THE RISE OF THE "CHARLIE KIRK CONSERVATIVES" by Robert J. Bidinotto + My Comments

Below is a Facebook post by Robert J. Bidinotto on Charlie Kirk, Narratives and Objectivism. I have added my comments after his post.

THE RISE OF THE "CHARLIE KIRK CONSERVATIVES" by Robert J. Bidinotto

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19DKCS3V3N/

After watching the televised memorial for Charlie Kirk on Sunday, I'm convinced that his martyrdom for his convictions -- and martyrdom is the only proper word for it -- is going to be transformational to the country, in ways people don't yet grasp or anticipate.

In recent decades, for reasons many of us know, the American "narrative," like the Christian "narrative," have been under relentless assault by the enemies of Western civilization. The *stories* undergirding both America and Christianity have stopped being credible or resonant with millions. Cut loose from the steadying anchor and sure rudder these narratives once provided, our society has gone adrift, floating aimlessly into the shoals of cynicism and  the swamps of decadence, then sinking into an undertow of political disintegration and division -- and thus allowing, at home and abroad, the incursions of piratical nihilists to plunder and scavenge from the wreckage of our civilization.

Spiritually, the loss of our unifying Narratives has left a gaping hole in the minds and hearts of Americans (and Western societies, generally) -- a pervasive sense of hopelessness, aimlessness, and anxiety. 

Yes, all this stems from the absence of a coherent, compelling STORY -- a Core Narrative about the world that is both explanatory and inspiring, that makes sense of the world and provides individuals a purposeful role and a meaningful identity -- a Core Narrative for individuals that, simultaneously, provides a unifying mythology for the broader society and culture.

As a teenager, Charlie Kirk sought and found such a Narrative for himself in Christianity...but also in America. In his mind and heart, Charlie wedded the Narrative of Christianity to the Narrative of America: to "the American dream" -- and to the Enlightenment values of individualism, self-responsibility, self-reliance, personal liberty, individual rights, free speech, free-market capitalism, and constitutionally limited government. In his mind and heart, he wove together those two threads of Narrative and Myth -- the Christian and the American (with its Greco-Roman and Enlightenment roots) -- into one seamless fabric...into one Core Narrative.

That Core Narrative *became* Charlie Kirk. Under its spell, Charlie became a human dynamo of evangelical passion. It transformed him into a young man of boundless self-confidence, irrepressible optimism, passionate truth-seeking, and fearless action. Aided by extraordinary gifts of native intelligence, authentic idealism, appealing good looks, and self-acquired oratorical ability, Charlie's Narrative vision became a compelling magnet that attracted thousands -- especially young lost souls, adrift in the moral and spiritual swamps of contemporary America. 

I have fashioned my own Core Narrative. In many ways, it overlaps with Charlie Kirk's. Its roots and rationale draw mainly from the secular side of the American Enlightenment and Greco-Roman traditions, and not the Christian side.

Still, in terms of attitudes and practices of daily living -- in terms of how he and I would approach work, human relationships, and politics -- there is not much difference between my vision and that of the late Charlie Kirk. I could very easily, and very happily, live and flourish in the America he envisioned -- and among the kind of Christian Americans that would inhabit it.

That became obvious to me during the huge, globally watched celebration of Charlie's life on Sunday. As the cameras panned over the thousands and thousands of decent, peaceful, *normal* Americans in that enormous audience, I thought: "These people are the poorest excuses for 'fascists' I have ever seen."

I'd like to address the rest of this message primarily to my secular-individualist friends and colleagues, including non-religious Objectivists, libertarians, and conservatives.

Watching the Charlie Kirk memorial -- and observing how his exemplary personal life, idealism, and decency have touched, inspired, and galvanized huge and growing numbers of Americans -- reinforced my conviction about the irreplaceable necessity of developing not only a philosophy, but also *a Core Narrative*, to guide individuals and society. 

