Thank you so much for reading it and commenting. For the last two weeks, I've been putting off finishing this. I was gonna send it to you for a read before I published it, but I started feeling really bad because it was taking me so long. So felt I had to get it up tonight.
It’s amazing how many small, less important tasks I got done while putting off this one.🤓
The call for consistent skepticism reminds me of my days of inter-collegiate debate. We paid a lot of attention to the burden of proof. One axiom was "He who asserts must prove." We spent hundreds of pre-internet hours gathering information that would turn an assertion into valid evidence. It was a tedious process, but the result was admiration for a tight rational argument and distain for rumor and innuendo.
The notion of a phrase “paranoid hyper-rationalism” strikes me as something of an oxymoron. Paranoid means ‘something/someone is out to get you’ while ‘hyper-rationalism’ implies a degree of orderly structured thinking resulting in conclusions arrived at in a rigorous process. When the two terms are combined it sounds a bit ‘kitsch’. I suppose one can exaggerate most anything and call it ‘hyper’ but this phrase attached to the notion of conspiracy constructionists suggests that they are off out in left field (if they are even in the ballpark) and are using an orderly logical, mental process to articulate their view. How can it be rational and come up with an end point of truth when you start from a premise of paranoia? Just a thought on Linker’s terminology.
The post-modernism argument is a good one. I’ve had it thrown at me often in the past 20 years and petty much ignored the idea….I’ve since come to think that this really is a good characterization of our current state of cultural, political, and personal reality.
I disagree vehemently post-modernism is a ‘good’ philosophy for society, but then that might be attributed to my background as a Christian. Reality cannot be the determinative factor for truth, there has to be some measure of commonality between experience and reality. In the political and social world, neither Wokism or Marxism can produce a common standard because both have the subjective experience as the determining factor of the presence of truth.
I do agree that truth can be interpreted based on one’s predisposition to the term itself, but truth is forever and always truth in fact. We may misinterpret it at a given point in time calling something ‘truth’ only to find later we were wrong about that initial truth (e.g., the world is flat) and it was in fact not true (e.g., that the earth is flat). The truth is and has always been that the earth is ‘spherical’ even when we didn’t know it.
Seems to me the ‘debate’ about truthfulness is directly related to issues of power, control, and authority. So, if “your truth” makes you the powerful, controlling authority….it’s truth to you and it doesn’t matter what others think or say. If you can be persuasive enough with ‘your truth’ it may succeed for a time, but eventually someone else will come along with ‘their truth’ to gain the power, control, and authority and remove the past vestiges of the ‘old truth’.
I think you are right on with Vane and the blurring of lines between skepticism and empiricism. That is why I trust him less than Trump….Trump doesn’t have sophistication or interest to blur anything substantive because that detracts from his self-perceived power, control, and authority.
In general, I think your piece is spot on to identify a significant component of the issues that underlie many societies, particularly in the Western world. But this what I’d have written if I were responding to your Substack work.
You say the phrase “paranoid hyper-rationalism” is an oxymoron. Linker frames this as part of the “rise of conspiratorial habits of mind, and not just among rural populists.” Few would dispute this is characteristic of our times. He is grappling with the epistemological dimensions of our public discourse.
He says,
"Conspiracy theories are founded on the assumption that nothing happens by chance, accident, or spontaneously, that it’s possible to be granted an insight into what’s really going on under the surface-level chaos that surrounds us, and that there’s always an intention at work in the world, controlling seemingly disconnected events from a distance, behind the scenes."
The term rationalism implies orderly, logical thinking coming to a valid conclusion. However, Linker is focused on the rational thinking process that reaches a conclusion, correct, partly correct, or completely off base. This is contrasted with the skeptical suspension of conclusions pending further evidence. It is also in contrast with the acceptance that all events do not have a logical explanation. Some are purely or mostly random.
So, as it applies to conspiratorial thinking, this process involves the construction of an internally logical narrative that gives the believer the sense that he is granted insights that others cannot or will not see. The “paranoid” part of the phrase is based on the fear and sense of victimhood that envelops a significant portion of the electorate.
