Bias About Bias

A common and contentious issue is accusations of bias, often in the media but more interestingly in science. But those making perceiving bias can’t agree what they are. Some even see biases in how biases are understood. An example of this is how ideologies are labeled, defined, framed, and measured. I’m specifically thinking in terms of opinion polling and social science research.

A certain kind of liberal oddly agrees with conservatives about many criticisms of liberalism. I can be that kind of odd liberal in some ways, as complaining about liberals is one of my favorite activities and I do so very much from a liberal perspective. But there are two areas where I disagree with liberals who critique their fellow liberals.

First, I don’t see a liberal bias in the social sciences or whatever else, at least not in the way it is often argued. And second, I don’t see human nature as being biased toward conservatism (nor, as Jonathan Haidt concludes, that conservatives are more broadly representative and better understanding of human nature).

* * *

Let me begin with the first.

I agree in one sense, from a larger perspective, and I could go even further. There is a liberal bias in our entire society and in all of modern Western civilization. Liberalism is the dominant paradigm.

As far as that goes, even conservatives today have a liberal bias, which is obvious when one considers how most of conservatism is defined by the liberalism of the past and often not even that far into the past. Conservatives in the modern West are more liberal than liberals used to be — not just more liberal in a vague relative sense, as contemporary conservatives in historical terms are amazingly liberal (politically, socially, and psychologically). Beyond comparisons to the past, the majority who identify as conservative even hold largely liberal positions in terms of present-day standard liberalism.

Being in a society that has been more or less liberal for centuries has a way of making nearly everyone in that society liberal to varying degrees. Our short lives don’t allow us the perspective to be shocked by how liberal we’ve all become. This shows how much Western society has embraced the liberal paradigm. Even the most reactionary politics ends up being defined and shaped by liberalism. We live in a liberal world and, to that extent, we are all liberals in the broad sense.

But this gets into what we even mean by the words we use. A not insignificant issue.

This insight about the relativity of liberalism has been driven home for me. In the context of our present society, using the general population as the measure, those who identify as and are perceived as liberals (specifically in mainstream politics and mainstream media) are really moderate-to-center-right. Sure, the average ‘liberal’ is to the left of the political right, by definition. Then again, the average ‘liberal’ is far to the right of most of the political left (or at least this is true for the liberal class that dominates). Those who supposedly represent liberalism are often neither strongly nor consistently liberal, and so I wonder: In what sense are they liberal? Well, beyond the general fact of their living in a liberal society during a liberal age.

This watered-down liberalism defined by the status quo skewed rightward becomes the defining context of everything in our society (and, assuming the so-called liberals are somewhere in the moderate middle, that still leaves unresolved the issue of what exactly they are in the middle of — middle of elite-promoted mainstream thought? middle of the professional middle-to-upper class?). If social science has a liberal bias, it is this bias of this ‘moderate middle’ or rather what gets portrayed as such. And put that way, it doesn’t sound like much of a bias as described, other than the bias of ideological confusion and self-confirmation, but certainly not a bias toward the political left. As far as leftists go, this supposed liberalism is already pretty far right in its embrace or at least tolerance of neoliberal corporatism and neocon oligarchy. Certainly, the ‘liberals’ of the Democratic Party are in many ways to the right of the American public, with nearly half of the latter not voting (and so we aren’t talking about a ‘liberalism’ that is in the middle of majority opinion).

The question isn’t just what words mean but who gets to define words and who has the power to enforce their definitions onto the rest of society. Liberalism ends up being a boundary, a last line of defense. This far left and no further. Meanwhile, there seems to be no limit to how far our society is allowed to drift right, often with the cooperation of ‘liberal’ New Democrats, until we teeter on the edge of authoritarianism and fascism, although always with liberal rhetoric playing in our ears. The liberal paradigm so dominates our imaginations that we can’t see the illiberal all around us. So, liberalism dominates, even as it doesn’t rule, at least not in a direct and simplistic sense.

With all this in mind, the mainstream may have a ‘liberal’ bias in this way. But it obviously doesn’t have a leftist bias. There is the problem. Leftism has been largely ignored, except for its usefulness as a bogeyman since the Cold War. Mainstream liberalism is as far (maybe further) away from leftism as it is from conservatism. And yet to mainstream thought, leftism isn’t allowed to have an independent identity outside of liberalism, besides when a scapegoat is needed. Ignored in all this is how far leftist is the American public, the silenced majority — an important detail, one might think.

Social scientists, political scientists, and pollsters all the time include nuanced categories for the political right, distinguishing conservatives from libertarians, authoritarians, and reactionaries. But what about nuanced categories for the political left? They don’t exist, at least not within mainstream thought. There is little if any research and data about American social democrats, socialists, communists, Marxists, anarchosyndicalists, left-libertarians, etc; as if such people either don’t exist or don’t matter. It’s only been in recent years that pollsters even bothered to ask Americans about some of this, discovering that the majority of certain demographics (younger generations, minorities, etc) do lean left, including about the terms and labels they favor, such as seeing ‘socialism’ in a positive light.

In social science, we know so little about the political left. The research simply isn’t there. Social science researchers may be ‘liberal’, however we wish to define that, but one gets the sense that few social science researchers are left-liberals and fewer still are leftists. It would be hard for radical left-wingers (or those who are perceived as such within the mainstream) to get into and remain within academia, to get hired and get tenure and then to do social science research. As hierarchical and bureaucratic institutions often run on a business model and increasingly privately funded, present day universities aren’t as welcoming to the most liberal-minded leftist ideologies.

Anarchists, in particular, are practically invisible to social science research. Just as invisible are left-libertarians (many being anarcho-syndicalists), as it is assumed in the mainstream that libertarian is by definition right-wing, despite the fact that even right-libertarians tend to be rather liberal-minded (more liberal-minded than mainstream liberals in many ways). It’s almost impossible to find any social science research on these ideologies and what mindsets might underlie them.