As I have often written and said, a philosophy and a Core Narrative serve interrelated, but separate purposes. Both offer individuals an integrated view of the world and their role in it. But a Core Narrative is a *story* that *dramatizes* your worldview: it offers you a role in that drama, and an identity in the world; and it motivates you to take action. A philosophy, by contrast, only *explains* your worldview, teasing out its many implications and offering an abstract, systematic rationale for them. But being conscious and abstract, a philosophy has little power to touch your subconscious wellsprings of emotion and motivation -- to *personalize* those abstractions and *inspire* you to act. 

A philosophy is like a map to help you chart the course of your life. A Core Narrative is like a video that helps you visualize and experience your life journey. A philosophy is like looking at architectural blueprints of your planned house. A Core Narrative is like taking a 3-D virtual tour through your planned residence -- or like looking at an actual miniature model that helps you experience the reality of your future home, in the here and now.

And that leads to the problem I pose to my secular philosophical and political colleagues. Yes, we have charted terrific philosophical maps and detailed blueprints for our worldview; but we don't have enough compelling videos, virtual tours, and actual models for our worldview to be properly, fully *experienced*. 

Now, many of you are going to reply, "What about the novels of Ayn Rand? She created great models of inspiring characters!"

And so she did. But only two novels -- and written in a style and voice and level of abstraction that don't speak to everyone today. At best, I could say, "Yes, but we need more like these -- a lot more." 

But I think we need something else, too. And I'm not sure we can get it in our lifetimes...or even in the next century.

You see, the Core Narratives of Christianity and of America have acquired their mythological status and resonance precisely because of their distance from our era. Those who revere historical characters from the Bible or America's founding can do so because the mists of time mask those people's personal foibles and failures, leaving us with stories mainly about the best of their character and achievements. The passing of centuries thus has allowed them to rise to legendary and heroic stature.

Today, however, even the most exemplary figures are not immune from 24/7 reputational dissection by social media gossips, podcasters, and cable news commentators. It took centuries for Christianity to develop, because the claims of its believers were spread by word of mouth, and not subject to legions of often-hostile "fact checkers" and reputational smears in viral messages. But imagine if Jesus and his Apostles had to undergo a daily onslaught of instant, intrusive scrutiny, "fake news," and internet rumor-mongering. 

My point is that while creating a new Core Narrative *for individuals* is certainly possible in our time (Rand did that for thousands), creating a new cultural mythology *for our entire society* is a very different proposition. In America and globally, existing worldviews have social and cultural roots that harken back into antiquity. Uprooting and replacing this mythology with a new mythology would/will take a very long time -- and these days it would have to do so under the glaring spotlight and probing microscopes of the media.

I think the best we secular individualists can do, for now, is to fashion, flesh out, and *live* our own Core Narrative(s)...as individuals. The proof of a Narrative's value will be what we make of our own lives. Then, over time -- decades, perhaps centuries -- some singular individual who heroically embodies such a Narrative will arise and stand out as its champion. That exemplary individual may then acquire mythic and legendary status. His own story might become the spark of a new cultural movement and mythology, turning his private Narrative into a social crusade akin to a secular individualist religion -- with its own infrastructure of ceremonies, rituals, and institutions commemorating the legend.

A second thing we secular individualists can do, for now, is to stop regarding what I hereby label the "Charlie Kirk Conservatives" as our adversaries -- let alone as our "enemies" (like a few morons in Objectivist circles are doing). Far from it. Charlie Kirk may not have shared our metaphysics; but he shared most of our basic ethical and political premises, and in fact he was a model of reason, honesty, independence, integrity, productivity, and justice. He, and the thousands of followers who regard him as a role model, are our natural allies. As I said earlier, I could flourish happily in a world of Charlie Kirk Conservatives -- and so could you.

