many excellent points here of which i am in full agreement, though I must say that I have learned from several college instructors the important value of critical thinking. its unfair to characterize higher education as a place where you learn by rote only to regurgitate on command. and yes, certain disciplines require THE right answers, no argument, not up for discussion or opinion, scientific fact, period. unfortunately there are people these days who choose not to accept science. but thats a whole other can of worms, right? 🥴
Critical thinking was a big aspect of my University education. Whilst the extreme emphasis on rote learning in almost all education (including primary and secondary school) is an issue, I have learned a great deal about my field, with knowledge I am able to apply to real situations in my specialisation. The entire University system needs an overhaul without a doubt, yet I wouldn’t go so far as to call it less valuable than non-academic or apprenticeship jobs (which I have heard). Both are needed, and there are quite a few jobs that require the intense level of theoretical knowledge that comes with a formal degree, as much as I disagree with many aspects of the university system. Memorisation holds greater importance and relevance in certain fields.
The elitism in academia and scientific communities causes an unnecessary divide between those with a degree and the rest of the world—where knowledge must be paid for, rather than obtained and specialised in through passion and interest. There are people who receive their degrees and, like you say Athena, see themselves as better than others—that their word is law because they have a piece of paper. I don’t discredit the entire concept of University purely because of this, as I’ve met many professionals in my field who do not share this snobbishness whatsoever, but rather share see a personal value in what they do.
Higher education is also, for many people—a path out of their circumstances, particularly in fields where jobs are almost guaranteed. This is one of many reasons why immigrant families tend to push the idea of higher education onto their children. Some people simply do not have the connections nor the social leverage to make a good life for themselves out of non-academic work alone.
I do not know a great deal about how the system differs in the United States, other than the costs and payment of University education are ridiculous, so I cannot speak to that. Thank you for the post.
If belief in human rationality was a scientific theory it would long since have been abandoned. A striking falsification can be found in a classic of social psychology, 'When Prophecy Fails' (1956), a study of a UFO cult in the early 1950s. Written by a team led by Leon Festinger, the psychologist who developed the idea of cognitive dissonance, the book recounts how a Michigan woman claimed to have received messages in automatic writing from alien intelligences on another planet announcing the end of the world, which would be inundated by a great flood in the hours before dawn on 21 December 1954. The woman and her disciples had left their homes, jobs and partners and given away their possessions, in order to be ready for the arrival of a flying saucer that would rescue them from the doomed planet.
For Festinger and his colleagues, this was an opportunity to test the theory of cognitive dissonance. According to the theory, human beings do not deal with conflicting beliefs and perceptions by testing them against facts. They reduce the conflict by reinterpreting facts that challenge the beliefs to which they are most attached. As T. S. Eliot wrote in Burnt Norton, human kind cannot bear very much reality.
In order to test the theory, the psychologists infiltrated themselves into the cult and observed the reaction when the apocalypse failed to occur. Just as the theory predicted, the cultists refused to accept that their system of beliefs was mistaken. Instead, they interpreted the failure of doomsday to arrive as evidence that by waiting and praying throughout the night they had succeeded in preventing it. The confounding of all their expectations only led them to cling more tightly to their faith, and they went on to proselytize for their beliefs all the more fervently. As Festinger writes, summarizing this process:
"Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong; what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervour about convincing and converting other people to his view."
-John Gray, "The Silence of Animals: On Progress and Other Modern Myths".
It seems to often be the case with doomsday cults that they shift the goal posts to a new date, "reinterpret" the texts, say they got a new message, or that the cult's faith staved off the end of the world for a few years more. I would think that this would disillusion many people, but not as many as one would assume, it seems.
Agreed. People really aren't all that different. The differences are minuscule compared to their similarities, but the differences are what are focused on, and it is removing the ability to communicate.
Indeed, we generally want the same kinds of things but have different ideas about how to get/achieve them. When the divergences get so great that we no longer agree on what the "facts" are, then yeah, it becomes impossible to reach any sort of middle ground and useless even to attempt to communicate. Which leaves us ... where?
At least Galileo's ideas won out in the end. Of course, there was what we call hard-fact-scientific evidence in that case. In the social-events arena, hard facts do not abound. That is, some do, there are some very sobering research studies, but translating that into "what to do" is really really really difficult.
This is very interesting. I don't remember anyone telling me what to think at school or at university. My understanding of the purpose of that education, looking back, was to give me a certain knowledge base and certain mental tools that would assist me in processing the various forms of information I was likely to encounter in my life as an adult.
But then again: I grew up in an environment of extraordinary educational privilege. My high school was the kind of place where every student who studied a foreign language for 5-6 years (it was a combined junior-senior high school) would graduate from school fluent enough in that language that, had they wanted to, they could most probably have gone straight to university in a country where that language was spoken - with no further preparation.
And my university numbers among those whose professors are the world's leading thinkers in their fields. No one tells you what to think there. There is no regurgitation on exams. You are rewarded for showing evidence of thought far more than for getting the right answer. In fact, if you give the correct answer (in a matter where there is a specific correct answer), but do not show how you arrived at your conclusion, it is doubtful whether you will even pass.
If, on the other hand, you show evidence of your thought process and got almost everything right, but made just one little mistake that led to a wrong answer, it's not impossible that you could get an A on the exam.
If you are in a seminar course, the class could be as small as four people. And it is not at all unheard of for the professor to state up front in so many words, "I expect each of you to contribute as much to the class as I do. If you do not talk, you will not pass."
I don't know - maybe times have changed. After all, I am nearly 60 years old. But that is how things really were back in my day, and indeed, up to the very end of my father's 45-year career as a professor at one of these institutions, which takes us up to ca. 2005.
Do you think that times have changed in a manner that makes it harder to get a good educational experience nowadays than it would have been back in the 1980s, or do you think I just "got lucky", regardless of the time frame? If you think times have changed in a manner that negatively impacts opportunities to get a good education, how do you see that playing out in practice?
I mean, nowadays I am hearing about various factors that can impact educational experience, that have appeared in the intervening time. Some seem likely to have a positive effect; some, a more negative one. But I don't really know what the net effect has been.
It seems that colleges/ universities are better described as 'big business' than places of learning these days. At least in the US. Hopefully other countries aren't as consumed by greed in their educational institutions.
From what I have read and heard from people who have earned degrees much more recently than you, there doesn't appear to be much resemblance between their experiences and yours. In the US I think we are in a decline in higher education that (I believe) will not be remedied until we can figure out a way to curtail a profit incentive in universities that is disproportionate to actually educating people. I also feel like there are way too many people who enroll in college that aren't really suited for it... only doing it because they've been led to believe that not having a degree is an automatic FAIL in life. Seems like educational standards would of necessity have to be lowered in order to accommodate those who are ill suited for higher education, maybe? I don't know.
If I were someone with the means, I think I would pursue a degree from Oxford or Cambridge before I would Harvard or Yale.
Oddly, Harvard continues consistently to rank in the top 2 worldwide in the (British!) Times World University rankings. Only Oxford has any real chance of beating them in any given year.
The thing about British universities is that the whole approach to education is quite different. There is a reason that their Bachelor's programs typically last only 3 years instead of 4.
In the States, only half of your program is comprised of your major subject. The rest is comprised of electives. There are some distributional requirements, but otherwise, you are free to take whatever you like. There is enough space for a second major subject, multiple minor subjects, or you could do what I did: fill up your electives with multiple foreign languages :)
In the UK, on the other hand, you apparently study more or less exclusively your major subject. One could say that their A-levels take the place of the Americans' first year of university. So, if an American wants to study there, they are going to have to present AP exams - 3 together with a suitable SAT score, or 4 without the SAT - and score 5 on all APs to meet the equivalent A and A* grades required on the A-levels.
Means are not such an issue with Harvard anymore. Since the recession back in 2008, they adopted a policy of need-blind admissions and 100% grant-based financial aid to the full extent of demonstrated need for all admitted students, including international students. They can afford it, after all - their endowment is like that of a small country.
But yes, even back in the 1980s there started to be a problem with the Ivies' taking a profit-motivated attitude toward their activity. I didn't really see it while I was still a student myself, but I did get to see the beginnings of the problem up close while working in a temp job in the admissions office at one of them at the very beginning of the 1990s.
However, the Ivies and other top-tier institutions are so selective that probably most of the people who get admitted are in principle suited to a university education. I mean, first of all, even if someone is both a faculty brat and a legacy (as I was at the university I ended up attending), they are not going to admit you unless you have a decent chance of graduating. But secondly, they have so many applicants that they could fill their entering class with fantastic, well-qualified people five times over, and exhaust only 20% of the applicant pool.
But that said, apparently ca. 2005, isolated instances did start to appear of kids who could not write proper English that were just unthinkable before that time. Back in my day, you had to have top-notch English skills in order to be even admitted, unless you were, for example, an Afghan refugee who had just arrived in the United States two years ago, so that your English wasn't fantastic yet, but you had other things going for you.
We had someone like that in our class in high school. He was a scientific genius who was two years younger than everyone else in our class, went to a top-tier liberal arts college at age 16, got his doctorate at another top-tier institution and is now teaching at Cal Tech. But still: they wouldn't have admitted him to that liberal arts college if he didn't have a decent chance of doing well. Evidently he did :)
I simply don't know, however, in what measure the educational experience at top-tier institutions is similar to what I had. As I have mentioned, there are some things I've heard that could contribute more positively, others that could contribute more negatively, and I don't know what the net effect has been.
I follow Athena because of my research into psychopathy, but I find myself in complete agreement with this post. And her reasons for doubting "experts" whose expertise is based primarily on paper are insightful and spot on. I would like to attempt to add to them.
The human brain is, in essence, a pattern recognizer. That's what it does. Your eyes and ears take in sensory information and the brain gets busy matching it to known images or sounds. And the brain does this with everything, not just senses.
