Ranthropologist

Tag: communication

  • Facts and Fauxpinions

    Facts and Fauxpinions

    A few days ago a friend linked to an article on my Facebook page and asked “is this you?” I read the article, titled “No, It’s Not Your Opinion. You’re Just Wrong,” and laughed. I laughed at first because it sounded like something I would say, and I laughed as I read the article because it made a serious point in a humorous way. This is not just a Daily Read post because I want to expand on some of the things mentioned in the article. I suggest reading it first, because the author, Jef Rouner, makes beautiful work out of distinguishing between facts and opinions. The point of this post, inspired by Rouner, is to provide a discussion of some of the critically important concepts he addresses.

    I continue to feel concerned about the availability of so much information through the internet. Our ability to do a Google search and open ourselves to a world of knowledge is a wonderful thing, but it has a dark side. I’m not going to harp on the point here since I’ve addressed it many times before, but a lot of the problem comes from an inability to distinguish between fact and fiction, truth and lies, data and anecdote, science and snake-oil. Human beings are pattern-seeking animals. We deploy motivated reasoning to justify our beliefs and choices. We are easily bamboozled by sophisticated nonsense. We are prone to a whole host of logical fallacies, a subject I’ve only barely managed to skim so far. We tend to stop cold on our quest for knowledge when we come across a source that backs up what we already want to believe, and scoff at or dismiss information that refutes our beliefs; that is, we fall prey, sometimes willingly, to confirmation bias. And we will reject the arguments of others by throwing out a few non-arguments in response: “I’m entitled to my opinion.” “I’m allowed to have my beliefs.” “I have the right to free speech.” Aside from the fact that these statements are not actually arguments but are instead information-free, knee-jerk, defensive cliches bereft of any logical content or reasoned rebuttal, they are also frequently wrong.

    To begin: an opinion is not a fact. Neither is a belief. This reiterates what Rouner says in his article, but it bears repeating: an opinion is a judgement of a fact. A fact is a verifiable truth. The earth’s existence is a fact. That the earth is round is a fact. That the earth orbits the sun is a fact. These facts have all been verified. None of them is an opinion. If someone says to you, “In my opinion, the earth is flat,” they are not actually stating an opinion; they are making a claim that the flatness of the earth is a fact. They are wrong. Opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with it. This example is obviously ridiculous, but it applies to other areas of fact. Evolution is a fact that has been verified. Yet there are plenty of people who will say that in their opinion, evolution – especially of humans – has not occurred. Again, this is not an opinion because an opinion is a judgement of something. So, you could say that in your opinion, scientists who study evolution are arrogant; but if you say that evolution, in your opinion, is wrong, you are using opinion the wrong way. You cannot substitute an opinion for a fact. If you do not think evolution occurs, then by all means marshall whatever evidence you can in support of your hypothesis, but leave your opinions out of it.

    This confusion of opinion with fact happens all the time. It tends to occur when people are unable to marshall the evidence to support their ideas, so all they can say is “Well, I’m entitled to believe that evolution didn’t happen.” But are you? Are people really entitled to dismissing known facts because it happens to not match with their ideological predilections? I sometimes wish we could do this, but it just doesn’t work: facts don’t give a shit about your opinions or your beliefs. I think that when someone rejects a fact because it is not true, in their opinion, we should call those fauxpinions.

    Related to the unsupported, non-entitled opinion is the lament that a person’s right to free speech is being suppressed by those who deign to argue with, dismiss, or ignore a person’s non-factual fauxpinions. Again, this happens when a person is unable to pull together a body of actual facts and evidence to support their side of the argument. I wish I didn’t have to point this out because it’s so achingly obvious, but somebody disagreeing with you does not constitute a violation of your freedom of speech. A debate does not constitute a free speech violation. A ban or an unfriending is not a free speech violation. A deleted comment is not a free speech violation. Someone pointing out where you may be wrong is not a free speech violation. Someone having a different opinion from you – and yes, even though I have harped on facts, it is obviously possible to have different actual opinions about a fact (e.g. different opinions on the death penalty) – is not a free speech violation. Even the loss of commenting privileges on a website, or the deleting of your account, is not a free speech violation.

