Intellectual Incompetence & The Slow Strangulation Of Integrity

I thought it might be interesting to explore the various ways in which we avoid exposing ourselves to the contradictions, weaknesses & incompetence in our thinking and expression of ideas, and slowly damage our integrity in the process.

This is NOT about anyone on this forum, nor is it a "the OTHER side is bad, but MY side is good!" exercise in finger pointing, but rather an OVERALL attempt to look at how we may delude ourselves into various behaviors and attitudes which erode our integrity, including in matters related to politics.

I'll express more if sufficient traffic in the thread, but otherwise, meh.

 

The most pervasive cognitive bias these days IME is the overuse of learned/taught, rough heuristics in place of the reasoned application of foundational principles to differing facts and events. The telltale is inconsistency.

For example, reasoned application of "freedom of speech" as a principle would carry with it the corollary that it is wrong to interfere with the freedom of speech of others.

As a rough heuristic, though, "freedom of speech" can, and often does mean to many, "I can say and do whatever I want whenever I want" without any regard for whether what I say/do interferes with the speech rights of others. Inconsistent.

 

Self deception is a well known physiological phenomenon. it can be argued that everyone practices self deception to one degree or another, otherwise it would be impossible to keep living and enjoying life in the face of certain death.

Add to that the fact that humans act often on an irrational basis, and you get people who, when looked at objectively by an outsider, say one thing, but do another.

As far as integrity, of course we are all guilty of the self-deceiving behavior, so as long as self deception is normal in a particular matter, I don't see that integrity is affected.

An example: I believe that climate change is caused by CO2 emissions, which should be curtailed. Yet, I drive a car. Somehow, I must deceive myself that it is okay to drive a car and emit CO2, despite telling others that climate change is real and, possibly, dangerous. How is that possible? Welcome to human irrationality.

 

Don't know what to call it but here goes.

There are some things that I believe in that I won't let a good counterargument affect. My mind is made up on certain matters and I do realize my stance is biased, but it doesn't matter.

Spoiler: Should I share my pet beliefs?

Decriminalizing cannabis and making the case to change the nature of our economic system are my pet beliefs.

I recognize that the opposing side has strong points at times, but none of them matter in the grand scheme of things.

 

Perfect example but is that human irrationality or just plain hypocrisy or maybe you deep down inside dont believe man is warming the planet. I know this sounds accusatory but I don't mean it that way.

 

The siren call of the heard is irresistible and capitulation is inevitable.

 

You see, things are not always as easy, or black and white. If I lived on my own, I might as well live close to work and bicycle to work every day, forgoing driving. Luckily, though, I have a family and it won't be possible not to drive, even though emitting CO2 is in direct competition with my political belief.

I also don't like to fly, but I have to because as a scientist, I have to attend meetings and panels, otherwise I can say goodbye to my career -- another issue of competing beliefs.

Conservatives, of course, have similar problems. For example, they mostly don't like to pay for SS and Medicare, but are happy to use them when the need arises. Of course, another competing issue. Conservative might have to accept goodies from the dreaded welfare state to protect their families from financial ruin.

One thing is: I know full well that I am a hypocrite and say one thing and live another. Can you say the same for yourself?

 

Are you a hypocrite or are you just going along with the crowd for that other human need which is to be accepted and to go along with the crowd? It seems to me anyone who truly believes we are on the verge of destroying the livability of the planet would make every effort possible not to contribute to that. What good is a career if you can't even live on the planet where your career is? I don't mean to turn this into another AGW debate but it's a good focal point to base the main discussion around.

 

Fantastic first sentence.

Disingenuous introduction of irrelevant observation pertaining to a near universal human foible, & attempt to steer a general conversation into a specific predetermined pigeonhole.

Continuation of the above. Inevitable.

 

Superb post.

The car thing is a great example of that divide between values/knowledge on the one hand, and the sometimes necessary (or perceived as necessary) caving in to cultural norms.

Self deception is the key to all this to be sure.

 

A very honest reply!

I think in some areas - like minor recreational drug use, or personally held religious beliefs not imposed on others - we can be in our own private space without seriously disrupting our individual integrity or any larger construct of same.

 

Good points.

I think it's an acceptance of the cultural norm here in the US of operating a motor vehicle rather than pursuing other options of transport, often few and far between in exurban areas.

The stigma attached to other forms of transport, or the simple unavailability of same, affects this, as does the endless pro-car propaganda.

Mass transit, on-call transport, ride sharing and vehicle sharing all make sense/better sense, and the younger generations are less inclined to own or lease cars, but this is an economic decision as much as anything else.

 

Nailed it.

 

I like this thread too.

I have the somehow pessimistic belief that free will is a highly-overrated concept. Humans are much more constrained by their emotions than they would like to admit. These emotions are just built in physiologically, evolved over long periods of time. We may try as hard to control these emotions, but even the most rational thinkers are unable to do it.