Let’s at least acknowledge our ignorance and not pretend to know more than we do.

* * *

This brings me to the second thing.

Among some liberals (e.g., Jonathan Haidt), it’s assumed that human nature is inherently conservative. What is interesting is that this is, of course, a standard conservative argument. But you never hear the opposite, conservatives arguing human nature is liberal.

The very notion of a singular human nature is itself a conservative worldview. A more liberal-minded view is that human nature either doesn’t exist, not in a monolithic sense at least, or else that human nature is fluid, malleable, and shaped by the environment. The latter view is becoming the dominant view in the social sciences, although there are some holdouts like Haidt.

Mainstream thought changes slowly. The idea of a singular human nature was primarily held by the liberal-minded in centuries past. This is because it was used to defend universal human rights and civil rights, often in terms of inborn natural rights. The Enlightenment thinkers and later revolutionary pamphleteers helped spread the notion that everyone had a human nature and that it was basically the same, no matter if European or otherwise, rich or poor, free or slave, civilized or savage.

As opposed to today, the conservative-minded of that earlier era weren’t open to such thinking. Now conservatives have embraced this former ideologically and psychologically liberal position. Classical liberalism, radical in its opposition to the traditionalism of its day, is now seen by even conservatives as the bedrock tradition of our liberal society.

The very notion of a human nature is the product of civilization, not of a supposed human nature. Prior to the Axial Age, no one talked about a human nature nor is it obvious that they ever acted based on the assumption that such a thing existed. The invention of the idea of a ‘human nature’ was itself a radical act, a reconception of what it means to be human. All of post-Axial Age civilization is built on this earliest of radical visions that was further radicalized during the Enlightenment. Without the Axial Age (and one might argue the breakdown of the bicameral mind that made it possible), there would have been no Greco-Roman democracy, republicanism, philosophy, and science; and so no Renaissance that would have helped inspire the European Enlightenment.

The question isn’t just what is human nature, such as conservative or liberal, individualistic or social, etc. First and foremost, we must ask if such a thing exists. If so, what exactly does it even mean to speak of a ‘human nature’? Those are the kinds of questions that are more likely to be considered by the most liberal-minded, at least in the context of present Western society.

When certain liberals argue for a conservative human nature, I suspect an ulterior motive. The implication seems to be that conservatism is the most primitive and base, uncultured and uncivilized layer of the human psyche. As liberals we must contend with this conservatism and so let’s throw the conservative wolf a bone in hopes of domesticating it into a dog that can be house-broken and house-trained.

This could be seen as turning liberalism into an advanced achievement of modern civilization that transcends beyond a base and primal human nature, as if the difficulties and weaknesses of liberalism prove its worth. Sure, conservatism may be the foundation, but liberalism is the penthouse on the upper floors decked out with the finest of modern conveniences. Liberalism is to conservatism, from this perspective, in the way modern civilization is to ancient tribalism. Whatever one may argue about those earlier societies in relation to human nature, I doubt many want to return to that kind of social order, not even among the most nostalgic of reactionaries.

This is an argument made by Jonathan Haidt in promoting a Whiggish narrative of capitalism, despite his at other times bending over backwards to praise conservatism. Using conservatism as a broad base upon which to build the progressive liberal dream is not exactly what conservatives are hoping for from their ideological movement. This is why Haidt doesn’t grasp that most conservatives don’t want to just get along, for egalitarian tolerance isn’t a conservative-minded attitude.

One might suspect that calling human nature fundamentally conservative is a bit of a backhanded compliment. A wary conservative likely would assume a hidden condescension or else an attempt to butter them up for some ulterior motive. Even with the best of intentions, this seems like a wrong way to think about the ideological situation.

Here is a central problem. Anthropological accounts of tribal societies, I’d argue, don’t confirm the hypothesis of a conservative human nature. Outside of the modern Westernized world, I doubt it makes much sense to use a modern Westernized frame like liberal vs conservative. The approach used by theorists of Darwinian psychology has too many pitfalls, misguiding us with cultural biases and leading to deeply unfalsifiable just-so stories. As John Gray stated so clearly, in The Knowns and the Unknowns (New Republic):

“There is no line of evolutionary development that connects our hominid ancestors with the emergence of the Tea Party. Human beings are not amoebae that have somehow managed to turn themselves into clever primates. They are animals with a history, part of which consists of creating cultures that are widely divergent. Using evolutionary psychology to explain current political conflicts represents local and ephemeral differences as perennial divisions in the human mind. It is hard to think of a more stultifying exercise in intellectual parochialism.

“Like distinctions between right and left, typologies of liberalism and conservatism may apply in societies that are broadly similar. But the meaning that attaches to these terms differs radically according to historical circumstances, and in many contexts they have no meaning at all.”

For example, in thinking about the Pirahã, I don’t see them as being fundamentally conservative, at least as Daniel Everett portrays them. It appears they don’t particularly care about or, in some cases, even comprehend the worldview of what we call conservatism: need for control and closure, ideological dogmatism and rigid belief systems, natural law and universal morality, family values and the sanctity of marriage, organized religion and religiosity (much less literalism and fundamentalism), rituals and traditions, law and order, social roles and authority figures, overtly enforced social norms and community-sanctioned punishments, public shaming and harsh judgment, disciplinarian parenting and indoctrination of children, strict morality and sexual prudery, disgust about uncleanliness and protection against contagion, worry about injury and death, fear-ridden anxiety and heightened threat perception, dislike toward a lack of orderliness and clear guidelines, etc.

