Arrival at Truth

'Do your own research' spoken by those not knowing how or not bothering to. Scattered 'facts' that aren't so, or so vague as to be undiscernable, assertions without support, or are immaterial to belief. Preferring bullshit to facts and disregard or denial of inconvenient ones. 'Arguments' replaced by labels, slogans, and name calling. Constructing 'theories' devoid of evidence or logic. Trusting in people over facts. Failure to vet sources or not even realizing the need to. Failure to deal with uncertainty, asserting knowledge without evidence. Failure to be critical, testing beliefs. Failure to be coherent, maintaining conflicting, inconsistent beliefs. Reasoning from the desired conclusion. Equating beliefs and wishes with facts, or placing other values ahead of truth. All these can lead us away from truth. Truth must be valued over our biases, errors, and wishes, if we are to seek it over our assumptions, our need to be right, and our desires. Truth must be sought if it is to be found. We must seek actual facts and follow them, their basis, and conditions under which they are true. We need to rely on the who, what, where, when, why, and how, specifics, not on indeterminate, untraceable, vague assertions. We must be critical, most of all to what we want to be true. We must examine the consistency of evidence with itself and other knowledge. We must vet our sources, their origin, interests, motives, expertise, evidence, consistency, and track record. Those with poor track records must be discarded in favor of better ones. Trust must be earned and kept. Fake questions and fake questioners, false claims and false claimants, lies and liars, alike must be rejected.

Open minds

What makes for an open mind? Is it just being unknown and unthought about to us? Something that doesn't affect us either way? Or a suspension of disbelief? Anything is possible? Just an opinion? All in the eye of the beholder? A reluctance to declare your belief least being called on to defend it, being caught short in thinking about it, believing but not knowing why, or not wanting to disagree or risk alienating the person saying it? An unwillingness to devote any attention to or energy in it? For me to know and you to find out, and who cares whether you do? Is it openness to anything, believable or not, possible or not, reason or not, proof or not? Is it complete uncertainty, possible but doubtful, probable or not but perhaps, nearly but not certain? Is it an openness to being wrong or only to being confirmed? To what you hope not or only to what you want to believe? To dissonance in your beliefs or only what is compatible with them? An openness to a guess, a possibility, a probability, or near certainty? To their negation, to everything you believe being wrong? To an unfounded guess, a supported opinion, confirming information and reason, or contrary opinion in the face of it? Is it belief in anything?

I say not. An open mind is a willingness to consider other possibilities, but not to hide our own beliefs behind them, not to shield them from actual evidence or critical thinking. An open mind doesn't insist on only confirmation or only expresses doubt about the contrary. An open mind is willing to declare and defend their beliefs, even if only to admit a lack of any evidence. An open mind is doubly suspicious of anything he would like to be true because he knows these are the hardest to be critical of. An open mind isn't uncritical, doesn't shy from from expressing skepticism even of itself, and demands significant evidence of significant claims.

Believing in birtherism, conspiracies, fake news, and a flat earth is not keeping an open mind. It is closing it behind a shield of doubt. Denial and lying is not keeping an open mind. It is closing it against contrary information. Clinging to discredited data and arguments because you want them to be true is not keeping an open mind. It is closing it new ones.

It Takes Two

Communication and compromise. Who and why? Two sides to an argument, issue, group, polity, or society. Two different opinions, two objectives to seek, two paths to take, two values to weigh, two views to see, two ways to go. Choice, decision, action, and accomplishment, depending on the balance and will of the two, may or may not require these to arrive at one. While communication and compromise may be desirable, they aren't always possible. One side may not be willing, whether due to inability to make a difference, or an ability to have it their way without it. One side may not be able, whether due to inadequacy, or that the other is unwilling under any circumstance.