    So what is a violation of freedom of speech, then? It is when the government suppresses speech. That’s it. It’s really that simple. If any government official, agency, bureau, department, et al deletes your Twitter account, then, my friend, you have experienced a violation of your freedom of speech. If Twitter deletes your account, they are not violating your free speech. They may not be justified, but Twitter, Facebook, the comment section in your local paper, your Tea Party cousin, your socialist aunt – none of these entities is obligated to listen to you or allow you to say whatever you want to say. So please, for the love of speech, do not whine about how your rights have been violated because somebody blocks or deletes or, god forbid, disagrees with your speech. You may have the right to say it, but I have the right to disagree with it, ignore it, or dismiss it.

    We all have a lot to learn online and from each other. We will all have different opinions about the facts we encounter. We will all sometimes feel dismissed or ignored by people who disagree with us. And we should all learn to back up what we say with logic and reason, avoid fauxpinions, and know the difference between facts and opinions. Our speech will be better for it.

  • Opinions Unhinged

    Opinions Unhinged

    Lately my motivation for writing has been at a low ebb. Even posting more than occasional “Daily Reads” has been an effort. It’s not because I’m not reading anything worth sharing; it’s more that I’ve started to feel overwhelmed with how much there is to share. I use the media aggregator site Feedly to gather all my news sources in one place, and if I fail to check it before the end of the day I’ll often have more than 200 headlines tempting me to click – and I’m only gathering feeds from 14 sites (ranging from NPR to Jezebel, with some blogs thrown into the mix as well). I end up feeling exhausted by it all, even though I end up bypassing many of the articles. Often I will click on a promising headline only to find the article wasn’t worth it; or even worse, give in to the temptation to click on something that is more titillating than thought-provoking (Jezebel does this to me all the time – although the site posts many worthwhile and thoughtful articles, they are also awash in cute animal videos and celebrity gossip). But I’ve decided that the most exhausting part of this whole exercise is cutting through the ideological mud-slinging and self-righteous preening I encounter in much of what I read.

    I am so. tired. of people burying what are otherwise worthwhile arguments about important issues in a heap of hyperbole about how people who have a different point of view are worthless pieces of shit. I am sick of seeing headlines in publications like Salon that describe conservatives as “unhinged,” “foaming at the mouth,” and “lunatic.” I am so over reading descriptions of dissent as “blistering” or “harsh” or “scathing” when the opinions themselves turn out to be reasonable and well-founded critiques. Why does everything have to be described using the most over the top adjectives possible? And more importantly, why is it that having a different opinion makes a person mentally ill?

    This is really the crux of my problem. When you dismiss an opponent as insane, that means that you are not engaging with the meat of their argument. Publications that trade in hyperbolic descriptions and headlines are engaging in click-bait tactics, and it is to the detriment of the carefully considered arguments and opinions that the articles themselves often contain. I realize that these publications need to make money, and page-views are critical to the bottom line… but we as readers are being done a disservice. Moreover, the arguments and opinions themselves are also being ill-served. Believe me, I have my visceral reactions to some of the points of view of people with whom I strenuously disagree; Ann Coulter, for example, makes my blood boil (and not incidentally, she is a good example of a person who cynically leverages hyperbolic and vitriolic attacks into a scheme to separate a certain segment of the population from their money). But in the end, trading in ad hominem attacks and ridiculously over the top exaggerations does no service to reasonable and intelligent debate.

    This is a paradox I have long pondered: the person whose views you find so objectionable finds your views to be equally objectionable. A person who is opposed to gay marriage feels just as strongly about the rightness of their take on this issue as I feel right about my view that marriage should be available to all. This does not make the person who disagrees with me unhinged. People who embrace conservative views genuinely believe that their approach is what is best for the country (and the world), just like I genuinely believe that progressive principles are what is best. How are we ever supposed to have any sort of constructive conversation about our differences when we – and the media we are exposed to – label those with different views as crazy? Why do we take the easy way out by calling names and thus ignoring the substance of what a person believes? By doing that, we run the risk of overlooking sincerely held – and potentially damaging or dangerous – beliefs; that is, if we can arrogantly dismiss someone as crazy (or ignorant or stupid), then we are missing the opportunity to spell out, with rationality and reason, why we believe that person to be wrong.

