Q. You have frequently made reference to people having cognitive blind spots in previous bulletins. Can you expand on what these are exactly?
A. Truth be told, the expression itself is something of a misnomer, and not as technically accurate as I would normally demand, but people are already familiar with the concept of a conventional blind spot, so the naming stuck.
The reality is much more awful.
Why call it a 'blind spot'?
We all tried the tests to find our own blind spots when we were children, the one where we draw a circle and an X on a sheet of paper and move it around in front of our faces with one eye closed. When it's at just the right distance, the circle disappears behind a blind spot. Magic!
The blind spot was always there, it's just that it took the test to reveal it.
And that's what I always found fascinating about the test—that without it, there was simply no way to know that the blind spot even existed. Our brains do such a good job of filling in the missing information that we would never even imagine something was missing in the first place.
The concept of a cognitive blind spot applies the same pattern to our understanding of the world at large. Imagine, if you will, that you are given one of two boxes. In it is a 10,000,000 piece jigsaw puzzle with no picture for reference, and it’s your job to put the puzzle together. When it approaches completion, you find to your horror that there are about 10 pieces missing, but when you look at the puzzle as it stands, you can infer from the context what the content of the missing pieces are. Or to put it another way, you don't need to see those pieces to understand the overall picture.
But you could still be wrong. Who knows what could be hiding in those missing pieces?
But you could still be wrong. Who knows what could be hiding in those missing pieces?
In this way, it makes perfect sense to call those missing pieces 'cognitive blind spots'.
Why not call it a 'blind spot'?
I mentioned a moment ago that there were two boxes. Bad news—you got the other box, which contains nothing but the missing 10 pieces. With no picture to refer to, it’s up to you to figure out roughly where those pieces sit in relation to each other, and then to try to figure out the overall picture based on that. Good luck!
Q. That’s impossible, even for a computer!
A. Of course it is. But it doesn’t mean your brain isn’t going to try anyway. In fact, it’ll try so hard that unless you are very very careful, you won’t even be able to tell which pieces of the puzzle are real, and which pieces you imagined. They'll all look the same when it's put together in your mind.
And needless to say, anybody else looking at those same 10 pieces is going to see a completely different picture, because we have absolutely no idea what the picture is supposed to look like, and insufficient information to even hazard a legitimate guess.
Remembering that we're not in fact talking about a jigsaw puzzle, and are in fact talking about our understanding of the world as a whole, it's fairly accurate to conclude that we're all happily living in our own fantasy bubbles, oblivious to all but the very tiny number of details that we actually know for sure (if even those), but at the same time believing we see and understand everything.
And when your entire cognitive field is one giant blind spot with tiny patches of reality hidden within, it's not hard for false, and even harmful ideas to take root unchallenged.
Indeed, if one were predisposed to doing so, taking advantage of this weakness in others could prove both easy and remarkably lucrative.
Indeed, if one were predisposed to doing so, taking advantage of this weakness in others could prove both easy and remarkably lucrative.
Q. I'm not sure I like the idea of this 'fantasy bubble' you describe. Wouldn't that mean we're all mad?
A. In a manner of speaking, yes.
In psychological terms, the idea of living in an imaginary world would be referred to as a 'psychosis'. Normally, the term would be reserved for the 'mad', but truth be known, that's all of us. Madness isn't a zero-sum game, and the only thing that makes the 'mad' different, is that their fantasies are sufficiently compelling that when visible pieces of puzzle contradict it, they tuck them back into a blindspot area. This makes them a potential danger—if not to others, to themselves.
So how can society function when we can't even agree on what is real?
Indoctrination
It gets a bad rap, but it is a valuable tool in providing impressionable children a consistent framework with which to prop up their fantasy bubbles. Ideally, a healthy indoctrination should be consistent enough that people can share a compatible set of values, flexible enough to accommodate new facts without rejecting them, but also firm enough that it doesn't crumble under scrutiny. Living in a crumbling fantasy is not a nice place to be.
