We often make false dichotomies, the kind of arguments that start, "There are two types of people...." Most of these arguments are false, as people are not usually that easy to categorize. But I'm going to make such a dichotomy in this post; understand that I'm presenting these as absolutes, rather than the tendencies they more likely are.
There are two types of people, those who seek truth wherever it takes them, and those who believe that facts can be used selectively to advocate one position or another. I like to think of myself as in the former camp, that I can be convinced by a compelling argument or a changing situation that something I believe is wrong.
For example, I believe that the minimum wage is a good thing, that it represents a floor below which society is arguing that companies must not go, that they cannot use their power to withhold their share of this country's inherent bounty from other citizens. Every job has some minimum value because every person has some basic value, and this country is better when we recognize that. That doesn't mean that I know the exact number at which this minimum should be pegged, so there is still a discussion to be had.
But I am reasonable. If it could be proven, proven beyond reasonable doubt, that eliminating the minimum wage would create vast amounts of wealth, and that wealth wouldn't simply be concentrated in the hands of a few, I would change my position. If I were convinced that the nation would be better off, and no one would be irreparably damaged, I would be the first to argue for the abolition of the minimum wage.
At least I hope that I could shed my long-held beliefs so easily. And I would like to believe that most people are that way as well, but that's a big "like to believe," because I know that many find it hard to abandon the ideas that have lived inside them for years.
But today I'm talking about the people, a large number, for whom truth is largely irrelevant. Their interest is not in perceiving reality, but in self-enhancement. These are folks who find truth inconvenient, and the pursuit of it a waste of time. Sadly, many of these people are very successful and influential.
When we see Hillary Clinton insisting that the votes in Florida and Michigan be counted, while we know that, had Obama won those states, she would be at the forefront of those calling for strict rule-following, or we see her claiming that sexism is a larger force in her campaign than racism, it's hard to see her as a seeker of truth. I think one of the reasons we've come to mistrust politicians so thoroughly is that we sense that they have a wanton disregard for any truth that conflicts with the expedient positions they take.
And that is why I'm so disheartened by the public regard for CEOs (I discussed this last week in more detail). These are not men and women who have any interest in the truth, but we want to believe they have some insight that has been denied the rest of us (look how much money they have).
So Congress wants to believe that Bill Gates will express truth about H-1B visas because he's so obviously smart, and therefore is a truth-seeker. But he's not, he's an advocate; if you convinced him that more H-1B visas would hurt Microsoft, he would argue precisely the opposite of what he did contend two months ago.
We need to get a lot smarter about this, distinguish the truth-seekers from the self-servers, evaluate arguments on their merits and not their supporters.
By the way, this should not be read as an anti-Hillary post - her reluctance to discard a lost campaign clearly comes from a deep-seated place that I don't profess to understand (though Andrew Sullivan has an idea) - but I have reservations as to whether anyone in the political arena can be a seeker of truth. I can only hope that the eventual president is closer to that than we have had for the last eight (or more) years, because we have a lot of growing problems that need to be looked at from a stance of reality, not self-loving positioning.
There are two types of people, those who seek truth wherever it takes them, and those who believe that facts can be used selectively to advocate one position or another. I like to think of myself as in the former camp, that I can be convinced by a compelling argument or a changing situation that something I believe is wrong.
For example, I believe that the minimum wage is a good thing, that it represents a floor below which society is arguing that companies must not go, that they cannot use their power to withhold their share of this country's inherent bounty from other citizens. Every job has some minimum value because every person has some basic value, and this country is better when we recognize that. That doesn't mean that I know the exact number at which this minimum should be pegged, so there is still a discussion to be had.
But I am reasonable. If it could be proven, proven beyond reasonable doubt, that eliminating the minimum wage would create vast amounts of wealth, and that wealth wouldn't simply be concentrated in the hands of a few, I would change my position. If I were convinced that the nation would be better off, and no one would be irreparably damaged, I would be the first to argue for the abolition of the minimum wage.
At least I hope that I could shed my long-held beliefs so easily. And I would like to believe that most people are that way as well, but that's a big "like to believe," because I know that many find it hard to abandon the ideas that have lived inside them for years.
But today I'm talking about the people, a large number, for whom truth is largely irrelevant. Their interest is not in perceiving reality, but in self-enhancement. These are folks who find truth inconvenient, and the pursuit of it a waste of time. Sadly, many of these people are very successful and influential.
When we see Hillary Clinton insisting that the votes in Florida and Michigan be counted, while we know that, had Obama won those states, she would be at the forefront of those calling for strict rule-following, or we see her claiming that sexism is a larger force in her campaign than racism, it's hard to see her as a seeker of truth. I think one of the reasons we've come to mistrust politicians so thoroughly is that we sense that they have a wanton disregard for any truth that conflicts with the expedient positions they take.
And that is why I'm so disheartened by the public regard for CEOs (I discussed this last week in more detail). These are not men and women who have any interest in the truth, but we want to believe they have some insight that has been denied the rest of us (look how much money they have).
So Congress wants to believe that Bill Gates will express truth about H-1B visas because he's so obviously smart, and therefore is a truth-seeker. But he's not, he's an advocate; if you convinced him that more H-1B visas would hurt Microsoft, he would argue precisely the opposite of what he did contend two months ago.
We need to get a lot smarter about this, distinguish the truth-seekers from the self-servers, evaluate arguments on their merits and not their supporters.
By the way, this should not be read as an anti-Hillary post - her reluctance to discard a lost campaign clearly comes from a deep-seated place that I don't profess to understand (though Andrew Sullivan has an idea) - but I have reservations as to whether anyone in the political arena can be a seeker of truth. I can only hope that the eventual president is closer to that than we have had for the last eight (or more) years, because we have a lot of growing problems that need to be looked at from a stance of reality, not self-loving positioning.
No comments:
Post a Comment