William Davies -- Nervous states
==================================

William Davies, in "Nervous states", is trying to describe and
diagnose some of the popular uprisings and manias that we see today,
as well as some of the abuses and misuses of communication
technology, especially, but not only, digital and online
communication.  His message is that it will not help to throw more
facts at those who ignore the experts and the science and the
objective knowledge.  We need to understand the underlying causes.
In effect he is saying that this is not a problem with the science;
it a problem with the social, economic, and political institutions
that are used to address the problems of a large segment of our
society.  People who are angry, who feel neglected, who are
depressed because they cannot make a living for themselves and their
families do not want information and facts; they want change.  And,
if they have to ignore science, facts, objective reality,
statistics, and the experts in order to cause some change that might
address their issues, then they will do so.

Don't forget that people can be "conned"; they can be fooled and
tricked.  They are especially vulnerable to believing what they
*want* to believe.  One of Davies's messages it that digital
communications and online social media platforms are very powerful
tools for those who want to con and mislead us.

People want a story or myth or hero if it will tell them what they
want to believe.  They are willing to ignore quite objectionable
things if a "hero" tells them something that seems to redeem them,
if the hero can make them believe that he will bring changes that
they want, etc.  An interesting analysis of this is in "Trumpism
extols its folk hero", by Charles M. Blow in "The New York Times",
4/0/2019, p. A21.

This willingness to believe what you want to believe is being
enabled by the large and wide selection of information sources that
are available today.  The Internet is an extreme example of that.
On the Internet, you can find anything you want to believe.  The
Internet enables us to confirm our biases and our suspicions, no
matter how extreme they might be.

Currently we have a variety of movements that seem to fit this
pattern: the British vote for Brexit, the election of Donald Trump
as U.S.A. president, nationalist surges across Europe, and white
nationalist organizations in the U.S.A.

We need to keep in mind that crowds have mechanisms and behaviors of
their own.  And, those mechanisms are not rational.  A good deal of
the talk we here these days about "memes" and about something going
"viral" on the Web is a indication of the chaotic nature of crowds
and what they follow.  Crowds, their influences, and there
information/communication patterns have feedback loops, often
positive feedback loops that produce run-away behavior.  Crowd
exhibit what George Soros has called reflexivity.

And, it's not just individuals or even rogue actors that are
problematic.  Mainstream media, experts, and political elites also
share some of the blame.  Economic suffering by a large section of
the U.S.A.  population is not being captured by statistics and broad
numerical indicators.  And, because of that, our political system is
ignoring the conditions of huge segments of the U.S.  population.

We might argue that we should take action in support of science,
that we should start a pro-science political movement.  Perhaps,
but, if we do, we risk turning science, reason, objectivity,
expertise, scientific evidence, etc. into political values just like
others.  Science should not be an issue that we need to vote in
favor of.  We should not have to argue in support of objective truth
and scientific knowledge.

In our current politics, issues that should be matters of fact, that
should be indisputable, have become emotional issues.  We all now
seem to demand the right to our own set of facts, as *well as* the
right to our own opinions.  Our increasing distrust of experts leads
us to this inability to agree on positions even when they seem
objective.

The increasing number of books and articles about growing economic
inequality, especially in the U.S., is an indication of how uneven
and patchy economic progress has been across different segments of
our society.  Our political system and the political class ignores
that unevenness, or at best talks about it but does nothing
effective.  Even worse, our political system reports on statistics
that do not capture or describe this unevenness.  Reports of job
growth, low unemployment, increasing prosperity, etc. are especially
galling to those who are left out and ignored by those figures.  Our
economic statistics and broad economic indicators sometimes report
progress and good times even while a majority of our population is
being left out of that progress.  Is it any wonder that those who
are left out can be easily convinced to believe what seems to
conflict with objective reality.

Furthermore, statistically measures often ignore the feelings of
large segments of our population as well as the *intensity* of those
feelings.  It is often difficult to have a detached and objective
and unemotional view of a numerical description of your conditions
and life when that life is one of severe suffering, or, conversely,
when you are currently extremely successful.

