Verified by 
June 28, 2015
David Niose’s argument that “Anti-Intellectualism is Killing America” and his subsequent post “Fighting Back Against Anti-Intellectualism” are quite interesting. On the one hand, I agree with some of his points, and am impressed at his ability to generate such strong agreement and reaction within hours of making his case (although that’s at the same time alarming, as I’ll discuss below). On the other hand, I find his posts to be inherently politically motivated rants—very odd for someone who is arguing for reason. He offers evidence for his theses, but doesn’t seem to have any sympathy or understanding for those with whom he disagrees. Perhaps he feels that those with whom he disagrees have done so much damage that they must be called out—they are the real threats to our democracy, planet and well being. That may be correct, but his attempt to paint this as a black-and-white situation seems to betray a bit of cognitive distortion on his part as well. As my friend, Jacques Bailly, professor of Classics, points out, “Socrates was quite clear on this issue: he always said that he was more devoted to finding the right answer than to being right” (More on Greek democracy and Socrates' fears about rhetoric below.)
The only thing worse than bias is conviction. The only thing worse than conviction is ideology. With ideology comes ideologues and demagogues. We must be particularly careful not to allow our own biases, unconscious and conscious, turn into ideology that devalues people, or in the words of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, fails to provide “equal protection” and “due process” to all citizens.
How do we become biased? Mr. Niose seems to assume that reason and reason alone removes bias. “And God laughed,” would be my playful rejoinder to the anti-fundamentalist Niose. We cannot divorce bias from our reasoning process. Bias comes about through experience, belief, emotion, cognitive distortions, etc. Our reason comes out of subjective awareness, and is by definition self-centered. We might rise out of this with greater understanding and wisdom, but we are still looking at reality through our own eyes, often unaware of our blinders and filters.
The only ways out of these biases and traps of faulty reason are
- humility, not arrogant faith that “my reason is best.” And
- relationship, involving some kind of dialectic and openness to change and understanding.
In my last post, I think I intuitively summarized these into empathic awareness, and lessening our self-centeredness. Professor Michael Austin also makes a good case for reading and contemplation being good sources of what I would argue is an “inner dialectic.”
Mr. Niose seems to think if his version of reason were more powerful, then all would be well in the world. Maybe. But we should be humble to the truth that the greatest thinkers in history have been wrong with alarming frequency. Even science is not scientific without “fallibility”—or the possibility of being proven wrong. Science isn’t an ideology, at least at its best. It’s a commitment to a process of discovery. People who don’t trust science are not necessarily simply uneducated or unreasonable—they have understandable reason, from their subjective experience and awareness, to mistrust science, doctors, government, etc. And perhaps understandable motivation to undermine them.
Finally, Niose seeks to use reason to provide a rational basis for trust and change in the country and world. But trust is an outcome of following first principles of co-operation, as outlined in game theory (see Robert Axelrod’s proof of tit-for-tat play leading to the most stable relationships). Mr. Niose is offering one part of the dialectic, but he offers it as a tirade, which is unhelpful for establishing co-operation among peoples, tribes or institutions. It is interesting that his rhetorical and persuasive skills, and connections to an online community seem to be driving the discussion on the Psychology Today website. As I’ve pointed out, anger is the most viral emotion on the internet. Anger also clouds reason. It can also be a gateway to connection or division. This is the choice that we have to make, on all sides of the questions we face.
I hold to my prescriptions, outlined in my posts (the one you’re reading and the last) and subsequent comments. Faith in reason is an oxymoron. I have reason to trust my reasoning process, but the words of the Desiderata ring clear: “Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story.” Sometimes the “dull and ignorant” are looking at you in the mirror. Some great person (I can’t recall who) once said something like, “not a day goes by when I don’t clap my hand to my forehead and proclaim, ‘confounded fool!’”
Perhaps only the wise man knows himself to be a fool, and only a true fool would call himself independently wise.
Update: Jacques Bailly adds this, which is relevant to our discussion of rhetoric, bias and democracy.
"(Socrates) was anti-democratic but also anti-bad ruler. His reasons for being anti-democratic are basically that he saw the power of rhetoric. Teachers of rhetoric claimed to be able to talk about any subject better than the untrained speaker (even one who knew about the subject) and to be able to teach others to do so. Socrates thought that was pernicious and possibly more harmful than just one ignorant individual. An individual who is not only ignorant and can convince others is truly dangerous is basically what he thought. His trial is in a way a testimony to the dangers represented by the problem he diagnosed. Greek democracy was not representative: it was direct. There was a small city of thousands of citizens, not tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands. Every citizen presided over the ruling body for a day in his live. Some people were elected by lot. But basically, it was phenomenally participatory and more direct. It was, of course, built on the backs of the non-citizens (slaves, women, metics, etc.)"
© 2015 Ravi Chandra, M.D., F.A.P.A. All rights reserved.
Occasional Newsletter to find out about my new book on the psychology of social networks through a Buddhist lens, Facebuddha: Transcendence in the Age of Social Networks: www.RaviChandraMD.com
Private Practice: www.sfpsychiatry.com
Twitter: @going2peacehttp://www.twitter.com/going2peace
Facebook: Sangha Francisco-The Pacific Heart http://www.facebook.com/sanghafrancisco
For info on books and books in progress, see here https://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/ravi-chandra-md and www.RaviChandraMD.com