So as we try to grapple with the world, we base our understanding of things on patterns that we either recognize or are shown. This is why humans see the world in narratives. And many humans oversimplify their understanding of complex things into narratives. That's a mistake, and many "experts" are more prone to doing this than regular people.
To teach something to a mass of people, you have to break it down into generalities. The more simple the generalities, the easier it is to teach. This is why Marxism is so appealing to many undergrads. The world is broken down into narratives that seem sensible at first glance.
In many fields, the narratives form into "truths" that become unchallenged. This is a particular problem today because most teaching is now so infused with progressive ideology. Rigid ideology. Catechism. And almost none of this ideology holds up to evidence. It's appeal is not based on evidence but on the simplicity of the narratives.
I think the same thing applies in psychology, but at least psychology has to ultimately be tested by results in the clinical setting. If what was taught in school doesn't work, the clinician soon has to reject it. They might not be able to do so publicly, but they want to be able to treat their patients effectively.
"In many fields, the narratives form into "truths" that become unchallenged. This is a particular problem today because most teaching is now so infused with progressive ideology. Rigid ideology. Catechism. And almost none of this ideology holds up to evidence."
I admit to being pretty progressive in my ideology in many ways, but in that "old-school" sort of way that is not narrative-based or oversimplified, but represents actual deep thinking about whys and wherefores.
I find it incredibly insulting to dumb down information in the way that is mentioned here. If one really understands the info, it will be possible to convey the complexity of the info. It's a matter of organization.
Indeed, that's how I used to study for tests at language school here in Poland: by explaining concepts to people who were having a more challenging time assimilating them. There are those who claim I am good at this.
What becomes problematic is when one encounters someone who really doesn't *want* to understand. Sometimes, they even explicitly pride themselves on their low-information lifestyle. And there are way too many such people in this world.
I've never been to Poland, but from what I'm seeing, it's become the center for reasonable and rational thought. That's probably due to its unique position now at the crossroads of history. Elite in western Europe and in the US are so spoiled that they've become divorced from reality. They have preferred narratives that comfort them into believing in their own moral superiority, but those narratives are only possible because they've had absolutely no exposure to hardship. The entertain the fanciful ideas of those that have only lived in privileged places.
I am "progressive" on many things. Common sense libertarian. I believe freedom of thought and expression is the most vital of our rights and cultural heritage. Individual rights and freedoms are the greatest achievement of western thought. So I believe in marry who you want, do what you want in the bedroom, everyone's business is their own business. I believe capitalism has liberated billions of people in a way that no other system had or could...but we do also need safety nets. And I place a high value on protecting the environment.
But there is tremendous irony at the center of the modern, western-style Progressive. They believe they can dictate thought, and weirdly they think anyone who resists that is a NAZI. The pandemic actually EXCITED Progressives. It's was their happiest time. Because their greatest dream is to have the power to tell everyone how to live their lives. To be able to regulate thought under the guise of combating "misinformation". It's about control. They want it. We see this in China. And the pandemic was their great moment in the west to have something close to that.
Actual understanding or discovery of truth has nothing to do with what the modern Progressive wants. They already know the truth, with absolute certainty. It comes in the narratives they believe. That those narratives might change overnight, such as the gender debate, doesn't cause them to question their certainty, because their certainty is based on a sense of moral certainty. It's not based on facts or evidence or superior argument. They "care", they are better people, and that's enough.
Reality is normally a messy, complicated thing, as you obviously know. But for the modern Progressive, it ain't. They have all the answers. And if anyone questions them, they are not only bullies that will shout them down, but they are now absolutely dominant in most fields. So we have entered into a puritanical age. A time of witch hunts. A period where anyone attempting to understand something is seen and treated as a threat.
I've been hearing something like this in recent years. I have to admit that in the particular liberal circles I travel in in the States, I'm still not seeing it actually happening - unless maybe you count the way someone in my family reacted when I revealed at the dinner table that I am a creationist and do not believe in Darwinian evolution :P A like-minded friend of mine who is active in scientific research feels he has to keep his views to himself in order to keep his job. And I was just wondering in the past few days whether a couple of other like-minded scientists didn't fail to get tenure because they let their views be known...
However, about Poland, I must regretfully disagree with you. The government has been overrun by a rabidly Roman Catholic contingent who view Jesus as King and Mary as Queen of Poland - and would like their views to have the force of law. There is almost so separation of powers and almost no separation of Church and state. There is a reason that the EU has taken a dim view of this party's activities and is trying to impose sanctions on them.
But isn't it also true that the rest of Europe opposes any view that is not Far Left? That doesn't toe the line on rigid ideologies on climate, gender or borders? If a European country questions the wisdom of allowing millions of people to swarm a country bringing radically different belief systems, the progressive masters in western Europe will call them NAZIS. If a government decides to allow farmers to continue to use chemical fertilizers in order to feed their people, their masters in Brussels will try to spank them.
I'm not that familiar with Poland, so I defer to your wisdom. My impression is that some of that situation is due to Poles rebelling against their radical masters in Brussels. But I agree with you wholeheartedly that separation of church and state is important.
I am not a creationist. However, scientists have learned over recent decades how amazingly fine tuned our universe is for life. There seems to be only two possible explanations. Either there was a creator, or there are an almost infinite number of different universes, each with slightly different in operative rules from the other. We live in the Goldie Locks version where everything is just right.
So I don't think it's irrational to conclude the universe was created by some intelligence. Our choice is that or the multiverse. There's no real reason to prefer one over the other, and scientists should be free to argue either side.
I myself prefer something in the middle. I believe we are creating our own universe. Through retro-causality, demonstrated in the lab, we are influencing the original settings and parameters of the universe back to the big bang. But I'm no theoretical physicist, so just musings for myself.
See, I actually believe in most of those liberal principles that the EU stands for. Indeed, I can't think of one at the moment that I don't agree with.
However, I don't agree with the idea of blindly accepting everything "because we said so", but to the best of my knowledge, the evidence concerning gender comes down on the side of there being a physical basis for gender identity and for a continuum of gender identities. Likewise, the evidence concerning use of chemical fertilizers is in favor of not using them, because of environmental and health issues they cause.
I think that indiscriminately letting people into a country without making it clear to them what kind of standards they will be required to observe while there is not wise. However, there are humanitarian concerns here that need to be attended to. We cannot just shut the borders to these people either. And we certainly cannot put them in a situation of having to risk their lives to cross the Mediterranean in a vessel not suited for such a voyage, because the alternative if they stayed where they are is even worse. We have to find a safer way for them to get to Europe - like it or not, the nearest place of safety - and a safer way for us to keep them there.
I am no expert on evolution, but I have a friend who is an expert in anatomy who says that the concept of Darwinian evolution raises more troubling, illogical questions concerning how things got to be the way they are anatomically than it solves, and that would require more faith for him to believe in Darwinian evolution than to believe in intellligent design.
That idea of retro-causality actually sounds like an argument in favor of a certain concept of eternity - of all times being in some way present at once *and interacting with one another*, so that it's as it were all one great Now.
I don't see a contradiction between our creating our universe and God's creating our universe. It seems that these are in some sense - at least ideally - two sides of the same coin.
PS In most of Europe, even people like AOC, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are not considered far left. Indeed, they are probably all classed as right of center :)
This highlights the problem. The road to misery for billions and death for many millions is being created by modern progressives who think they know what's best for everyone, but who don't follow scientific evidence. Instead they follow fantasy-based ideology.
Chemical fertilizer has been used for generations. Without it, hundreds of millions of human beings, perhaps billions, will die. I'm sure you are a good person and not aware of that. But the people in Brussels ARE aware...and they don't care. They believe the Earth is overpopulated anyway and want to cull the herd.
Google Malaysia. At the behest of Brussels, the dictator there recently banned chemical fertilizer in the name of fighting "climate". Brussels promised them greater access to the global financial system. The result? Within 2 years, extreme famine. People are dying. Rebellion resulted from that.
If Brussels succeeds in banning fertilizer on a global scale, there will be massive famine deaths in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. In Europe, not so much famine, but extreme poverty and hopelessness for the lower classes will result. But Progressives don't mind that, because they want to rule the lower classes like lords over serfs.
If you think I'm exaggerating, google Malaysia. Keep in mind that the progressives also control much of the media, so be aware when you read what the source is.
I'm liberal where I can be and where the evidence supports it. If someone wants to identify as whatever gender, more power to them. But progressives take it too far. Nature has created a binary world, two sexes. Y chromosome, x chromosome. There are cases where the machinery has gone awry. That doesn't mean those individuals are defective. And there might even be value in it. There's evidence gay men and women have had a disproportionate impact not only on the creative fields, but on science. It might be that the isolation gays experience in youth leads to more inward development, which benefits civilization. So the world benefits from diversity for sure.
As for immigration, I tend to support it. But nations should have a choice! If Poland doesn't wish to become a Middle Eastern country, that should be THEIR choice, not a bunch of elitists in Brussels handing down decrees from on high. Poland, like most western countries, has a low birth rate, so will benefit from an amount of immigration. But it should be up to them.
I think the key is to not allow elites to rule us like serfs. In the US, the school systems are forcing radical race and gender ideology on parents....but trying to hide it from those parents. When parents request to see the curriculum of their child's school, the arrogant Leftists deny them. If the parent persists in asking what their kids are being taught, the school board sick federal law enforcement on them. To the Left, they have all the answers, and parents are just peasants that don't understand.
It's the same thing with Leftists insisting that covid could not have resulted from a lab leak and silencing all debate. Meanwhile, they are STILL doing the same gain-of-function research in labs around the world. The modern progressive has no problem lying to the public...the ends justify the means. The only solution is to insist on free discussion and debate. To insist that lies be exposed. It requires the courage of citizens. But the battle is not going well. It seems the days of free expression and honest science are numbered.