For now, we secular individualists have a philosophy, but not a Core Narrative that is sufficiently developed and compelling enough to replace theirs. Nor do we have a heroic exemplar of our worldview who can capture the public imagination as has Charlie Kirk. Nor do we have the cultural legacy of such a hero: an infrastructure of ceremonies, rituals, and institutions that can forge social bonds and traditions built upon shared beliefs and values. We have little if any of that sort of thing -- not yet. 

And you can't replace Something with Nothing.

I saw something emerging at the Kirk ceremony that, for the first time in decades, has given me real hope for America's future. I saw Charlie Kirk's personal integration of exemplary character, Christianity, and American Enlightenment ideas and values being fused into a Core Narrative that instantly captured the imagination of the country. I witnessed the personal story of Charlie Kirk being woven, before my eyes, into the Core Narratives of Christianity and the American Enlightenment, in a way that was reviving, in millions of people, a passionate, patriotic dedication to our Founding Fathers' legacy. 

His wife called the movement Charlie launched not a revolution, but "a revival." And so it is. I believe this movement is going to grow to become culturally and politically transformational -- and that Charlie Kirk is going to become a pivotal, legendary figure in American history. The story of his life and martyrdom will become an indelible chapter in the broader American Narrative.

Through his willingness to converse and cooperate with political cousins in Objectivist and libertarian circles, Charlie Kirk will undoubtedly serve as an ecumenical role model for his movement, going forward. And we secular individualists would be colossal fools not to join with them, assist them, and defend them, whenever we can make common cause, culturally and politically.

Charlie Kirk Conservatives are our natural compatriots in the defense of Western civilization from the nihilists. They represent the best of America, people whom we should welcome into our lives as our allies, as our neighbors, and -- yes -- as our friends. 

--Robert Bidinotto

----------------------------------

My Comments.

I have concluded that narratives influence people more than citing facts and figures. Since I don't plan on becoming a fiction writer, I've developed a different approach to disagreeing with someone on a political subject. I tell the story of how I came to my conclusion.

For instance, if someone says how CO2 causes global warming I'll say something like this: "At one time I believed CO2 does cause global warming. Then someone shared an article written by a scientist who questions this idea. I started finding peer-reviewed research papers that say that warming has several causes with CO2 not being the dominant cause and that many scientists admit that we don't understand all of the factors that cause climate change. After reading over 1,000 scientific papers, I have concluded that CO2 is not the global thermostat."

This doesn't change my friend's mind, but it at least shows that there can be a reasonable reason to disagree with the narrative that is being pushed on us.

Of course, this approach requires doing your own investigation. It’s not something you do overnight! It has taken me years of reading these papers as well as articles and books written by scientists. But I've also noticed when I use this approach the person I'm talking to is a bit unsure because they're relying just on what they've been told by their trusted news sources. So far no one I've talked to has been able to counter what I say by citing sources other than mainstream news outlets.

If the person challenges my story I have a backup. I’ve created several “cheat sheets” that contain key points summarizing my key conclusions and a list of experts or authorities who hold the position that I’m asserting. These sources have credentials that I think will carry some weight with my audience.

I have used this approach several times. Have I managed to get someone to abandon their position? Nope. But in most cases, they will back off while expressing skepticism about what I’m saying. I have never had someone counter my argument by citing sources of their own other than what they saw on TV or read in their newspaper. My goal isn’t to change minds (although it would be nice!). It’s to get the other person to realize that there can be reasonable grounds to take a position different than theirs. And that maybe their sources aren’t telling the whole story.

Robert J. Bidinotto's Post: FROM EMOTIONS, TO NARRATIVES, TO IDEOLOGIES -- and my Response

Below I’m sharing a post by Robert J. Bidinotto. Robert has been influential in Objectivist circles since the 1980s. Before turning to writing a series of thrillers he served as editor-in-chief of The Atlas Society’s monthly magazine of politics and culture, The New Individualist. Robert and I met in college in the early 1970s when he introduced me to the work of Ayn Rand. Robert’s Facebook post starts below followed by my response. 

ROBERT’S POST: FROM EMOTIONS, TO NARRATIVES, TO IDEOLOGIES.

