A puzzling issue with the Left, something that I still have great troubles wrapping my head around, is how positions/opinions/whatnot that simply should not make sense to any informed and intelligent individual somehow are adopted on a large scale by the seemingly informed and intelligent in e.g. the U.S. and, worse, are seen as the positions/opinions/whatnot that an informed and intelligent individual should (!!!) have in order to be considered informed and intelligent.
Below, I will go into some partial and potential explanations for this, among which the wish to be seen as informed and intelligent is a recurring aspect. (With variations, e.g. “enlightened”, “educated”, and “progressive” or, even, “hip”, “woke”, whatnot.)
There is often a strong overlap between explanations, which makes it hard to write a reasonably structured text, as so many points would need to be discussed in the light of each other, including those not already discussed. I duck this issue by simply treating each separately in a linear manner, including limiting myself to just one level of headings, and relying on the reader to make the (usually obvious) connections on his own as he proceeds through the text, in whatever order. A particular point of interest is how echo chambers, opinion corridors, and the like can both be strengthened or shifted by other issues and themselves help to make other issues worse. Note, e.g., how a fictional portrayal of a certain group as being enlightened can shift an opinion corridor in favor of that group, which in turns makes further fictional portrayals in the same direction more likely.
(However, the order in the text does not necessarily reflect the order of writing, as I began with a set of headings in some order and then picked heading-to-work-on based on current mood. As the overall work was distributed over about two calendar weeks, broken into many smaller blocks, there is also likely to be some repetition of thought here and there, and some points that are a little thinner that they could have been because some other point preempted them.)
First, however, let me state unequivocal that even the “Old Left” was rooted in poor information and/or poor thought, and often, maybe even usually, was incompatible with basic human rights, Rechtsstaatlichkeit, and “true” democracy. (As opposed to “democracy as a tool to keep the Left in power”.) The same, at least outside dictatorships, applies even more so to the “New Left”.
Moreover, that this weird association between being a Leftist and being informed and intelligent has not been the historical and international norm, arguably is not so even today. For instance, when I grew up in Sweden, the main Leftist party, the Social-Democrats, attracted the votes of the broad masses, the weak thinkers, those who stood to be the Pauls in rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul scenarios, etc., while those of a more thinking character went to the non-Leftist parties—and this was common knowledge.
Of course, much of what is discussed is not tied to the Left by necessity, but are more general phenomena that happen to be particularly common with the Left. Similar issues have existed elsewhere, and still do so today, e.g. in various religious hegemonies, various strong movements (not necessarily political), and various sects and (not necessarily religious) quasi-sects. (And formulations that involve e.g. “the Left” as an apparent entity or agent should not be taken literally. They simply serve as short-cuts for much longer formulations.)
An important point is that the effect might, to a large part, be an illusion, e.g. because those with more “Republican” opinions might be much more likely to self-censor and much less likely to be aggressive about spreading their opinions than those more “Democrat”. (I use U.S. labels for the sake of simplicity. For natural reasons, any identification of political alignments and whatnots must be both vague and taken with a grain of salt. Note, e.g., heterogeneity of groups, variations over time, and variations from country to country.)
Likewise, it is possible that media give certain positions undue attention, are more-or-less likely to distort opinions, and similar. Works of fiction certainly have a great and very unfortunate tendency to distort, e.g. in that the great thinkers among fictional characters are often painted as Leftists and/or in that Leftist viewpoints are taken as self-evident, while the actual or metaphorical Republican is caricatured, associated with less flattering or more fringe sub-groups, which, in turn, are further caricatured. The hitch, of course, is that these are either opinions or distortions by persons who, themselves, are not great thinkers or very well informed on matters political—often quite the contrary.
A particular complication is that the type of scientist/academic/intellectual/whatnot likely to land in the media to discuss political issues disproportionately often comes from a field that attracts a certain type of personality and/or a field that punishes the “wrong” opinions (which makes the holders of such opinions more likely to self-censor and/or to find careers elsewhere). To boot, cf. below, these are usually fields that are weak filters for the ability to think.
There is also another type of illusion at play, which, while it self off-topic, can give some hints as to what is wrong with other points under discussion, e.g. that having a degree does not necessarily point to an ability or willingness to think, namely that Leftism as such would be based on reason, arguments, whatnot.
On the contrary, Leftist argumentation is usually based on faulty reasoning and/or faulty premises, or otherwise unconvincing to those who bother to check facts and to use their own heads. (And this even by the standards of politics, which are not intimidatingly high to begin with.) This is the type of argumentation used to convince the weak in reason, the poorly informed, the easily lead, whatnot—not the true thinkers. Moreover, it is in it self a strong indication that the Left cannot prove its contentions based on correct premises and correct reasoning.
(Note the below discussion of the 77-cents-on-the-dollar fraud for a specific example, as well as some other portions of this text.)