I’m also so impressed by the intelligence of the community of thinkers that follow you, as evidenced by these comments. You should feel proud of this, even though you can’t, literally. Perhaps contentment? An intellectual knowing that you are furthering knowledge and thoughtful discourse among some people whom you might logically respect?
I enjoy the comments section for exactly that reason. I get to learn new things, see new and different perspectives, and also get new avenues to investigate and explore from different readers own life experience and education. It's great.
Good points in this post. The way I have come to understand it is this: The ability to be confronted with ideas or data which run contradictory to long held beliefs or education on the subject, but which are nonetheless more scientifically supported and more correct than the old ideas, and seeing the truth in the new material... then to discard the long held beliefs and education in favor of the new, more scientifically supported material- is the mark of the highest functioning scientifically aware intellects. As you mentioned, it requires placing the ego secondary to gain true knowledge and this is exceedingly difficult to do, especially for people that are less endowed with intelligence than they oughtta be for their position in their field (Dunning Kruger comes into play here).
It's real hard to overcome the ego I guess, even when the payoff is greater awareness. Which is something that has benefited me a great deal. I don't have any education, there was no money for it. But I do know how to leave my ego at home when I am at work or somewhere that I have an opportunity to learn from people who know what I feel like I need to know.. so my lack of formal education hasn't held me back too much.
I apologize (probably for the dozenth time) for the wall of text comment, which could be shortened to: You nailed it. :-)
Ah, your comments are one-liners compared to mine :P You have nothing to apologize for :)
I'm all for formal education too, but it certainly is possible to educate oneself by other means. I'm glad to hear you have found the opportunity to do that.
Honestly? I fell asleep while reading that comic strip...
That said, I admit to having been surprised to hear that George Washington apparently had dentures that included teeth from enslaved persons. Such a thing is, after all, pretty scandalous by today's standards. So I'm like, "OK, tell me more." I had a look at the sources. The New York Times, you say? And that is a genuine New York Times URL? And the reporting doesn't raise any suspicions of trying to push a political agenda or anything like that. OK. Looks like it's true then...
I admit to also having found it curious and even a bit amusing to hear someone suggest that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Socialist. I've taken a look online, there are a number of sites that write about this. Many, but not all, are conservative. There was, however, one that identified as independent, but the viewpoint represented in the article was sufficiently devoid of conservatism that I concluded that this is not a matter of conservatives calling anyone who isn't one of them a socialist.
Interestingly, however, the New York Times published an article presenting evidence that this Socialist may actually not have been the author after all. We will no doubt never know for sure, because all of the interested parties are almost certainly no longer with us.
And that business of six Republican-appointed justices voting for Roe v. Wade? I admit to having misunderstood that one at first. Once I realized they were talking about the original decision, not its repeal, I went and researched.
It appears that that figure of six is incorrect. Two of the seven who voted in favor were appointed by Democrats - Douglas by FDR, Marshall by Johnson - leaving a total of five who were appointed by Republicans: Blackmun, Powell and Burger by Nixon; Stewart and Brennan by Eisenhower.
I was under the influence of some herbal refreshment, so I didn't think to fact check, or consider political agendas. But, I just asked OpenAI about the Pledge of Allegiance, and it said the author was Francis Bellamy, and he was a socialist. I asked about the controversy surrounding this. It explained it, and concluded:
"Despite these questions and controversies, the overwhelming consensus among historians and scholars is that Francis Bellamy is the most likely author of the Pledge of Allegiance. The exact nature of his role in its creation may never be fully known, but his influence and impact on American patriotism and national identity cannot be denied."
As for the Roe v. Wade, you wrote:
"It appears that that figure of six is incorrect. Two of the seven who voted in favor were appointed by Democrats - Douglas by FDR, Marshall by Johnson - leaving a total of five who were appointed by Republicans: Blackmun, Powell and Burger by Nixon; Stewart and Brennan by Eisenhower."
I asked OpenAI, and once again, accounts vary:
"The landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, which established a woman's constitutional right to access abortion, was decided in 1973 by a 7-2 vote. The seven justices who voted in favor of Roe v. Wade were Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, Warren Burger, William Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis Powell, and Potter Stewart.Of these seven justices, only two were appointed by Republican presidents: Burger and Powell. Blackmun was appointed by a Republican president, but he was generally considered a moderate or liberal justice, rather than a conservative. Brennan, Douglas, Marshall, and Stewart were all appointed by Democratic presidents."
You win!! I asked OpenAI again, and when it repeated what it said, I told it what you said, and it replied:
I apologize for the error in my previous response. Your friend is correct that both William Brennan and Potter Stewart were appointed to the Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was a Republican. Brennan was appointed in 1956 and served until 1990, and Stewart was appointed in 1958 and served until 1981. I apologize for any confusion my previous response may have caused.
I must say, I had had some very bad experiences with AI up until now (the AIs used by employers to screen CVs submitted via their website can't make head or tail of mine, so that if I apply for a job, I have to either use an agency that does not use AI, or make my application via an employee at the company), but that reply you list below from your OpenAI makes me think that AI may not be all bad after all. That said, I still think that as far as something like translation is concerned, a good human translator is still better than any AI :P
Time will tell, as AI will present a number of challenges. My reply was from chat.openai.com/chat. I understand what you're saying about the employment screening. John Oliver did a bit about AI that mentions that and some of the other issues it will create. You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqa8Zo2XWc4
But, I'm late to the party, so I haven't a clue about this:
"If you have followed my writing for any length of time you have seen the numerous examples of “experts” that have their alphabet soup in order, but couldn’t critically think their way out of a paper bag, type in very long sentences in very bold caps telling me that I have no idea what I’m talking about, but can’t have a discussion with me about facts."
I can't imagine any professional behaving this way. I'm baffled. Why do they seek you out to be so disrespectful? Do you think it's possible that they have already decided who you are based on your diagnosis? Do they question the validity of your diagnosis? Or, do they question your integrity because of it? This is beyond unprofessional. Could you give me an idea of what you mean? I'm trying to fit this in context with the article as a whole. Thanks.
Usually it is because they think that they are superior to me because they have the alphabet soup, and I do not. It doesn't help that there are glaring logical holes in the reasoning that they are arguing with, but when these are pointed out to them they feel insulted and perhaps they think that I need to be silenced because otherwise they have to consider that I might be right, which means that they have serious blind spots that they have not addressed.
I think they also believe that a psychopath is also narcissistic along with other negative traits and that also effects their ability to give you credit for really knowing what you're talking about. Prejudice comes in all kinds of ways.
I just read your excellent articles, Personality & Conduct/Why Do I Write About Psychopathy?, and have a much better understanding of where you're coming from. Bear with me, I'm trying to catch up, but I haven't been a reader of yours for long, and you are an incredibly prolific writer!!
There's also a matter of groupthink at play, permeating those 3 reasons you mention.
Many experts who presume having critical thinking are actually critical of any thought that deviates from the line of though whose hierarchy they subscribe to.
In some cases, I've objectively noticed that aspiring experts won't even at all bother to look into ideas that are not aligned with those of their rankings, both because they wouldn't have time/energy and because they have a notion that pissing out of the proverbial pot would not be conducive to their career advancement.
Clever people are aware that being intelligent is not always to their benefit, simply put. Unbound critical thinking seems to be in some cases anathema to career progression.
Which is rather sad, and potentially troublesome. Extreme specialization is creating a moral fragmentation that allows atrocities to be freely made in the name of science, when it truth they best serve economical interests. Sometimes it feels as though we're in a era not to different from that which preceded the scientific revolution.
Indeed! And since USA is the world's cultural cauldron, I think its problems provide a glimpse into the key challenges in contemporary human civilization.
Although I am a strong proponent of higher education, I agree with everything you mentioned in this article. You clearly pointed out the issues. I would further add that many fields still have an ‘old boys’ club’ mentality, where colleagues will protect each other at great cost to the virtues we should all hold dear, as decent people interested in truth, and furthering the knowledge and betterment of humankind. I have witnessed biopoc individuals, women, LGTBTIA identifying people treated horribly in higher education, for the mere reason they weren’t white men with penises. Some fields, like psychology and psychiatry, are worse than others.
That is all I would add. I hope we are all able to think critically, to improve our body of knowledge, for the pursuit of education, at its’ core, is a noble one.
They basically have to if they want their career to mean anything. If they stray outside the accepted narrative they become pariahs. If they stay within the accepted narrative, they get notoriety perhaps, but they may also know that their career is built on a sand dune
And then we have those who take risks, like Dr. J. Robin Warren, who discovered H. Pylori and the cause of many stomach ulcers. He was laughed at, until he won the Nobel prize.
I agree. Especially with the fact that ego supplants the self-critical thinking and reflection that is paramount to any field of thought or endeavor. Ego hates being wrong. Ego is a temperamental child with the power to bully people into submission, especially the egoist him- or herself. True progressive thought (as opposed to the prevailing so-called progressive school of hive thought that accepts what it is told because it fits the agenda) means accepting the possibility - or even probability - that you’re mistaken, not completely right, or clearly wrong. go is satisfied if you’ve made it to some pinnacle in you’re field that is considered unassailable. I don’t think Einstein ever fell into this trap, even in his early years. Or if he did, he corrected his navigational chart as needed as quickly as possible. He was a great critical thinker, as opposed to the Robert Hare you describe.
I earned a science BS. I’m an artist/liberal arts type by nature, so it was quite a struggle. specially with courses like Molecular Cell Biology and Physics to contend with. Gruesome, at times, and I doubt there’s a Nobel on my horizon.I I was working full-time nights also, so my GPA was not 4.9. But I did it. My takeaway is that I showed perseverance, discipline, mind-shift to scientific thinking, etc. These characteristics have stayed with me, so the university experience made me a better person. These are all general things that have nothing to do with what degree I earned. I can look at someone who graduated from MIT and give them credit for this accomplishment, but I hold back from deciding what value this all has by observing what they do with their lives - and other lives they may influence. The Crypto ass**** is a shining example of MIT gone wrong, to the extent that he leveraged all he had going for him to do a load of bad - not just for himself and his circle of friends, but many others.