In intellectual circles, it is common to believe that ideology is a decisive social force on its own -- that abstract philosophical systems underlie societies and cultures; and that to change a society, you need only promulgate a different philosophy/ideology.

Of course, intellectuals *want* to believe in the decisive "power of ideas," because as promulgators of ideas, this belief confirms their lofty view of their own social importance and power. And certainly the connection of ideologies to societies, movements, and governments is obvious and undeniable -- which is why I used to accept this conventional view, too.

But a lifetime of promoting philosophical ideas has caused me to reconsider my views about the role of philosophy/ideology in human life and society. Introspection, observation of people close to me, and sobering realizations about how marginal and fleeting the impacts of philosophical persuasion, by myself and by many other skilled communicators, have been -- all of that has led me to conclude that personal and cultural change is much more complicated than simply spreading the "right" philosophical ideas.

Summarized simply, I believe...

...that the vast majority of people, including intellectuals, are actually driven not by ideas, but by emotions, often fairly crude ones, rooted in values, often only implicit;

...that over time, these values-laden emotions, if widely shared, are transformed into Narratives -- into inspiring popular myths, legends, and stories -- which provide explanations and justifications for those feelings;

...that only later do the more intellectual believers in these emotionally appealing, values-laden stories, myths, and Narratives try to buttress them with more sophisticated, abstract theoretical rationalizations -- i.e., with explanatory philosophies, ideologies, theologies, etc. The intellectuals do this to flesh out and support the core themes and underlying motives of their Narratives, granting them the social weight and gravitas of an "intellectual" image and justification.

You see that pattern historically with every creed that has attracted significant followings and becomes a mass movement. They start with a set of core emotions, driven by values broadly shared across a large social group; then follows the development of a popular mythology that dramatizes and evokes the group's shared emotions and values; and finally comes a complex theoretical rationalization for the mythological Narrative (and its values-driven emotions), crafted by the social group's intellectuals. In this last stage, the abstract system can take on a life of its own: it is taught and promoted in "movement" schools and texts, to which believers cling tightly, because it offers reassuring intellectual support and explanations for their underlying feelings and Narratives.

But the foundational appeal of philosophical, ideological, or theological systems does not lie in their theoretical abstractions themselves; pure abstractions carry no emotional appeal or motivational power. Instead, the believers' commitments are fundamentally to their core Narrative -- to the explanatory mythology or story -- and to the emotions and values it embodies and evokes. All that the theoretical abstractions offer are rationalizations and reassurance that the story is valid.

This explains why you can so often argue with someone using reason, logic, and overwhelming facts, until you are blue in the face, and get nowhere. Or why a person's "intellectual" commitments can seem so shallow and fleeting. Or why politicians and dictators rely so heavily on storytelling about their target constituencies' collective "identity," in the form of a high-stakes drama about villains (their political adversaries), victims (their constituents), and heroic rescuers (themselves). Or why a person's (or society's) "conversion" requires not just a new ideological argument, but instead begins with an emotional upheaval rooted in profound personal dissatisfaction with the status quo -- and which then leads to a confrontation with some appealing new Narrative that promises the dissatisfied individual a fresh identity: a meaningful new life role and purpose. The philosophical argument then comes along as a reassuring explanation for the wisdom of the conversion; but it alone is not the motivator of the conversion.

Let me emphasize that an abstract philosophy *can* serve legitimate and important purposes. It does not have to offer merely a sophistic rationalization for a bogus Narrative. If the Narrative is grounded in reality, then philosophy can provide a valid *rationale* for it. A rationale differs from a rationalization, because the former is true (based on reality), while the latter is false. And a valid rationale can flesh out our understanding, teasing out many important and helpful implications of the Narrative.