    When someone defends the Confederate battle flag as a symbol of Southern culture and history, rather than as a symbol of racism, how likely are you to get that person to listen to and acknowledge the deeply rooted and horrifying history of chattel slavery associated with the flag if you start the conversation by calling that person a racist? (If you have any doubt whatsoever that the Confederate battle flag was flown in the cause of defending slavery, I implore you to click that link.) When a person states that their religion prohibits them from acknowledging marriage as anything other than one man and one woman, what are the chances they’ll engage with you in a productive conversation if you tell them they are a bigot? Is an anti-vaxer suddenly going to start vaccinating his kids because you tell him that he is a bad parent who is putting others in danger? Is it possible for us to acknowledge that people can have strongly held beliefs about things that we may consider to be wrong without assuming that those people are 100%, irredeemably bad? The world is not that simple.

    I want to be very clear here: I am not making an argument for excusing racism, prejudice, intolerance, irrationality, or bigotry. I am making an argument for engaging with people respectfully, even if we don’t respect the basis of the opinions they hold (although, to be sure, there are some opinions and ideologies that don’t deserve to be engaged with at all because they are so extreme, e.g. Holocaust denial or the Westboro Baptist Church. In that case, I think the best approach is to not give those people a platform). As I said above, the person you disagree with feels just as strongly about her opinion as you do about yours. Would you be willing to listen to what she has to say if she leads off by telling you that you are crazy for having your opinion? Nobody’s mind has ever been changed by insults; if anything, minds are solidified when faced with personal attacks and vitriol. Sadly, in this new media world of clicks, ads, and anonymity, I’m afraid that the attacks will win, and debate, rationality, and respect will continue to lose.

  • Daily Reads: Feeding the Trolls

    Daily Reads: Feeding the Trolls

    When I first discovered the website Jezebel, the writer Lindy West quickly became one of my favorite contributors. She is fiercely intelligent, incredibly funny, and delightfully straightforward. I loved everything she wrote for Jezebel. Lindy has moved on to writing for The Guardian, and in this piece she talks about what it is like to be targeted by online trolls. Most of you already know this, but an internet troll is a person who leaves anonymous comments, tweets, or emails that are meant to insult or provoke. Trolls can be incredibly vicious and degrading, and for West, who frequently writes about feminism, the trolls are also virulently misogynistic. She writes that she has developed armor to help protect her from commenters who talk about how they want to rape or kill her, but she also acknowledges the heavy burden these trolls place on her and her colleagues. The story West has to tell is disturbing but also, potentially, hopeful – it involves how she ended up having a long conversation with one of her trolls who had come to recognize the error of his ways. West does more than write about this remorseful troll – she also did a piece on her experience with him for This American Life, which you can listen to here. West’s article and the radio piece are really about much more than just her particular trolls; they are about the breakdown in civility that can occur in the modern online world, and what can happen when people are given anonymity. I think it is an important read.

    What happened when I confronted my cruellest troll

  • Daily Reads: Bored and Brilliant

    Daily Reads: Bored and Brilliant

    Today’s Daily Read is actually a challenge. I ran across an article called The Case for Boredom from the New Tech City podcast this morning and read about an experiment they are running called Bored and Brilliant. After reading about it, I decided to join the project. Here’s the deal: according to the podcast and article, people are spending an inordinate amount of time on their cellphones. Big surprise, right? Of course not – but what’s interesting is the research showing that we are stifling our creativity by never allowing ourselves to be bored. So Manoush Zomorodi of New Tech City decided to create the Bored and Brilliant project to see if people will sign up and participate during the first week of February to see if they can change their relationship with their phone. Now, I don’t feel like I spend that much time on my phone, but part of the project involves downloading an app that tracks your actual use. I think I’ll probably be surprised to find that I use my phone much more than I realize, even though I don’t use it for anything other than email, texting, and browsing the web (e.g. no time-sucking games like Candy Crush). But I also know that when I have a few minutes of downtime – even if it’s idling at a red light – my default urge is to grab the phone and see if I have any new messages or if there are any updates on Instagram or Facebook. I know many of my friends are doing this too – and I also think many of you may want to change your relationship with your phone. So I am challenging you to join me in participating in the Bored and Brilliant project. Click the link below to learn more about the project and sign up. I think it will be fun – and revealing!