Dan thank you for your writing here. I'd like to add something from Yuval Noah Harari's 2018 work, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. His chapter on Truth is one of the 21 Lessons. He also has a chapter on Post-Truth. In the Truth chapter he asserts that due to the complexities of the global problems of the day, people have trouble coping with their lack of knowledge. A great deal of knowledge in historical facts, political theory, and modern statecraft are required to understand an issue as complex as the conflict in Ukraine. Likewise for issues such as immigration, the national debt, foreign aid, monetary policy, taxation etc.
Harari suggests that people generally have four ways to grasp these issues. They either: 1) Simplify issues to single person analogies, e.g., how would you feel if a neighbor attacked you and adopted your garage and living room as his own? 2) They latch on to a personal story, like the orphan in Gaza or the hostage in Gaza, and they use their feelings to get a hold of the issue. 3) They adopt and cling to conspiracy theories/stories. Oversimplified explanations blame one group or another all while asserting extreme confidence that only a small group knows the "truth" of the matter, thereby inviting people to join the in-group. 4) Alternatively, people latch on to dogma-- they "put their trust in some allegedly all-knowing theory, institution, or chief, and follow it wherever it leads..." This could be a religion, a person, or an ideology. Someone or some entity that has an opinion on everything, never changes that opinion or assertion in the face of evidence, and blasts and insults everyone else who doesn't agree. We suffer from global problems that are so complex they transcend any global solution and anyone who tries to personally come to a conclusion based on evidence gathering and dialogue. Humility is required here.
Where does that leave us centrists and truth seekers? Well, I feel as though I have to address your trailing question, "Is your subjective experience of reality just as “true” as mine, or is there some objective reality that is not dependent on either of us?"
In the spirit of "consistently applied skepticism and empiricism..." the scientific revolution has taught us that objective reality is measurable and universally true while our subjective experiences (the really important things to us) are indeed our own. (see phenomenology) Einstein and quantum theorists have added that objective reality sometimes is relative to the position at which one is measuring, or when one is measuring. That applies double to the subjective realm. It depends how the issues are framed and when updates arrive.
So, my takeaway is to keep the channels of dialogue open and try for inter-subjective understanding of the issues of the day. For example, I know what my brother-in-law thinks about immigration, and I disagree on a lot of things-- facts even with him. But the things that we do agree on, and can support with the evidence available to us via credible media reports and personal observations make up our common ground. From there we can discuss things like which politicians we should support etc. We can challenge each others' assumptions, facts, and predictions as respectful skeptics committed to the free flow of ideas. There's still hope.
You compare objective reality, which exists apart from us, and the subjective experience of individuals. Does that subjective experience produce a subjective reality? I’ve heard that phrase bandied about quite a bit.
In his essay, Damon Linker suggests that the human mind’s natural inclination to explain real-world occurrences, which may be random, can result in conspiracy theories that metastasize via digital social media. He calls this “paranoid hyper-rationalism.” Maybe there’s a better term for this, but I think it does spotlight some of the discomfort we have with mystery and ambiguity. The paranoid part of the phrase refers to our fears and resentments being channeled into creating a one-dimensional explanation for a complex phenomenon. Linker is saying that inappropriately applied rational thinking can be effectively irrational.
Regarding Yuval Noah Harari, did you read his book, Sapiens? If you squint, His four ways humans cope with complex issues are congruent with “paranoid hyper-rationalism.”
I agree with your observation that when talking to people with whom we have substantial differences and don’t even see eye to eye on some relevant facts, it is still possible to “challenge each others' assumptions, facts, and predictions as respectful skeptics committed to the free flow of ideas.”
Hurray! Good work. I didn’t see a video embedded but perhaps that’s because I am reading on my phone. You use an example on the right. For the sake of fairness, consider one in the left. K-JP’s assertion that she couldn’t keep up with her boss might work. Also, you could write an entire book from the material offered here. Perhaps more details about one topic.
Thank you so much for reading it and commenting. For the last two weeks, I've been putting off finishing this. I was gonna send it to you for a read before I published it, but I started feeling really bad because it was taking me so long. So felt I had to get it up tonight.