Religion tends to work well in many—but not all—cases, especially those that preach and practice tolerance of the inconsequential as a virtue. An all seeing all knowing god adds an element of absolute moral authority, so what is right and wrong for one person is universally right and wrong for everyone. The framework of the religion is reinforced among communities by outward expressions of faith, such as going to church, giving disapproving looks at youngsters (with their 'rock music'), and saying "amen" whenever anything cool happens. It's also (in most cases) flexible enough to allow you to rationalise around inconsistencies in favour of emerging facts: "that explanation was obviously symbolic; it's not meant to be taken literally." Consequently it doesn't have to crumble under scrutiny, but also doesn't need to deny facts that contradict it.
Academic ideologies on the other hand—especially those of the social theory kind—work very badly. They do have the community reinforcement elements in the form of excessive "virtue signalling" and moral outrage over perceived shared slights. However, because they lack the benefit of generations of real world wisdom shaping them, inconsistencies are more likely to be rationalised in favour of the ideology, and at the expense of facts. Where did we hear about that before? And the more facts you ignore, the more out of touch you become with reality, and the more dogmatically you cling to the last crumbling shreds of the cult-like fantasy you call reality for dear life.
Furthermore, when you remove the moral absolutism of a consistent omnipotent authority, the glass house isn’t so much built on sand, but on a makeshift raft drifting aimlessly in stormy waters. Nowhere is this more visible than in their moral relativist take on tolerance, which could best be described as tolerance of whatever is deemed tolerable at any given moment—which is about as far from the intended meaning of the concept as you can reasonably get without literally rotating your brain 180° in your own head.
Still, in the absence of god, it becomes necessary to create one, and there are always unscrupulous individuals who will take on that role for their own benefit. But that's a discussion for another day.
It raises an important question though. If academic ideologies are supposedly based on rationality (as in, a bunch of stuff that seems to make sense on paper), then why do so many end up going 'mad'?
Emotional Investment
People are biological entities, and the ways that emotional engagement shape our thinking can never be overstated.
This is why the religions that form the basis of the most successful societies promote positive emotional connections with the deity, and likeminded family and community. They are helping to fulfil an important human need, and this keeps people committed to their reality framework.
Of course, many people in such communities are sufficiently fulfilled by their connections to their families and communities that they only need to pay mere lip service to the deity, if they pay any service at all. The positive outcome remains regardless.
On the other hand though, one cannot make an emotional commitment to a sterile academic ideology. There is no joy, love or devotion to be found there, so the basic human needs have to be fulfilled in other ways.
Camaraderie with those who live in a similar fantasy bubble is one thing, but an emotional commitment would require a degree of raw honesty that their dedication to a flawed ideology has rendered them incapable of allowing. Instead, they take the easier option of embracing the negative: anger, outrage, disgust... When they perceive a slight and call for somebody's head on a platter, that is the closest they can get to any kind of emotional fulfilment, and it only increases their insatiable hunger for more and bigger crimes and disproportional punishments.
It's little wonder therefore that fundamentalist Islam is so revered, and the misdeeds of anybody connected to it are routinely ignored, despite it standing so jarringly in the face of everything the social justice ideologues are supposed to advocate for. We've already established that they're not committed to their cause, but the cause is still their reality—it's all they have. Islam is promising them the emotional fulfilment they're not getting, and also a very firm hand so they cannot mess up their lives any further. They know, even if they can't quite bring themselves to admit it, that they would much rather spend their lives in bondage under an extremist religion straight out of the dark ages than spend another second in the swirling maelstrom of ideological madness. They would rather endure a regime of strict punishment for consistent and properly defined minor transgressions, than endure the arbitrary and chaotic wrath of their comrades because they didn't sufficiently follow the random winds of constant change. They would rather have their hindquarters fried to a crisp on an iron skillet, than be tossed around in a frying pan with the chef occasionally igniting high proof rum in their general vicinity.
That fundamentalist Islam is seen as an upgrade shows just what a dangerous cult social justice is.
Q. Wow! Is that really what's going on in their heads?
A. I don't know. The best I can do is try to piece things together in a way that's consistent with the known facts. If you have a better explanation, please let me know in the comments below...