    Bored and Brilliant: The Lost Art of Spacing Out

  • Enjoy Your VD!

    Enjoy Your VD!

    It’s trendy to be anti-Valentine’s Day, so I’m not going to add to the cliches by ranting about how VD is a holiday invented for the benefit of greeting card companies, florists, and candy stores. I’m not particularly a fan of the day myself and have never felt the need to recognize it. However, I am concerned about how much of the advertising for VD perpetuates extraordinarily broad and negative generalities about gender relations.

    First, a disclaimer: I have no problem specifying a date on the calendar for celebrating love, whether romantic or platonic. One of the common complaints about VD is that “people should show their love all year, not just on a specific day.” I don’t disagree, but I think holidays can serve as ways to publicly or formally recognize everyday events or emotions by highlighting them on a specific date. Most of our holidays celebrate things that can have daily meaning; I am a proud US citizen every day, not just on July 4. That said, I think VD is one of the worst offenders for creating a forced sense of obligation and a shallow, sexist view of men and women. Specifically, I am concerned about the marketing of Valentine’s Day.

    If you watch television or use the internet, you have seen a commercial for Valentine’s Day. Flowers, candy, and jewelry are all de rigueur if a man – that’s right, only a man – does not want to spend VD in the doghouse. For women, the receipt of flowers, candy, and jewelry means they are obligated to reward the male giver with sex. And, if receiving sex is not the implied message of the commercial, then at least not being punished by a vindictive, angry female mate is the next best message. It’s true that some of the softer-toned commercials do not imply sex or domestic peace as the rewards, and focus instead on how jewelry, in particular, is a symbol of romance, emotional intimacy, and commitment… but this is still problematic in that it portrays women as being emotionally fulfilled by shiny trinkets. So at worst, women are childlike prostitutes who will reward men with sex in exchange for stuffed toys, pretty flowers, sugary snacks, and sparkly baubles. Men, on the other hand, are whipped slaves at the mercy of sex-withholding females, and must indulge her need for VD validation or else risk her wrath.

    I realize I am generalizing, but if you pay attention to the commercials you really can’t help but notice how simplistic the messages are. I really do have a problem with this, not just because the messages are potentially damaging, but also because, for once, I really don’t think that many people are falling for it. Maybe I have a soft spot on this, but I’d like to think that people who give their loved ones gifts for Valentine’s Day are doing so because they truly want to honor that intimacy. There’s nothing wrong with giving flowers and chocolates; they are the traditional gift of VD and that’s fine. But if people are doing it out of a sense of obligation or because they are afraid of being punished, then that’s the wrong reason. We are better than the commercials want us to believe. Accepting gifts from your partner does not mean you are obligated to have sex with him or her; ideally you share physical intimacy because you share emotional intimacy, and gifts are irrelevant to that relationship. Women do not have to have gifts to want to have sex with their partners. Men and women both can show they love their partners without the traditional trappings of Valentine’s Day; all they have to do is say it. The commercials are wrong.

    All that being said, there are definitely people who buy into the notion that Valentine’s Day should be an enormous production, and they hold their partners to ridiculously high standards for how it should be acknowledged. If a person really believes that their partner does not love him or her because they don’t go all out for VD, then you have a larger problem than sexist advertising stereotypes. You have a problem of critical thinking and communication. Our culture does teach men and women to fill some very specific roles in romantic relationships, but with open-minded communication and critical analysis we can step above this sort of gender hegemony and redefine our roles to suit all our interpersonal relationships, romantic and otherwise. The commercials may be wrong, but that doesn’t mean some people aren’t still fooled.