It’s amazing how many small, less important tasks I got done while putting off this one.🤓
I know I tried to cover too much. More tomorrow.
The call for consistent skepticism reminds me of my days of inter-collegiate debate. We paid a lot of attention to the burden of proof. One axiom was "He who asserts must prove." We spent hundreds of pre-internet hours gathering information that would turn an assertion into valid evidence. It was a tedious process, but the result was admiration for a tight rational argument and distain for rumor and innuendo.
I would think one of them major benefits of experience in formal debate is the ability to recognize logical fallacies like the strawman argument. I
Hi Dan,
I read your analysis and
The notion of a phrase “paranoid hyper-rationalism” strikes me as something of an oxymoron. Paranoid means ‘something/someone is out to get you’ while ‘hyper-rationalism’ implies a degree of orderly structured thinking resulting in conclusions arrived at in a rigorous process. When the two terms are combined it sounds a bit ‘kitsch’. I suppose one can exaggerate most anything and call it ‘hyper’ but this phrase attached to the notion of conspiracy constructionists suggests that they are off out in left field (if they are even in the ballpark) and are using an orderly logical, mental process to articulate their view. How can it be rational and come up with an end point of truth when you start from a premise of paranoia? Just a thought on Linker’s terminology.
The post-modernism argument is a good one. I’ve had it thrown at me often in the past 20 years and petty much ignored the idea….I’ve since come to think that this really is a good characterization of our current state of cultural, political, and personal reality.
I disagree vehemently post-modernism is a ‘good’ philosophy for society, but then that might be attributed to my background as a Christian. Reality cannot be the determinative factor for truth, there has to be some measure of commonality between experience and reality. In the political and social world, neither Wokism or Marxism can produce a common standard because both have the subjective experience as the determining factor of the presence of truth.
I do agree that truth can be interpreted based on one’s predisposition to the term itself, but truth is forever and always truth in fact. We may misinterpret it at a given point in time calling something ‘truth’ only to find later we were wrong about that initial truth (e.g., the world is flat) and it was in fact not true (e.g., that the earth is flat). The truth is and has always been that the earth is ‘spherical’ even when we didn’t know it.
Seems to me the ‘debate’ about truthfulness is directly related to issues of power, control, and authority. So, if “your truth” makes you the powerful, controlling authority….it’s truth to you and it doesn’t matter what others think or say. If you can be persuasive enough with ‘your truth’ it may succeed for a time, but eventually someone else will come along with ‘their truth’ to gain the power, control, and authority and remove the past vestiges of the ‘old truth’.
I think you are right on with Vane and the blurring of lines between skepticism and empiricism. That is why I trust him less than Trump….Trump doesn’t have sophistication or interest to blur anything substantive because that detracts from his self-perceived power, control, and authority.
In general, I think your piece is spot on to identify a significant component of the issues that underlie many societies, particularly in the Western world. But this what I’d have written if I were responding to your Substack work.
Holler if you have questions
Chad Nye
407-496-8357
Chad,
You say the phrase “paranoid hyper-rationalism” is an oxymoron. Linker frames this as part of the “rise of conspiratorial habits of mind, and not just among rural populists.” Few would dispute this is characteristic of our times. He is grappling with the epistemological dimensions of our public discourse.
He says,
"Conspiracy theories are founded on the assumption that nothing happens by chance, accident, or spontaneously, that it’s possible to be granted an insight into what’s really going on under the surface-level chaos that surrounds us, and that there’s always an intention at work in the world, controlling seemingly disconnected events from a distance, behind the scenes."
The term rationalism implies orderly, logical thinking coming to a valid conclusion. However, Linker is focused on the rational thinking process that reaches a conclusion, correct, partly correct, or completely off base. This is contrasted with the skeptical suspension of conclusions pending further evidence. It is also in contrast with the acceptance that all events do not have a logical explanation. Some are purely or mostly random.