All of us need a healthy dose of critical (but not judgmental/ego driven) self reflection that takes everything under consideration. A truly open, engaging, proactive mind. Simple enough, if you tell the ego to have a seat and shut the f*** up.
I have many examples where my creative mind has led me down a rabbit hole that critical thinking would have avoided.
Yes, I agree. SBF really did a number on a lot of people.
It's good that you learned a different way of thinking that has helped you throughout your life, especially when it is contrary to how your mind usually works. I can see that being a great asset.
I can say that a balance of arts and science in one’s education makes for a more complete package. If one uses these two ways of thinking when approaching almost any learning curve or situation it almost always helps.
I did apply to Yale for its Chemistry program when I was 17, just for the hell of it. The rejection letter was very polite. I always wondered if Harvard’s was the same letter.
Lots of good points. It seems to me that you're focusing on a subset of the many issues around higher ed (versus) being self-taught. Lots of people do both. Also - getting bad info, uncritically accepting junk and then re-spouting junk, can happen no matter where one gets input from. The availability of quantities of info way beyond the capacity of any human to digest is only accelerating too... and even AI systems develop biases based upon their particular inputs plus internal algorithms/neural networks/whatever, it's looking like... so rather than an academic degree granting unquestionable expertise, some folks look at it as one way to have confidence that someone's take on a situation wasn't informed by a conspiracy theorist living in a basement who got their background from voices in their head. One skill that can be learned in higher ed is "vetting sources". That process has its own biases of course! But one sometimes has to make a decision.
So where does one turn if there is a new crack in a bridge that you are driving over every morning to get to work? Someone who just looked at the internet about the topic, someone who is a bridge hobbyist and maybe looked at a few dozen problem bridges during their free time, or someone who got a relevant engineering degree - which takes years of study, requires certificates and continuing study to practice, knows the right tools to perhaps take appropriate imaging of the bridge crack to show microscopic failures in the material or whatnot, has to keep their skills updated with the admittedly-sometimes-flawed output of studies by other engineering researchers who themselves had to get a certain alphabet soup to do their jobs...
There's no perfect solution to any of this, and I feel that "expertise" in some fields is highly overrated and does indeed involve every bit of ego etc. that this post mentions. The lives of many readers here have been affected negatively by such people. Yet sometimes these systems of verification of background study can be the best we can do. It's not always to "feel a sense of stability" - it can give one the best chance to physically survive critical dangers, among many other things.
Wow, great article. Although I'm open minded, I have a hard beliving in the existence of a god. The bible does not persuade me and I end up being bias. But what if there is a god? So many questions, so little answers and so little time.
God is meant to be a personal journey that requires no church to assist along the way. Your own conclusions on the matter are all that you need concern yourself with
I was raised in a non-religious family. When my friends invited me to their church group meeting, I was satisfied with my belief system and was not looking to make any changes. So when I finally accepted their invitation, it was out of politeness.
Thankfully, it was not the sort of group where they are trying to indoctrinate anyone. We watched a film that dealt with spiritual topics, but from a secular and not necessarily flattering point of view. And then, of course, we discussed the film.
No one even told me to expect any kind of experience, let alone pressuring me into such a thing. So, at a certain point I had this feeling that there was someone else in the room aside from the people I could see. And I had the impression that this person was good and did not condemn me for whatever sins I had committed. And given Whom we had been talking about all night, I had a pretty good idea Who this Someone might be :P
Because of the circumstances, I was and am still inclined to view this experience as something real. And I figured that had consequences. After all, if there really is a deity, I figured the right thing to do would be to make a habit of worshiping this deity - after all, that's what one does with a deity, right? So I walked out of that meeting a believer and have now been worshiping God for over 42 years.
Of course, this did involve accepting different ways of knowing than the rational scientific method with which I had been raised. My parents are, after all, (now retired) professors in a STEM field. And it took me quite some time to come to a place where these two kinds of thinking could coexist easily in the same mind.
Eventually, what happened was that I had some experiences that gave me some mental images that were able to convey the more paradoxical aspects of our existence in a way that I could grasp, e.g. the relationship between God's will and our will. I also read a book entitled "Flatland" which gave me some images relating to jumping off certain continua which are used by ordinary folk to imagine various issues such as gender.
And yes, I did also discover the Bible. I had the good fortune to travel in circles where Bible study was focused above all on finding out what the text actually says. So any training in Bible study was focused on how to do that most effectively. And I must say, this kind of engagement with the text did have a salutary effect on my academic life as well :)
Another thing that happened in these circles I traveled in was that my university friends and I attended a church whose pastor was an extraordinarily well-educated man - Harvard undergrad, Princeton Theological Seminary. He preached through books of the Bible expositorially rather then doing topical sermons.
Each sermon was one hour long, and could cover as little as one verse. It took him six years to preach through the book of Romans. And everyone who attended that particular church was coming above all to hear the sermon. Every detail of his reasoning was put out there in the sermon, including the hermeneutical rules they teach you in seminary. And if you look at the rules, they are really just common sense rules that would apply to the interpretation of any text.
And so I got to absorb all of this. However... in due time, I began to see flaws in the hermeneutics surrounding some of the viewpoints that were propounded in those circles. I mean, I continue to assume that the Bible is inerrant and use the same hermeneutical tools... and I often come to such diametrically opposite conclusions that I would no longer be welcome as a member. On the other hand, I don't fit in too well at liberal churches either because I'm too "explicitly Christian".
So my spiritual life is now a largely solitary existence. Do I miss the community? Yes, I suppose I do. There are benefits to meeting with like-minded people for mutual encouragement and edification, as well as for the undertaking of good works that are too large-scale to do as a solitary individual. But let's say: if one is obliged to choose between community and truth, one needs to choose truth...
Fabulous article. I reminded me of the experience of a friend of mine who got a second PhD -- in Materials Science -- who at the same time created a new and different way of looking at the structure of crystals. (And her PhD thesis was about this methodology.)
Simply put, at the time, scientists in this field looked at the locations of atoms in the crystal in terms of x-y-z coordinates. My friend looked at them as having various positions on the ring/chain of atomic bonds. Eg, whether a particular atom was one, or two, or three bonds "away from" another particular atom. And how the chains were interlinked. (This is perhaps not quite technically correct; but the basic idea of x-y-z versus position on a chain holds true. It may have been molecules rather than atoms that she looked at.) She was examining silicon-based glazes in pottery--which form many different varieties of chains depending on things like composition of the materials and heat of the kiln.
Anyway, my point is that aside from the fact that her thesis-advisor/professor was fully "on board" with her ideas, the rest of the field was not. Her ideas were pooh-poohed and dismissed as irrelevant and useless.
This is basically the Galileo phenomenon that you describe oh so well in your article. "Information and ideas and data that don't fit into my existing cognitive model must be wrong." While it's possible that including critical thinking in education -- especially including it in "lower" education, ie, grade school and/or middle and/or high school -- might well improve this phenomenon (especially in civics where it is so desperately needed), I'm not all that hopeful. This whole cognitive bias thing is persistent. And as one other poster observed, the brain looks for patterns, and sees them even when they don't exist (faces on Mars). And once we do see a pattern, apparently it's really hard to "unsee" it.
After following Athena for a while, I observe with dismay how the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" are tossed around by both fiction and "real life" authors in all sorts of fields, without any sort of accuracy. And yes, she also gives dismaying examples of how professionals are both sloppy and inaccurate-re-the-neuroscience.
However, Galileo's views won out in the end. Perhaps similar results will prevail re the neuroscience of psychopathy (and sociopathy and narcissism).
That's just terrible for your friend and a glaring indictment of "experts". This sort of thinking is pretty much everywhere it appears, and people have no idea how flawed things that they put their abject faith into because they have no idea that this sort of thinking is so prevalent.
Yup, glaring indictment. Sadly, my friend wasn't keen on "swimming upstream" against the current to ... I suppose a good term would be "market her ideas." She wound up getting post-doc jobs in other fields, did programming for a while, and eventually went back to just doing pottery (and playing with silica glazes for her own amusement and edification). OTOH, her advisor continued to publish stuff with these ideas. And of course put his name first on the articles. I dunno if her ideas ever caught on with the establishment. I suppose I could ask her, but we usually talk about other stuff.
OK, I'll be honest, I didn't read this in depth because a college memory surfaced.
Which...
Caused me to laugh uncontrollably.
I majored in the technical aspects of running both video and audio studios.
There was a class during my senior year which used very outdated equipment ( it was described as "high level" and "difficult.")
At this point in time I was already working at a major Hollywood recording studio. Paid.
I informed the TA, yes a TA was teaching, the equipment was antiquated, but I would like to assist with getting everyone current on technology.
His reply was, "You're here to get a degree, not a job."
To which I replied, "Then what's the point of being here?"
That is very reminiscent of other college stories I have heard from people
I'm sure.
I'm still laughing, since the entire class had question mark expressions.
Didn't intentionally try to embarrass the TA. However, he was quite misogynistic. I personally couldn't stand him.
Fair enough.
Thank you
many excellent points here of which i am in full agreement, though I must say that I have learned from several college instructors the important value of critical thinking. its unfair to characterize higher education as a place where you learn by rote only to regurgitate on command. and yes, certain disciplines require THE right answers, no argument, not up for discussion or opinion, scientific fact, period. unfortunately there are people these days who choose not to accept science. but thats a whole other can of worms, right? 🥴
Indeed true
Critical thinking was a big aspect of my University education. Whilst the extreme emphasis on rote learning in almost all education (including primary and secondary school) is an issue, I have learned a great deal about my field, with knowledge I am able to apply to real situations in my specialisation. The entire University system needs an overhaul without a doubt, yet I wouldn’t go so far as to call it less valuable than non-academic or apprenticeship jobs (which I have heard). Both are needed, and there are quite a few jobs that require the intense level of theoretical knowledge that comes with a formal degree, as much as I disagree with many aspects of the university system. Memorisation holds greater importance and relevance in certain fields.
