Matt Ridley and unlearning falsehoods

[Toban Wiebe]

Matt Ridley wrote in a recent blog:

For adults, one of the most important lessons to learn in life is the necessity of unlearning. We all think that we know certain things to be true beyond doubt, but these things often turn out to be false and, until we unlearn them, they get in the way of new understanding. Among the scientific certainties I have had to unlearn: that upbringing strongly shapes your personality; that nurture is the opposite of nature; that dietary fat causes obesity more than dietary carbohydrate; that carbon dioxide has been the main driver of climate change in the past.

I'd add that Matt is pretty libertarian, and mostly for free markets. I've been pretty surprised and pleased to find out just how much we think alike.

This got me thinking—there is a certain type of personality which loves to bust widely held beliefs. I'm definitely of that personality and I imagine most people on this list are. After all, being paleo and libertarian is rejecting 2 major pillars of conventional wisdom. But I think that many people aren't of this personality type, and so they don't share our enthusiasm for liberty and paleo, etc. For example, I remember Bryan Caplan saying that when he first read Bastiat, it blew his mind because it utterly demolished the case for trade restrictions. But when he told other people that the common belief was wrong, they didn't find it exciting like he did.

How would you describe this type of personality? Contrarian? Iconoclastic? Skeptic? I can't quite pin it down...

[sbq...@gmail.com]

Imaginative

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

---

From: Toban Wiebe <tob...@gmail.com>

Sender: paleo-li...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:57:45 -0600

To: <paleo-li...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: paleo-li...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Matt Ridley and unlearning falsehoods

[Richard Nikoley]

Toban:

"there is a certain type of personality which loves to bust widely held beliefs."

Ha, ha ha!. Well, that certainly is timely (and I'll get to why in a second).

"But when he told other people that the common belief was wrong, they didn't find it exciting like he did."

Yep, libertarians are among the very worst in the world in swaying others to their view. Having been at that game since about 1994 with thousands of USENET posts (and Compuserve, Prodigy and AOL forums before that, for those who remember) and then a blog since 2003 that was largely political / cultural until 2009 or so, I have a few ideas about that.

My experience has taught me that the only way I have ever been successful at actually turning someone around into being a thinking human being, somewhat an individual rather than a member of group or collective, is to fucking rough them up. Why? They are inundated with information. Unless you can distinguish yourself with outlandish words, they won't have the time for you. Unless you can truly, cleverly make them feel like an abject idiot, they have absolutely nothing at risk. Unless you find a way to plant a seed that they cannot help but look into, you're wasting your time.

Here's the deal, though. And of course, this is only from my experience. Every time I have ever tried to "take someone under my wing" and gently school them, they loose interest. However, if I become their nemesis that call them a "fucking idiot, et al," etc., they can't help but wonder how I gather that (you have to be good and consistent at writing to pull this off -- you can't sound like a total dufuss; you have to have some cred capital).

The very most effective thing I have ever found is to first, be how I am, but to use "hot button" words, kinda like casting a line. When you get a bite and the standard TEEVEE gibberish about how you're racist, elitist, colonialist, uncaring, cruel (take your pick of the mold they are putting you in), then you engage them. But, instead of doing what everyone else they have ever seen do, backtracking, backpedaling, clarifying in defensiveness, you kick it up a notch. You give them exactly what they want. This delights them and they will make every stock assumption in the book about you.

And then you reel them in.

Wanna real world example that just happened today? What are the odds I could get a collective statist to state plainly that the very fact I have "dark skin" for a wife proves I'm a racist? Here you go, and feel free to jump in on those comments if you have something to say.

http://freetheanimal.com/2011/01/yikes-look-what-all-that-starch-did-to-my-triglycerides-and-alcohol-to-my-liver-new-lipid-panel-and-alt-test.html#comment-56806

That thread begins over a month ago and there were only a few comments and I never seriously tried to do my thing. But then "Smith: hit the thread yesterday.

Life is short, folks. If you're gonna try to influence "one mind at a time" (always my approach), then at least have some fun doing it.

Richard Nikoley

rnik...@gmail.com

[Toban Wiebe]

Yes, blasting people for their ignorance is good fun, but it's hard to believe it works. The cognitive dissonance involved in changing positions would be enormous... it would be so utterly humiliating. I imagine most people would just leave and forget about it before reassessing their position.

So, do you think your sample is biased? Maybe most people you rip just leave thinking you're an A-hole but some people (those who are intellectually honest and interested in the truth) see the reason in your arguments and overcome the cognitive dissonance.

[Joshua Katz]

It seems to me that this method might seem far better than it is due
to the influence Toban cites. If you do what Richard suggests, most
people will stop talking to you. Those who don't are already self-
selecting for certain traits which might correlate with being a
libertarian, such as being particularly open to challenge and new
ideas.

> >http://freetheanimal.com/2011/01/yikes-look-what-all-that-starch-did-...

