Epistemic Bubbles
“There are many demographic fault lines emerging in this year’s
presidential campaign, but few are deeper than the division among likely
voters based on educational attainment.” (http://www.bloomberg.com/…/education-level-sharply-divides-…) Among the boldest dividing lines in this election is educational. Why would that be?
There seem to be at least several mutually inclusive possibilities for explaining it:
(1) Education is liberal indoctrination, that is, the more education
one has, the more has been successfully brainwashed to accept liberal
beliefs.
(2) Education is the conveyance of information and when you
know certain things, you are more inclined to adopt progressive
positions.
(3) Education is about the acquisition of habits of mind
and skills and techniques that all one to think through problems that
tend to lead to progressive positions.
(4) Progressive positions are crafted by the highly educated in part to appeal to the highly educated.
(5) The college-educated are a special interest group and their
preference for progressive policies is a political move to actualize
their worldview on our culture.
I claim that all five of these are true.
Let’s start with the easy ones – 2 and 3. According to classical
democratic theory, a functional democracy requires a well-informed
electorate. In order to make maximally effective decisions about how to
proceed, you need to know what are the facts on the ground. Take
college courses and you will have an expert in a given field tell you
what is our best understanding about what is going on. Their
information has been challenged by others in the field and that which
has withstood criticism becomes the consensus position and we teach
undergraduates only the most firmly established beliefs given our best
evidence.
Could it be wrong? Of course. And when it is shown to
be wrong, it is exciting news in the academic community and we teach
both the debate and the new approach. Indeed, this is how progress is
made and that progress spreads through the educated class. Possession
of new information is a badge of status for the educated. To be up on
the latest is to be better educated and that is a measure of self-worth.
To an extent, this is justifiable. The advances are important in
better understanding situations and in adopting the most effective and
just positions. If you understand the basics of thermodynamics and
chemistry and understand that different substances have different
specific heats, then the idea of global warming does not seem mysterious
in the slightest. If you have discussed Kimberle Crenshaw’s notion of
intersectionality in a classroom, then you will look at police shootings
of non-whites in a way that has a nuance you would not have without it.
Thought-workers do real work. We make progress. We develop better
ideas and applying those better ideas lead to better ways of
understanding the contemporary context.
Similarly, we not only
teach what to think, but how to think. A college education requires
problem solving. It requires paper-writing. Writing is thinking. If
you write badly, it is because you have not learned how to carefully
work through questions and how to support claims with evidence. College
is hard. It is intellectual boot camp. You emerge cognitively
stronger with skills of analysis that you would not have had without the
experience.
Can intellectual be deceived by their own beliefs and
biases? Absolutely. Indeed, the educated are more likely to fall into
certain logical pitfalls because we develop an arrogance about our
abilities. If I think so, it must be true – after all, I’m
well-educated. There are a whole range of logical fallacies that derive
from cognitive biases that all people are subject to. That is why I
wrote my last post. Bill asked “t why piss on Clinton's political grave
when there are more important things to worry about?” The answer is
that making sure that progressives recognize their own biases is crucial
to our critical evaluation of situations and necessary if progress is
to be made. If we don’t do the discursive autopsy, we won’t know what
killed our chances.
But what the combination of 2 and 3 will do,
however, is diminish the chances of falling prey to the Dunning-Kruger
effect wherein the less one knows about something, the more one thinks
one knows about that very thing. College reveals to us our ignorance.
We realize how hard, how intricate, how inter-related questions are and
we are less likely to fall for simple, but attractive and false silver
bullet claims. This notion of interconnectedness of problems and the
need for structural solutions – that is the hallmark of the progressive
worldview.
In this case, 2+3=4, that is, the sorts of policy
prescriptions those with the background from 2 and the skills from 3
will develop will be those that appeal to others who speak the same
language – that is, claim 4. We work from common concepts and through
common approaches, we demand similar sorts of evidentiary support, we
value certain forms of explanation. Wittgenstein introduced the concept
of a language game. The idea is that there are different discourse
communities whose linguistic behaviors presuppose certain background
beliefs in order to give rise to the basic vocabulary.
Different
language speakers will carve nature at different joints. The
college-educated have been taught to speak a specific language which
makes perfect sense to those in the club, but largely sounds like
meaningless jargon to many outside. The way the world is divided up by
the language of Higher Ed is more amenable to progressive approaches and
those who are fluent in the language will be much more comfortable with
potential solutions in their mother-tongue.
Here is where 1 and 5
come in. Languages are pregnant with worldview. Languages are not
value-neutral (this is something egghead professors have figured out)
and when we work on solutions in our language they will be biased toward
the sort of worldview we espouse in which rationality and knowledge are
prized, a sort of equality of worth is presumed among all people,
psychological and sociological factors are in effect that are working to
shape our belief-structure on the basis of political power not likely
truth, and problems are interconnected puzzles that affect each other.
In the college-educated worldview, black and white is mistrusted. Our
bumper sticker reads “It’s more complicated than that” and every time we
tried to advance a straight-forward, simple solution, someone else in
the community of the educated smugly points out how it naïve and in need
of complexity. We have learned to prize interdisciplinarity and a
multiplicity of interpretive viewpoints. We have had it beaten into us
that there are other ways of thinking about things and that the better
thinkers can shift among their different perspectives to gain a deeper
synthetic understanding.
This prizing of intellectual knottiness
leads us to embrace multiculturalism, critiques from the perspectives of
minimized voices, and a cosmopolitan stance. We have a knee-jerk
global mode of being which minimizes the local and thereby the locals.
We look for universal laws of nature and give prizes to literature and
film that make us see the world through new lenses. If you only speak
one language and do not speak it with grammatical precision, if you work
at a job which is held to be inferior because it involves manual
instead of cognitive labor, if you had trouble in high school and were
made to feel stupid and inferior because of it, then the foundations of
this worldview will diminish you as well. And you will resent the
prescriptions coming from it. On the other hand, if it is a language
you speak, the policy proposals will read like poetry, elegant in their
complexity and confirming of your picture.
And their success
or failure is an empirical matter which is determinable by economists
and social scientists, physicists and climate scientists whose
mathematical acumen comforts you in accepting their findings.
Higher Education has produced an epistemic bubble. In the Scholastic
period, all Western intellectual works were written in Latin ensuring
that scholars across the Continent could read each others work, but also
ensuring that those not in the scholar’s club could not. We have done
the same sort of thing now. What we saw in this election were warring
linguistic communities. Language is pregnant with worldview and those
who have learned to speak the academic language are much more likely to
prefer certain political approaches. Those who do not speak the
language have radically different preferences. The most radically
subversive suggestion of the campaign? It turns out to be Sanders’ free
college for everyone. Expensive? Yes. But if instituting your
worldview depends on one people accepting your basic presuppositions and
those are embedded in the ways of thinking and the things you know, it
may be the only way – the divide may not be bridgeable, just
conquerable.