On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
For the record, I really detest the term "epistemic closure" and find discussions of someone's willful ignorance or close mindedness to be a worthless diversion. But if there ever was a textbook example of epistemic closure, Paul Krugman would be it. Writing this week, Krugman says:
Some have asked if there aren’t conservative sites I read regularly. Well, no. I will read anything I’ve been informed about that’s either interesting or revealing; but I don’t know of any economics or politics sites on that side that regularly provide analysis or information I need to take seriously. I know we’re supposed to pretend that both sides always have a point; but the truth is that most of the time they don’t. The parties are not equally irresponsible; Rachel Maddow isn’t Glenn Beck; and a conservative blog, almost by definition, is a blog written by someone who chooses not to notice that asymmetry. And life is short …
Worthless diversion concluded. (h/t Volokh Conspiracy)
- Comment (33)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
I had an epistemic closure couple of weeks ago. Ouch.
Honestly, I used to be a regular Slate commenter (hi Mickey!), known as the token conservative. Except, pace David Brooks, was pretty darned conservative. To this day, about half of the Facebook Puppet Pal roster is cluttered with moonbat lefties. To keep in cordial fencing practice.
But really haven't regularly read an overtly liberal website for some years. Wonkette just hasn't been the same since Ana Marie Cox sold the joint.
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
Not that I expect anyone to find this all that interesting, but on my own RSS Reader, these are the blogs/sites that I read every day, throughout the day:
In case anyone was wondering what one has to read to be a Ricochet editor...
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
The problem is, of course, millions of Americans are nodding their heads, agreeing passionately. It's so infuriating.
May '10
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
That list is insane, Diane.
I have about a hundred sites in my "News" bookmark folder. Before Ricochet, I read many of them daily. Now, the only sites I'm sure to hit every day are Drudge, Ricochet and Steyn.
Everyone should just give up reading entirely and spend all their time on Ricochet. This is where I get half my news, anyway.
Dec '10
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
And another reason Krugman carries about as much credibility as... Charlie Sheen? Ashton Kutcher? Ted Danson? Somewhere in there.
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
Aaron Miller:
Everyone should just give up reading entirely and spend all their time on Ricochet. This is where I get half my news, anyway. · Mar 10 at 9:51am
That's precisely the point: We read the news, the blogs, & the opinion pages and sift through the trash so you don't have to!
May '10
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
Writing this week, Krugman says:
I don't know any New York Times columnists I'm supposed to take seriously. I know I'm supposed to pretend sometimes they have a point, but the truth is, their epistems closed long ago.
May '10
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
Diane Ellis, Ed.
That's precisely the point: We read the news, the blogs, & the opinion pages and sift through the trash so you don't have to!
We just need to divvy them up. Everyone can pick three sites to read for the rest of us.
I'll cover Steyn (dibs!), Daniel Hannan and Catholic Education Resource Center. You can cover Huffington Post, The New York Times and Rachel Maddow.
Kidding! Thanks, Diane.
Edited on Mar 10, 2011 at 10:12amMar '11
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
We should not be surprised that many on the Left are uninterested in reading conservative positions. That's because, for them (and this is really important): The Debate Is Already Over And They Are Correct. From here on in, it's just tactical manuevering to gain even enough power so they don't have to go through the unpleasantries of votes and majorities to advance the causes of Social Justice. See the shenanigans in Wisconsin if you need more proof: elections? forget 'em. Votes: stop 'em. And if you're the President: Laws? Don't defend 'em.
May '10
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
"The Principle of Uncertainty or, in my phrase, the Principle of Tolerance fixed once for all the realization that all knowledge is limited. It is an irony of history that at the very time when this was being worked out there should rise, under Hitler in Germany and other tyrants elsewhere, a counter-conception: a principle of monstrous certainty. When the future looks back on the 1930s it will think of them as a crucial confrontation of culture as I have been expounding it, the ascent of man, against the throwback to the despot's belief that they have absolute certainty."
-Jacob Bronowski, The Ascent of Man
Feb '11
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
I really like the stuff at Reason.com, esp the Hit & Run blog. They manage to provide empirical evidence in a witty way, with lots of pop cultural references to make it go down easier. I can see why Krugman would chose to ignore it...
Edited on Mar 10, 2011 at 1:07pmMay '10
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
I don't understand why you find "discussions of someone's willful ignorance or close mindedness to be a worthless diversion." I grant that these charges shouldn't be flung frivolously, and that they are vulnerable to abuse – even that most of the time we're better off trying to focus on the substance of the matter at hand. I'll join you in criticizing anyone who derails a conversation by steering it away from the matter at hand, toward epistemic closure.