Statistics not only describe; they also prescribe -- They suggest to
us how to make things better and how to make progress.  But, again,
what it means for things to be better and what counts as progress is
not the same for everyone.  Any particular approach to making
"progress" might mean riches and luxury and power for some, while it
entails job loss, factory closings, polluted living conditions, and
worse for many of us.  The enlightenment and its dreams of
improvement were, in one sense, built on these dreams of improvement
that would be based on statistics and scientific evidence and
objective knowledge of changes in our living conditions.  Davies's
message that these statistics and other economic measures sometimes,
perhaps even often, do not measure what is good for some of us, and
perhaps even most of us.  In effect, he is giving us advice that,
especially now, especially in a time of rising and extreme unequal
wealth, income, and opportunity, we should be wary of the particular
statistical and economic measurements that we use.  To fail to do so
is likely to send us into times of political distress and turmoil.

Deteriorating health, living, and environmental conditions as well
as worsening economic prospects for wide swaths of U.S. citizens
are, to a measurable extent, determiners of their voting patterns
for people who are experiencing them, and, importantly of their
willingness to engage in reasonable political discussions.  It's
hard to be reasonable when you feel that a "reasonable" discussion
will lead to bad health and poverty for you and your family.

Yes, statistics, economic statistics may provide a common, shared,
objective view of reality, but it might be a warped view all the
same.

Viewed from another perspective, Davies is giving an explanation for
why populist leaders and populist political movements have found
such resonance and they have gained so much support recently.  We
and our politicians ignore that at our peril.

Davies gives an account of the right wing and libertarian beliefs
that we do not need government experts, do not need government
scientists, do not need government planning and control, and that we
are better off when market forces and entrepreneurs and corporate
leaders are more free to make decisions and control the economy.
There is a large and well-funded effort in support of this
direction.  Davies explains the intellectual support and background
for this movement that comes from people like Ludwig von Mises,
Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman.

Sigh.  It is not only that we do not all agree on the same reality
(the same set of facts); it's also that we do not even all agree on
the *need* for a single, objective reality.  We are in a
"post-truth" age: an age in which it seems to be acceptable to deny
the need for agreement on objective reality.  Since reality and the
world around us is often complex and its behavior is chaotic, it's
tempting for some of us to believe that there is no point to
scientific experts and the knowledge they bring us.  But, that
really is likely to bring us a chaotic and disastrous future.

We are living in a digital, connected, and online world.  We believe
and feel that *we* are in control and that we are each using *them*,
e.g. our digital devices and the online platforms, but it's the
online companies, especially Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google,
that are just as often controlling and using us.  Often, more and
more, we are fooling ourselves.  Yes, we can do many useful things
with our Internet connections.  But, we are going to need to learn
to be more careful and we are going to have to learn and acquire
better tools for our own protection.  That means things like ad
blockers for our Web browsers.  But, it also means things that we
need, for example, more knowledgeable ways to protect ourselves from
fake news, from rogue online opinion influencing campaigns, and from
much more.

Increasingly, our connections to the outside world and to others in
it are through our digital devices; more and more, our ways of
obtaining information about the world and our ways of communicating
with others in it are through our digital devices.  That can be
hugely powerful and empowering.  But, we will face unpleasant and
unfortunate consequences if we fail to learn both when it it
appropriate to use those devices, what to use them for, and how to
use them intelligently.  Davies is trying to warn us about those
possibilities.  Acquiring information about the world through our
digital devices is powerful; acquiring *misinformation* about the
world can be even more disabling.  Communicating with those around
us and those far away can be incredibly useful; misleading others
and being misled by them can be even more debilitating.  Some of the
online social media platforms, Facebook in particular, are
practically designed to enable "dog whistle" messages and
disinformation campaigns.  We have a lot to learn if we hope to come
to more good than bad in that respect.

04/11/2019

.. vim:ft=rst:fo+=a: