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
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
progressives 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.



Salon.com
Comments
Judy B: Good idea!
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!
We've definitely reached that point -- with information, controversy and ideology overload.
Epistemically challenged~
BR
But I thought about that, viz epistemic closure.
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...
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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis
Did you notice the attack post? Did you notice the most unreasonable post? Did you notice which side they came from?
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...
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
Gonzoid: you just summarized my book but in much hipper language!
Elvis: at least Sanchez is young; that's hopeful
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.
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.
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.
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.