Within their society, they don’t have any kind of hierarchies or privileged positions. They have no chiefs, respected committee of elders, governing body, or political system. Any person could be a temporary leader for a particular activity, but the need for a leader is merely pragmatic and rare. Their society is loosely organized with no formal or traditional roles, such as shaman or medicine man. They lack anything resembling a social institution or social structure. They don’t even have such things as initiations into adulthood, traditions of storytelling, etc. The communal aspects of their tribalism are quite basic and mostly in the background. What holds their society together is simply a cultural identity and personal relationships, not outward rules and forms.

Their way of relating to the larger world is casual as well. They don’t have an inordinate amount of worries and concerns about outsiders or hatred and aggression toward them. They don’t seem to obsess about perceived enemies nor foster a worldview of conflict and danger. The worst that they do is complain about those they think treated them unfairly, such as trade deals and land usage, but even that is talked about in a personal way between individuals. Otherwise, their attitude toward non-Pirahã is mostly a casual indifference and the tolerant acceptance that follows from it.

In some key ways, the Pirahã are less conservative-minded and authoritarian than Western liberals. On the other hand, their society is basically conformist and ethnocentric in a typical tribalistic fashion. And they do have some gender role patterns, including in their language. But their pedophilia is gender neutral, not privileging men, as everyone is permitted to participate in sexual play.

Even within the conformity of their group identity, they strongly disapprove of one individual telling another individual what to do. No Pirahã will tell another Pirahã how to be a Pirahã. And if a Pirahã was unhappy being a Pirahã, I doubt another Pirahã would be bothered or try to stop them from leaving. They appear to have a rather live and let live philosophy.

Pointing out a specific area of social science research, I’m not sure how boundary types would be applied to the Pirahã, in that they don’t think about boundaries as modern Westerners do. They live in such a small world that what exists outside of the boundaries of their experience is simply irrelevant, such that they wouldn’t even recognize a boundary as such. Where their experience of the world stops, that is the edge of their world. There is just what they personally know and then there is everything else. Boundaries are explicitly acknowledged liminal spaces and so extremely fuzzy in their worldview, including boundaries of consciousness and identity. The worldviews of either individuality or group-mindedness would likely seem meaningless to them.

Even pointing out the few areas that could be interpreted as ‘conservative’, I wouldn’t think that would be all that helpful. It doesn’t really say much about human nature in a broad sense. What anthropology shows us, more than anything, is that human societies are diverse and human nature contains immense potential.

Consider all of this from the perspective of the outsider.

Jonathan Haidt came to his understanding partly because of an early experience among another traditional culture, India with its ancient Hinduism and caste system. That gave him a contrast to his liberal view of individualism and convinced him that individualism was lacking in something key to human nature.

I agree, as far as that goes. But I’d simply point out that in the United States the political right is often more obsessed with individualism than is the political left.

It’s American liberals who go on and on about community, the commons, social capital, social responsibility, concern for future generations, externalized costs, environmental protection, natural resource conservation, public parks, public good, public welfare, universal healthcare, universal education, child protection, worker protection, labor unions, public infrastructure, collective governance, group rights, defense of minority cultures, Native American tribal autonomy, etc. And a typical response by American conservatives is to accuse progressive liberals of being collectivists (maybe they’re right about this) while declaring the abstract rights and simplistic individualism of classical liberalism, often mixing this up with fundamentalist religion as though the Christian soul was the basis of Enlightenment individualism and the Biblical God the inspiration for the American Revolution.

Ironically, it is liberals in promoting tolerance who so often end up defending traditional religions and cultures against the attacks by modern-minded conservatives. The latter group, through internalizing libertarian and Objectivist ideologies, have become the fiercest advocates of classical liberalism and hyper-individualism.

Comparison between societies doesn’t necessarily tell us much about comparisons of ideologies within a society. If Haidt had instead spent that time in the Amazon with the Pirahã, he probably would have come to very different views. Plus, it always depends on your starting point, the biases you bring with you. Daniel Everett, who did spend years with the Pirahã, was coming from a different place and so ended up with a different view. Everett was a conservative missionary seeking to convert the natives, but instead they deconverted him and he became an atheist. My sense is that meeting a traditional society left Everett way more liberal than he began, causing him to embrace an attitude of cultural relativism, as inspired by the epistemological relativism of the Pirahã.

What Haidt misses is that Western religious conservatives, especially in the United States, tend to be individualistic Protestants (even American Catholics are strongly individualistic). It’s not that Everett necessarily lost his Evangelical individualism in being deconverted for the traditional society that he met was in some ways even more individualistic, even as it was less individualistic in other ways. The fundamental conflict had little to do with individualism at all. A religious conservative like Everett had been lost in abstractions, based on an abstract religious tradition, but he was blind to these abstractions until he met the Pirahã who found his abstractions to be useless and irritating.

American conservatism, religious and otherwise, can tell us nothing about traditional societies. As Corey Robin convincingly argues, modern conservatives aren’t traditionalists. Modern conservatism was created in response to the failure of the ancien régime. Conservatives came to power not to revive the old order but to create a new and improved order. It wasn’t a movement to conserve but a reaction to what had already been lost. This was clear even early on, as observed by the French counter-revolutionary Joseph de Maistre when he pointed out that people identifying as conservatives only appeared after revolution had largely destroyed what came before.

Also, keep in mind that individualism and liberalism didn’t appear out of nowhere. Incipient forms of both, as I pointed out earlier, came on the scene back in the Axial Age. Even the India Haidt visited was a fully modern society that had seen millennia of change and progress. Hinduism had long ago fallen under the sway of varying forms of influence from the Axial Age to British Imperialism. And if we are to speculate a bit by considering Julian Jaynes’ bicameral theory, even the hierarchical social orders of recent civilizations were late on the scene in the longer view of vast societal development beginning with agriculture and the first settled communities.

To claim we know the ideological substructure of our humanity is to overlook so many complicating factors, some of which we know but most of which we don’t.