Worse, when counter-arguments are given by the opponents of the Left, this rarely leads to even an attempt to argue the issue but to e.g. personal attacks, censorship, attempts to distract from the core issues, and other methods of those lacking in arguments. Sometimes, the reaction is something as insipid as a mere restatement of the original claim or a reference to someone else who merely states the same thing. Likewise, (first round) arguments brought by the Left’s opponents are rarely met with counter-arguments but, again, with personal attacks, etc.
Even more “advanced” Leftist reasoning (which might fill serious or pretend-serious books instead of political debates/propaganda, newspapers, and pop-sci books) usually suffers from similar flaws—but is now hidden in mountains of text and obscure language. Why, however, would a strong thinker try to convince other strong thinkers by burying his reasoning in mountains of text and obscure language? Some might genuinely lack the ability to express a point sufficiently simply (indeed, I suspect that many third-parties would direct this criticism against me), but chances are that most try to hide the weakness of their reasoning or otherwise gain an advantage through being obscure. (Also note parts of the section on Pseudo-intellectual appeal.)
The issue of what might be called “brav-ness” is, I suspect, of great importance, especially among women.
For the time being, I refer to an older Wordpress treatment on being brav. (TODO import/incorporate in a better manner.)
This idea overlaps with “virtue signalling”, but differs in that the brav, for the larger part, genuinely adopt an opinion for a spurious reason, while a virtue signaller strives to signal to others that a certain set of virtues (here, opinions) are held. However, virtue signalling can also be a strongly distorting factor through at least two mechanisms:
Firstly, there is no guarantee that the virtue/opinion signalled is actually present or present to the degree pretended. (Just like a “conspicuous consumer” does not necessarily have the wealth or income matching a consumption patter—and while the genuinely wealthy are actually often inconspicuous.) When fakers pretend, however, this shifts perceptions of how-many-hold-what-opinions in the wrong direction.
Secondly, a virtue signaller is, by nature, conspicuous—signal too weakly and no-one will notice, which ruins the point of signalling. Others have less reason to be similarly conspicuous, implying that those with the opinions currently considered “orthodox” are more likely to be conspicuous and, again, shift perceptions in the wrong direction.
Being brav, a virtue signaller, or similar, does not automatically make someone wrong—it is possible to be right for a poor reason and the reasons here are poor, even should they lead someone to the correct opinion on some topic. (Rarely the case with the Left, but the issue is wider than just the Left and even the Left sometimes gets things right.)
The question, to some degree, is whether someone holds a particular opinion because holding that opinion is considered enlightened—or because of an actual insight into the relevant issues. For example, as I have noted repeatedly in the past, Leftists seem to believe in Evolution in a near blanket manner, but when push comes to shove, they have no understanding of how Evolution actually works, including failing to see that many Feminist tenets are inherently incompatible with Evolution. (Most notably, that men and women would by nature be identical in abilities, preferences, etc., and that any difference found would go back to “discrimination”, “Patriarchy”, “structures”, or whatever the word of the day is.)
Strongly overlapping are topics like “opinion corridors” and “Overton windows”. These limit the opinions and positions that are considered kosher to have, to argue, whatnot, to the point that even some research areas can be considered taboo, regardless of the underlying facts, practical implications of results from such areas, etc.
(TODO import older Wordpress contents and link.)
Three particularly important observations:
Firstly, the Left has pushed very, very hard, and for decades, to shift corridors and windows to its own advantage—and often contrary to common sense, scientific results, what factual arguments would tell us, etc. This ranges from subtle manipulation to a hysterical shrieking of “Racist!!!!!!!!” when encountering an opposing opinion, usually without actually bothering to engage that opposing opinion with factual arguments. In this, they have been strongly aided by the great many who, while not necessarily Leftists, try to avoid “offense”, to be kind to others, whatnot. Ditto the many who are cowards or too keen on being liked, who retreat as soon as they risk being disliked. Ditto the many who fear negative publicity, consumer boycotts, and similar, and fall flat on their faces to “apologize” for something that does not deserve an apology.
Secondly, the perception of what is or is not a sufficiently kosher opinion does not necessarily match reality. Again, we have factors like those having loud mouths, those controlling and using media, and those otherwise spreading their opinions more strongly, having a disproportionate effect on the perception. A particularly common case is the Leftist tactic to have a group of loudmouth activists attack various businesses with some type of hate campaign, while the much larger proportion of the population that differs in opinion remains silent, which creates the false impression that customers are dissatisfied and that a cowardly and grovelling apology (cf. above) is now necessary.