But, to sum up, I now believe that personal persuasion and cultural change require us to effectively present a compelling alternative Narrative to those people open to its emotional appeal. Not everyone is -- not by a long shot. People who are emotionally committed to a Narrative that defines them, their identity, and their life purpose -- but which is hostile to one's own values -- aren't going to change, no matter how skilled and logical your presentation of facts and arguments. Abstract arguments will never penetrate the emotional/values barriers surrounding a contrary Narrative. Even a compelling counter-Narrative will not prove persuasive unless the target of your communication is already deeply dissatisfied with his own, and thus searching for (or at least open to) a fresh worldview.

One corollary point, and it's important. I believe people with good values, and correspondingly good emotions, will be attracted to good Narratives -- and perhaps later, to good philosophies. The fact that they, too, are "Narrative-driven" is *not* necessarily a bad thing: it doesn't mean they are *irrationally* driven. If a kid is raised without any explicit philosophy, or even a bad one, yet becomes enamored of heroes in TV shows, movies, and comic books (oops, "graphic novels"), and then, inspired, goes on to do great things - - is that irrational?

To my Objectivist friends, I would point out that I've just described the childhood-to-adulthood trajectory of your heroine, Ayn Rand, if you know anything about her autobiography. After all, *she* didn't start out with a conceptual philosophical understanding of the world; she started out, in the hellish environment of post-revolutionary Soviet Russia, simply as a brilliant child who became captivated by heroic literature and movies. That *emotional* orientation, driven by some core values she didn't understand at the time, were sufficient to propel her on a remarkable journey to becoming, as an adult, a storyteller and philosopher whose worldview was opposite everything around her.

And those values-driven emotions first took form as a romantic Narrative of heroic individualism. That Narrative was a core part of her character by the time she reached her early teens. Rand didn't even encounter Aristotle, Aquinas, Spinoza, and other thinkers who influenced her philosophical thinking until college -- by which time *her character and sense of life was already formed*. Her systematic philosophy did not fully take form until she was middle-aged, during the writing of ATLAS SHRUGGED; and I would argue that she managed to become a heroic individualist long before figuring it all out.

Again, Rand's life and character were shaped indelibly and enduringly by a Narrative -- not by abstract philosophy or ideology. If that is true of her, then how can it not be true of others? Do we need formal, systematic philosophy in order to be rational, honest, independent, just, and productive? Were there no such people on Planet Earth before Rand incorporated those virtues formally into her Objectivist system?

I commend to you her book THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO, especially its opening chapters, where -- in words different from mine here, but I believe very similar in meaning -- she explains the enormous power of stories, of Narratives, in shaping the human soul and our world.

--------------------------------------------

MY RESPONSE

I agree with your position on this. I’d add a couple corollary points that don’t contradict yours. (At least I don’t think they do!)

1.  We are influenced by dozens of subconscious cognitive biases such as confirmation bias. We think we’re being objective without realizing how much of what we believe is influenced by these biases.

2.  Once we form our favored narratives, we tend to get our news from sources that reflect these narratives and discount someone who cites sources considered untrustworthy. This becomes a self-supporting cycle in which people consume news only from their trusted sources and don’t expose themselves to other sources. For instance, I’ve seen arguments between a liberal who cites CNN while the conservative who relies on Fox. 

3.  We also have different languages. Arnold Kling’s book The Three Languages of Politics explains how liberals see things in terms of the oppressed versus the oppressors. Conservatives see the world as a conflict of civilization (law and order) versus barbarism. And libertarians think everything boils down to freedom versus coercion.

4.  While we have our rational side we still are influenced by our evolutionary tribal roots. As a result, we often see the world in terms of “us versus them.” (The Coddling of the American Mind by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff identifies three “untruths” that many of our current youth have accepted: What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker; always trust your feelings; and life is a battle between good people and evil people.)

When discussing issues with people who I know don’t share my framework I’ve tried to come up with an approach that plants a seed of doubt. I’ve collected information from sources I think the person I’m talking to is more likely to accept to get them to open their mind a crack. It takes some work but it can be done!

Gell-Mann Amnesia: What is it?