But if changes in media are causing some people to consume more information inside closed information loops, isn't that worth talking about? Isn't it relevant to understanding and improving public discourse? Here is an example of when I think it was appropriate to discuss epistemic closure.
Agree? Disagree?
May '10
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
Did Krugman really just write, in essence, that he doesn't pay attention to Conservatives because they're closed-minded???
Nov '10
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
Ironically, the conservative mindset is said to be characterized by a need for cognitive closure.
http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf
On the other hand, you can be so open-minded your brains fall out.
Aug '10
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
Isn't it time Drudge had a link to Ricochet?
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
Conor Friedersdorf: I don't understand why you find "discussions of someone's willful ignorance or close mindedness to be a worthless diversion."...
But if changes in media are causing some people to consume more information inside closed information loops, isn't that worth talking about? Isn't it relevant to understanding and improving public discourse?
Agree? Disagree?
I was wondering if you were going to weigh in here, Conor, since I know this is one of your favorite topics.
I find discussions of epistemic closure to be a form of navel-gazing. It's a way of pointing out that you're superior to others because -- look at you! -- you read more newspapers than so-and-so, or you consider yourself to have a more open mind, or you've weighed all the facts, or whatever.
I can't fathom a context in which the left accusing the right of epistemic closure (or vice versa) would have any edifying outcome. Identifying someone's ignorance may make you appear relatively superior to your audience of readers, but I don't see any net benefits beyond that. Even in the case of the story you linked to above.
May '10
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
Okay, here's the ostensible benefit. In the case of Paul Krugman, it tells us something important that there are no right-leaning voices he finds worth reading – it rightly makes us less confident in the fairness of characterizations he makes regarding ideologically charged debates, for one thing, and it tells us he's strangely blind to the worth of people like Austin Goolsbee or Tyler Cowan too.
With regard to the right and the ACLU, my post shows a broad mis-impression about the actual behavior of the organization. That's worth correcting. And ideally someone under that mistaken impression, after seeing that an ideological echo chamber enabled it, would reassess the value of reading outside sites geared to their belief system.
Implicit in your own RSS list is the judgment that diverse reading is valuable. It logically follows that you think a dearth of diversity is inferior. I see no reason why articulating that belief is necessarily navel gazing or sanctimonious (though of course it could be done in that way). I think conservatives and liberals, among other groups, should be challenged on their blind spots.
Ignorance can only be remedied if we're cognizant of it.
May '10
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
What sources on the Left are trustworthy and reliable? Even liars tell the truth sometimes, but I'm not going to check with them every day when I could spend that time with more reliable sources.
The major news networks are untrustworthy. Just today, Fox News posted an Associated Press article implying that Pope Benedict XVI has tossed out Just War theory entirely by saying violence is never the answer.
That question wasn't rhetorical. What sources on the Left are trustworthy and thoughtful?
Too often, conservative TV and radio hosts invite liberals on the air for balance and the result is drivel and straw arguments, rather than thoughtful debate and solid information.
Besides, who doesn't have liberal friends, neighbors or coworkers? They can't help but share the latest propoganda every week.
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
Conor, in this latest comment of yours, I can find little with which to disagree. However, in the actual practice of discussing epistemic closure, it seems like it always comes down to someone on the left sanctimoniously highlighting the ignorance of the right. Even you, who purports to be some sort of centrist, never point out the phenomenon on the left. And as Krugman shows us right here, it's not for want of examples. So I have to ask you: why is it that you only obsess on the right when discussing ignorance or closed information systems or echo chambers or whatever else you want to call the phenomenon? Doesn't your failure to find examples of it on the left illuminate your own epistemic closure?
May '10
Re: On the Epistemic Closure of the Left
Diane,
These are great questions. I'd actually love to talk about them at length sometime. It may be fair to say that I obsess about closed information systems on the right, but I certainly do point out epistemic closure on the left too. I wrote this piece long before Julian Sanchez coined the term: "Mainstream publications give our insights insufficient due, hence the rise of right-of-center outlets. But those publications rarely influence the apolitical, centrists, or liberals, for they are funded by, produced for, and read by those already sympathetic to the right — and mostly ignored by everyone else." Earlier in my career, I focused on the left a lot more. But late in the Bush Administration, surveying the right, it struck me that a lot of the things conservatives now complain about with regard to his policies were enabled by guys like Rush Limbaugh. As the man said himself in 2008: "I feel liberated, and I'm just going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried."
See this too.