Thirdly, what is a kosher opinion can vary from group to group and by controlling a small and particularly influential group, a gradual turn of a larger group can be achieved. (Also note ideas like the “long march through the institutions”.) Consider e.g. media control again: by altering what is kosher in specifically media, a comparatively small and not very brainy group, a corresponding shift in overall society is much more likely to follow from a certain effort than if the same effort was spent randomly in the overall population. Likewise, by gaining a strong influence in human resources, again a comparatively small and not very brainy group, hiring in an overall business can be altered to fit a certain agenda (notably, an increase in faux diversity).
This brings us naturally to echo chambers, where, for one reason or another, the opinions, arguments, etc., encountered are set to be limited and, thereby, limit the potential opinions for those who do not actively search for points of view from outside the echo chamber.
Exactly this, however, is a major problem in today’s world and in particular where the Left dominates. More, the Leftist approaches to manipulation of opinion (cf. above) severely increase the risk of echo chambers arising, growing stronger, and/or becoming more limited in what opinions are tolerated. At an extreme, there are many Leftists who are aware of potential sources of other points of view but deliberately avoid them. They might, e.g., be well aware of “The Bell Curve”, but would never, ever read it, because they already “know” that it is racist.
Note how the failure to read a “racist” or whatnot book then not only preserves the echo chamber but also the previous opinion about the book, which very often is very faulty and based on distortions and defamation by other Leftists. The aforementioned “The Bell Curve” might be the paramount example of this and its worst haters typically have neither read it nor gained an even semi-correct view of what it actually says.
Such echo chambers are particularly problematic when their contents match what school teaches the younger and media repeats to the older. This might be acceptable when it comes to reasonably clear scientific facts, but not when it comes to ideologically driven messaging, as is the case in most of the Western world today, was the case (notably, with regard to Feminism) during my own youth in Sweden, and, of course, is ever the case in various dictatorships. Indeed, experiences around COVID show how even science can be a problematic area when non-facts are propagated as facts, facts are condemned as disinformation, and what is unknown is judged not by plausibility but by how well it matches a prescribed narrative.
However, echo chambers arise for other reasons too, including through having a more-or-less homogeneous group of “like minded” friends who are not naturally exposed to outside influences and fail to read up on their own. Here, much damage can arise without deliberate efforts or “deliberate ignorance”, e.g. because someone has social and professional circles that are limited based on e.g. common educational backgrounds and “everyone I know thinks that X; ergo, X is the truth” (and never mind that most of those that “I” do not know might think otherwise).
Many who have a noble character lack in knowledge and insight, might not investigate a political message with the right degree of critical thinking, or otherwise miss the point. More generally, Leftist supporters often have a very shallow understanding of various matters. While the below deals with some specific cases, a lamentable lack of knowledge of and insight in topics like 20th-century history and economics are extremely common even among the highly educated. (The more so, of course, among those who merely give an appearance of being highly educated. Mostly, I will ignore such distinctions in this text.)
I have, myself, had some problems in life because I tend to assume that others will stick to the truth, solve problems in person, and similar. Instead, I have repeatedly found that the counterpart in a dispute lies his head off towards others (well beyond what can be construed as a different opinion on the underlying matter or a misunderstanding), tries to manipulate superiors, or similar. Correspondingly, to some degree, I can sympathise with this lack of understanding transplanted to political issues, but, beyond some age, it really is important to catch on to such problems. Echo chambers and the like can possibly form a part of the explanation, in that the messages received are so one-sided that it does not occur to someone, even someone intelligent, that something could be amiss. (Also note complications like Gell-Mann amnesia.)
More generally, humans have a tendency to assume that others think/act/whatnot like they, themselves, do. This brings a great potential for problems, as when, so to speak, a dove encounters a hawk and expects him to be another dove. (And vice versa: a hawk, true, is unlikely to be negatively surprised by the dove, but might well base actions on the assumption of another hawk. We might then have the actual hawk launch an attack on the dove-believed-to-be-a-hawk in order to preempt an attack in the other direction, while, in reality, there was no risk of such an attack and nothing to preempt.)
Note, in particular, how often Leftist messaging is simultaneously simplistic and reality-distorting, for the purpose of creating a cheap impression of “we are the good guys; they are the bad guys”, “some group is unfairly treated—and only we want to help”, or similar. Likewise, superficial “fairness arguments” are quite common, in that some situation is painted as wanting in fairness, that someone is mistreated, or similar, without investigating why the situation is what it is, whether a closer and more objective view of the situation justifies the claims, etc. (With similar remarks for the “someone” and other variations.)
Consider the Feminist 77-cents-on-the-dollar fraud. Say that someone fair minded is confronted with the claim that “Women only earn 77 cent on the dollar!!!”. If that is the totality of the information at hand, this might seem like a very great unfairness and something that warrants strong and immediate intervention to ensure equal pay for equal work. However, if we look at the background, even when the number was current, this compared raw earnings without even adjusting for hours worked—a properly adjusted comparison showed that this was not an example of 77 cents for a dollars’ worth of work but 77 cents for 77 cents’ worth of work. (Other factors to consider for the adjustment include the education level and experience of those compared, field of work, differences in life priorities and choices, negotiation strategies and willingness to wait for a better offer at the risk of unemployment, and similar. TODO import and link to several Wordpress texts on the topic.)