The elitism in academia and scientific communities causes an unnecessary divide between those with a degree and the rest of the world—where knowledge must be paid for, rather than obtained and specialised in through passion and interest. There are people who receive their degrees and, like you say Athena, see themselves as better than others—that their word is law because they have a piece of paper. I don’t discredit the entire concept of University purely because of this, as I’ve met many professionals in my field who do not share this snobbishness whatsoever, but rather share see a personal value in what they do.
Higher education is also, for many people—a path out of their circumstances, particularly in fields where jobs are almost guaranteed. This is one of many reasons why immigrant families tend to push the idea of higher education onto their children. Some people simply do not have the connections nor the social leverage to make a good life for themselves out of non-academic work alone.
I do not know a great deal about how the system differs in the United States, other than the costs and payment of University education are ridiculous, so I cannot speak to that. Thank you for the post.
If belief in human rationality was a scientific theory it would long since have been abandoned. A striking falsification can be found in a classic of social psychology, 'When Prophecy Fails' (1956), a study of a UFO cult in the early 1950s. Written by a team led by Leon Festinger, the psychologist who developed the idea of cognitive dissonance, the book recounts how a Michigan woman claimed to have received messages in automatic writing from alien intelligences on another planet announcing the end of the world, which would be inundated by a great flood in the hours before dawn on 21 December 1954. The woman and her disciples had left their homes, jobs and partners and given away their possessions, in order to be ready for the arrival of a flying saucer that would rescue them from the doomed planet.
For Festinger and his colleagues, this was an opportunity to test the theory of cognitive dissonance. According to the theory, human beings do not deal with conflicting beliefs and perceptions by testing them against facts. They reduce the conflict by reinterpreting facts that challenge the beliefs to which they are most attached. As T. S. Eliot wrote in Burnt Norton, human kind cannot bear very much reality.
In order to test the theory, the psychologists infiltrated themselves into the cult and observed the reaction when the apocalypse failed to occur. Just as the theory predicted, the cultists refused to accept that their system of beliefs was mistaken. Instead, they interpreted the failure of doomsday to arrive as evidence that by waiting and praying throughout the night they had succeeded in preventing it. The confounding of all their expectations only led them to cling more tightly to their faith, and they went on to proselytize for their beliefs all the more fervently. As Festinger writes, summarizing this process:
"Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong; what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervour about convincing and converting other people to his view."
-John Gray, "The Silence of Animals: On Progress and Other Modern Myths".
It seems to often be the case with doomsday cults that they shift the goal posts to a new date, "reinterpret" the texts, say they got a new message, or that the cult's faith staved off the end of the world for a few years more. I would think that this would disillusion many people, but not as many as one would assume, it seems.
And recent events in the political world have shown how pervasive this pattern of thinking is among humans. Sigh. (Cults, indeed.)
Agreed. People really aren't all that different. The differences are minuscule compared to their similarities, but the differences are what are focused on, and it is removing the ability to communicate.
Indeed, we generally want the same kinds of things but have different ideas about how to get/achieve them. When the divergences get so great that we no longer agree on what the "facts" are, then yeah, it becomes impossible to reach any sort of middle ground and useless even to attempt to communicate. Which leaves us ... where?
At least Galileo's ideas won out in the end. Of course, there was what we call hard-fact-scientific evidence in that case. In the social-events arena, hard facts do not abound. That is, some do, there are some very sobering research studies, but translating that into "what to do" is really really really difficult.
This is very interesting. I don't remember anyone telling me what to think at school or at university. My understanding of the purpose of that education, looking back, was to give me a certain knowledge base and certain mental tools that would assist me in processing the various forms of information I was likely to encounter in my life as an adult.
But then again: I grew up in an environment of extraordinary educational privilege. My high school was the kind of place where every student who studied a foreign language for 5-6 years (it was a combined junior-senior high school) would graduate from school fluent enough in that language that, had they wanted to, they could most probably have gone straight to university in a country where that language was spoken - with no further preparation.
And my university numbers among those whose professors are the world's leading thinkers in their fields. No one tells you what to think there. There is no regurgitation on exams. You are rewarded for showing evidence of thought far more than for getting the right answer. In fact, if you give the correct answer (in a matter where there is a specific correct answer), but do not show how you arrived at your conclusion, it is doubtful whether you will even pass.
If, on the other hand, you show evidence of your thought process and got almost everything right, but made just one little mistake that led to a wrong answer, it's not impossible that you could get an A on the exam.
If you are in a seminar course, the class could be as small as four people. And it is not at all unheard of for the professor to state up front in so many words, "I expect each of you to contribute as much to the class as I do. If you do not talk, you will not pass."
I don't know - maybe times have changed. After all, I am nearly 60 years old. But that is how things really were back in my day, and indeed, up to the very end of my father's 45-year career as a professor at one of these institutions, which takes us up to ca. 2005.
It's awesome that you had a good educational experience
Do you think that times have changed in a manner that makes it harder to get a good educational experience nowadays than it would have been back in the 1980s, or do you think I just "got lucky", regardless of the time frame? If you think times have changed in a manner that negatively impacts opportunities to get a good education, how do you see that playing out in practice?
I mean, nowadays I am hearing about various factors that can impact educational experience, that have appeared in the intervening time. Some seem likely to have a positive effect; some, a more negative one. But I don't really know what the net effect has been.
Universities have moved into a consumer model instead of an educational one.
I think it has changed, yes. It's quite unfortunate
It seems that colleges/ universities are better described as 'big business' than places of learning these days. At least in the US. Hopefully other countries aren't as consumed by greed in their educational institutions.
Yes, this is exactly true.
From what I have read and heard from people who have earned degrees much more recently than you, there doesn't appear to be much resemblance between their experiences and yours. In the US I think we are in a decline in higher education that (I believe) will not be remedied until we can figure out a way to curtail a profit incentive in universities that is disproportionate to actually educating people. I also feel like there are way too many people who enroll in college that aren't really suited for it... only doing it because they've been led to believe that not having a degree is an automatic FAIL in life. Seems like educational standards would of necessity have to be lowered in order to accommodate those who are ill suited for higher education, maybe? I don't know.
If I were someone with the means, I think I would pursue a degree from Oxford or Cambridge before I would Harvard or Yale.
Oddly, Harvard continues consistently to rank in the top 2 worldwide in the (British!) Times World University rankings. Only Oxford has any real chance of beating them in any given year.
The thing about British universities is that the whole approach to education is quite different. There is a reason that their Bachelor's programs typically last only 3 years instead of 4.
In the States, only half of your program is comprised of your major subject. The rest is comprised of electives. There are some distributional requirements, but otherwise, you are free to take whatever you like. There is enough space for a second major subject, multiple minor subjects, or you could do what I did: fill up your electives with multiple foreign languages :)
In the UK, on the other hand, you apparently study more or less exclusively your major subject. One could say that their A-levels take the place of the Americans' first year of university. So, if an American wants to study there, they are going to have to present AP exams - 3 together with a suitable SAT score, or 4 without the SAT - and score 5 on all APs to meet the equivalent A and A* grades required on the A-levels.
Means are not such an issue with Harvard anymore. Since the recession back in 2008, they adopted a policy of need-blind admissions and 100% grant-based financial aid to the full extent of demonstrated need for all admitted students, including international students. They can afford it, after all - their endowment is like that of a small country.
But yes, even back in the 1980s there started to be a problem with the Ivies' taking a profit-motivated attitude toward their activity. I didn't really see it while I was still a student myself, but I did get to see the beginnings of the problem up close while working in a temp job in the admissions office at one of them at the very beginning of the 1990s.
However, the Ivies and other top-tier institutions are so selective that probably most of the people who get admitted are in principle suited to a university education. I mean, first of all, even if someone is both a faculty brat and a legacy (as I was at the university I ended up attending), they are not going to admit you unless you have a decent chance of graduating. But secondly, they have so many applicants that they could fill their entering class with fantastic, well-qualified people five times over, and exhaust only 20% of the applicant pool.
But that said, apparently ca. 2005, isolated instances did start to appear of kids who could not write proper English that were just unthinkable before that time. Back in my day, you had to have top-notch English skills in order to be even admitted, unless you were, for example, an Afghan refugee who had just arrived in the United States two years ago, so that your English wasn't fantastic yet, but you had other things going for you.
We had someone like that in our class in high school. He was a scientific genius who was two years younger than everyone else in our class, went to a top-tier liberal arts college at age 16, got his doctorate at another top-tier institution and is now teaching at Cal Tech. But still: they wouldn't have admitted him to that liberal arts college if he didn't have a decent chance of doing well. Evidently he did :)
I simply don't know, however, in what measure the educational experience at top-tier institutions is similar to what I had. As I have mentioned, there are some things I've heard that could contribute more positively, others that could contribute more negatively, and I don't know what the net effect has been.
I follow Athena because of my research into psychopathy, but I find myself in complete agreement with this post. And her reasons for doubting "experts" whose expertise is based primarily on paper are insightful and spot on. I would like to attempt to add to them.
The human brain is, in essence, a pattern recognizer. That's what it does. Your eyes and ears take in sensory information and the brain gets busy matching it to known images or sounds. And the brain does this with everything, not just senses.
So as we try to grapple with the world, we base our understanding of things on patterns that we either recognize or are shown. This is why humans see the world in narratives. And many humans oversimplify their understanding of complex things into narratives. That's a mistake, and many "experts" are more prone to doing this than regular people.
