“If a fact comes in that doesn’t fit into our frame, you’ll either not notice it, or ignore it, or ridicule it, or be puzzled by it – or attack it if it’s threatening. ” — George Lakoff, cognitive linguist at the University of California, Berkeley, as quoted in National Geographic Magazine, June 2017 issue. (1)
One of my main reasons for maintaining a National Geographic Magazine subscription is to keep tabs on the animating infatuations in that part of America politically colored “blue”. The magazine seldom fails to disappoint, perhaps unwittingly and unknowingly. The infatuations are a product of a favoritism, encoded into blue-America’s urban and academic “betters”, arising from a pervasive mix of social tastes and a grand ideo-philosophy. It operates as a kind of mental impairment for its devotees.
The above quote from page p. 50 of the magazine was meant to describe others not so enlightened according to the author of the piece from which it was taken. It could just as easily apply to the author, editors, and staff of the magazine in their Washington, D.C., bubble.
On the “affective filter”
Are the publication’s content producers immune to the presence of half-baked assumptions and prejudices that they assign to others? I think not. The affective filter concept of learning theory comes to mind. The filter functions as an emotional Polaroid lens as we consciously try to attain new knowledge. Our emotions, the theory asserts, are said to make learning difficult, and, by implication, operates to facilitate passage of those stimuli and facts that comport with our previously entrenched hunches about how the world works. If true, it is universally operable beyond the “bitter clingers” of Pres. Obama’s famous characterization.
The magazine’s staff could benefit from a mirror.
There is a strong emotional attachment to our deep, unquestioned, and strongly held beliefs. While we may convince ourselves that we are paragons of scientific inquiry, the reality may be quite different.
On materialism
So, what are the basal beliefs pervading the upper reaches of the status hierarchy in our urban and academic clusters? One attachment is a broad conviction for the philosophy of materialism. No, I’m not referring to materialism as a synonym for greed. Alternatively, materialism as accepted wisdom attempts to explain everything as a product of matter and material forces. Modern practitioners of science could be weaned into this line of thought by the very nature of their preoccupation. Science is focused on the physical world. The temptation is to reduce wisdom to an understanding of matter, its forces and processes.
The stage is set for a full-throated assault on anything seemingly not in tune with the current state of scientific understanding as presumed by some practitioners momentarily at the top of the science popularity pyramid.
A death sentence for tradition and rise of subjectivism
To no great surprise, nearly anything old – morals, traditions, institutions, established religion – will sooner or later fall under the crosshairs. If its antique, it can be explained away as something not worthy of our “enlightened” age. For these acolytes, it’s become like a reflex, as in the blinking of the eyes.
The old sexual morality is a victim of this popular turn of mind, a bent very popular in metropolitan and academic surroundings, and anywhere else under their sway – which means almost everywhere. Cohabitation is up; virginity is down; chaos in the home is up; and genital compatibility (heterosexuality) no longer necessary.
In fact, genital diversity (again, heterosexuality) is made irrelevant. Since an orgasm is the penultimate in this brave new world, sodomy is to be sanctified alongside the Church’s preferred option. Anything is okay if the desired end is achieved. Such is the logic of the mind unmoored from anything higher.
In these stunted minds, a belief in something higher is as expendable as a zipper that won’t zip. God? What god? Morality? Whose morality? These questions are regurgitated as readily as terns vomiting for their young.
The result, though, is a confusion of knowledge with wisdom. While we have the knowledge to expeditiously abort a late-term fetus, “ought” we? Even though we have the ability to euthanize the momentarily depressed, “ought” we? While we can treat people as livestock for their stem cells, “ought” we? Should we use our knowledge of genetics to manufacture custom-made human beings? Many of the most profound questions in life cannot be answered by a sole reliance on the knowledge of synapses and molecules. The reference point for such decisions must lie in something other than ourselves. Some would call it “wisdom”. A scientist may have the knowledge but be completely lacking in the wisdom.
The absence of anything higher, something outside of us, elevates each person into the the role of Creator of our own personal standards. The subjective, and relative, reigns supreme. The love of an unbounded individualism – the uninhibited self – lies here. The combination of science, materialism, and now subjectivism pushes the mind toward unlimited possibilities, a benign concept if kept abstract; a pernicious one if allowed to undermine limits.
On transgenderism, the gay agenda, and the uninhibited self
Seemingly, now even the physical limits of chromosomes can be discarded. We are in the age of transgenderism and 40 or so genders. We have come full circle when the individual as emperor of reality is liberated from science, chromosomes and all. Have we entered an epochal phase when subjectivism has put a gun to the head of science? If an idea or feeling gets locked into our head, even our physical bodies must be made to give way.
This heap of notions is so taken for granted in the confines of academia and among our self-styled cultural elites that counter-ideas are hubristically dismissed as ignorance. The 3,000 years of Judeo-Christianity and Greek philosophy must bend a knee to a new god and faith: the uninhibited self and its modern priesthood of shortsighted PhD’s and media mandarins.