Someone who has done the requisite research and thinking knows that the 77-cents-on-the-dollar fraud is a fraud. Most, however, among even the highly intelligent and educated simply do not appear to have done so.
As a bonus, the 77-cents-on-the-dollar fraud also illustrates a poor grasp of other areas, e.g. market forces and business methods—if women were paid 77 cents on the dollar for actually equal work, it would make great sense for a business to let the men go and hire masses of women as replacements, even be it at 78 or 87 cents on the dollar, and a gap as wide as 23 cents on the dollar simply could not realistically survive without supporting sabotage of market mechanisms (e.g. by the government or unions).
A particular problem arises when e.g. a fairness angle is combined with a distortion of the opponents’ opinions, up to such extremes as that someone would hold a particular opinion or make a particular suggestion in order to “oppress women”, “oppress the working class”, or similar, even when, in reality, any negative effects on such groups are strictly side-effects of implementing a policy based on very different, much more humane, and much more reasoned considerations. To boot, such negative effects, themselves, are often invented, exaggerated, or speculative. A good example is how fear of unemployment leads to decades of subsidies for some industry, at the cost of society, other industries, and the tax payers, while allowing unemployment to happen would have brought mostly short or mid-term unemployment to those laid off, which is a small price to pay compared to the very prolonged damage done to others through going down the road of never-ending subsidies.
Some examples of pushing miss the point entirely, yet might appeal to the noble-but-lacking. Consider “gay marriage”. Any legitimate points to allowing it would be much better and much more generically covered by privatization of marriage, as I (without using that term) discuss in an older Wordpress text. To push an angle of specifically and exclusively “gay marriage” is short-sighted and points to a lack of insight—or, worse, an attempt to cater to a potential voter group.
To boot, the critics of the idea have usually been misrepresented and/or clumped together in an unfair manner—as if every single one of them “hated gays” and wanted to “oppress gays”. While I cannot speak on the distribution of opinions among opponents: Firstly, many religious believe that marriage is a religious matter (inappropriately appropriated by the government) and that it should be judged based on a religious evaluation. Nothing in this implies an automatic hate or a wish to oppress. Secondly, many (even non-)religious believe that marriage has a specific purpose of procreation (or similar), which simply does not apply to homosexuals. Again, nothing in this implies an automatic hate or a wish to oppress.
To boot, the issue is one where a mistake in appropriate equivalences can be argued (especially, in the overlap with a marriage-for-procreation approach): My own father is homosexual and married, on perfectly equal terms with heterosexuals, as far back as 1974. Just like any heterosexual man, he was allowed to, and did, marry a woman. Same rules, same treatment, same whatnot—according to one possible interpretation. The modern Left typically picks another interpretation, replacing a “person of the opposite sex” with a “person of the sex of attraction”, but neither is a logical necessity in most approaches. (While someone who has a marriage-for-procreation approach would logically favor “person of the opposite sex”.) A replacement with e.g. “romantic love interest” might seem tempting from a modern point of view, but is historically very problematic, does not fits all cultures of even voluntary marriage, and is too inflexible even for a modern Western marriage. For instance, it would not include the right to marry for money or to form a family in the wake of an unplanned pregnancy. (We might or might not argue that it is unethical to marry for money, but to leap from “unethical” to “illegal” is very dubious.)
We could, of course, substitute something like “whoever is of age, human, and consenting”, but this would, again, move the question away from “gay marriage” to a much more general treatment of marriage. (Indeed, it is implicitly contained in my aforementioned treatment of privatization of marriage.)
A simultaneously similar and different issue is how even many genuine thinkers of the past have had ideas (including on how to implement noble goals, but by no means limited to such) that (a) might have seemed plausible at the time and/or on paper, (b) were proved naive or impractical as time passed. For instance, even a very strong thinker in the year 1724 would have known far less about economics than he, given the right study, might have in 2024; he could not have drawn on the experiences of e.g. the USSR or, even, revolutionary France; he is unlikely to have foreseen the enormous growth of governments, bureaucracies, national debt, and whatnot that are facts of 2024 life; etc. There would, then, be a great number of ideas, measures, whatnot that could very legitimately have seemed plausible to him, which the (actually) informed and intelligent of today would see as highly naive. (And note how he differs from someone who makes the same mistakes in 2024, when a corresponding excuse of unavoidable ignorance no longer holds.)
In a next step, such past naivety, no matter how understandable, can become a problem today, because such past thinkers are welcome authorities for naive modern Leftists and pseudo-intellectuals.