 I recently learned about a term created by Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park, Jaws and Andromeda Strain. He identified something he labeled the Gell-Mann Amnesia. (Crichton named it after a friend, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann who discovered and named the quark.)

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.”

I have seen amnesia in action with people I know. As an example, I know a married couple who are devout Catholics. They distrust the reporting of The Boston Globe because they believe the Globe harbors an anti-Catholic bias. Yet they believe everything else the Globe says! I guess the Globe is biased only on one subject. Right?

I think there is another version of Gell-Mann Amnesia. Here is an example. During the Trump administration the media harped endlessly on his alleged collusion with Russia. When the Mueller report showed that there were no such ties, the people I know who bought into the Russia-gate story conveniently forgot how they were misled for years then move on to the next story. Their faith in their trusted news sources remains intact.

Tucker Carlson: Should We Care That He Is Off The Air?

A friend posted his reaction to Fox pulling Tucker Carlson’s show off the air by saying that he will shed no tears over his departure. Why? Because Carlson didn’t advocate individualism, free markets or limited government but represents “right-wing tribalism” and a push for conservative big government. Several other people expressed their agreement for my friend’s position.

Why do I bring this up here? Why should Objectivists or libertarians care? I’ll get to that later but first want to give my initial thoughts on Carlson’s silencing.

My opinion of Carlson isn’t quite as negative as my friend’s. I won’t shed tears for Tucker either but for a different reason. He probably will land on a platform where his audience will be even larger (like Joe Rogan who has an audience at least three times larger than Carlson’s) and will make much more money. (However, will he have as much influence?) What bothers me is how Democrats such as Chuck Schumer and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) openly called for taking Tucker off the air and, for whatever reason, Fox complied. (I’ve heard various theories what lead to his sudden silencing. My guess is that it was a combination of factors.) I find it interesting too that Schumer or AOC aren’t demanding Fox to remove Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham or Jesse Watters. It bothers me that I haven’t seen much dismay among those who posted on my friend’s Facebook page about Carlson. I don’t feel bad for Carlson; I’m more concerned about the concerted effort to silence people who question the dominant narratives.

Despite his flaws, Tucker played an important role in challenging and questioning many of the narratives pushed by the Left and their media cheerleaders. He questioned or revealed Biden's financial ties to China (Tony Bobulinsky interviews), DEI's (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) adverse impact on meritocracy in the fields of airline piloting, medicine and corporate America, the incestuous relationship between pharma, government and media in pushing the vaccines and lockdowns while silencing and de-platforming doctors who disagreed, and the shady collusion between the various Federal agencies and Twitter (plus other social media platforms) to suppress mostly conservative voices. (Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi, who Elon Musk recruited to produce the “Twitter files,” call this relationship the Censorship Industrial Complex. Shellenberger and Taibbi have been guests on Tucker’s show.)

None of the other mainstream media outlets said a peep about Bobulinsky or the Twitter files. Carlson’s shows on the January 6th protest/riot revealed a different version than what we were told by other media; his revelation of video on what happened when Jacob Chansley [“QAnon Shaman”] was inside the Capitol ultimately led to his release from prison. Chansley’s lawyer didn’t have access to this video before Carlson’s show.

Yes, Carlson has questioned our involvement in the Ukraine war, has talked about the claims of Zelensky’s corruption and the lack of accounting for how the funds and military hardware we sent are being used. Even if we endorse supporting the Ukraine militarily, concerns about Zelensky’s regime and lack of accounting for what is being done with our military equipment shouldn’t be minimized or ignored.

I'm not saying Carlson is an individualist or even a free marketer. I'd say he is a conservative populist. I know from watching Carlson he believes we have a uni-party government consisting of elites who impose laws and regulations that affect us but not them. So, OK, Carlson could argue that these perks for the elites should be stopped. Agree. But since the elite control the levers of government is that likely? Probably not. So, I speculate that Carlson argues instead for policies that could benefit the middle class. In principle, I disagree because it doesn't address the cause of the problem. As a practical matter, I don't like the idea, but I don't think it's cause to claim Carlson is the enemy and a Luddite.

