The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson
Containing His Articles, Observations, Thoughts, Meanderings,
and some would say Wisdom (and some would say not).
Myside Bias
The Age of Enlightenment (also known as the Age of Reason or simply the Enlightenment) was an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries. The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on the value of human happiness, the pursuit of knowledge obtained by means of reason and the evidence of the senses, and ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state.
While there are many good books on the thoughts, history, and importance of the Enlightenment, a new book examines the importance of applying Enlightenment principles to today’s issues and concerns. In what can be considered a companion book on Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters, by Steven Pinker, a book that which I highly recommend, he has authored a book on the importance of enlightened “Rationality” and "Reasoning" to solve today’s problems. The inside dust jacket to this book describes this book as:
“Is the world really falling apart? Is the ideal of progress obsolete? In this elegant assessment of the human condition in the third millennium, cognitive scientist and public intellectual Steven Pinker urges us to step back from the gory headlines and prophecies of doom, which play to our psychological biases. Instead, follow the data: In seventy-five jaw-dropping graphs, Pinker shows that life, health, prosperity, safety, peace, knowledge, and happiness are on the rise, not just in the West, but worldwide. This progress is not the result of some cosmic force. It is a gift of the Enlightenment: the conviction that reason and science can enhance human flourishing.
Far from being a naïve hope, the Enlightenment, we now know, has worked. But more than ever, it needs a vigorous defense. The Enlightenment project swims against currents of human nature--tribalism, authoritarianism, demonization, magical thinking--which demagogues are all too willing to exploit. Many commentators, committed to political, religious, or romantic ideologies, fight a rearguard action against it. The result is a corrosive fatalism and a willingness to wreck the precious institutions of liberal democracy and global cooperation.
With intellectual depth and literary flair, Enlightenment Now makes the case for reason, science, and humanism: the ideals we need to confront our problems and continue our progress.”
There have been some criticisms as to the accuracy of some of his data and statistics, but I am in no position to comment on these criticisms. My only comment would be to remind all that data can always be in dispute, and statistical analysis is always difficult and prone to problems, as I have examined in my Article, "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave".
However, this book makes a very good case for the importance of reasoning and science, done in a humanist manner, to propel the progress of humankind. Yet, even the best can get it amiss, including the author of this book. Throughout this book, in several paragraphs and sentences, he occasionally reveals some of his own Myside bias that he defined in his aforementioned book on Rationality:
“Politically motivated numeracy and other forms of biased evaluations show that people reason their way into or out of a conclusion even when it offers them no personal advantage. It’s enough that the conclusion enhances the correctness or nobility of their political, religious, ethnic, or cultural tribe. It’s called, obviously enough, the Myside bias, and it commandeers every kind of reasoning, even logic. Recall that the validity of a syllogism depends on its form, not its content, but that people let their knowledge seep in and judge an argument valid if it ends in a conclusion they know is true or want to be true.”
His Myside bias is generally in the favoritism of Progressives’ positions and ideas over Conservatives’ positions and ideas. In many paragraphs and sentences in this book, he juxtaposes positions and ideas between conservatives and progressives that are written in a manner that is supportive of the progressives’ positions or ideas but are confutative of the conservatives’ positions and ideas. He also often comments on right-wing extremism without mentioning the corresponding left-wing extremism. In addition, he downplays the unenlightenment of the progressive mainstream media and social media words and deeds while stressing the unenlightenment of conservative outlets' words and deeds, both of which need to be roundly condemned.
This is especially true when he comments on President Trump and his administration. He makes several claims about the words and deeds of President Trump and his administration that are unsupported by the facts or have been done without proper attribution, and I suspect, without validating the Myside Bias and Rationality and Reasoning of the attributed author's statements on President Trump (i.e., the Logical Fallacy of an Appeal to Authority). He also treats President Obama and his administration more benignly and supportively than President Trump.