This has been a difficulty in our attempt to understand our own psychological makeup, in how our minds and societies operate. The ultimate bias isn’t political but cultural. Most social science research has been done on the WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, And Democratic), primarily white middle class college students. It turns out that very different results are found when other populations are studied, not just countries like India but also tribes like the Pirahã. What we know about ideological groupings, as with human nature, might look far different if we did equally large numbers of studies on the poor, minorities, non-Westerners, independent societies, etc.

It’s not just a matter of what kind of human nature we might be talking about. More importantly, the question is exactly whose human nature are we talking about and who is doing the questioning. WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) researchers studying WEIRD subjects will lead to WEIRD results and conclusions. That is not exactly helpful. And it is even worse than that, as the biases go deep. Our very approach to human nature, identity, and the mind are shaped by our culture. In a WEIRD culture, that has tended to mean the assumption of an autonomous, bounded individual. As Robert Burton explained it (A Skeptic’s Guide to the Mind, pp. 107-108):

“Results of a scientific study that offer universal claims about human nature should be independent of location, cultural factors, and any outside influences. Indeed, one of the prerequisites of such a study would be to test the physical principles under a variety of situations and circumstances. And yet, much of what we know or believe we know about human behavior has been extrapolated from the study of a small subsection of the world’s population known to have different perceptions in such disparate domains as fairness, moral choice, even what we think about sharing. 16 If we look beyond the usual accusations and justifications— from the ease of inexpensively studying undergraduates to career-augmenting shortcuts— we are back at the recurrent problem of a unique self-contained mind dictating how it should study itself.

“The idea that minds operate according to universal principles is a reflection of the way we study biological systems in general. To understand anatomy, we dissect one body as thoroughly as possible and draw from it a general grasp of human anatomy. Though we expect variations, we see these as exceptions to a general rule. It is to be expected that we see the mind in the same light. One way to circumvent this potentially misleading tendency to draw universal conclusions whenever possible is to subdivide the very idea of a mind into the experiential (how we experience a mind) and the larger conceptual category of the mind— how we think about, describe, and explain what a mind is. What we feel at the personal (experiential) level should not be confused with what a mind might be at a higher level— either as a group or as an extended mind.”

The very belief that the mind can be explained by the mind is a particular worldview. In the context of WEIRD populations being biased toward such a belief, Burton brought up an interesting point (pp. 50-51):

“If each of us has his/ her own innate ease or difficulty with which a sense of causation is triggered, the same data may generate different degrees of a sense of underlying causation in its readers. Though purely speculative, I have a strong suspicion that those with the most easily triggered innate sense of causation are more likely to reduce complex behavior to specific cause-and-effect relationships, while those with lesser degrees of an inherent sense of causation are more comfortable with ambiguous and paradoxical views of human nature. (Of course, for me to make any firm argument as to the cause of the authors’ behavior would be to fall into the same trap.)

“Unfortunately for science, there is no standard methodology for objectively studying subjective phenomena such as the mind. One investigator’s possible correlation is another’s absolute causation. The interpretation of the cause of subjective experience is the philosophical equivalent of asking every researcher if he/ she sees the same red that you do. The degree and nature of neuroscientists’ causal conclusions about the mind are as idiosyncratic as their experience of love, a sunset, or a piece of music.

“There is a great irony that underlies modern neuroscience and philosophy: the stronger an individual’s involuntary mental sense of self, agency, causation, and certainty, the greater that individual’s belief that the mind can explain itself. Given what we understand about inherent biases and subliminal perceptual distortions, hiring the mind as a consultant for understanding the mind feels like the metaphoric equivalent of asking a known con man for his self-appraisal and letter of reference.”

* * *

Here are some further thoughts about liberalism and such.

Maybe our very view of liberal bias has been biased by the ‘liberal class’ that dominates, defines, and studies liberalism. I don’t doubt that there are all kinds of biases related to our living in a modern liberal society as part of post-Enlightenment Western Civilization. But this bias might be wider, deeper, and more complex than we realize.

This class issue has been on my mind a lot lately. We live in a class-obsessed society. Sure, we obsess about class differently than the Indian caste system, but in some ways we are even more obsessed by caste for the very reason that it stands in for so much else, such as how castes include factors of ethnicity, religion and social roles. Class, in American society, has to do so much more ideological work to accomplish the same ends of maintaining a social hierarchy.

Maybe this is why class ideology gets conflated with political ideology, in a way that wouldn’t be seen in a different kind of society. Calling oneself a liberal in our society only indirectly has anything to do with liberal politics and a liberal mentality, as many who identify as liberal aren’t strongly liberal-minded about politics while many who are strongly liberal-minded about politics don’t identify as liberals.

The word ‘liberal’ doesn’t actually mean what we think it means. The same goes for ‘conservative’. These words are proxies for other things. To be called liberal in America most likely means you are part of the broad liberal class, which typically means you’re a well-educated middle-to-upper class professional, no matter that your politics might be moderate-to-conservative in many ways. A poor person who is liberal across the board, however, will unlikely identify as a liberal because they aren’t part of the liberal class. This is why rhetoric about the liberal elite has such currency in our society, even as this so-called liberal elite can be surprisingly more conservative than the general public on a wide variety of key issues.

What we forget is that our society is highly unusual and not representative of human nature, not in the slightest. The American liberal class is the product of a society that is based on Social Darwinian pseudo-meritocracy, late capitalism, plutocratic cronyism, and neoliberal corporatism. As I argued earlier, even American universities are hierarchical, bureaucratic institutions. And the Ivy League colleges still use class-based legacy privileges, which is important for maintaining the American social order as most politicians are Ivy League graduates as are many who are recruited by alphabet soup agencies (e.g., CIA). The larger history of Western universities precedes Enlightenment liberalism by centuries, not having been designed with leftist ideologies in mind.