According to Megyn Kelly, Carlson wasn't fired. His show was taken off the air while Carlson is still under contract which was renewed in 2021 and expires in 2024. There is speculation that this was done to muzzle Carlson so that he won't influence the 2024 election. In any case, Carlson and his executive producer supposedly contacted a lawyer to work out a deal with Fox to end his contract.

In evaluating Tucker Carlson, we need to weigh his positives and negatives. Others have covered the negatives, so I won’t repeat them here. I’d narrow Carlson’s positives to two themes. One, his concern over the breakdown of civilization. Two, his desire to protect free speech. (They are interconnected.) We can yearn for someone advocating individualism to take his place. I don’t see anyone coming to the rescue, and I’m not holding my breath! Meanwhile you can tell that, despite his flaws, Tucker was effective when you see the paroxysms of glee his departure has spawned on the left.

You've heard the saying that the perfect is the enemy of the good. It seems that some Objectivists think we should dump (or dump on) Carlson because isn't a perfect representative of our side and therefore there is nothing good about him. To me this is like the position Rand and some of her followers took about dealing with libertarians. I recall that they chastised David Kelly for giving a talk at a libertarian event.

What can we learn from Carlson’s influence? He argued strongly and with moral conviction against the trends such as the push to favor diversity over merit. Whether or not we agree with Carlson’s moral principles we can see that his passionate moral stand made a difference. Objectivists certainly have moral passion on their side! Moreover, Carlson marshalled facts and arguments, leavened with sarcasm and mockery, to punch holes in the various narratives. It’s not enough just to claim you have the moral high ground. You need to build up to that moral high ground with facts and logic.

Scott Adams on Censorship and Voting

Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert and host of daily video blog Coffee With Scott Adams on YouTube and Locals) posted this tweet with a provocative thesis.

Censorship determines the narrative. The narrative determines public opinion. Public opinion determines the vote. The vote determines who runs the country.

We have replaced voting with battles over who gets censored.

In response I posted this:

Behind the censorship is the postmodern idea that those who have the most power can decide and determine what is true.

Although I agree with Adams, I think he doesn’t go back far enough to the source of the censorship. The censorship Adams talks about doesn’t spring out of nothing like the Big Bang. We need to identify the beliefs that people use to justify imposing censorship that prevents certain ideas from being expressed or facts from being uncovered.

I believe postmodernism plays a role in many issues. I summarize postmodernism as the belief that there is no objective truth. Therefore, “truth” is determined by those who have the most power over the tools of communication such as social media, news media and over our language which includes the meanings of words and what is considered acceptable uses of these words. (There are some who claim that even silence can be oppressive because if you don’t vocally repudiate something that means you secretly support the “offensive” idea.)

Therefore, I now use the term “partial news” when referring to the news media. (I know, it's not as catchy as Trump's "fake news." I’m also thinking of using “skewed news.”) Here the word “partial” has two meanings. The first meaning refers only part of the story being told so that leads us to the conclusion they want us to reach. The second meaning refers to our news outlets as being partial rather than being impartial (i.e., objective). Postmodernism lies behind this because postmodernists believe there is no objective truth. When the truth and facts no longer serve as a yardstick, your political agenda takes over. News stories can then be crafted to steer us to a predetermined conclusion rather than presenting other sides of the story. 

Learn to Think with the Best of Them

 This is the title of a section in Peter T. Coleman’s The Way Out: How To Overcome Toxic Polarization. Coleman’s book strives to show ways to deal with the strident difference of opinion we see all around us. I’ve chosen to put on long quote that I like. It relates to my July 29 post, Favorite Twitter Follows/Examples of Objective Thinkers. I believe many of the names in the table of that post present good examples of people with whom I don’t necessarily agree with but feel they strive to be objective. Prime examples would be Scott Adams, Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald.

