Gordon Ellis and Epistemic Closure

There are people who believe that truth can be known. (0.00 / 0)

That's because the truth is what they believe and what they believe is, almost always, whatever is consistent with their preconceived notions. Moreover, all of what they know is "received."  Indeed, information from outside is reliable simply because it's NOT something they thought of themselves.  In fact, perhaps because they feel, rather than think, what they believe is not based on thought.  They feel and form opinions on the basis of what they feel and that which feels right is whatever is consistent with what they felt before.  That's the essence of the conservative mind.
Conservatives are fundamentally unselfish and being unselfish -- i.e. not self-directed -- is a virtue and obedience is their first commandment.

---

by: hannah @ Sat Nov 20, 2010 at 16:31:40 PM CST

Or it could be that he's lying. (4.00 / 3)

Just sayin'.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Nov 20, 2010 at 16:37:59 PM CST

I know it is hard to imagine (4.00 / 1)

that people actually do "think" this way, but a bit of study about authoritarian personalities will make it seem much more possible.  I have talked to some who simply do "think" of the world this way.  
One I have gotten to know rather well is filled with resentment against just about everything, convinced that she is a victim in all circumstances, and if you doubt that Sarah Palin plays the victim role well, just look at someone who has been unemployed for over a year, and still sports a sweatshirt from which she somehow removed the McCain from the McCain/Palin logo.  She worships at the shrine of "it's always someone else's fault, they are all out to get me!"  

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Sat Nov 20, 2010 at 17:15:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, some folks do. (4.00 / 1)

Mostly those folks don't get elected to school board 'n' stuff.

I think he's too disingenuous by half. "Oh, gee? That could be divisive?" Sell that crap somewhere else - and not to schoolkids next time.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Nov 20, 2010 at 18:13:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I like the term "epistemic closure," but I wonder (0.00 / 0)

if it grants more dignity to those currently described by it than is fair, given that the first word is rooted in the Greek word for knowledge.

For example, the news account suggested the gentleman equated George Soros with Hitler.

This is to me another example of the theory that the Tea Party Platform, or what is "constitutional" or not to them, is just whatever happens to come out of entertainer Glen Beck's mouth on any given night.

Definitely a closed loop system, but epistemic?

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sat Nov 20, 2010 at 17:51:55 PM CST

Liberals want a world in which people can get along. (0.00 / 0)

Some conservatives like to pretend they live in a world where liberals are marginal.

--
No tea; no decaf.

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sat Nov 20, 2010 at 22:13:09 PM CST

The best definition of a conservative (0.00 / 0)

that I've ever come across, is Charles Hampden-Turner's.  From Radical Man (emphasis in original):

I have argued that power over things turns into unreflective power over people, that the need to predict and control produces detachment, an unequal relationship and a self-fulfilling prophecy which makes the unequal appear undeserving of equality.  I have argued that the demand for precision and invariability attracts the investigator to the more trivial activities of man, that empiricism focuses on stereotyped externalities, ignores depth of experience and emphasizes the status quo above visions of the future.  We have seen that analysis fragments without being able to reintegrate, looks to the past instead of facing forward, regards man in the light of animals and fails to respect his complexity.

Snip

Now there is a simple political term which sums up this orientation.  It is conservative.  An American conservative is elitist, hierarchical, and anxious to control others.  He tends to see man as animalistic and as an unorganized rabble.  He is often vigorous but is obsessive and repetitive in his habits.  He values consensus and discipline.  He is suspicious of unpredictable people and has little tolerance for human ambiguity, sees life as an economic struggle, looks to the past and tends to stereotype people.  He is uneasy with emotion and affect, prefers to put social distance between himself and others and  to withdraw into a class of like minded people.

People like Ellis are like old wall clocks - they have to pop out every once in a while and go "cuckoo" so that we know that they're still around.  But school board chair?  We are so screwed as a country.

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." A. Einstein

---

by: StraffordDem @ Sat Nov 20, 2010 at 23:13:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's a comprehensive description. (4.00 / 1)

The question I'm left with is how they get that way.  Is it genetic or developmental?  I suspect that what's left out of the description is that these people, who are obviously incapable of seeing their environment as it is and as it is perceived by the non-impaired, are also incapable of seeing themselves objectively.  I think it's because they are self-centered without being self-aware and, not being able to reflect on themselves, are unable to reflect on others as distinct entities.  Other people show up as undifferentiated clumps.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 03:00:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

There are no absolutes, right? (0.00 / 0)

Wikipedia offers a pretty interesting history of American conservatism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

General question: How many conservatives or libertarians do you think are spending any energy trying to understand the liberal point of view?  My rough guess: 0.  That's why it's epistemic closure.


