|
|
Musings Report 2021-30 7-24-21 All or Nothing, Us vs Them, Litmus Tests--We're Unraveling in Real Time
You are receiving this email because you are one of the subscribers/major contributors to www.oftwominds.com.
For those who are new to the Musings reports: they're a glimpse into my notebook, the unfiltered swamp where I organize future themes, sort through the dozens of stories and links submitted by readers, refine my own research and start connecting dots which appear later in the blog or in my books. As always, I hope the Musings spark new appraisals and insights. Thank you for supporting the site and for inviting me into your circle of correspondents.
Thank You, Patrons and Contributors!
Thank you stalwart contributors Michael G. and Simon D., and welcome new patrons / subscribers Matthew W., Glen B. and Leonard G. -- thank you very much!
All or Nothing, Us vs Them, Litmus Tests--We're Unraveling in Real Time
The destructive distortions resulting from "all or nothing" thinking have been well-established in psychology.
For example, the individual who thinks "I fail at everything" after not being chosen for a job has distorted the reality that it might take ten attempts to get the kind of position they're seeking, or maybe 100 attempts.
They're also losing sight of the fact that failure helps us modify our job search in positive ways; it's this feedback that helps us advance in life. Maybe we widen our job search, decide to learn additional skills, or seek another type of job.
To take one failure in a process characterized by numerous setbacks and unknowns and extend it to "I fail at everything" is terribly distorting, unrealistic and destructive, for the unspoken assumption-- "if I was not a failure, I would succeed at everything I try"-- is wildly disconnected from reality, as even the most successful people endure setbacks and failures.
When these "all or nothing" distortions are applied to social, political and economic realms, they morph into "us vs them" distortions, in which those who disagree with our "all or nothing" belief are deemed "the enemy" who is "the source of the problem."
This then morphs into "litmus tests" where the answer to one question divides the entire populace into "you're part of the solution" (i.e., you agree with my conclusions/beliefs) or "you're part of the problem (you disagree with my conclusions/beliefs)."
This process hardens conclusions that may have started with some sort of data into belief structures that cannot be questioned because it's psychologically difficult to surrender the inner security gained by solidifying one's conclusions into beliefs.
The problem is beliefs tend to follow ideological fault-lines, so if we identify ourselves as progressive, conservative, libertarian, etc., then when we hear that others who identify themselves as conservative, libertarian, etc., have a firm belief on a topic, we tend to follow that camp's belief structure to avoid being ejected from our 'tribe" for disagreeing with the orthodoxy.
At this point, an attack on one belief is taken ("all or nothing") as an attack on the entire ideological "tribe" and every individual in the tribe.
I explored a few of the many problems with data in my blog essay
Virus Z: A Thought Experiment (7/1/21)
The problem is data is inherently prone to errors, misinterpretation and gaming, i.e. massaging the data statistically to support a pre-determined conclusion.
Big Pharma has mastered this process when submitting evidence to support a new drug for approval (Phase I, II and III trials.)
Small samples sizes, for example, may not be truly representative, and the results may not be repeatable. But those seeking support for a pre-determined position can extrapolate a small study as "proof" of a much larger claim. (This is how to get studies that generate headlines like "eating raw oysters, dark chocolate and celery reduces the risk of...")
As an independent journalist/analyst, I am a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. Of course I have my own biases, but when posting on a topic I try to set those biases aside because anything that I can't support with data discredits my work. (Hence my heavy use of Federal Reserve charts and data from the IRS, Census Bureau, etc.)
These are a few of the pragmatic questions I ask of any data and analysis claiming a foundation in data:
1. show me the raw data, not just the final summary presentation.
2. show me the statistical analysis used on the data.
3. show me who collected the data and how/when they collected it.
4. show me who has a financial interest in the collection, analysis and dissemination of the data.
5. show me independently managed studies which confirm the conclusions.
6. tell me what data wasn't collected, and what data was collected but not presented because it didn't support the desired conclusion.
7. tell me the end-points and goals of the study.
Here's two examples. Last year in early March, shortly after the pandemic became Topic #1, I discussed a study from China of how many bus passengers became infected from one passenger with Covid.
The people who became infected weren't wearing masks, those who were wearing masks did not become infected.
The bus was in effect a controlled experiment on the efficacy of masks which would be unethical to do as an experiment, as those infected could have died.
The only possible conclusion is that anti-viral masks (i.e. N95) work. The only way to disprove this would be to run the same experiment: a confined space, lengthy exposure time, one infected passenger, and a semi-randomized mix of masked and unmasked passengers. The results would have to show masked passengers became infected at the same rate as unmasked passengers.
Now perhaps other individuals would find this unpersuasive, but we'd have to subject the studies they present as proof masks don't work to the pragmatic questions listed above, and compare the experiments very closely. Conflicting data is a common occurrence, and the productive result is a new experiment designed to eliminate the uncertainty.