Communication and compromise take two. Too often these are unsought and unwanted. Communication will be talking at and compromise be unacceptable, all the while complaining the other side won't listen or accept what they offer. If people won't listen to you, maybe it is because you have nothing worthwhile to say. If others prefer an echo chamber, perhaps it is they prefer the honest communication of their own to the lack of that of others and what passes as echos to you is actually diverse opinion. Are the subjects you choose the ones that interest you or ones that would interest others? If others don't communicate, perhaps neither do you. Do you listen to others or is it that everyone should listen to you? Can you identify and admit the weaknesses of your position or can you only fail to understand that of others? Do you seek contrary information to probe your own beliefs, or discount them offhand? Do you engage others or only complain about those who won't, or about how unfair their attacks are instead?

Communication and compromise, fonder in the breach than the fulfillment. Do you actually have anything you want to? Or do you just want an excuse not to? That's alright, time is precious. If people don't see it as productive, they probably won't. Just don't claim you do when you don't, that you will when you won't. That is only a wish to be ignored.

Beliefs and Speech

Most fail to doubt their beliefs but have nothing but doubt about those of others. They will claim modesty about what we know while not even recognizing their beliefs as beliefs, but just assume them without question. They will profess ignorance whenever there is a challenge to their beliefs while not examining their own to which they are blind. Everyone is blind in their own way, but some are better at recognizing this and trying to remedy this though not always succeeding. Are only the beliefs of others, only beliefs that would cause problems for your own, only beliefs that you wish were not true, the ones you doubt? What are you certain of that if not true would be most damaging to your own? True modesty means not just to doubt what we know, but to doubt that our doubt should take precedence.

Entertaining new beliefs leads to the possibility of error, while not leads to the persistence of it. Diversity of opinion should not be confused with tolerance of bad ideas. Opinions are worth what you pay for them and everyone has one. That does not mean they are equally valid or valuable, and so often those who complain about a lack of free speech are just pushing some bad ideas of some long dead philosopher to reinforce them in their ideas, position, and status, not to question or discuss them, for their interest is in promoting them, not examining them, nor engaging those of others on their merit, but of changing the subject and attention to their own.

Free speech is often not about free speech, but about forcing others to listen, distracting attention and diverting debate to themselves, assaulting others, and attracting adherents. Free speech and promotion go hand in hand and the first question of anyone should be why since the purpose is often disguised or unknown. Should speech be free? Yes. Does that mean it is without subterfuge and subtext, conscious or not? No. Does it mean others shouldn't respond to that? No. Does that mean others must listen and respond? No. Does that mean they must be allowed access to any avenue, event, and venue to promote it? No. The world is out there and those in any democracy have access to it. If your ideas are unpopular, just maybe there is a reason for that. Maybe you should ask yourself why.

Attack!

Most are very unreflective of themselves, so much so, knowing this can be advantageous. Among the most revealing and striking effects I often observe about people is their inability to recognize themselves in their attacks on others. It is often their own failings in this regard that make them exquisitely sensitive to them in others, yet remain blind to them in themselves. Most will draw a blank when it comes to their own, but be irate and outraged at it in others, so when they attack others with vehemence and vitriol, they will attack them most for their own weaknesses, thus revealing their own and the degree and substantialness of it. In doing so, they often reveal more about themselves than others. Ask not about their own weaknesses, but what weaknesses they see in others and you will most likely find their own. Speak and speak of yourself.

Offense

Most believe themselves capable of intellectual engagement but become defensive and take attacks on their arguments and opinions personally. They then fall into patterns of no longer seeing or addressing the criticisms, but critique the manner, tone, and messenger, or focus on feelings and style rather than substance. This is often resorted to when the failings or hypocrisy of their arguments has been exposed for which they have no defense. Rather than recognize the raising of their hackles as touching on something important that needs careful consideration why they have this response, they will either retaliate in kind to their perceived affront personalizing their attacks, bristle, complain, and become defensive at their perceived injustice, or dismissing it out of hand to avoid having to deal with it at all. This is very common when they have their own arguments served to them inversely, exposing them to ridicule. The humor of this can be devastating to butt of its target and the taking of offense a defense mechanism to avoid the truth of it. It is much easier to take offense than address substance, and much easier to personalize attacks than originate good arguments. Offense, intended or not, means there is something you should be thinking about, not hiding behind, and not style but substance the focus of any disagreement.