Yet we consider universities to be refuges for the intellectual elite of the liberal class. That is only true in terms of the class social order. The majority of the liberal-minded, of the socially and politically liberal won’t find a refuge in such a place. In fact, the most strongly liberal-minded would rarely fit into the stultifying regimented lifestyle of a university. To be successful in a university career would require some strong personality traits of conservative-mindedness, although some have argued that was less true decades ago.

As such, liberalism in the United States has taken on so much meaning that has directly nothing to do with liberalism itself, specifically when talking about the role of liberalism within human nature. Consider other societies. In feudal Europe or the slave American South, being liberal (psychologically, socially, and politically) would have had nothing whatsoever to do with class; and if anything, being too liberal in such societies would have been harmful to your class status and class aspirations.

During the American Revolution, it was actually among the lower classes that were found the most liberal-minded radicals and rabblerousers. Thomas Paine, a self-taught working class bloke and often dirt poor, was on of the more liberal-minded among the so-called founding fathers. The more elite founding fathers were too invested in the status quo to go very far in embracing liberalism and many of them became or always were reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries. The working class revolutionaries who fought for liberalism didn’t tend to bode well, either before or after the revolutionary era. It took many more generations before a liberal class began to develop and, even then, the most strongly and radically liberal would often be excluded.

This is the point. A liberal class hasn’t always existed, despite liberal-minded traits having been part of human nature for longer than civilization has existed. The status quo ‘liberalism’ of the liberal class in a modern capitalism of the West is the product of specific conditions. It’s a social construct, as is ‘conservatism’. The entire framework of liberal vs conservative is a social construct that makes no sense outside of the specific society that formed it.

Environments are powerful shapers of the psyche, of attitudes and behavior, of worldviews and politics. All of Western civilization has become increasingly liberal and large part of that has to do with improved conditions for larger parts of the population, such as improved health and education even for the poor. In direct correlation with rising IQ, there is increasing liberalism. How class plays into this is that the upper classes see the improvements before the lower classes, but eventually the improvements trickle down or that is what has happened so far. The average working class American today is healthier, smarter, better educated, and more liberal than the middle class was in centuries past.

So, even class can only be spoken of as a comparative status at any given point in history because it isn’t an objective reality. The liberalism of the American liberal class, as such, can only be meaningfully discussed within the context of its time and place. This is more about a social order than about political ideologies, per se. That is most obvious in how conservatives embrace the liberalism of the past, for conservative and liberal have no objective meaning and there is no objective way to measure them.

Environments effect us in ways that involve confounding factors, and most of us inherit our environments along with other factors from our parents (epigenetics connecting environmental influences to new generations, even if a child was raised in another environment). Think about cats. For whatever reason, cat ownership is much more common in the Northeast and the Northwest of the United States. And as these are colder regions, people are more likely to keep cats inside. But this habit of having cats as indoor pets is a recent development. It has led to a rise in toxoplasmosis, a parasitic infection — as I’ve discussed before in terms of psychology and ideology:

“When mapped for the US population, there is significant overlap between the rate of toxoplasma gondii infections and the rate of the neuroticism trait. Toxoplasmosis is a known factor strongly correlated with neuroticism, a central factor of personality and mental health. When rates are high enough in a specific population, it can potentially even alter culture, which is related to ideology. Is it a coincidence that liberals have high rates of neuroticism and that one of the areas with high rates of toxoplasmosis is known for its liberalism?”

Are New Englanders a particular kind of liberal simply because that is the way they are? Or if we corrected for the confounding factor of cats and toxoplasmosis, would we find for example that there is no causal relation between liberalism and neuroticism?

Environments aren’t always inherited, as it can change quite easily. Will a New England family that moved to the South still show increased rates of neurotic liberalism several generations later? Probably not. Most of this isn’t intentional and parents are often perplexed about why their children turn out differently, oblivious to the larger conditions that shape individuals.

My conservative parents raised me in a liberal church and in some liberal towns. And maybe more importantly, they raised me with cats in the house. It wasn’t genetic determinism and inborn nature that made me into a neurotic liberal. Still, the potential for neuroticism and liberalism had to be within me for environmental conditions to make it manifest. And indeed I can see how my neurotic liberalism is just an exaggerated variation of personality traits I did inherit from my conservative parents who are mildly liberal-minded.

Then again, I did inherit much of my broader environment from my parents: born in the United States, spent my formative years in the Midwest, grew up during the Cold War, went to public schools, encouraged to respect education from a young age, my entire life shaped by Western culture and capitalism, etc. So, my parents’ conservatism and my liberalism probably has more in common than not, as compared to the rest of the world’s population and as compared to past societies. Parents and their children share a social order and the way that social order shapes not just people but all the world around them. And in many cases, parents and their children will share the same basic position or place in society.

That is the case with my family, as contact with the broad liberal class has influenced my conservative parents as much as it has influenced me. The same goes for the Midwestern sensibility I share with my parents. My parents’ Midwestern conservatism seemed liberal when our family moved South. And my liberalism is far different than what goes for liberalism in the South. Had various lines of my family remained outside of the Midwest, the following generations would probably have been far different. Choices to move that were made by previous generations of non-Midwesterners led to my parents and I being born as Midwesterners.

Then, even later on living in the South, my parents and I couldn’t shake how growing up in the Midwest had permanently altered us, more powerfully than any political ideology (although less so for my dad, maybe because his mother was a Southerner). This is why it is often easier for me to talk with my conservative parents or to conservative Iowans than to talk to the liberals of the liberal class from other parts of the country.

Context is everything. And this gets me wondering. If all confounding factors were controlled for, what would be left that could be fairly and usefully identified as political ideology?