His Myside bias is also evidenced by many of the solutions to the problems he examines, as they often involve more government intervention (via laws and regulations) and more government taxes. Government intervention and taxes that in the past have always been inherently inefficient or results in inequality, an encumbrance on economic growth, and a hindrance to innovation, as well as often being the wrong solution to the problem. He also favors more international agreements and international cooperation to solve our current problems, but such international agreements and cooperation have often been inconsistent and unreliable to resolve these problems, as well as susceptible to manipulation for the benefit of the bad actors within the agreement. He also favors the globalization of the economy without globalization of human rights within the countries participating in the global economy, a decidedly unhumanistic approach. If a country wishes to participate in the global economy, they should also be required to extend global human rights to its citizens. Otherwise, the humanistic participants are at a competitive disadvantage, while the unhumanistic participants have no economic incentives (and indeed an economic disincentive) to reform their society to become humanistic. If the unhumanistic participants of the global economy declare that their humanism is an internal issue, then they should only have an internal and not a global economy. We should also remember the words of Albert Einstein - “Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.”. As human rights cannot be counted but count for more than the benefits of reduced consumer prices and product availability, allowing unhumanistic participants into the global economy is a price too high to be paid for more plentiful and inexpensive consumer goods.
There are many more examples in this book where he demonstrates his Myside biases in his proposed solutions. However, he often strays from the orthodoxy of Progressives’ positions and ideas where he clearly shows that they are unenlightened positions and ideas. In this, he is to be commended and to be heeded very carefully by all sides of the issue. In much of his recommendations for solutions to ensure an Enlightened modern society, he seems to favor solutions on assuring Enlightenment that may have a dubious impact or are impracticable given human nature, nor does he make allowances for the Natural or Constitutional Rights of individuals in these solutions. In doing so, he detracts from the content of this book and reveals his own Myside biases on the solutions for assuring Enlightenment in modern society. He has also forgotten, or never knew, the wisdom of Thomas Sowell:
"The most basic question is not what is the truth, but who shall decide what is the truth.
In this book, he seems to have decided what the truth is and to make comments and recommendations based on what he believes to be true. In doing so, he has forgotten, or did not know, the wisdom and warning of Benjamin Franklin:
"Doubt a little of your own infallibility."
He also makes very little allowance for Evil, Immorality, and Unethical behavior that permeates much of humanity and impedes Enlightenment. Evil in the form of the physiological causes of Sociopathy, or the psychological traumas that have warped a person’s psychology into Antisocial Personality Disorder. The immorality that does not take into account the Natural Rights of others, and unethical conduct, often driven by Narcissism, that does not consider anyone but oneself interests. Such evil, immorality, and unethical behavior often impact the course of history to the detriment of Enlightenment progress. These problems must be addressed and corrected for Enlightenment to proceed, but they cannot be addressed by enlightened humanism alone, as this requires each person to adopt "A Philosophical Approach" to the conduct of their life. A Philosophical Approach that is very difficult to learn, master, and apply for most of humanity. This is where religion must be a part of humanity. A religious belief that incorporates Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress into its dogma and tenets in a manner that is understandable and uncomplicated so that a person can make better decisions in their life and assist in the progress of humankind.
As this book was written in 2017 and published in early 2018, there cannot be any examination of the events in 2018 through 2021 on Enlightenment. Events that have demonstrated more irrationality and unreasonableness, and unenlightenment thought, in these years than in any time in the 21st century. The COVID-19 Pandemic, mob violence in the streets, illegal immigration, and international tensions, amongst other events, all call into question the saneness of the participants. It is these current events that make one wonder if it is even possible for humankind to become more enlightened, more rational and reasonable, scientific, humanistic, and to further the progress of humankind.
My comments on this book should not be considered a criticism of the book, but a critique of this book, as I have explained in my Chips section on Criticism vs. Critique. Much of the praise for this book has come from persons who you could fairly say were on his side of his Myside bias. When reading books of this nature, I feel more comfortable if all sides praised the book, as I believe that this demonstrates the author's ability to put aside Myside bias and write a balanced book that all sides could utilize as a reference point. This book would also have been a much better book if the author had focused on the reality of the problems and written a follow-on book of his proposed solutions to these problems. But you should take to heart his argument for the importance of Enlightenment in understanding and solving the problems that beset today’s America and the world.
Myside bias is one of the most difficult biases to recognize within oneself. So inherent it is in our nature to believe what we believe is true that we often do not recognize our own Myside biases. I, myself, am subject to this problem, which is the reason that after I create the first draft of my Article and Chirps, I proof them with an eye for Myside bias. I often must rewrite or heavily edit the Article or Chirp to remove this Myside bias to achieve a more rational Article or Chirp. Therefore, you should always beware of your own and others' Myside biases when reading any book or article or listening to any commentary.