Is there a middle?

When sides define themselves by what they are against and adopt beliefs and policies opposite to those they are against to create distance and separation between them, the middle vanishes. The middle left and the middle right exist, but they differ as much or more between them as from their own extremes. Only in appealing to common interests can a middle form. When is the last time someone on your side had something good to say about the opposition, or you yourself? When those things that divide us outweigh those that unite us, the center cannot last.

On filibusters

The advantage of filibusters is it makes it harder to change things, so once changed they tend to stay that way rather than reversing with each change of congress. The disadvantage is it makes it harder to accomplish anything. Those are part and parcel of the same package. It empowers a minority opposition, but that is what it is designed to do. There are worse things than the filibuster though. A majority of the majority is just another means of filibuster, but one controlled by an even smaller number, yet this is not enshrined in rules and only a majority of the majority could change this.

Governance and Majorities

Majorities mean having to be responsible even when it means doing what you hate so are always to blame when they don't, it is only a question of which blame is greater, being irresponsible or doing what was necessary. When you consider government the problem, shutting it down may seem a solution, and it may be, just not the way you thought come election time. When BS is adored, it comes to being believed, which proves a great mistake and failing.

Freedom of speech v. freedom to listen?

Does free speech mean not having to lie? Or does free speech allow lies in the name of belief? Does freedom of speech entail the freedom to lie? Does anyone expect honesty from speech once it becomes politicized? Everyone may be entitled to their beliefs, but are they entitled to lie? Are they entitled to force others to listen to them? Is there anything free about forcing others to listen? Shouldn't listening be as free as speech?

At what rate should business be taxed?

A great many say not at all, that is, 0%. But what are we as individuals and households but businesses without license or incorporation? Should none of us pay taxes? How will we raise the taxes necessary to operate? It may be preferable to tax consumption more and production less, but even that requires distinguishing consumption from production, not that easily done. Much consumption is necessary for production and much production throws off consumptive benefits, and consumption can occur at a basic level of necessity to an extraordinary level of opulence, just as production can maximize profits or growth or minimize them in favor of non pecuniary benefits. Consumption also varies much less than production and so requires much higher rates to generate the same in taxes. Higher rates mean more is spent in avoidance and evasion. While taxing production sounds bad as it can lead to less of it, production being highly unequal, leads to further inequality, which leads to corruption and distortion of the political system in its favor, not just output but rents as well. Ability to pay is more important than willingness to consume for taxation.

What does it mean to compromise?

People generally prefer compromise as long as it is someone else doing it. Less so when it is themselves. In this country, super majorities are necessary to accomplish anything and super majorities can only be assembled through compromise. When assembled at the ballot box, compromise may only be needed within one party though it is always wise to attempt compromise beyond it if at all possible to increase the possibility of compromise beyond it when needed, but super majorities rule. While compromise beyond it is desirable, it is not necessary, and if no compromise is possible, that cannot stop their duty of proceeding. Minorities must know what they want, what they can do without, what they can accept, and what they can't. They need to know what the majority wants, what they can do without, what they can accept, and what they can't. The latter is usually better known as it is embodied in legislation. Facing a super majority, minorities must realize they have already lost, the super majority will have its way, and the only possibility is to salvage what they can. They may be able to make some minor improvements or forestall some of the worst, but they can only do this through compromise, and their position is one of weakness. They must accept not everything will go their way and they will not win every battle. They cannot dictate terms beyond those the majority can accept. Complaints about lack of compromise of the majority by the minority is that of sore losers. Complaints about lack of compromise of the minority by the majority may be accurate but is irrelevant. Majorities unable to assemble the necessary super majority will fail to accomplish what they want without compromising more. They must realize they are losing, the minority will have its way, and the only possibility is to compromise more if they are to succeed. They may be able to provide some inducements or offer some concessions, but they can only do this through compromise, and their position, though a majority, is one of weakness. They must accept they will not get everything they want and may have give up more than they would like, or accept losing. They can dictate terms but the minority can reject them. Complaints about lack of compromise of the minority by the majority is that of sore losers. Complaints about lack of compromise of the majority by the minority are justified unless a super majority. To compromise is to not expect you will get all you want and to expect to give up more than you would like to accomplish something. No compromise is necessary if you don't want to accomplish anything. To compromise is to win some, lose some, and move on.