When feudalism was the dominant paradigm and ruling social order, it simply seemed like reality itself. It was assumed that social and class position were built into human nature. This is one of the earliest sources of racial thinking. The aristocracy and monarchy assumed (based on pseudo-scientific theories and observations of class, ethnicity, and animal husbandry) that feudal serfs were a separate race, i.e., a sub-species. It turns out that they were wrong. But if they had had the ability to measure various factors (from personality to ideology, from physiology to health), they would have noted consistent patterns that supported the belief that the social order was based on a natural order. It was a dogmatic ideology that was systematically enforced and so became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What if our own society operates in a similar way? Class-based opportunities and disadvantages, privileges and punishments socially and physically construct a shared experience of reality. A cultural worldview then rationalizes and encloses this in a mythos of ideological realism. The sense of identity is framed by this and those who inquire into human nature already have their sense of human nature constrained accordingly. Unless they are confronted by a truly foreign society, their worldview will remain hermetically sealed.

* * *

How many in our society, even among the well-educated, ever manage to escape from this blindered habitus? Not many. Only as the culture itself shifts will more people within the culture be able to explore new undestandings. This will then lead to new biases, but one could hope those biases will be more expansive and flexible.

Bias is inevitable. But we have the added problem of being biased in our perception of bias. It’s impossible to fully discern one’s own biases while under their influence, although we can gain the awareness of our predicament. The fact that we are beginning to question the biases of our culture indicates that we are beginning to shift outside of them. It will take at least a few more generations, though, before we can understand this shift and what it means.

Give it some time and liberalism will mean something entirely new. And the conservatives of the future will embrace the liberalism of our present. Some of what we now consider radical or even unimaginable will eventually be normal and commonplace. There will be different sets of biases framed in a different worldview and dominated by a different paradigm.

Most people in the future likely won’t even notice that a shift happened, as it likely will be gradual. They’ll assume that the world they know is in some sense how the world has always been. That assumption will shape their sense of human nature, how they think about it and study it, probably in ways that would surprise us. But one thing is for sure. They’ll look back on our debates about ideological natures and biases in the way we look back on the simplistic and misguided rhetoric of feudalism that defined the classes as separate races.

One thing that is safe to assume is that our society is wrong about most things we’ve taken as obvious truth. The realization of such uncertainty is a step toward new understanding.

54 thoughts on “Bias About Bias

  1. “Sources said he was a frequent alt-right troll. See this is what frightens me. I’m pretty sure you’ve heard of the platitude, don’t believe what you see written on internet comments its just losers getting their anger out before resuming normal life. But as we’ve seen here, this man actually decided to take action and manifest the ideology he was exposed to on seemingly irrelevant internet chat forums like 4chan into real life violence.”

    • That is what I keep saying. So many are trying to pretend that Trump came out of nowhere, as if there was no way we could have seen this coming and that everything he is doint has no precedent. It’s total bullshit. He is definitely dangerous, but the point is that someone like him wouldn’t be possible if not for what the establishment of both parties have been pushing for decades. Trump is just the final culmination of our fucked up system.

    • The corrupt political system and failure of public accountability has been created by the establishment’s two-party stranglehold. They’ve accomplished through devious means that have largely been invisible or hard to comprehend. This is why Democrats preferred a corporatist policy like ACA over giving Americans what they wanted, healthcare reform with either single payer or public option.

    • I find it bizarre. I know many liberals who are either partisan Democrats or who simply hold their noses while once again voting for yet another lying politician. Now Trump is in office and these same people suddenly think that Obama was the best president in US history. How can they be so out of touch?

      They can’t make the basic connection between cause and effect. It really is making me lose hope for humanity. The number of people who grasp what is actually going on is extremely small. If the fiasco of this past election doesn’t wake people up, I don’t know what will other than revolution.

      • If a disruptive political event occurs, it’ll most likely be more like Rwanda or The Holocaust than The French or American Revolution. In other words, the propaganda of identity politics is obfuscating current economic issues to the point where ignorance rules the day. Hence the cognitive dissonance between reality and manipulation by the status quo to divide and conquer will assure future conflicts will be motivated by ignorant tribalism more than enlightened political ideology.

        When a hegemonic state is reduced to a feudal state and it’s citizenry is reduced from being owners with rights to serfs with virtual rights by relentless greed and corruption, you don’t need to be a genius nor a historian to know the outcome.

        • I have no idea what a disruptive political even would look like in a situation like this. There are some parallels to the pre-revolution American colonies, in terms of the kinds of problems we are facing. The difference is that there were numerous revolts against colonial elite in the decades prior to the American Revolution. The colonists had a more practice in fighting against the powerful.

          Yeah, identity politics is problematic, across the political spectrum. That is partly because we are such a large country with a population that moves around a lot. Unlike the colonial era, there is little strong sense of community. The colonists largely fought at the local level because they were closely identified with their communities. It took a long time for the colonies to come around to seeing themselves as part of a common cause. Without a sense of community, I doubt many Americans today will be willing to fight to the death if necessary.

          I see all these protests. Many of them are large and people are outraged. But what purpose are they supposed to serve? If they don’t pose an actual threat to the powerful, then their actions are impotent, like a gelding mounting a mare. Civil Rights protests during MLK’s leadership were largely peaceful too. The difference is there had been decades of race wars, involving thousands of deaths of both blacks and whites. Those peaceful protests had a real threat behind them, if they were ignored and suppressed.

          The ruling elite have become so much more effective in their propaganda techniques and social control. Plus, despite all the problems, the public isn’t yet desperate enough. That is the main purpose of our welfare system, minimal as it is, as it keeps people just above absolute desperation and so neuters any potential for a real threat. Still, that could change quickly, if the economy worsened and/or there were massive welfare cuts. The real unemployment is already around 10% and that is better than it was before. There are as many unemployed people now as there were during the Great Depression.

