It's Always Something

spring

Nikki Stern

Nikki Stern
Location
Princeton, New Jersey, USA
Birthday
April 10
Title
whatever sounds good
Company
Sure, come on in
Bio
Author of "Because I Say So: The Dangerous Appeal of Moral Authority" (www.nikkistern.com) and "Hope in Small Doses" to be released June 1, 2010 by Humanist Press.

MY RECENT POSTS

Editor’s Pick
APRIL 28, 2010 1:39PM

Are You Suffering From Epistemic Closure?

Rate: 26 Flag

If you've been tooling around the blogosphere, particularly amongst the writings of the so-called conservative intelligentsia, you may have run into the words "epistemic closure." The phrase seems to have originated with Sanchez conservative blogger Julian Sanchez, who admits on his blog that he's giving an old undergraduate philosophy term a new spin; in this case, "closed off to new information."

Sanchez is concerned that conservative media has become "worryingly untethered from reality...",  a phrase seized upon with delight by both the New York Times and Salon; both also covered, in gleeful detail, some of the nastier rifts between the "true" conservatives, who see the David Brooks of the world as sell-outs, and those of Brooks’ and Sanchez’s ilk, who think the propaganda pushers are, well, loony-tunes.

Sanchez's concerns are chiefly with the conservative media, which positions itself as a purveyor of truth among of sea of liberal media liars, even though it seems to promulgate misinformation and "fact-based" information with equal fervor. This scarcely seems like news to critics of the Fox juggernaut and the soaring careers of Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and now, Palin. But I suspect "epistemic closure,” despite its high-falutin’ phrasing and amusing provenance (Hey, want a laugh? Check this out; the conservatives are fighting!), might go a long way in describing where we find ourselves today:  angry, disaffected, partisan, opinionated; unwilling, unable, and unconvinced that any information could ever change our minds or make us move a millimeter off whatever position we’ve staked out. It’s close-mindedness writ large and applied to whole sets of beliefs or groups of people down to one person or a single memory.

Though I tend to be firmly in the liberal camp, let me remind my fellow fingersinearsprogressives that allowing one’s mind to slam shut isn’t limited to conservative thinkers. We all are guilty at times of absorbing misinformation, regurgitating old assumptions, resorting to ancient biases, or falling back on preconceived notions. Even if we could ever get back to arguing ideologies (the role of government, the pace of change) instead of assigning stereotypes (immoral liberal; cold-hearted conservative), we’d have to learn to see various shades of gray along with our black/white (or red/blue) mindset. For a smart and supposedly tolerant group of people, we’ve become dangerously inept at seeing another’s point of view.

Of course, the current contretemps over the craziness at the fringes of either party (or either ideology) is magnified by the ubiquity of media, professional and amateur, mainstream and new, informed and less so. It’s so easy these days to whip up a group of anxious, confused people on information overload – and it’s clearly more profitable. It’s also irresponsible, especially when dealing with people so clearly afflicted with epistemic closure.

dooslam

 

 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Let's hope it's not catching...
I think you can whittle this down to one word -- racism. One more thing -- isn't the term "conservative intelligensia" an oxymoron?
I don't know about you, but I'm going to be taking an extra big daily dose of vitamin C from now on ;-)
John: Now you just want to make sure you're not suffering from a touch of EC yourself, although the supply of conservative intelligentsia does seem to be dwindling

Judy B: Good idea!
Closure used to be good, no?
It’s so easy these days to whip up a group of anxious, confused people on information overload – and it’s clearly more profitable.

YES. Wonderful piece. I've been watching some of the bouncing back-and-forth about epistemic closure; this is a great overview and reminder that it's not just one side closing down. Thanks!
" For a smart and supposedly tolerant group of people, we’ve become dangerously inept at seeing another’s point of view."

We've definitely reached that point -- with information, controversy and ideology overload.