In the overlap with the previous section, we have the issue of modern accomplished minds with expertise in one field having a naive view of other fields. These might then jump to some types of Leftist conclusions (e.g. that more government will solve this-and-that problem) through an ignorance of economics and economic history, of what has already been tried unsuccessfully, and similar, in a manner resembling that of the past thinkers.
An overlapping issue is conflation of different issues and a lack of nuance in the understanding of these issues, with portions of the above examples already being relevant.
Other types of such problems exist, however.
Consider a failure to address the right problem and/or a too strong focus on one specific solution to a given problem and/or viewing a problem as a nail because the tool available is a hammer. (Discussed in more depth in a non-political context in an older text on solving the right problem.) A particularly important special or meta-case is to assume that any and all problems should be solved by the government, while history shows that governments are very bad at solving most problems and often end up doing more harm than good, even when the problem is ultimately solved. We might then see an unfortunate move from “How can the energy costs for households be kept down?” (arguably, even this is too specific a question, but one that serves as an easy example) to “How can the government [...]?” and to the limited tools that a politician usually uses, like hand-outs to tax-payers financed by ... tax-payers, threats against energy providers, price regulations, and whatnot—all while other roads go unexplored, including stimulation of supply and removal of artificial supply barriers so that a supply increase could put downward pressure on the prices. Indeed, the most obvious means, for the households to reduce energy use, might be outright hindered, e.g. because a price control or a hand-out removes the incentive to use less energy.
Or consider a failure to differ between positions pro-/anti-immigration in general, with regard to specifically illegal immigration, with regard to the country of origin of various immigrants, and with regard to the purpose of immigration. Likewise, a failure to separate between a position critical of current immigration policy, immigration, and immigrants, respectively.
Or consider a proper understanding of claims. For instance, if a military conflict contains the claim that one of the parties attacked a hospital, causing a dozen deaths, many would assume that the attack was deliberate and that the deaths took place among staff, patients, and visitors—a particular heinous act, even by the standards of war. Certainly, this might be the case, but someone who pays greater attention to nuance and detail will note that the claim does not go that far. It is very possible that the attack, if performed by e.g. rockets, was accidental. More, it is very possible that the attack was directed at enemy soldiers in an otherwise abandoned building or at terrorists who, in the style of Hamas, were cowardly hiding in a civilian building and that all the dead were among the terrorists. Absent further information, great care must be taken when drawing conclusions or taking actions based on such claims.
Or consider the difference between (dis-)favoring something based on an evaluation of both advantages and disadvantages, while acknowledging that both exist, and seeing something as having only or almost only one of the two. Leftists, indeed, often take an extremely categorical, and extremely naive, view, in that something is either entirely good and beyond criticism or entirely bad and to be condemned in every regard. (I leave unstated to what degree this reflects genuine belief and to what degree it is a propaganda approach.) Ditto opportunities and risks, and other similar contrasts, should they not be seen as included in “advantages” resp. “disadvantages”.
Or consider the need to view certain solutions and whatnots holistically, e.g. in that the environmental effect of a new technology is not measured only by its effects during use, because a considerable effect can arise from e.g. construction at the beginning of the life-cycle and clean-up at its end. A particularly common failure is to think “electricity clean; fossil fuels dirty”, without asking from where the electricity comes: if from a clean source, the claim might hold, but the electricity might be generated from exactly fossil fuels. (Why “might hold”? Because other factors still can play in, e.g., what technology has what net efficiency and what the construction costs for additional power lines or the effects of heavy metals in batteries might be.)
Too many think that having a degree makes someone or proves someone intelligent—even in the case of “I, myself, have a degree; ergo, I must be intelligent”. (With similar remarks applying to some other labels in some case, e.g. “sophisticated”.)
This connection partially holds in the harder fields and, especially, for more advanced degrees. It is, e.g., hard to earn a doctorate in mathematics without being very smart. (But, even here, not entirely impossible.) However, to have earned a BA in English proves next to nothing—and some fields, e.g. gender studies, might be outright negative: someone who (a) originally chooses to major in gender studies, and (b) does not see the light and switch to a more worthwhile major in due time, might be below the population average, not above it.
Moreover, dropping educational standards, the increase of the percentage of the population that goes to college, etc., has severely weakened the filter effect over the years: very many modern college graduates simply are not college material in any true sense.
Meanwhile, factors such as rising costs, diminished returns from having a degree, dropping standards, and the prevalence of Leftist indoctrination have motivated many who legitimately are college material to find other roads.
More generally, the perceived connection between intelligence and degrees is comparatively new. In the past, success was found through self-development and accomplishment in a profession, not through going to college. (With reservations for some specific careers where a degree was often a prerequisite, notably medicine, law, priesthood, and those within academia it self.) Only at some point of the 20th century did this perception change. And who is/was the better author? The average degree-holder in creative writing or Shakespeare?