Their arrogance is astounding. They claim a monopoly ownership of science, while unintentionally dismantling it. In fact, it’s a semi-science that functions as a cover for their biases … or, more accurately, prejudices. For instance, National Geographic Magazine devoted its January 2017 issue to the “Gender Revolution” (as was covered in a previous blog post).
While reading the article, I was struck, when you cut through the excess verbiage, by the gullibility of a cluster of academics to accept a person’s claims in interviews as proof of the existence of a condition (gender dysphoria) on a par with schizophrenia and diabetes. When it involves children, the psuedo-diagnosis is very disturbing. Common adolescent confusion now can lead to permanent genital and bodily disfigurement. Efforts to less drastically treat the internal turmoil through therapy are made criminal acts in some jurisdictions.
In the same issue was a piece about female genital mutilation (FGM). The practice is resurrected in the West under the guise of “gender reassignment surgery”. Board certification and a scalpel doesn’t make the practice any less horrifying.
Is this the new wisdom?
Using their position at the commanding heights of contemporary culture, the socio-political nomenklatura seek to rub out opposing views on other subjects as well. A defense of traditional marriage – a viewpoint not very well articulated as of late – is pounded into submission by an alliance of our cultural aristocracy and the fashionable victims’ group du jour: the L-G-B-T-Q …. movement (The presence of 40 or so genders makes an acronym difficult).
One of their signature issues is gay marriage. Yet, we can only get to the idea of same-sex matrimonials if we skip over some obvious questions. Like, what is marriage? Is it simply a union of adults? Gayness, by its very nature, makes their unions only about the adults. It can be about nothing else. Last time I checked, sodomy can’t produce offspring. So, childbearing is out of the question. Yes, yes, gays can adopt, but the simple existence of those children is ipso facto proof of a heterosexual coupling. If marriage exists for the purpose of family formation, it’s incoherent to sanction as “marriage” a genus of union that can never do it (produce children).
What of the heterosexual unions who either can’t, or won’t, produce children? Are they marriages? Most emphatically … Yes! Heterosexuality is the essential condition, not the decision to have children. As for infertile couples, medical interventions are a tacit recognition of the absolute necessity of the very essence of heterosexuality: sperm meeting egg, in one way or another. Being childless doesn’t repeal the legitimacy of a marriage; and holding a ceremony and exchanging rings, by itself, can’t make one. Heterosexuality is written all over the institution.
Marriage as a mixing of the only 2 genders having any basis in chromosomes – leaving aside the unusual, but not unexpected, chromosomal abnormality – was remarkably obvious to our ancestors who lived at a time when they couldn’t be afflicted, as we are, with the hectoring of our cultural “betters”. The idea of marital bliss applying to 2 men was so outside the pale that it never came to mind to anyone coming before Justice Kennedy’s term on the Supreme Court. Marriage of the 2 genders is all that we find mentioned in the historical record. While scanning historical documents, I ran into this juicy bit from Emperor Justinian’s reforms of Roman law, Institutes, Title II, “Of The Law of Nature, the Law of Nations, and the Civil Law”:
“The law of nature is that which she has taught all animals; a law not peculiar to the human race, but shared by all living creatures, whether denizens of the air, the dry land, or the sea. Hence comes the union of male and female, which we call marriage; hence the procreation and rearing of children, for this is a law by the knowledge of which we see even the lower animals are distinguished.” (Emphasis added) (8)
Gay marriage is an inanity to logic and to our predecessors.
On Hegel, “progress”, and historicism
The growing acceptance of same-sex unions is a testament to the wrongheadedness of Hegel’s 19th century view of history as the unfolding of increasing rationality – i.e., “progress” (sometimes referred as “historicism”). We aren’t getting smarter, or more rational, or more contented. Instead, we’re proving that history has no arc. It’s filled with unexpected zigzags and stumbles, and chic journeys into nonsense.
In castigating historicism and any other form of determinism in the manipulation of history, the philosopher Karl Popper had it right when he said that there are no “inexorable laws of historical destiny”. (6,7) Marx/Engels (meaning the present converts of the pair), Obama, Hillary, Thomas Piketty, Robert Reich, and all self-styled Progressives please take note.
On “climate change”
For our brethren at the top of our urban and academic status pyramid, maybe the thought that they could be wrong never occurred to them. Maybe they’re blinded by their own arrogance. Well, sadly for us, their arrogance isn’t limited to the LGBTQ … wishlist. A favorite in their panoply of causes, when they aren’t yammering against homophobia, is “climate change”.
If left alone as a two-word phrase and without any of the ideological baggage that so often attends it, it’s rather innocuous and acceptable to most people. Though, our haughty “betters” couldn’t leave it alone. It’s freighted with “apocalyptic”, “catastrophic”, “solely anthropogenic”, and with sub-agenda terms like “green”, “sustainable”, etc., etc.
With their ever-present faith in “progress”, they’re fully on-board with upending the settled arrangements of a free people. Their confidence in politicized “experts” knows no bounds. Indubitably, government – with themselves at the helm, of course – is expected to have free reign to bring about the “green” world. The crusade has breathed new life into the disaster that is socialism. It also bequeathed to us the juiced-up social engineer.