          I don’t know about conflicts based on a tribal mentality. That might happen. But even the tribal mentality has been weakened and crippled. Take white supremacists who often identify more with another white supremacist who they’ve only met online than they do with the people in their own communities. In a diverse society like the US, tribalism filtered through abstractions such as ‘whiteness’ loses its compelling force.

          Being a genius or a historian may not be necessary to know the outcome, i.e., a bad outcome one way or another. But there sure are a vast number of people acting like they don’t know. Every new thing that happens seems like a surprise to most of the population and the corporate media pretends to be shocked.

    • I never understand those on the political left who hope to fight the political right by accepting the beliefs of the political right. Anyone who knows much about history and the social sciences knows that ethnonationalism isn’t a natural feeling. It was a rather modern invention.

      Consider the Shawnee, similar to many tribal societies. You were Shawnee not because of your ethnicity, your physical appearance, or where you came from but because you were considered to be Shawnee by other Shawnee, by birth, adoption, or marriage.

      Being Shawnee was an attitude based on personal relationships and many white people became Shawnee. Daniel Boone was captured by Shawnee, adopted by a Shawnee family that had lost a son, and considered a Shawnee by the Shawnee for the rest of his life, even when he fought the Shawnee. That is because there was no single Shawnee. Tribal societies are always a complex mix of people, often incoporating people from other tribes, and so tribal identities are rather loose and constantly shifting. They had no history books to tell them how Shawnee were in the past and no one really cared.

      Even when tribal societies become a larger more stable identity, people in the past rarely thought of themselves in terms of ethnicities and nation-states. Kinship ties and community identity were more important. Take as an example the ancient Jews. It was hard to know who was and wasn’t Jewish in the ancient world. There was no single population and few people thought in those terms. Ethnonationalism would have seemed strange to most ancient people. Many famous Greek philosophers weren’t even ethnically Greek.

    • Wouldn’t it be ironic if the scariest fantasies from right-wing conspiracy theorists came true by being implemented by a right-wing coup. It’s not as if anyone had ever warned about when fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. How could anyone have seen it coming?

  2. If I was altright I think I would’ve offed myself a long time ago. Because I’m cynical and jaded but these guys give me a run for my money :p seriously though there no way these are happy or even content people

    Maybe it’s my Enfp or biases but I’m someone who tends to “veer” into a persons views while reading or listening before judging. Essentially I become them while reading or listening. And when I’m seeing the world through their eyes, yeah, it’s a worldview whose temptations I get because it sells an easy sounding bias confirming narrative. It’s strength is that it works off of half truths by taking a small nugget of human nature like tribalism and turning it into a festering pile of suit worldview. Half baked truth basically.

    • I’ve been severely depressed for more about a quarter century now. I’m often pessimistic, philosophically and otherwise, along with regularly falling into bouts of cynicism. But these alt-right characters are severely unhappy people, even by my low standards.

      Your description of yourself shows the main difference between ENFPs and INFPs. As the latter, I have a strong sense of self independent of others. I’m highly sensitive to others, but there is a rock solid core to my being. That helps me to sense out the core to other people and yet keeps me from simply falling into their worldview.

      The similarity is that I also understand what makes such worldviews attractive. It’s easier for me to resist it, though. Almost every worldview has a kernel of truth, if you can discern it. But if a kernel of truth is all a worldview has, it isn’t of much value and potentially is of much threat.

    • I find articles like that so confused that they are hard to respond to.

      He blames individualism on the left. But everyone knows that the political right is the most dogmatic about individualism in their connecting it to Evangelical Protestantism, libertarian neoliberalism, or hardcore Objectivism — some combination of authoritarianism, sociopathy, and autism.

      As for the proposition nation, that has roots in the ancient world. To be an Israeli a couple thousand years or so ago meant being a citizen of Israel and nothing else. Being Israeli had nothing to do with being either Semitic or Jewish. It merely meant you lived in Israel and so were beholden to its laws and governance. During Jewish festivals in Israel, many non-Jews observed and participated.

      The same was seen with the Egyptian and Roman Empires. They were multicultural societies that were based on social customs and rule of law that transcended ethnicity, not that anyone had a clear and certain notion of ethnicity back then.

    • Until this past century, borders were constantly shifting. Many people had no idea which nation they belonged to. Nationality was largely irrelevant for large swaths of various populations. People tended to identify more according to kinship, community, local church, regional traditions, etc. That was even true of the United States until the late 19th century when immigration and industrialization started undermining the power of local forms of identity.

  3. I think the alt right is an incredibly dangerous ideology that’s indiscernible from nazism. The thing that makes them dangerous is their well-rehearsed, seemingly solid reasoning tactics. Once or twice I found myself reading an altright post thinking “well, that’s a good point” before I came to my fucking senses. I don’t trust most people to recognize the insidious shit they do. Easily swayed people are exactly who they’re trying to appeal to.

    Since I think the answer given was real bad, the point is that the alt right excel at presenting cherry picked arguments in a compelling way. The presentation is good, but the facts behind it are bad. Some key element of the logical structure is off, but it might take some thought to see how because they did present it in a compelling way designed to appear agreeable. This is called sophistry.

    • If you want to see some real genius sophistry, look to the fundy apologists. They are zealous in their dedication to spend decades of their lives perfecting the ability to spin bullshit. It forces opponents to spend endless hours just trying to disentangle it and meanwhile the bullshit keeps flowing. There is no way to argue with an apologist without getting covered in it.

      Of course, such sophistry falls apart as a rational argument when given much thought. But apologists are infuriating in their persistence because even when you prove them wrong they won’t admit it and then simply repeat the same argument or a slight variation of it. They’ll repeat an argument a thousand times and never tire of it. Their goal isn’t to win a debate but to make rational debate impossible. It all becomes a game of words.

      • If yoU wanna think about radicalization online as people often talk of kids getting radicalized into isis online…

        There is also phenomena of young white (men) getting radicalized by alt right. Dylann roof and the Quebec shooter are two examples that have acted out violently, but there are countless more who are ideologically radicalized even if they haven’t done anything violent (yet?)