Chances are that this problem overlaps with the outdated belief in “nurture only” thinking, which implies that the intelligent are intelligent because they have an education. In reality, the causation in that direction is weak, while the causation in the other direction (in some fields and at some times) has been strong. That doctor of mathematics has not gained several dozen I.Q. points through earning his doctorate but managed to earn it because of the points that he already had. Note, especially, the self-serving effect of holding a “nurture only” opinion, if formally educated; and how it plays in with “I, myself, have a degree; ergo, I must be intelligent” thinking.
Such misconceptions are also a good illustration of a lack of thought. A comparatively common scenario is that some politician notices that those with a bachelor have an average life-time income of X more than those with just a high-school degree. He then concludes that a bachelor is worth X and demands that an even greater proportion of the population be put through college to get that X. (Or wants that greater proportion in the first place, for which X becomes a welcome argument.) Even a superficial inspection shows at least three problems, however:
Firstly, the life-time income evaluation must be taken with several grains of salt and consider issues like the need to pay off debt, that different fields have different earnings prospects, and that what holds true today need not do so in the future (note that someone who decides whether to go to college today might eventually retire fifty years from now).
Secondly, it does not follow that the X results from having earned a bachelor, as someone with a bachelor has long been more likely to be intelligent, diligent, responsible, whatnot than someone without one—and these characteristics also influence future career chances and earnings. Similarly, to the degree that X does result from having a bachelor, the effect could in part be an indirect result of filtering by employers, e.g. in that someone without a bachelor is simply not considered for some types of jobs, or has an automatic disadvantage when considered. Such filtering is a heuristic and has nothing to do with value, and chances are that some other type of filtering would give the applicant better bang for his buck than four years of hard-but-unpaid work and a mountain of debt. (For instance, to filter by I.Q., use an I.Q. test—not presence/absence of a degree.)
Thirdly, pushing even more students through college is almost certain to lead to a further drop in standards, which will reduce the value of both the education and the resulting diploma, and likely hurt society. It can certainly influence that X negatively, sabotage the use of degrees as a heuristic, and otherwise be problematic. Indeed, even if standards are somehow kept constant, the increased supply of graduates with a particular degree could reduce X, because there is now more supply to meet the demand.
(And why/how are the students “put” through college? They do the work and they and/or their parents pay, while “put”, in context, seems to imply that the government is doing something for them.)
Similarly, there seems to be an automatic assumption among many that those who have certain other traits, habits, appearances, whatnots, are intelligent. This in particular with the type of (usually pseudo-)sophistication so often witnessed, e.g. in that someone goes to the opera, drinks wine instead of beer, and dresses in “preppy” clothes. Some correlation between such factors and intelligence might well be present, but there is no certainty and many who show such traits are posers (sorry, “poseurs”), try to fit in with a particular social circle, are pseudo-intellectuals, or similar. (In reverse, there are many highly intelligent who do not go to the opera, who prefer beer, etc.)
In a next step, however, this type of person seems disproportionately likely to have Leftist opinions, be it through some natural correlation, in another attempt to fit in, or whatever reason might apply. Gays might be an interesting special case, as their stereotypical portrayal is often somewhat in this direction, while the Left caters strongly to them. (My own experiences with gays do not, or only weakly, match that stereotype, however.)
Looking at an over-lapping, but not identical, type of pseudo-intellectual, I suspect that many of them are attracted to portions of the Leftist frameworks for the potential of, themselves, appearing more intellectual, because some Leftist writers have an intellectual reputation, because of not wishing to admit that they cannot understand a particular writer, or similar. (Note both “Fashionable Nonsense” and “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.)
If in doubt, there seems to be a book written to “prove” any given Leftist point, and using that book, no matter how poorly argued or contradictory to facts, is then a convenient excuse to justify belief in that Leftist point, while (more on topic) basing one’s opinions on a book can strengthen an image of being intellectual. (This might also give some opportunity for name dropping with a similar effect, e.g. “Sartre says [whatnot]”.)
Pseudo-intellectuals, however, are also more likely to be perceived as of true intellect than the average construction worker. (As for “intellectual”, without the “pseudo-”, much will depend on what exact meaning is given to the term, which is why I go with “of true intellect” above.)
The Left is a strong user of labels, be they complimentary (offered to its supporters as a badge of enlightenment) or derogatory (applied to its opponents, regardless of the opponents’ opinions on the topic).
Such labels can have an attractive resp. deterring effect, but are also often extremely misleading. In the case of complimentary labels, the use is often a political near-equivalent of stolen valor. Consider the label “Liberal”, especially common in the U.S.: Liberalism has a long history of good thoughts and good values, and has been in the forefront on many good fights. To some degree, it could be viewed as the “political branch” of the enlightenment movement. The alleged U.S. Liberalism of today, however, has very little in common with this good, original, Liberalism. (The situation can be different in other countries.) In fact, the pseudo-Liberalism of the U.S. Left is often outright antithetical to classical Liberalism, e.g. through favoring “big government” and governmental interference with the individual, through subjugating the individual to the collective, through opposing Capitalism and sound economic policies, seeing freedom of speech as something that only applies as long as the right thing is spoken, etc. Nevertheless, the Left has for decades been able to draw on the positive connotations and reputation of the Liberalism that was.