As creatures of habit in a highly polarized era, most of us tend to follow the rule, “move toward similar others and away from different.” We are automatically inclined to surround ourselves with and therefore think with similar others who share “congenial information” versus “uncongenial information” – simply because it is easier and more comforting.

…

Most of us tend to close ranks and prefer to listen to those we mostly agree with during such tense times (it just feels so good!). This tendency to move toward the similar is intensified by the internet sorting algorithms employed today by many of the major technology platforms that automatically direct us to news, information, and opinion content that is complimentary to our own. This all serves to significantly reduce the nuance and accuracy of our understanding of complicated issues.

One check on this echo-chamber effect is to actively choose to think and learn with different people; that is, intentionally choose to hear from people across the divide. No, it does not mean that you need to tune into the nut jobs on talk radio and cable TV that spout nonsense and conspiracy theories. But it does suggest that there is much to gain from seeking out the best representatives of people you disagree with and thinking through complex issues (although not necessarily agreeing) with them.

…

So, if you are interested in gaining a more accurate understanding of a particular issue, learn to seek out the best thought leaders on the other side. [Emphasis added.]

I’d say there is another reason to do this: to test our beliefs. Someone who disagrees with you might present information we hadn’t considered when reaching our position or they might reveal a potential weakness in our argument. It doesn’t mean we have to ditch our position; it might mean acknowledging that we need to tweak it.

New Neuroscience Reveals 7 Secrets That Will Make You Emotionally Intelligent - Barking Up The Wrong Tree

New Neuroscience Reveals 7 Secrets That Will Make You Emotionally Intelligent - Barking Up The Wrong Tree: Conflicted: How Productive Disagreements Lead to Better Outcomes

Eric Barker who wrote Barking Up the Wrong Tree: The Surprising Science Behind Why Everything You Know About Success Is (Mostly) Wrong also has a blog where he shares his insights based on Barker’s research. I recommend his book. I also recommend reading his summary of another book which I read recently. It’s Conflicted: How Productive Disagreements Lead to Better Outcomes by Ian Leslie.

I’ve been reading several books lately on how to overcome the extreme polarization we see, particularly in politics. So far, I haven’t come across anything in these books that I found to be earthshaking, “eureka!” insights. But there is one that I believe deserves promoting; Eric Barker agrees. He devotes a long blog post to capturing the key points of Conflicted. Below I’ve provided Barker’s summary of these key points. I debated whether to do this because you might read the summary below and think, “Eh, what’s the big deal?” If so, I invite you to read Barker’s entire post to get a better idea what is behind these key points.

Without further ado, here is the final section of Barker’s post.

Sum Up

This is how to have emotionally intelligent disagreements:

• Remember The Relationship: Enemies don’t say, “You are right. I am wrong.” Friends do.
• De-Escalate: If your disputes sound even half as snarky as my writing, you’re doing it wrong.
• Stop Trying To Control What They Think Or Feel: When their autonomy is threatened, people attack or shut down.
• Help Them Make Their Argument Stronger: If you can’t disprove the best version of their argument, then you’re not “right”, you’re just playing tricks. And, more importantly, “steelmanning” shows you’re listening and that you’re sincere. [HCS comment: steelmanning is the opposite of using a straw man argument in which we purposely oversimplify or exaggerate someone’s argument in order to discount it. Steelmanning involves trying to strengthen the argument of your conversational partner before trying to rebut it.]
• Disrupt The Script: Constructive conversations have ups and downs. Don’t escalate tension. Make a joke or say something positive.
• Get Curious: So those aliens that talk to you, do they give good advice?
• Help Them Question Their Own Thinking: Therapists don’t say: “That’s ridiculous. Where in your brain did the stroke occur for you to have an idea so stupid?” No, they ask questions until you start to question your own thinking and it crosses the blood-brain barrier that what you’ve been saying is the equivalent of 2+2=147.