        • We have examples of that radicalization of the right-wing going back generations. Most of the terrorism in recent US history has been committed by US-born white right-wingers.

          There was all the violence of the KKK, lynchings, sundown towns, and race wars. And of course the KKK, specifically the Second Klan, often targeted ethnic and immigrant whites. There was also the decades of religious right violence such as the anti-abortion kidnappings, beatings, assassinations, arson, and bombings. Then there was such things as the Oklahoma City bombing and Joe Stack flying his plane into the IRS building.

          Most other mass acts of violence have also come from white right-wingers or simply from white people of unclear ideology. Most serial killers are white. Most mass shooters are white. There are a lot of angry, demented white people who are prone to violence. Some never get as far as mass violence, but with the right kind of radicalization it wouldn’t be hard to convince them to take action.

          All of that was promoted through right-wing media and political rhetoric. The alt-right is simply building off of an American tradition of right-wing terrorism. The difference is that the alt-right has the potential to be much more radicalizing because of the nature of the internet and social media.

  4. The government has always been doing unconstitutional things and things that go against the civil liberties we should have. It’s just that with trump people are paying attention.

    I’ve never felt totally comfortable civil liberties wise because I know the institutions often don’t abide by rule of law especially for vulnerable groups.

    • And that kind of oppressive shit can’t even be blamed on Trump, not yet. But I’m sure Trump will get around to all kinds of oppressive shit. It just would be nice if we had a Democratic Party that, ya know, defended democratic values such as basic civil rights for all citizens. Obama, for damn sure, was no civil rights leader. Clinton wouldn’t have been better as president either.

    • I forgot that Bannon made Generation Zero. I saw that when it came out. It didn’t get much attention at the time outside of right-wing media. My only interest in it was that it used Strauss and Howe’s generations theory which I’d been reading about since the late 1990s or early 2000s.

      Largely unknown to the general public, Strauss and Howe’s work has been known by politicians for years. As I recall, Bill Clinton had positive things to say about the theory. You’d think he could have explained to Hillary why she should take it seriously because obviously she didn’t take it any more seriously than Obama.

      For years, people speculated and warned about the possibility of those like Trump and Bannon using the theory as a playbook for gaining power. I guess it worked.

    • I think Bannon is misreading the situation quite a bit, though. Or rather he is reading into it what he wants to believe.

      He probably does have a good basic grasp of Strauss and Howe’s theory. And so I’m sure he understands where the country is right now. But his understanding of the reasons is most likely shallow, as is typical of the right-wing mind.

      He has a narrative in his head. The problem is reality doesn’t tend to conform nicely when humans try to project narratives onto it.

    • Why do so many Americans, from alt-right to radical left, conflate race and class?

      I noticed that while reading Audre Lorde yesterday. It was obvious that, in her worldview radical as it was, poor white people were almost non-existent. The majority of poor people now and throughout US history have been white. Lorde was complaining about the white feminists and academics who are of the middle class, but the ironic thing is that her criticisms about their being disconnected also applied to her in being clueless about poor whites.

      It is true about disproportionate effects. But that ignores that poor whites like poor blacks have had disproportionate effects. Poor whites all the way through the mid-20th century regularly came up in discussions of eugenics. And to this day whites are the majority of police abuse victims and prisoners. The poorest whites living in economic segregation and isolated communities might as well be a different race for all the good their whiteness does for them.

      That isn’t to ignore racism. Many poor whites are better off than many poor blacks. For poor whites not stuck in multi-generational poverty, they are relatively more fortunate. But that is the point. There is no single white demographic, except as a fictional entity within the data. In reality, some poor whites are better off than poor blacks while other poor whites are even worse off. For example, poor blacks in the inner city have more access to public resources than do poor whites in rural areas. How does white privilege help someone who is isolated in rural areas?

    • Here is what I’d like to see. There are so many confounding factors. There has to be a way to control for them.

      There is a vast difference between immigration from opportunity and immigration from refugee crisis, between diversity from recent immigration and diversity from immigration generations earlier, between diversity from immigration and diversity based on centuries of living together.

      There is a vast difference between diversity with segregation and diversity without segregation, between diversity antagonized by centuries of institutionalized racism and diversity built on a history of tolerance, between diversity combined with economic inequality/stratification and diversity combined with high socioeconomic mobility.

      Mixing those all up as some general notion of ‘diversity’ is meaningless and simply ignorant. It tells us absolutely nothing. England is a society that has dealt with near continuous issues of diversity for more than a millennia. The US has dealt with diversity for several centuries. Both England and the US are among the most powerful and wealthiest societies with more social democracy and stronger social safety nets than most countries in the world. Obviously, some other factors are also being ignored.

  5. An interesting thing about homogeneity and welfare, is that American millennials are the most racially diverse voting bloc yet overwhelmingly support sanders-like economics across racial backgrounds

    It doesn’t surprise me that people more prejudiced against blacks are more likely to not support those policies though.

    • It’s a difference of generations. The most diverse areas of the country are on average younger. Just as the least diverse areas of the country are on average older. The non-diverse areas in many cases are literally dying out. That is happening in the most rural places. It is why their is so much white outrage. Seeing your community die because all the young people are leaving tends to make bitter those left behind. It’s hard to blame them for feeling fucked over because they have been, but their outrage is often misplaced.

      The most problematic population are those who have intentionally segregated themselves into suburbs and walled communities, although such economic segregation is becoming less and less defined by racial and ethnic segregation. The unusual aspect of US and Canada is that, other than Hispanics, non-white immigrants are wealthier and more well educated than the average person born in the US. It’s getting harder for white supremacists to escape minorities, even if they are rich.

Please read Comment Policy before commenting.

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s