Epistemically challenged~

BR
It's a cult mentality. I like the writing.
I've suffered from "epistemic closure" in relation to conservatism for a long time. Given that Rush Limbaugh seems like a relatively sane and well-informed figure compared to Beck and Palin, I don't think there's any choice but to slam the door shut and slam it hard. It's too bad.
My teenage daughters told me last night that the sphincter is the body's strongest muscle. They learned it in school i guess. i didn't know how to respond.

But I thought about that, viz epistemic closure.
I think it's the herd mentality. Put 100 humans in a room with nothing to do but talk to each other, come back in 8 hours and I'd bet you would find 4 distinct groups each with as least 1 sub group. Come back in a week and they will tell you how dumb, uncool, tacky etc the other groups were, with maybe some kind words for another person in another group, ending with a "I don't know how he put up with 'them'."
Nikki, lots of great thoughts contained here. It definitely pays to have an open mind!
We do have a real American conservative here on OS namely " Feral Conservative." These people who have taken over the Republican Party and call themselves conservatives IMHO resemble fascists than anything else. They are allied with and backed by corporate interests and this is one of the definitions of a fascist state. This makes them the disloyal opposition.
In the midst of such conflict with no reasonable expectation of compromise, sometimes it seems the only thing to do is close the door. (I wouldn't say it's just "racism" there's plenty of "classism" going around too.)
Nik: once upon a time...
Saturn: Thanks. So, are you onto movie/TV reviews now or just branching out :-)
Blue Roses: Maybe EC will be a medical diagnosis soon
OE - cult, herd, yeah
Aunt Mabel - I like the way you think
Rick: I am not suggesting that understanding Glenn Beck is required
Greg: that must be related to the insult about cojoining of two parts of the anatomy that could not be achieved in real life...oh never mind
Thumbs: fighting herd mentality is thankless but necessary work
Designanator: ...but it doesn't pay well.
Coachcaptain: my conservative friends (and yes, I have them) would probably agree...
"close-mindedness writ large," indeed. This is compounded by another all too common human condition, "naive reality"- the absurd notion that those around you share all your perspectives. Based, truly, on ignorance and isolation.

You also reference new media's star, "the amateur"- hard to believe looking back but I once actually cared about the inner workings of the Fortune 500 Co. I worked for, enough to spend hours preparing for pitches by putting yourself entirely in the other side's shoes; what keeps them up at night? The professional will find out.

And, we collectively referred to co-workers and competitors incapable of this type of self-awareness as, "amateurs."

rated, great job.
Bellwether: Think of keeping (and perhaps teaching others) to keep an open mind as a kind of exercise

Oahusurfer, welcome: interesting that you talk about the naivete of assuming others share your views. I've found we tend to hang with those people who do reinforce our views, a point made by Cass Sunstein in his book "Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide." Also, surrounding our selves with or seeking out people who agree with our views serves to strengthen our conviction that we're "right" about what it is we think we believe. It's much harder to consider other viewpoints.
Part of this is only listening to our own side (Fox or MSNBC; Drudge or Huffpo, etc etc). The media has contributed to this very real problem that seems to be getting worse.
Habermas and Teubner term this "Autopoiesis." This idea has been around for a long time. Yes, conservatives and most ideologies fall prey to this during their mature years. All systems end up this way. New systems or systems inventing themselves are much more dynamic, as the conservative ideology was when it was reinventing itself during the 1960s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis
Nikki~ All that education paid off big time. You've written the most polished political piece I've read in a while. Do you know Benjamin Barber, Princeton pudit and scholar? Authored a piece in The Atlantic about 15 years back--"A New Language For The Left"? It became my credo for a while. Nobody else that mattered really vetted it. Anyhow--I like to write about politics too, although I've worked as an engineer for 30 years. Not as well as you--and our Canadian cousin, Naomi Klein. Did you read "The Shock Doctrine"? Of course you did. You must have. Anyway--I made you a Fav because anyone who can use words like 'contretemps', 'ubiquity' and 'epistemic' in the same post is clearly favored by the gods and should be by me too.
By the way, 'epistemic' must be related to epistemology. Right? Also, Ben Barber is a pundit, not a pudit--unless you know something I don't.
Sorry, but this issue has little if anything to do with opposing viewpoints -- it has to do with one side, the Left, choosing facts to support its views, and the other side, the Right, simply making shit up. You can't have a debate under those circumstances.
This is an excellent post. There is enough cynicism and anger to go around, everybody seems to be afflicted with a small degree of it. But epistemic closure, we need a vaccination for that.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally find keeping my mind open hardest when the ideas coming from the other side are so radical. Ask me to choose between apples and oranges, and I will choose very deliberately. Ask me to choose between apples and armageddon, I'll probably grab at the Granny Smiths with such violence as to leave them fit only for pies.
Nikki, this is brilliant. Am I guilty of epistemic closure? Indeed I am at times. But I'm not at my best in that mode...xox
Nikki,