Disagreement and Responsibility

Persuasion is much more effective when focusing on similarities than differences, and while similarities are more common than differences, differences at the margin of agreement are often most salient at the margin of change, discussion, and policy. It is possible to both assume more similarity than exists and think most reasonable people think how you think, and that differences are greater than they are and engagement useless. It is possible to both ignore similarities and adopt opposing views simply to forestall agreement and paper over differences that are real and significant and believe similarity exists where it does not. Reasonable disagreement requires reasonable discussion, a desire to seek common ground, identify disagreement, an openness to new facts and information, a willingness to reveal our true objections, and to not letting our objectives blind us to our operation or vice versa. Most of all, it takes two. If one side isn't knowledgeable or interested in learning, isn't interested in common ground or seeking agreement, is not open to new information or self examination, that only repeats discredited assertions or makes false arguments, the most that can be done is to imagine the best case an opponent could make. Naturally, this is very difficult and will always seem unconvincing since if they thought as we do they would believe as we do. The more important task is to make our case the best we can and expose the falsehoods and weaknesses of our opponents. Opponents interested in reasonable discussion will welcome the chance to correct misconceptions and improve their arguments. Those who aren't will avoid substantive discussion and declaim on their opponents character and how they are being treated unfairly.

Can anyone believe..

I am from the government and I am here to lower/simplify/make more fair your taxes?

Nothing like ignoring the facts of healthcare

Another post mostly wrong. Some want unlimited care. Most just want to not end up bankrupt. Some don't want to pay, just trivializes the discussion. Most would be unable to pay for a catastrophe, and insurance is expensive not because it covers everything but because catastrophes are insanely expensive. Ending up unconscious at the emergency room is not a small portion. Vegetative care is insanely expensive even though uncommon. Belief untested is just doctrine.

On Economists Views

Economists do favor math, mostly for screening, but I think most economists recognize how politics can skew policy to both more regulation favoring powerful interests and to less regulation when it runs against them, but their job is to attempt to let the cards fall where they will unless their paycheck depends on their acting otherwise.

Non explanation explanations

So I hear the stock market moves because risk premiums move. How do we know risk premiums move? Because the stock market moves? If there is no measurement of risk premium other than stock prices, this is circular reasoning or merely a redefinition of stock prices. Is it worth introducing an amorphous concept in place of a measurable one? Only if you have some reason to do so, or only if it differs in some measurable way. It shouldn't be done simply because it sounds nice or lead us to believe we are explaining something we are not.

When supply and demand fail

When supply and demand are not independent. When supply affects demand and demand affects supply treating them as independent in partial equilibrium is circular reasoning. It may be true under some conditions and false under others, and only empirics can say. This can be the case for employment and lead to virtuous and vicious cycles.

(Not so) new brilliant ideas

Periodically, I read of some new brilliant idea for solving some large outstanding problem by some illustrious internet intellectual who has given this as much thought as went into breakfast. They couldn't be bothered to look into the details to it is how it currently works or was tried and failed in the past. No, that is for the less talented to concern themselves with. After all, they are so bursting with endless new brilliant ideas, that getting them down is all they have time for. As long as some sycophants are there to echo them and laud them on their perspicuity rather than critically examine them and the details they don't rest on.

Torturing english

The abose of political euphemisms really needs to end. Instead of coded meaning, it leads to confusion and misapprehension on both sides. Politicians will select something that polls well and use it to mean something entirely different. They will then poll its support, thinking this justifies their action. The public will answer according to the clear sense of it, unless they are knowledgeable as to their intended meaning, and then won't know what to answer. If the meaning isn't clear, only confusion results, as much or more to the insider as the outsider. This has led to a reality gap among those who believe their own press.