Now take a random person, especially one who is young, wishes to be brav, wishes to conform, and/or is a virtue signaller. Give him a choice between labels like (a) “Liberal” and “Progressive”, and (b) “Bigot” and “Reactionary”—which set is he more likely to prefer? (Even noting that the former do not describe the Democrats and the latter not the Republicans.)
Also note how both “Liberal” and “Progressive” (and likely some other labels too) have positive connotations from non-political contexts, e.g. in that “liberal” and “generous” have an overlap in meaning (“he gave liberally”) and that “liberal” can refer to something lacking in (perceived as undue) strictness or restrictiveness (“a liberal regulation”), while “progress” is almost invariably seen as positive (“technological progress”, e.g.).
Interestingly, those few who oppose technological progress are often found on the Left, which brings us to two interesting aspects of labels like “Reactionary”, that imply a position towards change, and their everyday equivalents: Firstly, the exact implications are often strongly context dependent. Secondly, whether they (logically) refer to something positive or negative is a matter of whether a certain change is a good or a bad thing. If someone is labeled as a “Reactionary” for e.g. wishing for a return to a society with less governmental interference in the private lives of the citizens then he should see it as a badge of honor.
Unfortunately, a logical view is rarely taken. Instead, an automatic association between “Reactionary” and something negative is made (or, at least, intended), often to imply someone who is narrow-minded, stuck in outdated thinking, or similar—the more unfair, as such descriptions are a much better match for the typical Leftist. (Outside the Left and beyond those politically naive, an alternate reaction of “yet more empty Leftist rhetoric and ad hominem” often follows, and with much greater justification.)
More generally, many previously somewhat more moderate incarnations of the Left (including the U.S. Democrats, but not e.g. the Swedish Social-Democrats) can draw on this more moderate past for positive connotations in the now. (Likewise, if off-topic, many such incarnations can draw on a reputation for “representing the interest of the worker”, or similar, long after any true such representation has ceased.)
It is notable how many have come forward with some variation of “I did not leave the Democrats, they left me”, including Reagan (of course) and Trump—the two U.S. Presidents within my lifetime that come the closest to a Republican ideal.
I would go as far as saying that JFK would have been more likely to vote Trump than Harris, which makes the vitriol against Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., for his recent Trump endorsement the odder—he is not so much betraying JFK as betraying those who betrayed JFK. (Which is neither to say that I view JFK as a Republican, nor that I personally approve of his presidency. The point is the extreme degeneration of the current Democrats. Why someone would be obligated to stick with the political party of his uncle is another question, and might it self be a sign of the disregard for own thought and freedom of opinion that is so common among today’s Democrats.)
Similarly, Feminists (to a high degree; others, maybe and m.m., to a lesser) have been very keen on retroactively enrolling various renowned historical characters as Feminists, often on very shaky grounds. (This might be a topic for a later page. For now, I note that being a successful woman from the past sometimes seems enough; that a loose and misleading definition of Feminism is implicitly used, e.g. a mere wanted-women-to-have-a-vote, which a great many non- and anti-Feminists agree with; and that the victims of the retroactive enrollment are dead and have no chance of defending themselves against what they might well have viewed as defamation.)
More generally, the Left often benefits or tries to benefit from the past as a flawed justification for giving it power in the present, if in a manner that is not related to support from specifically intellectuals. For instance, the Swedish Social-Democrats have profited from an image of past greatness, but (a) have done so more with the broad masses and (b) have never actually matched that image. (Specifically, an image with aspects of creating and spreading wealth, making everything better, or similar. If anything, chances are that the Social-Democrats more hampered than helped and simply were in a position to take credit.)
Some issues might be of a mostly U.S. character, which then could affect the U.S. perceptions even in the short term (maybe, even, in a justified manner). In a next step, a secondary effect on the rest of the world, through the disproportionate influence of U.S. perceptions and whatnots, is not unlikely. (And note, again, that the idea of the well-informed and intelligent Leftist is much stronger and/or might have begun much earlier in the U.S. than in some other parts of the world, including Sweden.)
In particular, the historical Democrats have been less Leftist than their closest equivalents on the flawed Left–Right scale in e.g. Sweden, Germany, and the U.K., while the Republicans have been further to the “Right” than some of their counterparts.
