CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi folks. The discussions over the last two days have prompted me to share, from my view, not only why I'm not confident in my own work going forward, but why I have some doubts too about the prospects of the TOK. If interested, the following will take slow readers like myself at least 15-20 minutes. Plus there's an embedded 3.5 minute video link, an article attached, and a few photos attached as well. Might as well try to do something with whatever time left I may or may not be promised!
The Death(s) of a Social Scientist by Joseph H. Michalski
When I first considered pursuing a PhD in the social sciences, I was excoriated by certain family members for even having any aspirations to join “the liberals” in academia. I wasn’t entirely sure why my extremely right-wing family members (parents and siblings alike) held such negative or even hostile views of academia in general and sociology in particular. Yet from my perspective, I loved learning and every subject - and had been especially strong at math since a young age. I considered pursuing a graduate degree in math or physics (definitely would be a physicist if I were afforded a second chance!), but then decided I was even more intrigued by the human condition. I genuinely didn’t understand why people wouldn’t be excited for me since I wanted to use science to study the human condition. I thought there was tremendous value in science and hoped to be able to apply a rigorous scientific perspective to try describe and explain things like factors affecting child development or domestic violence or why people end up being poor. As a result, by the mid-90s I had obtained a PhD in sociology in 1993, had already moved to Canada, and after being a “stay-at-home” dad, eventually secured a tenure-track position at King’s University College in 2003. By 2008, I’d published several “groundbreaking” articles in my field – or so I thought – and excitedly penned the attached article that I published in 2008 about what “scientific sociology” could be in the 21st century. But, after studying the field more closely, I learned in time (and published on the issue) that I’m very much in the minority within my own field and that I’m, well, a bit of a statistical outlier in my orientation. Don’t tell my family members, but they were right to a degree! I just always personally thought of myself as a “scientist” and not an “ideologue.” Who knew?
Over time, I’ve continued to pursue “scientific sociology” and realized that we have as much and arguably even more of a problem than Gregg identified in terms of “the problem of psychology.” In reconnecting with Gregg in the early 2010s and after reading his original 2003 ToK article & then his 2011 book, I realized that I had been both “right” and “wrong” about sociology. I’m “right” in the sense that sociology can offer something useful and helpful in an explanatory sense “as a science,” but that we are often too constrained or limited in our thinking. I realized there’s always something missing in our modeling, despite the important contributions we might offer in terms of explaining large-scale social trends or broad patterns such as the (obvious) linkages between education and earnings. We’d conduct national studies – myself included – and demonstrate that our models often “explained” only 10-20% of the variation in the outcomes of interest. In some cases, we could do a better job, but we usually did not. Things only got better once we started to think more relationally and in a more sophisticated and integrated fashion. The missing ingredient in much sociological analysis? The human person! And how human persons were embedded in social networks of relationships, constrained by pre-existing socio-ecological conditions. Sure, we all knew that this stuff was important, but as a discipline we’ve been “trained out” of psychology (most of us) and of thinking about how we might connect the “social” and “cultural” with the “psychological.” We focused on the general trends and structures, but often ignored the “mechanisms” involved. Hence we were constrained by our own disciplinary straightjacket. There are good reasons that most people in the media don’t think, “Hey, what does sociology have to say about this or that?” We have largely failed. Oh, and I’ve been part of the “problem” for most of my career by thinking too narrowly. So, in the second half of my career, I decided to kill off “Joe, the pure sociologist.” That term will not mean much to most of you, but pure sociology essentially means sociology without reference to psychology or any other scientific discipline.
In time, I read most of Gregg’s work and much more stuff across the various disciplines, hoping to understand the “bigger picture” and work toward more integrative framings of the human condition. I’d also done a second PhD (ABD) at the University of Toronto, which stimulated my thinking about all kinds of paradigms outside of what I learned in my first PhD and primed me to be ready for the ToK. I just didn’t know that at the time, but I guess I somehow “knew” that we could only do so much purely confined to sociology. I had taught in a graduate program in Mexico too in Spanish (statistics and research methods) and came to learn that my students there literally communicated in a different linguistic style, rooted in the evolution of their own culture and language. Where I was used to more “linear” thinking (thesis, evidence, conclusion), I was having trouble following some of the class discussions, which seemed to ramble across all kinds of different and seemingly unrelated issues. I learned later, though, that that was their style of communication. We’d start with an idea, but then travel off the beaten path to consider all kinds of different issues, before eventually rejoining each other to try to fashion conclusions. Linguists have studied these issues and have formulated well-known explanations as to how and why we actually communicate differently in English in the U.S. & Canada than they do in Spanish in Mexico beyond simply language. The language, as many of you probably know, embedded in the culture helps structure reality and how we communicate.