"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." A. Einstein

---

by: StraffordDem @ Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 08:22:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's like a religion (0.00 / 0)

and non-conservatives are Satanists, and there's a lot of groupthink and it's all pretty irrational.

Epistemic closure or not, I also get this impression from a lot of liberals.

For example, if I were to argue that we should get rid of the minimum wage, many liberals would conclude that I'm a poor-person-hating policy-Satanist, regardless of the merits of my argument. Nothing reasonable about it.

Libertarians are bad about this, too.

I think it's a problem that everyone has to deal with, to some degree or another. It's easy to slip into that religious in-group vs. out-group thinking.

Liberaltarian -- pro-market, pro-government, pro-innovation

---

by: Will May @ Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 00:40:39 AM CST

Or perhaps groupism is a mode of perception. (0.00 / 0)

Perhaps some people only see forests because they are incapable of identifying individual trees.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 03:03:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

it goes further.... (0.00 / 0)

....they are so singularly focused on the Beech, that they can't even see (much less identify) the Hemlock behind it.....

---

by: Thomas Simmons @ Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 06:06:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

99% of the liberals (0.00 / 0)

I know, and while a small sample, certainly enough to be significant in my life, try too hard to see the benefit in someone else's point of view.  That is part of the problem we face in the political sphere when we try to hold our own against those who have their ideology and stick to it.
Since I see you self-identify thus:

Aspiring economist and rogue political activist. (And, yes, Free Stater.) I inhabit an awkward ideological space between most libertarians and most liberals.

I wonder how many liberals you actually know and have talked to at length?  
I would identify liberal, in fact, as someone who is willing to listen.  Just because you can't persuade them of the logic and ethics of your position does not make them "religious in-group" thinkers.  

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 05:49:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes and No. (0.00 / 0)

99% of the liberals I know, and while a small sample, certainly enough to be significant in my life, try too hard to see the benefit in someone else's point of view.  That is part of the problem we face in the political sphere when we try to hold our own against those who have their ideology and stick to it.

Yes.

I wonder how many liberals you actually know and have talked to at length?

No. You doubt too swiftly here.

I would identify liberal, in fact, as someone who is willing to listen.

Yes. Liberalism is the belief that A: All people have worth, and B: Truth matters. Therefore, it is seen as only sensible to be open to hearing from people what they hold to be truth.

Just because you can't persuade them of the logic and ethics of your position does not make them "religious in-group" thinkers.

No. He does not suggest this. He suggests that there are those holding liberal positions who regard any departure from or questioning of those positions as a clear indication of a willful and thoroughgoing endorsement of profound moral evil. There is a certain Scotswoman hereabouts, whom I hold in sincere high regard, who is greatly prone to such rapid Inquisitorial conclusions.

Nor does he fail to make clear that he finds this a common failing among political believers of all stripes, including his own. Criticism of him on this is entirely unfounded.

---

by: Tim C. @ Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 11:13:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If you were to say you wanted to get rid of the min wage (4.00 / 3)

Yes of course everything you said would be suspect. The same would be true if you suggested we back our currency with gold at 75% or stated that 9/11 was an inside job.

It's not religion to think that people that are embracing widely discredited ideas must be doing it because they have a radically different set of assumptions. And maybe those assumptions are about whether poor people are just born lazy or maybe those assumptions involve a religious belief in unbridled capitalism solving things automagically.

Can we move beyond that? Sure, but not if your assumption is people disagree with you because they have never heard a libertarian argument against minimum wage before. We all have. Ad nauseum for the past 30 years. It was wrong the first time, and it's wrong the 819th time. Subsequent years have only proved we need minimum wage even more (the credit debacle can be largely traced to stagnating wages in the lower quartiles, which got replaced with credit -- the lack of a robust minimum wage was a contributor to that).

Are we closed off ourselves? No absolutely not. I used to think that civil unions should be sufficient for now, that has changed. I used to oppose a VAT as regressive, but I've come round to it as a possible solution to our longtime fiscal issues. But the question here is not "What is right?" -- it's what works, right now, to increase the well-being of as many people as possible. And, yes, making comments about some abstract world where removing the minimum wage makes that happen will make people here take you not very seriously at all.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 07:25:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I love the smell of burning hair in the morning! :>) (0.00 / 0)

Excellent summation, Mike.  Love "automagically".  My vocabulary is soaring to new heights reading you, elwood and others!