    I’ll end with this: men and women both, if you want something for Valentine’s Day, then say so. Don’t say you don’t care, then get hurt when your partner believes you. Communicate. And, even if you aren’t a big fan of the holiday, if your partner is, then do something for them and make them happy. If you are a big fan of VD, but your partner isn’t, then don’t ask or expect him or her to hang the moon for you. Find the middle ground. It’s about compromise, selflessness, give and take, sacrifice, communication, honesty – the things we should do for each other every day anyway.

  • Technology and Its Discontents: A Preface

    Technology and Its Discontents: A Preface

    I suppose its ironic that I’m writing a rant about the drawbacks of modern technology using modern technology. Really, though, I want to write about something I’ve ruminated on at length already: communicative strategies. More specifically, I’m concerned about the ways in which modern technology is changing communicative strategies, and along with it, our approach to the world in general. Let me preface this with a new personal goal of mine: I want to unplug, at least once a week, from electronic distractions. On the opposite pole, I want to make sure I update my electronic rants more frequently; that is, at least once a week. Are these dichotomous goals? I don’t think so; but like all things, there is a limit to both. I find myself far too distracted by modern communicative technologies but simultaneously I sometimes feel that I don’t use those technologies as constructively as I could.

    So what’s the rant? This is a huge topic, but I want to start with unpacking the idea that the modern communicative technologies offered by computers, smart phones, tablets, etc., and in particular, the instant updates possible via social media, news sites, streaming video, et al., are enhancing our ability to communicate. I believe that these tools are actually decreasing our communicative abilities. How should we define communication? At the very least, it is the passing of a message from one individual to at least one other individual. That communication does not have to be face to face, or even ear to ear, but the point is that ultimately a message is transmitted. The human ability to transmit messages via what we call language is almost certainly unique to Homo sapiens; although other species do have complex forms of communication, there is tremendous debate over whether any non-human form of communication can be called language (a topic which may someday earn its own post). But if there is no one to receive the message, can the messages we send rightly be called communication? As just a small part of my overall questions about modern technology’s impact on communication, I often find myself wondering if we are mostly shouting into the dark. I would like to venture the hypothesis that modern technology is highlighting some of our species’ basest and most primitive inclinations.

    We are only ten or twelve thousand years removed from the time when all humans were living in small, close-knit tribal groups in which the survival of the individual depended on the survival of the group and vice versa. Yet it would be a mistake to assume that in small, egalitarian groups there was no social striving, no quest for power, no competition. All those things existed, but in general the needs of the group would check any one person from assuming too much power. Enter agriculture and more complex technology, and some of the checks on power and status-seeking began to be eroded. Agriculture made it possible for more people to survive with less effort, and to live in much larger groups where it became increasingly difficult to know every individual, much less communicate with them regularly. When you don’t know someone, that means you don’t need them; and if you don’t need them, there is no reason to care about that person’s survival. Fast far forward to today (and skipping over, for the time being, the cultural, social, and technological changes that ultimately led to the capitalist world-system in which we now live) and status-seeking is a prime motivator of human social, economic, and political behavior.

    What does any of this have to do with modern technology and modern communication? In a strange way, all these rapid-fire communication tools that are literally at our fingertips have made it possible for us to, once again, communicate with the entire group. This is not to say, of course, that every person’s status update or tweet or blog post is being transmitted to every person in the world. But, it is to say that we are able to pass messages to complete strangers, whether intentionally or not, and we are finding that those messages aren’t crafted carefully enough to avoid misunderstanding or insult or any number of misapprehensions. We are having to learn from scratch how to communicate deliberately and carefully, but all too often people are using what should be a fine-grained tool as a bludgeon. We can communicate with an enormous group, but we seem to take little, if any, responsibility, for the consequences of the messages we transmit.

    We are learning a new process the hard way. I am fascinated with how our adaptation to the modern communicative age will proceed. I will have much more to say about this in future posts; consider this a preface.