>
> > That thread begins over a month ago and there were only a few comments and
> > I never seriously tried to do my thing. But then "Smith: hit the thread
> > yesterday.
>
> > Life is short, folks. If you're gonna try to influence "one mind at a time"
> > (always my approach), then at least have some fun doing it.
>
> > Richard Nikoley

> > rniko...@gmail.com

>
> > On Feb 20, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Toban Wiebe wrote:
>

> > Matt Ridley wrote in a recent blog<http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/how-unlearn-pessimism>
> > :

[Richard Nikoley]

Hi Toban

On Feb 20, 2011, at 7:02 PM, Toban Wiebe wrote:

Yes, blasting people for their ignorance is good fun, but it's hard to believe it works. The cognitive dissonance involved in changing positions would be enormous... it would be so utterly humiliating. I imagine most people would just leave and forget about it before reassessing their position.

And this is exactly why it works far more often than the friendly approach (for me). By being polite and friendly you're simply reinforcing the notion that there's no bad consequence to being in cognitive dissonance. You're letting them off the hook.

I never let them off the hook. I make sure that they know I think they're an idiot.

That said, some caveats:

1. It has to be an important moral issue. So, for me, it has to always either directly or very closely indirectly have something to do with individualism and the moral freedom to be left alone to live one's life with a right to earn and own and prosper from the property necessary to sustain it.

2. You have to be right.

3. Never, ever engage in "what works best" consequentialist, utopian schemes. I state it point blank: I would uphold liberty ever if it "worked" the worst.

So, do you think your sample is biased?

Certainly not, sir! Totally objective, with spreadsheets and compiled statistics!!!

Seriously, everyone is biased. I use my method because I've developed it over many years and favor it over other approaches I've used. It saves me time and is more effective to boot. The nice guy approach has only proven to be to be an enormous time-sucking waste with little if any progress made. It becomes more about the debate. Everyone totally loses sight of the fact that somebody is right and somebody is wrong.

Never expect your interlocutor to suddenly say, "yea, you're right. I'm such a dumbshit." Most of the turnarounds I've seen over the years happen over months. But very little time is spent because it's always just hit & run on my part. I want to make it as unpleasant as possible. I don't want a debate or discussion. Then, one day, you might see same person beginning to make more libertarian sounding arguments, calling out some injustice perpetrated by government and reported in the media. It's a process.

And finally, even though I always used to conduct these campaigns directed at a lone individual (one mind at at time) they would definitely have an effect on the larkers. Many, many e-mails over the years to that effect.

Today, I get emails from folks who got to my blog for health, weight loss, paleo reasons and have since become ver libertarian just from going back and reading my archives. One guy read every post from Nov 2003 on, some 2,800 of them. And a whole lot of my political posts are written in the same style of scorn for the effing morons of collectivist society.

You're mileage may vary and probably, one has to have the disposition for this sort of work. Two off the top of my head who definitely do: Billy Beck and Karen De Coster.

Richard

[Karen DeCoster]

Interesting discussion.

I'm proud to have the right disposition! I believe most of the
collective masses need an epistemological housecleaning, and I try to
provide as much of that as I can.

The reaction I have received for the last 12+ years online: Some hate
my very direct style, many love it. Those who hate it really loathe
it. The loathers tend to be soft, and they are the types who think you
can still change totalitarianism by writing your congressman. Those
who like my direct style are sick and tired of the soft-peddling and
fluff from others. I'd say that a very large majority (% in high 90s)
of my readers not only like my style and read me because of it, but
they make consistent comments across the board such as "thanks for
being a breath of fresh air" or "I love your writing style" type
comments. In my earlier years (early 90s) I received much more
vituperation and hate mail than I do now. And I kept on keeping on, in
spite of that. Everyone else who was attacking me way back when
(certain writers, websites, bloggers) is long gone (except for a
couple of Reason folks) - but I am still here. Still here and still
kicking. Back in 2003, or thereabouts, WorldNetDaily, which was at the
top of the world at that time, took a huge swing at me ..... and
missed. The Editor who did that has no more presence. The lack of
reception I once had - among a small group of pc libertarians - has
flipped immensely as we've seen a shift in peoples' views of what they
think we need to do in order to clean out the totalitarian house.

My style is a direct result of how I think. I make no effort to be of
any particular temperament, or otherwise. It just is what it is. It is
me, my passion, and my desire for the truth, no matter what the
consequences. I could easily kiss ass (like many of my libertarian
colleagues) and moderate my ideas, and the result would be that I
would get more "mainstream" libertarian jobs. And you all know some of
these folks that have sold out to soft-peddling. But I can't sell out
like they do.

p.s. -- Even Lew Rockwell loves my harshest (brutally honest) blogs.