Example #2: when the Pfizer Phase III trial results were released, it became clear the study had not collected any data on whether vaccinated people could transmit the virus to others. This was confirmed by the CEO. This struck me as an enormous flaw in the study.
And now, evidence is coming in that fully vaccinated people are transmitting the virus to other fully vaccinated people and unvaccinated people.
A leading US disease expert says there's 'no doubt in my mind' that vaccinated people are helping spread Delta. (Business Insider)
Many point out that the goals of the vaccines were to lessen the odds of becoming ill and the severity of illness, and drastically reduce the death rate, which they have accomplished. But the transmissibility of fully vaccinated individuals is now a factor of concern as the Delta variant spreads rapidly:
Per the New York Times:
July 1: total US cases: 16,505
July 23: total US cases: 81,732
That's a nearly five-fold increase in three weeks. Then there's the record number of cases in Indonesia, Vietnam, Myanmar and many other countries.
There can be equally careful studies which reach different conclusions, and different data sets collected by different organizations. In a nation with an intact social order that values civility and pragmatism, it should be possible to have a depoliticized, reasoned discussion about the different conclusions and the validity and possible flaws in each study.
But holding reasoned, pragmatic discussions no longer appears possible in America. Everything has become politicized / polarized.
My friend Adam Taggart released a video last week posing the question, has the stock market not priced in the risks posed by the Delta variant spreading?
Most of the video is a discussion of financial measures of stock market risk: Delta Blues? New COVID Variant Threatens To Sicken Markets (11 min)
Adam reported that he was deluged with what amounted to hate-mail, and not just from strangers, for quoting official data about the spread of Delta.
In other words, it's now impossible to even refer to Covid, the Delta variant, masks or vaccines without triggering extremely polarizing, extremely emotional reactions.
It's impossible in one camp to question the "masks don't work" conviction, and it's equally impossible to question anything relating to transmissibility, vaccine efficacy, breakthrough cases, etc. in the camp that believes fully vaccinating the populace will effectively reduce Covid to a non-issue.
In other words, it's now impossible to hold a data-based, pragmatic, depoliticized/depolarized discussion in America. All or Nothing thinking has created Us vs Them bunkers, in which membership is defined by either/or Litmus Tests. There is no depoliticized middle ground left.
If it's now impossible to hold a pragmatic discussion in America without igniting a storm of hate-mail, or if posing a pragmatic question gets you banned by Big Tech platforms, then the nation is unraveling before our very eyes in real time.
This all-or-nothing politicization of everything of consequence is the road to ruin, and there's no reverse gear in all-or-nothing politicization. When even mentioning Delta in a financial video triggers an avalanche of hate-mail, we're already too far down the slippery slope to recover any sort of social civility or stability.
Highlights of the Blog
Posts:
America Has Lost the Trade War with China, and the Real Pain Has Yet to Begin 7/23/21
Have We Reached "Peak Self-Glorifying Billionaire"? 7/22/21
Big Tech: "Our Terms Have Changed" 7/20/21
How Breakdown Cascades Into Collapse 7/19/21
Best Thing That Happened To Me This Week
Received a small tax refund from 2019 taxes paid over a year ago, an unexpected surprise. The IRS found errors in my return which benefited me, which seems like a miracle of sorts....
On the food front, the lychees are coming in, I planted a banana keiki (child) to start a new banana patch, and home-made tortillas and chili sauce made these shrimp-eggplant enchiladas special.
From Left Field
Blood test that finds 50 types of cancer is accurate enough to be rolled out (Guardian UK) -- finally, some good news...
A weapon of mass financial destruction: Your pension is funding the destruction of the real economy...and itself.
Japan is trying to lure people into rural areas by selling $500 homes, but it's not enough to fix the country's 'ghost town' problem -- but with the right group of people, this could present an enormous and affordable opportunity...
The mRNA Vaccines Are Extraordinary, but Novavax Is Even Better (The Atlantic)
Why some experts recommend upgrading to N95 masks to help fight the delta variant. -- yes....
A New Theory of Western Civilization: Could a marriage policy first pursued by the Catholic Church a millennium and a half ago explain what made the industrialized world so powerful—and so peculiar?
Why the Technocratic Mindset Produces Only Misery and Failure-- Mark J. in top form...
Mining holds the key to a green future – no wonder human rights activists are worried (Guardian UK) -- lithium mines are not warm and fuzzy...
Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter Reflect on 75 Years of Marriage-- don't go to bed angry...
ROBBING THE XBOX VAULT: INSIDE A $10 MILLION GIFT CARD CHEAT (via GFB) -- fascinating account of exploiting a code flaw to siphon off millions...
The ‘Hustlers’ Who Started America: Historian Walter McDougall admires the founders’ ideals—but with a wink rather than a woke scowl or a reverent gaze. (WSJ.com)
Why some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity (via GFB) -- just consider the politicizing and polarization of everything described above...
"Always go far, because that’s where you’ll find the truth." Albert Camus
Thanks for reading--
charles |
|
|
|
|
|