Did you notice the attack post? Did you notice the most unreasonable post? Did you notice which side they came from?
hey nikki, luv your new av, but you look sunburned. maybe its just my monitor =(
They don't need new terms; they desperately need a complete makeup. Clever post, Nikki, rated.
Everyone has an agenda. If you take off the tin foil hat and look at the world around you, you can see the agenda in every day things.

Some agendas are hard to identify. Nearly the whole agenda from the 'right' is frightening to me. It's based on fear and suspicion. (I get a flashback to the fantastic Spanish Inquisition sketch from Monty Python at this point constantly) It's about fear of sex and power and dying and not going to heaven and controlling other people's lives, yet I see some of that on the left. I do find myself much more comfortable on the left though I have to say. Although I do share some opinions from the right, like most people, I'm not 100% either way. You have to keep your mind open to questions that help you, guide you to what is going to work in your life, your position in society. To walk around with fingers in your ears is dangerous and childish. Yet, some of the crap I hear from the right is just 'knee jerk' reactionary stuff. Raw incitement of anger and a warm embrace of ignorance.

My grandmother-in-law was, under the expert teachings of Pat Robertson, was convinced that there was a conspiracy created by the watch makers in that wrist watches were sapping the strength out of America's inhabitants. You see that the arm that you wear your watch is weaker than the other one. There, she would demand was 'proof' that the watches were sucking your non-dominant appendages strength. Well, that was one theory. Wrong... It was that and so much else that she spouted that was a wake up call to the future that our country would face in years to come... She is long gone, her mind finally finding a rest from the constant idiocy from her preacher man. Her slammed shut and bolted mind free and yet I still am concerned at the path her savior has his deluded followers on... Life for them is easier with a firmly closed, and fearful, mind. So much of the message from the right is 'FEEL, don't THINK'. We haven't enough time to think about it. He's different, she's black, they aren't like you. That kind of thinking is so silly to me... FEEL FEEL FEEL, don't THINK. Thinking is for 'commies' and 'traitors'. So much of the dialog on the right (Fox News) is so dripping with emotion and illogic. They play for the emotions, both good and bad. The 'bubble headed bleach blond' delivering the 'news' appeals to the perverted side of the brain. Mind control to a science... Buzzword bingo...
This post is encouraging. Some of the comments are less so. It's a relief to see that some on the right are taking a hard look at themselves. It's disappointing to see that so many on the left are unable to do so -- which only proves the aptness of your admonition, Nikki.
Lea: the media goes for drama over responsibility
Rw00: exactly...is a new system needed or just a refresher?
Lary: thanks, and go easy on critiquing typos; I make plenty myself
Tom: look, the GOP disinformation campaign going on these days drives me crazy too but I think your statement is overreach.
Fay: so true
Max: I throw nuts at nuts
Robin: at least you recognize it
vnz: it's the lighting
Kyle: well, yeah, passion speaks louder than (some) words
Gonzoid: you just summarized my book but in much hipper language!
Elvis: at least Sanchez is young; that's hopeful
If I was suffering from that, I would want to see a specialist--and fast.
Well said, Nikki. Back in 2002 I had the opportunity to meet George W. Bush, to hear him speak and shake his hand. I was surprised that he was not the drooling chimp that cartoonist's portrayed him as, seemed in fact quite human and by no means stupid. Unlike on TV, in person he spoke well.
Back home I tried to explain this at a dinner party. I was shouted down by a couple of drunks, with a vehemence you'd expect if you were spouting obscenities about their God. All I was trying to say was: if you fear this man, you should be more afraid, because he's a more formidable adversary than you think.
I hope I've succeeded in my intention of disguising my own political persuasion. It's nor germane to the story.
Nikki, perhaps we do need a "new system." As somebody who went to law school, I think the biggest example of a "closed system," is the US legal establishment. Its interesting.