In particular, at least since some point in the 20th century, the Republicans have been a more religious party than the Democrats, which has influenced many political positions in a manner that could distort overall impressions—and even recent Democrat pet issues like “gay marriage” aside. For instance, a strong case could be made that religious elements should not be prominent in school (maybe, limited to publicly financed schools), but the strongly religious might see this very differently and even Atheist or more moderately religious Republicans might attempt their stances to not cause a rift with the more religious. (A special case of a constant issue of compromise, not in the slightest limited to Republicans, with two party systems.)
I am in two minds about the formulation “more religious party”. It seems more natural, but is somewhat misleading relative reversing the positions and calling the Democrats the “less religious party”. The issue is largely that both parties were solidly Christian until (likely) well into the 20th century, the Democrats maybe more so. Since then, the Democrats have simply seen a more rapid fall in religious and/or specifically Christian believes and whatnots.
An ever-recurring characteristic of the Left is the strong focus on propaganda, and the pushing of propaganda through many channels and year round—preferably, using government resources. (And, when the Left is in the position to do so, attempts to block messages from other groups that could contradict, show other viewpoints, show more nuance, whatnot.) This level of propaganda is rarely matched by other groups and, obviously, has a strong convincing effect.
A particular hitch is that those of a more intellectual persuasion are disproportionately likely to be exposed to such propaganda, e.g. while studying or through reading the papers. Here, we can also have particular cases of vicious circles, in that future professors and journalists are ultimately, with some time delay, recruited among today’s students, that future journalists are disproportionately likely to read the papers, etc.
In my observations, it seems that almost everyone needs some type of religion, “higher” purpose, justification for existence, “meaning of life”, or similar.
Historically, actual religions have served for such purposes for almost everyone. (And still do in some countries.) What happens, however, when these religions are ruled out? What if Atheism becomes the established “enlightened” position to have? What if most of the educated see the problems with religions? Etc.
Well, then there are various Leftist and quasi-religious movements to join—and many proceed to do so. Vice versa, it is very possible that those who are Leftist and Atheist develop a quasi-religious take on Leftism, for want of a more traditional religion.
I stress that I do not argue against Atheism—I am an Atheist too. The point is the potential consequences of Atheism (a longer text is in vague planning).
However, I do strongly suspect that my Atheism is much better founded than that of most Leftist Atheists: I was raised in a highly religious family, have a deep familiarity with Christianity, and reached my conclusions through own thinking in a gradual process. Most others appear to be Atheists for no better reason than that which makes them adhere to nonsense or, in reverse, that keeps many of the naive religious—including variations of “my teacher/parents told me”, a perception of what is or is not enlightened, a wish to be brav, whatnot.
An interesting thought is that Sweden’s depressing role as a source of or early breeding ground for Leftist nonsense could be fueled by the unusually large proportion of Atheists throughout Swedish society.
A complication caused by a too heterogeneous information flow is the need to dig comparatively deep to get at the truth, as exemplified by my own experiences with Swedish Feminism and the years that it took to completely see through it: while great question marks had begun to appear in my teens, I was well into my twenties before I had seen through all the nonsense.
(My journey towards Atheism, cf. above, was somewhat similar, but completed at a much earlier age and without the same strong echo-chamber issue, as Sweden is and was majority Atheist, and with a lesser immediate relevance to the discussion at hand.)
Books and the like can be a great help, but many are too lazy or to busy with all else in life to even read those books, relevant books do not necessarily exist (or are not publicly known, available in bookstores, etc.), and all too many books have been branded as “Sexist!!!”, “Racist!!!”, or whatever might apply, by the Leftists whose problematic positions would be exposed by reading the respective book. (With similar remarks potentially applying in other contexts, e.g. a religious hegemony.)
One side-effect is that it is unnecessarily hard to break free or even to learn that there is something from which to break free. Another that there are many who are genuinely intelligent but have had nowhere the right exposure to even detect that a problem exists, let alone the time and energy to investigate the matter further. There are, for instance, many mathematicians who have read very little of history and have failed to reach conclusions that they otherwise easily could have reached. (However, contrary to stereotype, those with a STEM degree/career often have very broad interests, as exemplified by me.) Factor in problems like Gell-Mann amnesia and even these mathematicians could hold very incorrect thoughts on political matters—just intelligence is no more a guarantee than just a degree.
Note the classical division into “unconscious incompetence”, “conscious incompetence”, “conscious competence”, and “unconscious competence”. Replacing “incompetence” with “ignorance”, etc., we might then have most of the population on the first stage, even among the somewhat more intelligent and, especially, among the younger intelligent, with many others on stage two and struggling to reach a higher stage. Locking down the information flow keeps more on stage one, makes it that much harder for those on stage two to reach that higher stage, and allows defamation of those who do reach it. Opening up has the reverse effect and could cause the Leftist house of cards to collapse.
The following is an automatically generated list of other pages linking to this one. These may or may not contain further content relevant to this topic.