Class Assignment!
Class Assignment!
How do we justify our beliefs?
I’ve got another lesson coming your way to continue our discussion about the psychology of disinformation. In Class 36, we discussed the concept of directionally motivated reasoning, in which people can selectively process information to reach a particular conclusion in order to stay “loyal” to a political identity. In this process, confirmation bias and prior attitudes can affect people’s ability to process new information accurately.
You will see that phenomenon at work in the following video, taken in 2016 following exposure of Russia’s social media disinformation operation to influence that year’s presidential election. (This was the only non-Facebook clip I could find, so it is part of a larger podcast/interview which is not relevant to this exercise.) I want you to pay attention to the dynamic of the exchange (2:57-4:53) between the reporter and one of the unwitting targets of Russia’s operation, and take a stab at answering the questions that follow:
We’ll unpack what’s going on in this exchange in the next lesson, so stay tuned!
Discussion questions:
Why is the woman who was the unwitting target of Russia’s operation so resistant and defensive when the reporter provides her with information about who she was really communicating with? In particular, what would accepting those facts mean, in her view?
Do you think the way the CNN reporter approached this exchange was productive? Is there a way he could have presented this information that would have made the woman more receptive to reconsidering her view of what had happened?
How does the woman end up resolving the discrepancy between her experience of what happened and what the reporter is telling her to be true?
Well, if you're really gonna make us work in this class...This is actually the first time in my life I've been challenged to do this. Hmmm.
In sum, I think we all justify our beliefs by how it feels. I don't think it's much more complicated than that. I’m currently revisiting philosophers I haven’t touched in many years on this very topic. David Hume, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Mahatma Ghandi. Not just in the sense of how we develop and communicate our reasons and evidence supporting a given belief or set of beliefs, but also important to me, that those beliefs are “just.” Rationally defensible, but also morally defensible. Do they conform to the evidence. Do they adhere to basic Aristotelean logic? Are they coherent? Are they supported by experience, not just my own, but the combined experience of our species? But of course, how various beliefs meet my test are largely determined by my prior conclusions about what is and isn’t moral. And as Hilary Clinton would admit, my notions in this regard were shaped early on by my Midwest Methodism. That's a high minded answer, but it's really much more basic than that for me.
Many people examine every proposition from a priori foundational beliefs that they have decided, often for unexamined tribal and religious reasons, are transcendent. At one point in my life, I also did this. But I have become skeptical of transcendent values in general as I have transcended many of the beliefs I once thought transcendent. Transcendent values seem to always come down to someone’s insistence, often that of the majoritarian faith, that their own opinions, traditions, preferences and values should be privileged, may not be challenged or questioned, and need be justified with nothing more than circular reasoning that amounts to “because we said so.” If any value should be universal, it’s contempt for that sort of unexamined belief structure.
I of course would like to believe that all my foundational philosophy is rationally defensible, but I know that’s not true. To a large degree my beliefs are chosen because of my experience of how things play out in the community and how they affect me personally, and this is almost entirely determined by the strength of my feelings of empathy for my fellow creatures and how I identify with and experience their pain and their pleasure.
SO you could start with this as my foundational beliefs: Pain and sorrow bad. Joy and pleasure good. I am very motivated at an instinctual level to protect others from harm and suffering and promote their happiness and joy because I cannot witness harm and suffering without being deeply disturbed and discomfited by it, and I cannot witness joy and pleasure without being elated by it. This above all is behind my life view that whatever is done should broadly benefit others, alleviate want and suffering, promote joy and happiness.
Selfishness yields results I find emotionally unsatisfying, and I look upon narcissism, predation and sociopathy with horror. It’s why my first merit badge in scouting was First Aid, and why I taught First Aid and CPR for the Red Cross for thirty years. It’s why I became a Defensive Driving Instructor. It’s why I taught self-defense classes five days a week for free for 35 years. It’s why I became a soldier. It’s why my first job out of the service was at a Battered Women’s Shelter. It’s why I went into law enforcement. It’s why I became a pastor. It’s why I’ve put other people’s children through college. It’s why I feed squirrels, ducks, geese, birds, raccoons, deer, fox in my yard and at the lake. And at base level I’ve not done these things out of altruism, but because I am happier and more comfortable when others are happier and more comfortable, and I am unhappier and uncomfortable when others are unhappy and uncomfortable. It’s just how I’m wired.
If you put every choice in life, every political policy through the filter of “does it create the broadest possible happiness and comfort”, the results are inevitably very communitarian. For me it’s that it simply feels good. I don’t know if Ghandi would say I’ve embraced his concept of “satyagraha.” I like to think I cling to what is true come what may, but I decide what is true not just by what is factual, but also by results. I at least think I’m honest about why I believe what I believe. Libertarians and Republicans of my acquaintance would insist I have it all backwards. I would say they’re miswired to only experience joy and comfort when others are miserable and in pain. And I think that sums up the two sides of the current political divide.
So yeah. That's the honest answer. It's justified if "I feel good as a result." And I think that's universal. Whether you're Ghandi or Ghenghis Khan, a saint or a serial killer. What differs is what makes us feel good.
John Mulholland covered this one. No one ever likes to admit that they've been fooled. They take it as a personal insult. It is purely about ego. They will debate facts to preserve their feelings. If the facts dispute their beliefs, they will find ways to fold them into their beliefs. This is a sad fact about humanity as a rule.
I have learned not to say the word Russians and to lead people to the conclusion from other directions.
I will hit them with, okay I understand what you're saying about that but what about this?
You can pretty much do that forever and run people in circles.