To teach something to a mass of people, you have to break it down into generalities. The more simple the generalities, the easier it is to teach. This is why Marxism is so appealing to many undergrads. The world is broken down into narratives that seem sensible at first glance.
In many fields, the narratives form into "truths" that become unchallenged. This is a particular problem today because most teaching is now so infused with progressive ideology. Rigid ideology. Catechism. And almost none of this ideology holds up to evidence. It's appeal is not based on evidence but on the simplicity of the narratives.
I think the same thing applies in psychology, but at least psychology has to ultimately be tested by results in the clinical setting. If what was taught in school doesn't work, the clinician soon has to reject it. They might not be able to do so publicly, but they want to be able to treat their patients effectively.
"In many fields, the narratives form into "truths" that become unchallenged. This is a particular problem today because most teaching is now so infused with progressive ideology. Rigid ideology. Catechism. And almost none of this ideology holds up to evidence."
So true. Sort of like a dogmatic "Truthiness".
Indeed
I admit to being pretty progressive in my ideology in many ways, but in that "old-school" sort of way that is not narrative-based or oversimplified, but represents actual deep thinking about whys and wherefores.
I find it incredibly insulting to dumb down information in the way that is mentioned here. If one really understands the info, it will be possible to convey the complexity of the info. It's a matter of organization.
Indeed, that's how I used to study for tests at language school here in Poland: by explaining concepts to people who were having a more challenging time assimilating them. There are those who claim I am good at this.
What becomes problematic is when one encounters someone who really doesn't *want* to understand. Sometimes, they even explicitly pride themselves on their low-information lifestyle. And there are way too many such people in this world.
I've never been to Poland, but from what I'm seeing, it's become the center for reasonable and rational thought. That's probably due to its unique position now at the crossroads of history. Elite in western Europe and in the US are so spoiled that they've become divorced from reality. They have preferred narratives that comfort them into believing in their own moral superiority, but those narratives are only possible because they've had absolutely no exposure to hardship. The entertain the fanciful ideas of those that have only lived in privileged places.
I am "progressive" on many things. Common sense libertarian. I believe freedom of thought and expression is the most vital of our rights and cultural heritage. Individual rights and freedoms are the greatest achievement of western thought. So I believe in marry who you want, do what you want in the bedroom, everyone's business is their own business. I believe capitalism has liberated billions of people in a way that no other system had or could...but we do also need safety nets. And I place a high value on protecting the environment.
But there is tremendous irony at the center of the modern, western-style Progressive. They believe they can dictate thought, and weirdly they think anyone who resists that is a NAZI. The pandemic actually EXCITED Progressives. It's was their happiest time. Because their greatest dream is to have the power to tell everyone how to live their lives. To be able to regulate thought under the guise of combating "misinformation". It's about control. They want it. We see this in China. And the pandemic was their great moment in the west to have something close to that.
Actual understanding or discovery of truth has nothing to do with what the modern Progressive wants. They already know the truth, with absolute certainty. It comes in the narratives they believe. That those narratives might change overnight, such as the gender debate, doesn't cause them to question their certainty, because their certainty is based on a sense of moral certainty. It's not based on facts or evidence or superior argument. They "care", they are better people, and that's enough.
Reality is normally a messy, complicated thing, as you obviously know. But for the modern Progressive, it ain't. They have all the answers. And if anyone questions them, they are not only bullies that will shout them down, but they are now absolutely dominant in most fields. So we have entered into a puritanical age. A time of witch hunts. A period where anyone attempting to understand something is seen and treated as a threat.
I've been hearing something like this in recent years. I have to admit that in the particular liberal circles I travel in in the States, I'm still not seeing it actually happening - unless maybe you count the way someone in my family reacted when I revealed at the dinner table that I am a creationist and do not believe in Darwinian evolution :P A like-minded friend of mine who is active in scientific research feels he has to keep his views to himself in order to keep his job. And I was just wondering in the past few days whether a couple of other like-minded scientists didn't fail to get tenure because they let their views be known...
However, about Poland, I must regretfully disagree with you. The government has been overrun by a rabidly Roman Catholic contingent who view Jesus as King and Mary as Queen of Poland - and would like their views to have the force of law. There is almost so separation of powers and almost no separation of Church and state. There is a reason that the EU has taken a dim view of this party's activities and is trying to impose sanctions on them.
But isn't it also true that the rest of Europe opposes any view that is not Far Left? That doesn't toe the line on rigid ideologies on climate, gender or borders? If a European country questions the wisdom of allowing millions of people to swarm a country bringing radically different belief systems, the progressive masters in western Europe will call them NAZIS. If a government decides to allow farmers to continue to use chemical fertilizers in order to feed their people, their masters in Brussels will try to spank them.
I'm not that familiar with Poland, so I defer to your wisdom. My impression is that some of that situation is due to Poles rebelling against their radical masters in Brussels. But I agree with you wholeheartedly that separation of church and state is important.
I am not a creationist. However, scientists have learned over recent decades how amazingly fine tuned our universe is for life. There seems to be only two possible explanations. Either there was a creator, or there are an almost infinite number of different universes, each with slightly different in operative rules from the other. We live in the Goldie Locks version where everything is just right.
So I don't think it's irrational to conclude the universe was created by some intelligence. Our choice is that or the multiverse. There's no real reason to prefer one over the other, and scientists should be free to argue either side.
I myself prefer something in the middle. I believe we are creating our own universe. Through retro-causality, demonstrated in the lab, we are influencing the original settings and parameters of the universe back to the big bang. But I'm no theoretical physicist, so just musings for myself.
See, I actually believe in most of those liberal principles that the EU stands for. Indeed, I can't think of one at the moment that I don't agree with.
However, I don't agree with the idea of blindly accepting everything "because we said so", but to the best of my knowledge, the evidence concerning gender comes down on the side of there being a physical basis for gender identity and for a continuum of gender identities. Likewise, the evidence concerning use of chemical fertilizers is in favor of not using them, because of environmental and health issues they cause.
I think that indiscriminately letting people into a country without making it clear to them what kind of standards they will be required to observe while there is not wise. However, there are humanitarian concerns here that need to be attended to. We cannot just shut the borders to these people either. And we certainly cannot put them in a situation of having to risk their lives to cross the Mediterranean in a vessel not suited for such a voyage, because the alternative if they stayed where they are is even worse. We have to find a safer way for them to get to Europe - like it or not, the nearest place of safety - and a safer way for us to keep them there.
I am no expert on evolution, but I have a friend who is an expert in anatomy who says that the concept of Darwinian evolution raises more troubling, illogical questions concerning how things got to be the way they are anatomically than it solves, and that would require more faith for him to believe in Darwinian evolution than to believe in intellligent design.
That idea of retro-causality actually sounds like an argument in favor of a certain concept of eternity - of all times being in some way present at once *and interacting with one another*, so that it's as it were all one great Now.
I don't see a contradiction between our creating our universe and God's creating our universe. It seems that these are in some sense - at least ideally - two sides of the same coin.
PS In most of Europe, even people like AOC, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are not considered far left. Indeed, they are probably all classed as right of center :)
This highlights the problem. The road to misery for billions and death for many millions is being created by modern progressives who think they know what's best for everyone, but who don't follow scientific evidence. Instead they follow fantasy-based ideology.
Chemical fertilizer has been used for generations. Without it, hundreds of millions of human beings, perhaps billions, will die. I'm sure you are a good person and not aware of that. But the people in Brussels ARE aware...and they don't care. They believe the Earth is overpopulated anyway and want to cull the herd.
Google Malaysia. At the behest of Brussels, the dictator there recently banned chemical fertilizer in the name of fighting "climate". Brussels promised them greater access to the global financial system. The result? Within 2 years, extreme famine. People are dying. Rebellion resulted from that.
If Brussels succeeds in banning fertilizer on a global scale, there will be massive famine deaths in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. In Europe, not so much famine, but extreme poverty and hopelessness for the lower classes will result. But Progressives don't mind that, because they want to rule the lower classes like lords over serfs.
If you think I'm exaggerating, google Malaysia. Keep in mind that the progressives also control much of the media, so be aware when you read what the source is.
I'm liberal where I can be and where the evidence supports it. If someone wants to identify as whatever gender, more power to them. But progressives take it too far. Nature has created a binary world, two sexes. Y chromosome, x chromosome. There are cases where the machinery has gone awry. That doesn't mean those individuals are defective. And there might even be value in it. There's evidence gay men and women have had a disproportionate impact not only on the creative fields, but on science. It might be that the isolation gays experience in youth leads to more inward development, which benefits civilization. So the world benefits from diversity for sure.
As for immigration, I tend to support it. But nations should have a choice! If Poland doesn't wish to become a Middle Eastern country, that should be THEIR choice, not a bunch of elitists in Brussels handing down decrees from on high. Poland, like most western countries, has a low birth rate, so will benefit from an amount of immigration. But it should be up to them.
I think the key is to not allow elites to rule us like serfs. In the US, the school systems are forcing radical race and gender ideology on parents....but trying to hide it from those parents. When parents request to see the curriculum of their child's school, the arrogant Leftists deny them. If the parent persists in asking what their kids are being taught, the school board sick federal law enforcement on them. To the Left, they have all the answers, and parents are just peasants that don't understand.
It's the same thing with Leftists insisting that covid could not have resulted from a lab leak and silencing all debate. Meanwhile, they are STILL doing the same gain-of-function research in labs around the world. The modern progressive has no problem lying to the public...the ends justify the means. The only solution is to insist on free discussion and debate. To insist that lies be exposed. It requires the courage of citizens. But the battle is not going well. It seems the days of free expression and honest science are numbered.
I’m also so impressed by the intelligence of the community of thinkers that follow you, as evidenced by these comments. You should feel proud of this, even though you can’t, literally. Perhaps contentment? An intellectual knowing that you are furthering knowledge and thoughtful discourse among some people whom you might logically respect?