First, because law is determined through a self-referential analysis. You don't "look outside" the law to statistics and social sciences (Brandeis was one of the only ones who ever did this). Rather, you determine the legality of a thing, based on precedent, even if the precedents were or were not based on truth. As such, you wind up with a systemic form of circular logic. A, if B. B, if C, C, if A and so on.

Second, look at how the Framers of the Constitution looked at foreign laws, comparative politics, historical examples and the like during the drafting process of the US Constitution. The Federalist Papers are filled with republican and constitutional examples from ancient Rome and Athens, Syracuse and Sparta, examples from Florence, Venice, the Dutch Republic. Examples from the Swiss Republic and Great Britain. They were so open-minded, and drew on an enormously rich and cosmopolitan sampling of international law, custom and politics. Although foreign and foreign historical influences were of great importance in framing and drafting the Constitution, they are of absolutely no use whatsoever in subsequent Constitutional debate. This, too, is interesting. One can only cite prior Court decisions, a few statutes, and maybe discuss the "intent" of the Framers, but the latter is only seen as "persuasive" and not "controlling" authority.

The Constitution is one of the best examples, I think, of how a "new system," draws from outside, dissimilar sources during the time of its birth or creation, but then "closes itself off" in a period of maturity. New ideas, brought into the calculus, necessarily threaten the prior system and serve as a "circuit breaker." Only big historical events have the ability to do this in questions of law and sometimes, ideology.
People confuse conservative mindset or values with conservative politics. I recently explained to my SiL that not all libertarians are gun waving militia. I, for one, do not want to see another law to legalize gay marriage. I would like to see the laws that ban it repealed. That to me is pretty progressive.
Enjoyed this. It is the right that has gone completely crazy. The left may have its moments of neurosis but it is never equal to the illness on the right. We, the left, may be neurotic but the right has become psychotic.
@Spud: The right certainly gets more institutionalized and mainstream press. And while I want to be careful about making generalizations, it may be in the nature of the conservative mind to fear change more than anything.
I myself am enjoying the conservative infighting. Maybe they will try to stick with the truth and ditch the righteous lies. Or not. Rated for wisdom.
It's like everyone has their hands over their ears and they're going blah, blah,blah, like a bunch of little kids.
Oh for a clean slate...well written piece.
Why is it that "conservative intellectuals" must invent babble like "epistemic closure" where simple "ignorant closed-minding know-nothing" ... is the reality?

Why is it that the conservatives rant about how the universities are full of "liberals" ... but seem unable to produce anybody who can or will actually study any of the hard topics needed in the sciences ... which should not be a matter of political view?

I can't name a prominent scientist who is notably "conservative" ... not one. I think the reason for this is pretty simple: the current conservative agenda is pro-ignorance, pro-stupidity.
Great post.

Among my friends (and online commenters, too) I notice there is confusion between being open to other ideas and solutions, and being open to assholishness. I want to be the sort of person who works at grasping new ideas and other points of view. But I don't want or need to be the sort of person who goes along with listening to willful stupidity or intolerance.

I enjoy reading or hearing a thoughtful commentary about policy or issues from the point of view of someone who has opinions I don't share. But there's no requirement that I allow myself to be tolerant or patient with stupidity, lazy ideas, fear, or bigotry.

I can respect someone's conclusions, even if I find them appalling, if they have been arrived at in a thoughtful and logical process. But I do have the expectation that if you're going to opine on something you can "show your work" and back it up with some sort of logical process and facts. Otherwise, you're just littering in the public sphere of ideas.