If you were a space alien, looking at humans from outer space, you would see that, statistically speaking, most of them do exactly the same thing, the get born, grow, eat, drink, reproduce, have family, grow old and die. We'd look to them just like deer look to us, all the same. That's of course, why we all adhere to cultural norms, no matter what our rational mind tells us to do otherwise. Depressing, I know.

 

Now, I bike to work, when work load and weather allows. I also have solar panels on my roof. So, I am at least not a total hypocrite . However, that does not absolve me from my carbon-producing ways.

 

I can honestly say I am not a hypocrite. I accomplish this feat by not having any principles, only prejudices. Prejudices are the “untaught feelings” and “mass of predispositions” supplied by the collective wisdom of a people, after Edmund Burke.

But you shouldn't beat yourself over your carbon usage. Being against global warming is as silly as being against gravity. It is just one of those things that is happening.

 

The existential fear of death and its subsequent denial is a self deception that shapes the interactions of every human on this planet.

 

That is a misconception which I have addressed before. I believe that to the maximum extent possible, everyone should take care of themselves. Meaning save up for retirement. Make sure you are covered on healthcare according to your own needs and abilities. Through all of this I recognize that we have to help some people are genuinely are not capable of helping themselves because of illness and accidents.

However, I live in this society, not in the one I would like to live in. So when I pay taxes and other moneys to the government, I will take whatever benefits they offer for which I am entitled. I am not going to refuse to accept something which I paid for just because I did not believe in the concept to start with.

 

A lot of my thinking on this is derived from a book I read in college. The Book was science fiction written by a guy with a PHD in Physics named E.E. "Doc" Smith. I believe the idea appeared early in the series and was developed more thoroughly as the series continued. The series was the Lensmen series. And the idea is that you try to put together an understanding in broad terms of how everything fits together and works together. Over time you add to and subtract from that view modifying it as you derive new information over time. One must however bear in mind that you will never have all the information available if for no other reason than the fact that we human being simply don't live long enough to gather it all let alone collate and fit it all together. The best you will ever get is a decent approximation because you are mortal. You then use that prism to examine those ideas and see how they fit in that broad outline you've created and if not why not.

 

I'm not so sure that humans act irrationally. We might say things that appear to be irrational, but there always seems to be an underlying logic to behavior. Your example is perfectly rational if we ignore what you say you believe. Lies are told to each other and ourselves for reasons. You believe that CO2 emissions should be curtailed, but for some reason, you're exempt from your own beliefs. This is perfectly rational because if others make that sacrifice, it's not necessary for you to make that sacrifice. It's like those big shots who fly private jets to attend global warming conferences to discuss how we (they obviously exclude themselves) can be forced to change our behavior.

That's perfectly rational behavior.

The only irrationality in all of this is the lie that the global warming crowd tell themselves as they drive to work in their cars. This creates cognitive dissonance which on the face of it appears entirely unnecessary. Yet is it? A person who believes they can fly, but doesn't do it by jumping off a building has a reason for believing they have the power of flight. Maybe it's useful for feeling superior to others, which could be necessary because of feelings of inadequacy, so they need to invent a fictitious superiority in order to overcome feelings of inadequacy in other areas.

We all want to be the protagonist in the Cartesian theaters of our minds, but reality sometimes requires a bit of mental manipulation of observable reality in order to maintain that delusion.

 

The scary thing about free will is that it gives us moral agency of our actions. People who do terrible things always seem to have a reason that exculpates their behavior. Yes, we have emotions, but emotions do not necessarily force us to do certain things. They can sometimes be very compelling, but they can be overruled. That ability to control our behavior despite emotions is free will.

 

A refreshingly frank post. Spot on too. We can only do our best.

 

Have you ever tried writing in complete sentences? So you didn't agree with the actual claim I was making or just the example? I can't tell from the above.

 

I've thought about this subject a fair amount throughout my life as I'm sure most rationale people have, and have landed at different points from cynicism to apathy to indignation depending on my relation to the subject, and my general emotional state. I've also thought about it on a macro scale as the realm of relations between nations often seems at least in the post Wilsonian era to be riddled with proclaimed moral principles being at odds with stated or de facto policy. You would have been hard pressed to find an American intellectual in 1936 who would blink an eye at the fact that they supported both isolationism, and the Monroe Doctrine. Much less an average citizen. Or a statesman in 2002 who thought an offensive war to support self governance was an oxymoron.

The common element always seems to be a comfort v. fear analysis. The only thing capable of overwhelming such analysis is fanaticism. It takes raw emotion, to get people or nations to act outside of that prism. Professing morality is common. Acting purely on morality is the most beautiful, and dangerous aspect of our capability as a species. Beautiful in hope, dangerous in the form that hope can manifest

 

Superb points.

But I think once you take an alien/anthropological view, you can appreciate our species as the sometimes beautiful - and often predictable - animals we are.

Too many of us swarming the globe for the globe's current state of strained well-being to maintain too much longer, of course.

But even that depressing thought is less depressing when you consider that not only does everything die - including total global die-off events - but everything comes back. (Springsteen!)