sentiment, but the facts are true - or at least they were before a selective reading of Trump's statement was presented.
I'd like to break down what I heard about the election into four categories:
Anti-Trump falsehoods:
Trump is a racist.
Trump's supporters are overwhelmingly white.
Trump uses "law and order candidate" as a code word for racist, just like George Wallace.
Anti-Trump truths:
Trump is very thin skinned.
Trump is very egotistical
Trump doesn't care about global warming
Trump doesn't care about upholding foreign policy treaties.
Clinton has much more experience and is more predictable.
Pro-Trump/Anti-Clinton truths:
Clinton broke the military secrecy laws with her email server.
Trump wants to crack down on government corruption.
Trump wants to pull out of the TPP.
Trump is more likely to break the "traditional politician" promise vague stuff and then don't do it pattern.
Anti-Clinton falsehoods:
Clinton did something very illegal with regards to Benghazi, then covered it up.
Steps towards realizing I was in this bubble: I noticed that other groups, including news sources that I don't follow, were pushing the Clinton is a criminal line. I realized that people who like Trump probably like him much more for the Sanders-type "I'm not a typical politician; I'm someone who actually cares about you and is going to shake things up", or for traditional republican stuff, or for anti-trade deals, or for whatever. I noticed the strong contrast between this and what most of the media I listened to were describing as the reasons people liked Trump.
I noticed the fact that media people were forever comparing Trump to George Wallace, despite the fact that the phrasing (law and order) was pretty common, and that was 60 years ago.
I noticed that I was saying "Well sure, Clinton has some minor things wrong with her, but I mostly like her, and all the things that the other side says are majorly wrong about her are false, and look at all of the major and minor things that are false", and that a Trump supporter could easily say the identical things about Trump. What I didn't realize is that all of the "Major things wrong" were hyperbole and falsehood, and I needed to seek what was actually going on.
People making fun of how Trump speaks. Hidden messages, read into over and over and over again. Commentators who were supposedly data-driven actually being overwhelming biased. The warning signs were all there.
I fell off the track of epistemic virtue. I allowed myself to naively consume the messages that were being thrown at me, rather than actively seeking the truth, and making my own decisions based on that knowledge.
To help remedy this, I took at Trump's plan for his first 100 days in office. Nowhere to been seen were the most dire and outlandish stories, like racism, homophobia, etc. Instead, I saw concrete parts of Trump's actual policies, like a very naive approach to government reform (complete freeze on government hiring), backwards steps on climate change, etc. I saw the real Trump for the first time, who I actually dislike, not the fake Trump that was being thrown at me.
I looked at Clinton, as she presents herself, and found that I actually like her. She's not just some vague generalities and air, she has actual good ideas (or her staff does, which is close enough).
I need to rededicate myself to the path of epistemic virtue - trying to find the truth, not just the story.
On the path: slatestarcodex, Dan Carlin's Common Sense, actually talking to people (Grandpa, Kevin, etc.), especially those with different opinions. Primary sources. Super duper primary sources.
Against the path: All of the traditional media - NYTimes on down. 538, when they're not talking about polls/the model. Talking too much to people with the same opinions as me.
Now I know. When you see people being wrong, consider that you might be wrong too.
Now, I read this: You are still crying wolf. It points out that an omnipresent running narrative about Trump, namely that he is racist, is manifestly false. This is not simply the "Let's be charitable, he might not be so bad" spirit - I think this is just what it feels like to slowly pull out of a media bubble that I've been caught in for months. He's against immigration, but it really seems like that is all he is - against immigration. When I go back and read his quotes, and then I remember what I felt about those self-same quotes when I heard them reported initially, the feeling is completely different. It was reported as "Trump says Mexico is sending illegal immigrant rapists to America" What Trump actually said is that Mexico's best people are staying in Mexico, and that some of the illegal immigrants are criminals and rapists. This is probably true. I disagree with the sentiment, but the facts are true - or at least they were before a selective reading of Trump's statement was presented.
I'd like to break down what I heard about the election into four categories:
Anti-Trump falsehoods:
Trump is a racist.
Trump's supporters are overwhelmingly white.
Trump uses "law and order candidate" as a code word for racist, just like George Wallace.
Anti-Trump truths:
Trump is very thin skinned.
Trump is very egotistical
Trump doesn't care about global warming
Trump doesn't care about upholding foreign policy treaties.
Clinton has much more experience and is more predictable.
Pro-Trump/Anti-Clinton truths:
Clinton broke the military secrecy laws with her email server.
Trump wants to crack down on government corruption.
Trump wants to pull out of the TPP.
Trump is more likely to break the "traditional politician" promise vague stuff and then don't do it pattern.
Anti-Clinton falsehoods:
Clinton did something very illegal with regards to Benghazi, then covered it up.
Steps towards realizing I was in this bubble: I noticed that other groups, including news sources that I don't follow, were pushing the Clinton is a criminal line. I realized that people who like Trump probably like him much more for the Sanders-type "I'm not a typical politician; I'm someone who actually cares about you and is going to shake things up", or for traditional republican stuff, or for anti-trade deals, or for whatever. I noticed the strong contrast between this and what most of the media I listened to were describing as the reasons people liked Trump.
I noticed the fact that media people were forever comparing Trump to George Wallace, despite the fact that the phrasing (law and order) was pretty common, and that was 60 years ago.
I noticed that I was saying "Well sure, Clinton has some minor things wrong with her, but I mostly like her, and all the things that the other side says are majorly wrong about her are false, and look at all of the major and minor things that are false", and that a Trump supporter could easily say the identical things about Trump. What I didn't realize is that all of the "Major things wrong" were hyperbole and falsehood, and I needed to seek what was actually going on.
People making fun of how Trump speaks. Hidden messages, read into over and over and over again. Commentators who were supposedly data-driven actually being overwhelming biased. The warning signs were all there.
I fell off the track of epistemic virtue. I allowed myself to naively consume the messages that were being thrown at me, rather than actively seeking the truth, and making my own decisions based on that knowledge.
To help remedy this, I took at Trump's plan for his first 100 days in office. Nowhere to been seen were the most dire and outlandish stories, like racism, homophobia, etc. Instead, I saw concrete parts of Trump's actual policies, like a very naive approach to government reform (complete freeze on government hiring), backwards steps on climate change, etc. I saw the real Trump for the first time, who I actually dislike, not the fake Trump that was being thrown at me.
I looked at Clinton, as she presents herself, and found that I actually like her. She's not just some vague generalities and air, she has actual good ideas (or her staff does, which is close enough).
I need to rededicate myself to the path of epistemic virtue - trying to find the truth, not just the story.
On the path: slatestarcodex, Dan Carlin's Common Sense, actually talking to people (Grandpa, Kevin, etc.), especially those with different opinions. Primary sources. Super duper primary sources.
Against the path: All of the traditional media - NYTimes on down. 538, when they're not talking about polls/the model. Talking too much to people with the same opinions as me.
Now I know. When you see people being wrong, consider that you might be wrong too.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)