Religion tends to work well in many—but not all—cases, especially those that preach and practice tolerance of the inconsequential as a virtue. An all seeing all knowing god adds an element of absolute moral authority, so what is right and wrong for one person is universally right and wrong for everyone. The framework of the religion is reinforced among communities by outward expressions of faith, such as going to church, giving disapproving looks at youngsters (with their 'rock music'), and saying "amen" whenever anything cool happens. It's also (in most cases) flexible enough to allow you to rationalise around inconsistencies in favour of emerging facts: "that explanation was obviously symbolic; it's not meant to be taken literally." Consequently it doesn't have to crumble under scrutiny, but also doesn't need to deny facts that contradict it.
Academic ideologies on the other hand—especially those of the social theory kind—work very badly. They do have the community reinforcement elements in the form of excessive "virtue signalling" and moral outrage over perceived shared slights. However, because they lack the benefit of generations of real world wisdom shaping them, inconsistencies are more likely to be rationalised in favour of the ideology, and at the expense of facts. Where did we hear about that before? And the more facts you ignore, the more out of touch you become with reality, and the more dogmatically you cling to the last crumbling shreds of the cult-like fantasy you call reality for dear life.
Furthermore, when you remove the moral absolutism of a consistent omnipotent authority, the glass house isn’t so much built on sand, but on a makeshift raft drifting aimlessly in stormy waters. Nowhere is this more visible than in their moral relativist take on tolerance, which could best be described as tolerance of whatever is deemed tolerable at any given moment—which is about as far from the intended meaning of the concept as you can reasonably get without literally rotating your brain 180° in your own head.
Still, in the absence of god, it becomes necessary to create one, and there are always unscrupulous individuals who will take on that role for their own benefit. But that's a discussion for another day.
It raises an important question though. If academic ideologies are supposedly based on rationality (as in, a bunch of stuff that seems to make sense on paper), then why do so many end up going 'mad'?
Emotional Investment
People are biological entities, and the ways that emotional engagement shape our thinking can never be overstated.
This is why the religions that form the basis of the most successful societies promote positive emotional connections with the deity, and likeminded family and community. They are helping to fulfil an important human need, and this keeps people committed to their reality framework.
Of course, many people in such communities are sufficiently fulfilled by their connections to their families and communities that they only need to pay mere lip service to the deity, if they pay any service at all. The positive outcome remains regardless.
On the other hand though, one cannot make an emotional commitment to a sterile academic ideology. There is no joy, love or devotion to be found there, so the basic human needs have to be fulfilled in other ways.
Camaraderie with those who live in a similar fantasy bubble is one thing, but an emotional commitment would require a degree of raw honesty that their dedication to a flawed ideology has rendered them incapable of allowing. Instead, they take the easier option of embracing the negative: anger, outrage, disgust... When they perceive a slight and call for somebody's head on a platter, that is the closest they can get to any kind of emotional fulfilment, and it only increases their insatiable hunger for more and bigger crimes and disproportional punishments.
It's little wonder therefore that fundamentalist Islam is so revered, and the misdeeds of anybody connected to it are routinely ignored, despite it standing so jarringly in the face of everything the social justice ideologues are supposed to advocate for. We've already established that they're not committed to their cause, but the cause is still their reality—it's all they have. Islam is promising them the emotional fulfilment they're not getting, and also a very firm hand so they cannot mess up their lives any further. They know, even if they can't quite bring themselves to admit it, that they would much rather spend their lives in bondage under an extremist religion straight out of the dark ages than spend another second in the swirling maelstrom of ideological madness. They would rather endure a regime of strict punishment for consistent and properly defined minor transgressions, than endure the arbitrary and chaotic wrath of their comrades because they didn't sufficiently follow the random winds of constant change. They would rather have their hindquarters fried to a crisp on an iron skillet, than be tossed around in a frying pan with the chef occasionally igniting high proof rum in their general vicinity.
That fundamentalist Islam is seen as an upgrade shows just what a dangerous cult social justice is.
Q. Wow! Is that really what's going on in their heads?
A. I don't know. The best I can do is try to piece things together in a way that's consistent with the known facts. If you have a better explanation, please let me know in the comments below...
No comments:
Post a Comment