That challenged me further to consider the importance of language and how I communicate, or how to “bridge the gaps” when using different languages (literally) or across different communities where people might communicate in different ways, from scientists to Indigenous peoples. And that includes the use of numbers. I long ago realized that we never “let the facts speak for themselves.” We certainly “construct” or at least “gather” the facts, and then we have to “speak” ourselves. We have to share our “facts.” And we have to “interpret” the facts too. As Gregg has outlined with his tripartite modeling of Mind, that can be quite a challenge. Yet what choice do we have as human persons? So, I take the challenge seriously and do the best that I can, especially in my role as a “scientist” trying to communicate to diverse peoples from different backgrounds and different life experiences. But, as mentioned, I had to kill off “Joe, the pure sociologist,” in the process.
Polarization and “Facts”
Well, Deepak raised yesterday some interesting concerns about what might happen in the U.S. As mentioned, I figured most people on the ToK list probably had thought about these issues and I didn’t want to be flippant or dismissive or unhelpful. I tried to point out and share a bit of information about how seriously folks have been considering these matters. My main point was to confirm that the evidence does indeed suggest a fair degree of polarization, with many reasons being discussed. I wrote, in part, “A great many commentators and analysts from different fields are & have been writing thoughtful pieces on the degree of polarization in the U.S. The issues are too many to list (I then list 8 issues that I’ve seen address by various commentators, without discussing or evaluating the merits of any arguments, or favoring either candidate)… The undeniable facts are that, at this point, more than 77 million voted for Biden and more than 72 million voted for Trump. For those who are interested in the demography of the election results, here's an interesting article from the Financial Times that breaks down voting % by a number of interesting characteristics. I'd imagine most informed people here could easily predict who was more likely to vote Trump or Biden, based on their demographic characteristics and based on the logic of JUST.”
The point of my comments and the identification of the vote totals was precisely to indicate that a high degree of polarization exists in the U.S. The notable issue is not that Biden had more votes by everyone’s tabulations (yes, literally, every tally I could find), but that well over 70 million voted for BOTH candidates. One may be ahead by 5 million or more votes – or one may not believe that to be the case – but the fact is that a HUGE chunk of the U.S. electorate has supported both Biden and Trump. The value of the UTOK/ToK lies in our ability to map and explain why things are unfolding as they are, as well as the more controversial issue of how the information and knowledge can be translated into “wisdom.” JUST allows us to offer salient hypotheses and predictions (in combination with other TOK aspects, such as Behavioral Investment Theory and the social “vorces” that align with the Influence Matrix) as to what demographic or background characteristics will be more likely to support which candidate. Hence my contributions at this point almost exclusively focus on the scientific underpinnings of our models, as I’m more concerned at this point (see below) about the current dynamics that are affecting our epistemic approaches to generating credible, reliable knowledge.
"Misunderstanding All You See" -- John Lennon
Bradley: “I appreciate your missive. My point is that the justification systems (to keep this discourse within the frame of TOK, and away from straw-man argumentation) at odds with one another existing in the political sphere MUST be rectified within an overarching justification system. This justification system is NOT AP, the mainstream media, Fox News, or Alex Jones, for that matter. The Justification System that reigns supreme in the United States is the Constitution, (apparently) as decided within the Courts, Congress and the Executive. I think we would agree on this.”
Unfortunately, this completely misunderstands the point of our (Gregg and myself, as well as perhaps others on the list and beyond) theoretical framing of justification systems theory. One key argument is that there are several different justification systems, which is part of what we track and try to explain in sociology and what Gregg’s system accommodates as well. We are not advocating or supporting one “Justification System” (that) reigns supreme in the United States.” Yes, the Supreme Court sits atop the legal hierarchy, i.e., it’s the highest court in the land. If there are legal issues to be resolved, then, yes, people can use the courts and, at times, cases rise to the level of the Supreme Court, where issues are provisionally resolved. In terms of the 2020 presidential election, there are several court challenges as to potentially fraudulent voting practices across various states that have been or currently are being adjudicated. And, if the evidence proves compelling, there may be changes to some of the vote count totals. Georgia already plans a recount in any event.
If cases do end up in the SC, then eventually rulings are rendered, precedents are set, and the SC may or may not tweak the law on such matters in the future. No one disputes any of that. What the Supreme Court does not do, however, is operate as a substitute for science. Indeed, science is a separate Justification System with different evidentiary standards. I pursue science, as that’s my expertise, and attempt to make accurate factual claims based on the available data, as well as offer theories in my efforts to try to explain observed patterns. In all of these efforts, I can be “wrong” or misguided – and forever am looking at new evidence and possible sources of error in my reasoning. It’s a never-ending process, at least for me, since I’m not omniscient and claim no privileged view of reality.