My greatest asset is this: I don't get paid to be a libertarian full-
time. I have no one to please, no one to beg, no one for whom I have
to "conform" in some sense. I throw my ideas and talent to the market
and it either sells or it doesn't sell. I am completely independent. I
let my occupation fund my passion. I have a great, solid occupation
with good pay/benefits, and I have a formidable resume that will never
leave me without a job in my profession. That allows me the
flexibility to do what I think I need to do to be true to myself and
my passion for libertarian ideas - that is, being forthright, with
little or no Oprah dust sprinkled on top. I can make some nice $$$
writing (that is, $$$ per hour spent writing), and I do that when I
choose to take on something that is of interest. I have more
(libertarian) work offers thrown my way than I can possibly accept,
due to Job #1 and too many damn hobbies. All in all, it's a hell of a
fun ride.

But I am also a proponent of "know your audience." People at work call
me a "people person." (I am not kidding.) I joke with them: No I'm
not! I'm a misanthrope! (Just kidding.) Really, that comes from the
fact that I know how to judge my audience and understand their level
of sophistication. So you'd never see my hardassness on the job, and
that's because I understand what they need that motivates them, and
how they need to be embraced and/or steered. But in the libertarian
world of ideas, where theft and aggression is sport, and I am deemed
to be some Fisher-Price plastic person for the central planners to
move about as they please, I have no way to combat the control of my
mind, property, and life other than putting on the 12 oz'ers and
coming out swinging. I keep my libertarian world and my work world
separate. Note that Billy Beck is in the same niche as me -
independent, and no one owns him.

More than anything, I value not being owned or controlled by some
external force(s) that has a larger, less impassioned motive. People
who have known me forever know that this trait is just burned into
me.

BTW -- I hated that period in time when Nikoley gave up the f-bombs.
Zzzzzzzzzzz......


KDC

[Richard Nikoley]

Yes, it is very interesting how in terms of context, we serious muckrakers have as much need as anyone else of a circle who sees us completely differently, and I mean COMPLETELY differently.

Enough said. I need that, and I have it, but I never talk about it online nor will I ever. It's the best part of my life, but I enjoy what I do online enough. Perhaps it's because I have so many who value other things I do for different reasons that I have never felt I had much to risk by just being myself, online.

Thanks for stepping in, Karen. Go have yourself a bourbon.

Richard Nikoley
rnik...@gmail.com

[Toban Wiebe]

Another thing I've noticed is that people like us tend to hate political correctness. So I wonder if this personality type enjoys shocking other people and is averse to complacent agreement. It certainly seems that we thrive on argument and controversial topics. For example, evolutionary psychology is a pretty controversial topic (definitely not for the politically correct), and I find it incredibly interesting. Others are shocked and offended by it.

[Karen DeCoster]

Toban - I can speak for me: As one who absolutely detests political
correctness (which is fairly unusual for a female), I have no interest
in "shocking" other people, at all. In fact, I tend to thrive on being
around like-minded people who have a passion for ideas, skepticism,
and critical thinking. I even have a Marxist friend - I like her
because she's an intellectual and a thinker/reader, though a misguided
one. I tend to abhor expectations of being pc so as not to offend
anyone with the truth, and also, I detest peer pressure, as I do not
recognize any such "pressure" as having a bearing on what I may think
or say. I thrive not on argument, but on research, exploration, ideas,
thinking, conversation, and knowledge. Personally, I tend to avoid
conflict, except in my intellectual life.

There are "shock libertarians," but that is mostly a small class. As
one who has mingled in this movement for 20+ years, and as one who has
a vast network of influential libertarian friends, I can tell you that
what you describe does not describe the majority of "people like us."
What you describe points to a smaller movement of young, narcissistic
libertarians that received attention only because of the Internet. I
call them the "let me do whatever the fuck I want" libertarians. These
are also the same people who think criticism of anything (gaming,
popular culture, etc.) is "unlibertarian."

KDC

On Feb 23, 6:02 pm, Toban Wiebe <tob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another thing I've noticed is that people like us tend to hate political
> correctness. So I wonder if this personality type enjoys shocking other
> people and is averse to complacent agreement. It certainly seems that we
> thrive on argument and controversial topics. For example, evolutionary
> psychology is a pretty controversial topic (definitely not for the
> politically correct), and I find it incredibly interesting. Others are
> shocked and offended by it.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Richard Nikoley <rniko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, it is very interesting how in terms of context, we serious muckrakers
> > have as much need as anyone else of a circle who sees us completely
> > differently, and I mean COMPLETELY differently.
>
> > Enough said. I need that, and I have it, but I never talk about it online
> > nor will I ever. It's the best part of my life, but I enjoy what I do online
> > enough. Perhaps it's because I have so many who value other things I do for
> > different reasons that I have never felt I had much to risk by just being
> > myself, online.
>
> > Thanks for stepping in, Karen. Go have yourself a bourbon.
>
> > Richard Nikoley

> > rniko...@gmail.com

[Toban Wiebe]

I guess it's not so much about shocking others, but more about exposing errors and fighting fallacies. We're the type that likes to point out that the emperor has no clothes (which does happen to shock some people). I definitely enjoy it!