I enjoy the comments section for exactly that reason. I get to learn new things, see new and different perspectives, and also get new avenues to investigate and explore from different readers own life experience and education. It's great.
Good points in this post. The way I have come to understand it is this: The ability to be confronted with ideas or data which run contradictory to long held beliefs or education on the subject, but which are nonetheless more scientifically supported and more correct than the old ideas, and seeing the truth in the new material... then to discard the long held beliefs and education in favor of the new, more scientifically supported material- is the mark of the highest functioning scientifically aware intellects. As you mentioned, it requires placing the ego secondary to gain true knowledge and this is exceedingly difficult to do, especially for people that are less endowed with intelligence than they oughtta be for their position in their field (Dunning Kruger comes into play here).
It's real hard to overcome the ego I guess, even when the payoff is greater awareness. Which is something that has benefited me a great deal. I don't have any education, there was no money for it. But I do know how to leave my ego at home when I am at work or somewhere that I have an opportunity to learn from people who know what I feel like I need to know.. so my lack of formal education hasn't held me back too much.
I apologize (probably for the dozenth time) for the wall of text comment, which could be shortened to: You nailed it. :-)
Ah, your comments are one-liners compared to mine :P You have nothing to apologize for :)
I'm all for formal education too, but it certainly is possible to educate oneself by other means. I'm glad to hear you have found the opportunity to do that.
Great article, Athena, bravo.
Speaking of critical thinking, please don't miss this funny comic strip by The Oatmeal:
"You're not going to believe what I'm about to tell you":
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
this was fecking awesome, and thank you.
Honestly? I fell asleep while reading that comic strip...
That said, I admit to having been surprised to hear that George Washington apparently had dentures that included teeth from enslaved persons. Such a thing is, after all, pretty scandalous by today's standards. So I'm like, "OK, tell me more." I had a look at the sources. The New York Times, you say? And that is a genuine New York Times URL? And the reporting doesn't raise any suspicions of trying to push a political agenda or anything like that. OK. Looks like it's true then...
I admit to also having found it curious and even a bit amusing to hear someone suggest that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Socialist. I've taken a look online, there are a number of sites that write about this. Many, but not all, are conservative. There was, however, one that identified as independent, but the viewpoint represented in the article was sufficiently devoid of conservatism that I concluded that this is not a matter of conservatives calling anyone who isn't one of them a socialist.
Interestingly, however, the New York Times published an article presenting evidence that this Socialist may actually not have been the author after all. We will no doubt never know for sure, because all of the interested parties are almost certainly no longer with us.
And that business of six Republican-appointed justices voting for Roe v. Wade? I admit to having misunderstood that one at first. Once I realized they were talking about the original decision, not its repeal, I went and researched.
It appears that that figure of six is incorrect. Two of the seven who voted in favor were appointed by Democrats - Douglas by FDR, Marshall by Johnson - leaving a total of five who were appointed by Republicans: Blackmun, Powell and Burger by Nixon; Stewart and Brennan by Eisenhower.
I was under the influence of some herbal refreshment, so I didn't think to fact check, or consider political agendas. But, I just asked OpenAI about the Pledge of Allegiance, and it said the author was Francis Bellamy, and he was a socialist. I asked about the controversy surrounding this. It explained it, and concluded:
"Despite these questions and controversies, the overwhelming consensus among historians and scholars is that Francis Bellamy is the most likely author of the Pledge of Allegiance. The exact nature of his role in its creation may never be fully known, but his influence and impact on American patriotism and national identity cannot be denied."
As for the Roe v. Wade, you wrote:
"It appears that that figure of six is incorrect. Two of the seven who voted in favor were appointed by Democrats - Douglas by FDR, Marshall by Johnson - leaving a total of five who were appointed by Republicans: Blackmun, Powell and Burger by Nixon; Stewart and Brennan by Eisenhower."
I asked OpenAI, and once again, accounts vary:
"The landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, which established a woman's constitutional right to access abortion, was decided in 1973 by a 7-2 vote. The seven justices who voted in favor of Roe v. Wade were Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, Warren Burger, William Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis Powell, and Potter Stewart.Of these seven justices, only two were appointed by Republican presidents: Burger and Powell. Blackmun was appointed by a Republican president, but he was generally considered a moderate or liberal justice, rather than a conservative. Brennan, Douglas, Marshall, and Stewart were all appointed by Democratic presidents."
I'll say... Brennan and Stewart were appointed by Eisenhower, who was a Republican :)
You win!! I asked OpenAI again, and when it repeated what it said, I told it what you said, and it replied:
I apologize for the error in my previous response. Your friend is correct that both William Brennan and Potter Stewart were appointed to the Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was a Republican. Brennan was appointed in 1956 and served until 1990, and Stewart was appointed in 1958 and served until 1981. I apologize for any confusion my previous response may have caused.
You got that reply from an AI??????? :O :O :O Wow... That's pretty wild :)
Awesome education indeed!
I must say, I had had some very bad experiences with AI up until now (the AIs used by employers to screen CVs submitted via their website can't make head or tail of mine, so that if I apply for a job, I have to either use an agency that does not use AI, or make my application via an employee at the company), but that reply you list below from your OpenAI makes me think that AI may not be all bad after all. That said, I still think that as far as something like translation is concerned, a good human translator is still better than any AI :P
Time will tell, as AI will present a number of challenges. My reply was from chat.openai.com/chat. I understand what you're saying about the employment screening. John Oliver did a bit about AI that mentions that and some of the other issues it will create. You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqa8Zo2XWc4
That was hilarious!
Athena, this was fascinating. Thank you!
But, I'm late to the party, so I haven't a clue about this:
"If you have followed my writing for any length of time you have seen the numerous examples of “experts” that have their alphabet soup in order, but couldn’t critically think their way out of a paper bag, type in very long sentences in very bold caps telling me that I have no idea what I’m talking about, but can’t have a discussion with me about facts."
I can't imagine any professional behaving this way. I'm baffled. Why do they seek you out to be so disrespectful? Do you think it's possible that they have already decided who you are based on your diagnosis? Do they question the validity of your diagnosis? Or, do they question your integrity because of it? This is beyond unprofessional. Could you give me an idea of what you mean? I'm trying to fit this in context with the article as a whole. Thanks.
Usually it is because they think that they are superior to me because they have the alphabet soup, and I do not. It doesn't help that there are glaring logical holes in the reasoning that they are arguing with, but when these are pointed out to them they feel insulted and perhaps they think that I need to be silenced because otherwise they have to consider that I might be right, which means that they have serious blind spots that they have not addressed.
I guess they see you as a firebrand, or troublemaker. But controversy is good. Keep stirring the pot.
I plan on it
I think they also believe that a psychopath is also narcissistic along with other negative traits and that also effects their ability to give you credit for really knowing what you're talking about. Prejudice comes in all kinds of ways.
Yes, I can see how that might be the case
I just read your excellent articles, Personality & Conduct/Why Do I Write About Psychopathy?, and have a much better understanding of where you're coming from. Bear with me, I'm trying to catch up, but I haven't been a reader of yours for long, and you are an incredibly prolific writer!!
Don't worry about it. There is a lot to get through, I am quite aware
There's also a matter of groupthink at play, permeating those 3 reasons you mention.
Many experts who presume having critical thinking are actually critical of any thought that deviates from the line of though whose hierarchy they subscribe to.
In some cases, I've objectively noticed that aspiring experts won't even at all bother to look into ideas that are not aligned with those of their rankings, both because they wouldn't have time/energy and because they have a notion that pissing out of the proverbial pot would not be conducive to their career advancement.
Clever people are aware that being intelligent is not always to their benefit, simply put. Unbound critical thinking seems to be in some cases anathema to career progression.
Which is rather sad, and potentially troublesome. Extreme specialization is creating a moral fragmentation that allows atrocities to be freely made in the name of science, when it truth they best serve economical interests. Sometimes it feels as though we're in a era not to different from that which preceded the scientific revolution.
https://moregasbord.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/scientism.jpg
Indeed
Not sure if this groupthink phenomena is just a neurotypical trait or an expression of cultural narcissism. It could be somewhat of an intersection.
"Cultural narcissism", now that is an interesting term that gives me food for thought.
I picked it up from this video by Dr. Ramani, a couple days ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XebjAU6b8AY
I think she does a superb job of addressing this matter tactfully and gracefully. I highly recommend watching.
I feel like this video explains a huge part of the problems currently present in American culture... Wow.
Indeed! And since USA is the world's cultural cauldron, I think its problems provide a glimpse into the key challenges in contemporary human civilization.
Well... we could say that groupthink and cultural narcissism are both symptoms of neurotypicality :)
Although I am a strong proponent of higher education, I agree with everything you mentioned in this article. You clearly pointed out the issues. I would further add that many fields still have an ‘old boys’ club’ mentality, where colleagues will protect each other at great cost to the virtues we should all hold dear, as decent people interested in truth, and furthering the knowledge and betterment of humankind. I have witnessed biopoc individuals, women, LGTBTIA identifying people treated horribly in higher education, for the mere reason they weren’t white men with penises. Some fields, like psychology and psychiatry, are worse than others.
That is all I would add. I hope we are all able to think critically, to improve our body of knowledge, for the pursuit of education, at its’ core, is a noble one.
They basically have to if they want their career to mean anything. If they stray outside the accepted narrative they become pariahs. If they stay within the accepted narrative, they get notoriety perhaps, but they may also know that their career is built on a sand dune
True.
And then we have those who take risks, like Dr. J. Robin Warren, who discovered H. Pylori and the cause of many stomach ulcers. He was laughed at, until he won the Nobel prize.
Exactly, and he only got that Nobel after he intentionally infected himself with the bacteria to prove that was indeed the cause of ulcers.