So, as it applies to conspiratorial thinking, this process involves the construction of an internally logical narrative that gives the believer the sense that he is granted insights that others cannot or will not see. The “paranoid” part of the phrase is based on the fear and sense of victimhood that envelops a significant portion of the electorate.
Dan thank you for your writing here. I'd like to add something from Yuval Noah Harari's 2018 work, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. His chapter on Truth is one of the 21 Lessons. He also has a chapter on Post-Truth. In the Truth chapter he asserts that due to the complexities of the global problems of the day, people have trouble coping with their lack of knowledge. A great deal of knowledge in historical facts, political theory, and modern statecraft are required to understand an issue as complex as the conflict in Ukraine. Likewise for issues such as immigration, the national debt, foreign aid, monetary policy, taxation etc.
Harari suggests that people generally have four ways to grasp these issues. They either: 1) Simplify issues to single person analogies, e.g., how would you feel if a neighbor attacked you and adopted your garage and living room as his own? 2) They latch on to a personal story, like the orphan in Gaza or the hostage in Gaza, and they use their feelings to get a hold of the issue. 3) They adopt and cling to conspiracy theories/stories. Oversimplified explanations blame one group or another all while asserting extreme confidence that only a small group knows the "truth" of the matter, thereby inviting people to join the in-group. 4) Alternatively, people latch on to dogma-- they "put their trust in some allegedly all-knowing theory, institution, or chief, and follow it wherever it leads..." This could be a religion, a person, or an ideology. Someone or some entity that has an opinion on everything, never changes that opinion or assertion in the face of evidence, and blasts and insults everyone else who doesn't agree. We suffer from global problems that are so complex they transcend any global solution and anyone who tries to personally come to a conclusion based on evidence gathering and dialogue. Humility is required here.
Where does that leave us centrists and truth seekers? Well, I feel as though I have to address your trailing question, "Is your subjective experience of reality just as “true” as mine, or is there some objective reality that is not dependent on either of us?"
In the spirit of "consistently applied skepticism and empiricism..." the scientific revolution has taught us that objective reality is measurable and universally true while our subjective experiences (the really important things to us) are indeed our own. (see phenomenology) Einstein and quantum theorists have added that objective reality sometimes is relative to the position at which one is measuring, or when one is measuring. That applies double to the subjective realm. It depends how the issues are framed and when updates arrive.
So, my takeaway is to keep the channels of dialogue open and try for inter-subjective understanding of the issues of the day. For example, I know what my brother-in-law thinks about immigration, and I disagree on a lot of things-- facts even with him. But the things that we do agree on, and can support with the evidence available to us via credible media reports and personal observations make up our common ground. From there we can discuss things like which politicians we should support etc. We can challenge each others' assumptions, facts, and predictions as respectful skeptics committed to the free flow of ideas. There's still hope.
You compare objective reality, which exists apart from us, and the subjective experience of individuals. Does that subjective experience produce a subjective reality? I’ve heard that phrase bandied about quite a bit.
In his essay, Damon Linker suggests that the human mind’s natural inclination to explain real-world occurrences, which may be random, can result in conspiracy theories that metastasize via digital social media. He calls this “paranoid hyper-rationalism.” Maybe there’s a better term for this, but I think it does spotlight some of the discomfort we have with mystery and ambiguity. The paranoid part of the phrase refers to our fears and resentments being channeled into creating a one-dimensional explanation for a complex phenomenon. Linker is saying that inappropriately applied rational thinking can be effectively irrational.
Regarding Yuval Noah Harari, did you read his book, Sapiens? If you squint, His four ways humans cope with complex issues are congruent with “paranoid hyper-rationalism.”
I agree with your observation that when talking to people with whom we have substantial differences and don’t even see eye to eye on some relevant facts, it is still possible to “challenge each others' assumptions, facts, and predictions as respectful skeptics committed to the free flow of ideas.”
Hurray! Good work. I didn’t see a video embedded but perhaps that’s because I am reading on my phone. You use an example on the right. For the sake of fairness, consider one in the left. K-JP’s assertion that she couldn’t keep up with her boss might work. Also, you could write an entire book from the material offered here. Perhaps more details about one topic.