We've fought the minimum wage battle, and the workplace safety battle, and pay equality battle (ongoing), and the civil rights battle, and child labor battle, should I continue?

I'm not much of a proponent for slippery-slope arguments, but, sheesh, if you're going to attack minimum wage, particularly in today's economy, what's next?  Eliminating the Civil Rights legislation? or maybe the Department of Ed?


"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." A. Einstein

---

by: StraffordDem @ Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 07:38:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

How about condemning Lincoln? (4.00 / 1)

A person's possession of one or two "widely discredited ideas", i.e. ideas well outside the pale of modern liberal orthodoxy (or, for that matter, reality) [coughBurtcough], can reasonably cause others unfamiliar with that person to question his or her worldview, but does not mean that person's opinions in general should be regarded as not worth bothering with.

I readily accept that there may be a number of sound reasons to think abolishing the minimum wage would aid the economy and enhance freedom. It encourages more hiring, hiring of less experienced and younger workers, hiring on a trial basis, hiring by struggling new businesses, maintaining job levels in economic downturns, etc., etc.

I rather tend to doubt that they outweigh the ways in which it would restrict the economy, people and freedom, however, and the vast majority of liberals and Americans agree with me on that.

It is important to recognize that there are essentially two classes of people who promote libertarian economic principles.

There are people, sincerely possessing libertarian principles, who have applied them to economics, and who are naturally afflicted by the common human tendency to see only good things arising from anything in pleasing consonance with their ideals.

And there are people who think it'll get them more money, and don't really give a damn about anything else.

We have no reason to believe that Mr. May does not belong to the first class, and we do him, and ourselves, a disservice if we are too ready to presume his inclusion in the second class.

Though he should realize that this:

But the question here is not "What is right?" -- it's what works, right now, to increase the well-being of as many people as possible. And, yes, making comments about some abstract world where removing the minimum wage makes that happen will make people here take you not very seriously at all.

is indeed generally correct.

---

by: Tim C. @ Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 12:01:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

While I appreciate the help, (0.00 / 0)

you're missing the mark.

I'm not promoting libertarian economics. The minimum wage was a hypothetical example.

Unbelievable as it may sound, I really am a liberal with a libertarian streak, or a libertarian with a liberal streak. Something like that.

Mostly I'm just agnostic.

Liberaltarian -- pro-market, pro-government, pro-innovation

---

by: Will May @ Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 03:00:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Didn't expect so many replies... (4.00 / 1)

Lucy:
I live in Keene, so I have ample opportunity to interact with liberals. Some have been very open-minded-- Jaime Contois from Working Families Win stands out here, as well as the people running the Cheshire Dems-- and some have not. One elderly man, the first time I went to a Cheshire Dems meeting (who had never met me before this), asked if I was a Free Stater and told me I was not allowed to attend.

There are a number of high-profile Democrats in the Keene area who, given my experience, would not qualify as liberals by your definition. (I won't toss out names because it feels gossipy.) (And not because I go around antagonizing people-- I'm known for being quiet and tend to avoid debates in person.)

Mike:
Lucy quoted from my profile where I describe myself as an aspiring economist. It's true.
And in a recent poll of academic economists (Robert Whaples, 2006, "Do Economists Agree On Anything? Yes!", The Economists' Voice: Vol. 3 : Iss. 9, Article 1), 47% agreed that we should abolish the minimum wage-- hardly a crackpot fringe. (Keep in mind that academic economists are overwhelmingly Democrat.)
I don't intend to start a minimum wage debate here, so that's all I'm going to say on the issue.

You then go on to suggest that, in my hypothetical example, I probably really am a policy-Satanist, so it's ok for you to make that assumption.
If that is the case, why should you be concerned when conservatives use the same line of reasoning? It makes sense, right? Don't listen to liberals, because they really probably are enemies of the Constitution.

You can't have it both ways.

Generally:
I brought up the minimum wage as an example of an issue where a good portion of liberals will attack a person's character rather than listen to arguments.
If you wanted evidence, it's right here in the comments.

All I'm saying is that no group is immune to this tendency. From what I can tell, it's universal. Maybe liberals handle it better, maybe not. At best, it's a matter of degree.
This is a human problem, not a conservative problem.

Liberaltarian -- pro-market, pro-government, pro-innovation

---

by: Will May @ Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:51:46 AM CST

The new GOP base (0.00 / 0)

Dead from the neck up Beck lemmings

---

by: tchair @ Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:37:47 AM CST