The social engineer of the progressives’ imagination, appropriately papered with degrees and certificates, will be ensconced in administrative bureaus with sweeping and unconstitutional powers to legislate, execute, and adjudicate. It’s government by papal bull and czarist ukase. What would James Madison think?
If Madison was reanimated into today’s world, he might be struck by more than a sovereign people’s willingness to surrender their sovereignty over to Harvard’s graduating class. He’d be smacked with the glaring hypocrisy of the situation’s cheerleaders.
My blue-America barometer – National Geographic Magazine – unconsciously revels in the duplicity. Going back to the “Why We Lie” cover story (June 2017 issue), I found this gem:
“Researchers have shown that we are especially prone to accept lies that affirm our worldview. Memes that claim Obama was not born in the United States, deny climate change … and spread other ‘alternative facts’, as a Trump adviser called his Inauguration crowd claims, have thrived on the Internet and social media because of this vulnerability.”
“Deny climate change” as a lie? Is it a lie or simply a disagreement? “Lie” is used to cover a difference of opinion with our cultural suzerains. Grand prognostications in science, if its real science, should be met with a “Yes, but ….” or a “No, but ….”. Qualifiers abound in a field for which there is much unknown, and definitely so regarding those grand prognostications.
The resort to cocksure “lie” labeling is heartily exhibited by those with the least expertise in science. Al Gore is no scientist; he’s a politician/lawyer. Leonardo DiCaprio is an actor. The author of the NGM piece, Yudhijhit Bhattacharjee, is a “writer” according to the bio on his website. And since scientists, like everyone else, aren’t resistant to the surrounding cultural zeitgeist, and since politicized government largesse is widely available, today’s science can be easily hijacked by its celebrity and political non-practitioners possessing huge megaphones.
Here’s the hypocrisy: opposition to the crusade is fitted with the “liar” label while a concerted campaign in 2009 of lying was uncovered in spirited emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, Houston Control for the “climate change” enterprise. Maybe intimidation to suppress is more accurate. Still, the episode exposed the effort to misrepresent the truth. Do we dare call it “lying”? (9)
The scandal involved partisan scientists bound-and-determined to shoehorn data into a prefab outcome: climate change is apocalyptic . It included efforts at hiding data and methods from scrutiny outside a narrow, mutually reinforcing group. Further, the emails bring to light the attempts at manipulation of their models to produce their preferred results, and the frustration when they don’t. In addition to hiding and statistical messaging, intimidation and excommunication of critics from the field is plotted among the climate change clerisy’s brethren.
Putting the best face on the scandal would be to recognize the emails were taken out of context and only blunt expressions among close-knit colleagues. However, the exculpation is only limited. At a minimum, it illustrates the behavior of a highly partisan claque of scientists. It’s an example of what happens when science becomes a partisan movement and then a political industry.
Is any of this to be seriously considered – even if made aware – among the lords in their Hollywood/west Los Angeles/Manhattan/campus castles? I think that we now know the answer to that question.
Why even have a magazine issue devoted to “Why We Lie”? Why now? Why did the topic come up and demand so much of the magazine’s resources and time? I suspect a political motive. The subject of “lying” is a particular obsession in the hot nodes of lefty political activism. Blue-America’s most prominent inhabitants are busy trying to delegitimize the shocking result of the 2016 election.
I’m reminded of one of the historian Henry Adams’s witticisms from his book, The Education of Henry Adams.
“Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.”
The organization of hatred can occur with or without a patina of science. Susan Goldberg, chief editor of National Geographic Magazine, please take note.
RogerG
Bibliography and references:
- “Why We Lie”, Yudhijit Bhattacharjee, National Geographic Magazine, June 2017, pp. 30-51.
- “Fox Says It Won’t Interfere With National Geographic’s Editorial Content”, Andrew Beaujon, Washingtonian, 9/9/2015, https://www.washingtonian.com/2015/09/09/fox-wont-interfere-with-national-geographic-editorial-content/
- “The End of Identity Liberalism”, Mark Lilla, New York Times: Sunday Review, 11/18/2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html
- “Input hypothesis”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_hypothesis. The affective filter concept arose from Stephen Krashen’s research into second language acquisition and is part of his broader “input hypothesis”, first published in 1977.
- “Gender Revolution”, National Geographic Magazine, June 2017 issue.
- A brief summary of Karl Popper’s critique of Hegel’s “historicism” can be found in wikipedia under the article “Historicism”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism
- A fuller description of Popper’s critique of historicism can be found here : “The Central Mistake of Historicism: Karl Popper on Why Trend is Not Destiny”, Farnam Street, https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2016/03/karl-popper-mistake-of-historicism/
- As a pdf file: “Justinian, Institutes“, http://amesfoundation.law.harvard.edu/digital/CJCiv/JInst.pdf
- An interesting op-ed about the U. of East Anglia email scandal can be found here: “Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation”, Christopher Booker, The Daily Telegraph, 11/28/2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
- The Education of Henry Adams, Chapter 1, Henry Brooks Adams, 1907.