I agree. Especially with the fact that ego supplants the self-critical thinking and reflection that is paramount to any field of thought or endeavor. Ego hates being wrong. Ego is a temperamental child with the power to bully people into submission, especially the egoist him- or herself. True progressive thought (as opposed to the prevailing so-called progressive school of hive thought that accepts what it is told because it fits the agenda) means accepting the possibility - or even probability - that you’re mistaken, not completely right, or clearly wrong. go is satisfied if you’ve made it to some pinnacle in you’re field that is considered unassailable. I don’t think Einstein ever fell into this trap, even in his early years. Or if he did, he corrected his navigational chart as needed as quickly as possible. He was a great critical thinker, as opposed to the Robert Hare you describe.
I earned a science BS. I’m an artist/liberal arts type by nature, so it was quite a struggle. specially with courses like Molecular Cell Biology and Physics to contend with. Gruesome, at times, and I doubt there’s a Nobel on my horizon.I I was working full-time nights also, so my GPA was not 4.9. But I did it. My takeaway is that I showed perseverance, discipline, mind-shift to scientific thinking, etc. These characteristics have stayed with me, so the university experience made me a better person. These are all general things that have nothing to do with what degree I earned. I can look at someone who graduated from MIT and give them credit for this accomplishment, but I hold back from deciding what value this all has by observing what they do with their lives - and other lives they may influence. The Crypto ass**** is a shining example of MIT gone wrong, to the extent that he leveraged all he had going for him to do a load of bad - not just for himself and his circle of friends, but many others.
All of us need a healthy dose of critical (but not judgmental/ego driven) self reflection that takes everything under consideration. A truly open, engaging, proactive mind. Simple enough, if you tell the ego to have a seat and shut the f*** up.
I have many examples where my creative mind has led me down a rabbit hole that critical thinking would have avoided.
Yes, I agree. SBF really did a number on a lot of people.
It's good that you learned a different way of thinking that has helped you throughout your life, especially when it is contrary to how your mind usually works. I can see that being a great asset.
I can say that a balance of arts and science in one’s education makes for a more complete package. If one uses these two ways of thinking when approaching almost any learning curve or situation it almost always helps.
I did apply to Yale for its Chemistry program when I was 17, just for the hell of it. The rejection letter was very polite. I always wondered if Harvard’s was the same letter.
A good question. I would imagine that comparisons between the letters are available somewhere online.
Lots of good points. It seems to me that you're focusing on a subset of the many issues around higher ed (versus) being self-taught. Lots of people do both. Also - getting bad info, uncritically accepting junk and then re-spouting junk, can happen no matter where one gets input from. The availability of quantities of info way beyond the capacity of any human to digest is only accelerating too... and even AI systems develop biases based upon their particular inputs plus internal algorithms/neural networks/whatever, it's looking like... so rather than an academic degree granting unquestionable expertise, some folks look at it as one way to have confidence that someone's take on a situation wasn't informed by a conspiracy theorist living in a basement who got their background from voices in their head. One skill that can be learned in higher ed is "vetting sources". That process has its own biases of course! But one sometimes has to make a decision.
So where does one turn if there is a new crack in a bridge that you are driving over every morning to get to work? Someone who just looked at the internet about the topic, someone who is a bridge hobbyist and maybe looked at a few dozen problem bridges during their free time, or someone who got a relevant engineering degree - which takes years of study, requires certificates and continuing study to practice, knows the right tools to perhaps take appropriate imaging of the bridge crack to show microscopic failures in the material or whatnot, has to keep their skills updated with the admittedly-sometimes-flawed output of studies by other engineering researchers who themselves had to get a certain alphabet soup to do their jobs...
There's no perfect solution to any of this, and I feel that "expertise" in some fields is highly overrated and does indeed involve every bit of ego etc. that this post mentions. The lives of many readers here have been affected negatively by such people. Yet sometimes these systems of verification of background study can be the best we can do. It's not always to "feel a sense of stability" - it can give one the best chance to physically survive critical dangers, among many other things.
Wow, great article. Although I'm open minded, I have a hard beliving in the existence of a god. The bible does not persuade me and I end up being bias. But what if there is a god? So many questions, so little answers and so little time.
God is meant to be a personal journey that requires no church to assist along the way. Your own conclusions on the matter are all that you need concern yourself with
I was raised in a non-religious family. When my friends invited me to their church group meeting, I was satisfied with my belief system and was not looking to make any changes. So when I finally accepted their invitation, it was out of politeness.
Thankfully, it was not the sort of group where they are trying to indoctrinate anyone. We watched a film that dealt with spiritual topics, but from a secular and not necessarily flattering point of view. And then, of course, we discussed the film.
No one even told me to expect any kind of experience, let alone pressuring me into such a thing. So, at a certain point I had this feeling that there was someone else in the room aside from the people I could see. And I had the impression that this person was good and did not condemn me for whatever sins I had committed. And given Whom we had been talking about all night, I had a pretty good idea Who this Someone might be :P
Because of the circumstances, I was and am still inclined to view this experience as something real. And I figured that had consequences. After all, if there really is a deity, I figured the right thing to do would be to make a habit of worshiping this deity - after all, that's what one does with a deity, right? So I walked out of that meeting a believer and have now been worshiping God for over 42 years.
Of course, this did involve accepting different ways of knowing than the rational scientific method with which I had been raised. My parents are, after all, (now retired) professors in a STEM field. And it took me quite some time to come to a place where these two kinds of thinking could coexist easily in the same mind.
Eventually, what happened was that I had some experiences that gave me some mental images that were able to convey the more paradoxical aspects of our existence in a way that I could grasp, e.g. the relationship between God's will and our will. I also read a book entitled "Flatland" which gave me some images relating to jumping off certain continua which are used by ordinary folk to imagine various issues such as gender.
And yes, I did also discover the Bible. I had the good fortune to travel in circles where Bible study was focused above all on finding out what the text actually says. So any training in Bible study was focused on how to do that most effectively. And I must say, this kind of engagement with the text did have a salutary effect on my academic life as well :)
Another thing that happened in these circles I traveled in was that my university friends and I attended a church whose pastor was an extraordinarily well-educated man - Harvard undergrad, Princeton Theological Seminary. He preached through books of the Bible expositorially rather then doing topical sermons.
Each sermon was one hour long, and could cover as little as one verse. It took him six years to preach through the book of Romans. And everyone who attended that particular church was coming above all to hear the sermon. Every detail of his reasoning was put out there in the sermon, including the hermeneutical rules they teach you in seminary. And if you look at the rules, they are really just common sense rules that would apply to the interpretation of any text.
And so I got to absorb all of this. However... in due time, I began to see flaws in the hermeneutics surrounding some of the viewpoints that were propounded in those circles. I mean, I continue to assume that the Bible is inerrant and use the same hermeneutical tools... and I often come to such diametrically opposite conclusions that I would no longer be welcome as a member. On the other hand, I don't fit in too well at liberal churches either because I'm too "explicitly Christian".
So my spiritual life is now a largely solitary existence. Do I miss the community? Yes, I suppose I do. There are benefits to meeting with like-minded people for mutual encouragement and edification, as well as for the undertaking of good works that are too large-scale to do as a solitary individual. But let's say: if one is obliged to choose between community and truth, one needs to choose truth...
Thank you very much, Karol, for sharing your experience. Appreciate it!
Fabulous article. I reminded me of the experience of a friend of mine who got a second PhD -- in Materials Science -- who at the same time created a new and different way of looking at the structure of crystals. (And her PhD thesis was about this methodology.)
Simply put, at the time, scientists in this field looked at the locations of atoms in the crystal in terms of x-y-z coordinates. My friend looked at them as having various positions on the ring/chain of atomic bonds. Eg, whether a particular atom was one, or two, or three bonds "away from" another particular atom. And how the chains were interlinked. (This is perhaps not quite technically correct; but the basic idea of x-y-z versus position on a chain holds true. It may have been molecules rather than atoms that she looked at.) She was examining silicon-based glazes in pottery--which form many different varieties of chains depending on things like composition of the materials and heat of the kiln.
Anyway, my point is that aside from the fact that her thesis-advisor/professor was fully "on board" with her ideas, the rest of the field was not. Her ideas were pooh-poohed and dismissed as irrelevant and useless.
This is basically the Galileo phenomenon that you describe oh so well in your article. "Information and ideas and data that don't fit into my existing cognitive model must be wrong." While it's possible that including critical thinking in education -- especially including it in "lower" education, ie, grade school and/or middle and/or high school -- might well improve this phenomenon (especially in civics where it is so desperately needed), I'm not all that hopeful. This whole cognitive bias thing is persistent. And as one other poster observed, the brain looks for patterns, and sees them even when they don't exist (faces on Mars). And once we do see a pattern, apparently it's really hard to "unsee" it.
After following Athena for a while, I observe with dismay how the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" are tossed around by both fiction and "real life" authors in all sorts of fields, without any sort of accuracy. And yes, she also gives dismaying examples of how professionals are both sloppy and inaccurate-re-the-neuroscience.
However, Galileo's views won out in the end. Perhaps similar results will prevail re the neuroscience of psychopathy (and sociopathy and narcissism).
That's just terrible for your friend and a glaring indictment of "experts". This sort of thinking is pretty much everywhere it appears, and people have no idea how flawed things that they put their abject faith into because they have no idea that this sort of thinking is so prevalent.
Yup, glaring indictment. Sadly, my friend wasn't keen on "swimming upstream" against the current to ... I suppose a good term would be "market her ideas." She wound up getting post-doc jobs in other fields, did programming for a while, and eventually went back to just doing pottery (and playing with silica glazes for her own amusement and edification). OTOH, her advisor continued to publish stuff with these ideas. And of course put his name first on the articles. I dunno if her ideas ever caught on with the establishment. I suppose I could ask her, but we usually talk about other stuff.