And here’s where Bradley’s statement completely misunderstands my efforts: “I felt obligated to reject your assertion, as it was based upon faulty authority, not by the numeric values presented. It appeared to be a partisan statement, and outside the bounds of the intellectual pursuit here, in some manner.” This is the meta-problem of much current thinking in the U.S., IMHO. In my effort to buttress my argument that the U.S. is extremely polarized, I stated that “The undeniable facts are that, at this point, more than 77 million voted for Biden and more than 72 million voted for Trump.” I’m attempting to make a scientific statement of fact, based on the best available evidence. I explained my methodology yesterday for how I arrived at that claim, focusing especially on the importance of triangulating sources to try to offer the most reasonable summary claim possible. I’ve now actually examined 10 different sources to evaluate their “numbers” – not in terms of their “politics” or political leanings, but in terms of reporting what the current tabulations are off the presidential vote tallies for Biden and Trump. These include the Associated Press, The Economist, CBC, BBC, The Guardian, CNN, Bloomberg, NBC News, Fox, and The Independent. The absolute lowest figures I could find anywhere were 77,492,385 for Biden and 72,309,171 for Trump. Hence I offered my statement as “factual” in describing the minimum votes totals for both candidates. If simply reporting the best information available is now “partisan,” then perhaps you can see why that might be a problem.
Thus Bradley appears to reject any and all sources of the current vote totals because these are, in his view, “based on faulty authority.” That’s an increasingly widespread practice in the U.S., as I explain below. I certainly understand that people may not “trust” the media, or view the media as slanted politically one way or the other in favor of a particular bias. In fact, those of us (myself included) who study these issues can and have documented entrenched patterns of “confirmation bias” and the tendency of people to watch news outlets that align with their perspective or their own “echo chambers.” And that’s why I am always careful with my statements of “fact” and the sources & methodologies involved. I only “report” that at least 77 million voted for Biden and at least 72 million voted for Trump NOT because I have my own political views or biases, but because as a social scientist I looked at all the evidence I’ve been gathering over several weeks and from every possible credible, well-established source I could find. When even the most “conservative”-leaning sites (e.g., Fox News) report figures in excess of 77 million for Biden and 72 million for Trump, I think I am offering a responsible, factual claim.
But, as I conceded, nothing is “undeniably” true, depending on the underlying philosophical assumptions that one makes to defend one’s truth claims. And that’s the larger problem we confront in terms of the public discourse or if we try to make any truth claims in the public arena. There’s now a pronounced tendency among ever-growing segments (the opinion polling data confirm this) to doubt the veracity of even what would seem to be the most straightforward evidence or “facts” that we used to overwhelmingly agree on in the past. Several important trends can be observed here.
For example, even before becoming president, Trump was alleging election fraud without producing evidence. During his 2016 campaign he claimed the election was “rigged” in favor of Clinton, predicted widespread voter fraud and announced he would accept the results of the election only if he won. The Democrats instead lost the election and, in some cases, pursued recounts and/or questioned the legitimacy and integrity. But their numbers, percentage-wise, were far less than what we see now among Republicans in the immediate aftermath of 2020 (see below). But why? Here I’ll quote at length from an article “Americans Were Primed To Believe The Current Onslaught Of Disinformation.” I’m not saying everything below is perfectly correct or the “Truth,” but the arguments presented bear directly on the current state of affair, i.e., why I can’t even make what I thought would be an innocuous claim that at least 77 million people voted for Biden and at least 72 million voted for Trump without being told I'm wrong:
Over the past year, Trump has reiterated many of the same baseless assertions, seizing in particular on mail-in voting, which he maintained (again without evidence) would lead to fraud. Whether Trump realized it or not, he was engaging in something academics call priming.
“Priming is where an external source, a sender of information, is trying to prime people to think a certain way,” said Mark Whitmore, a professor of management and information systems at Kent State University who has studied misinformation and cognitive bias. “One of the ways in which priming occurs is through partisanship. When that happens, people have a greater tendency to think along the lines of whatever party they feel they belong to.”
When people are already primed to think about a topic in a certain way, it can lead them to seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs. A study published in 2016, for example, primed participants to consider either their political views or personal views on health care before evaluating factual statements about the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare.” The researchers found that when participants were primed to think about their partisan leanings, Democrats were more likely to evaluate positive outcomes of the ACA as based on strong evidence, and Republicans were more likely to evaluate those same outcomes as based on weak evidence. But when primed to consider their personal views on health care, the gulf between the two groups narrowed.
There’s also the illusory truth effect: a phenomenon in which the more times people are exposed to an idea, the more likely they are to perceive it as true, regardless of political leanings. Gordon Pennycook, a behavioral scientist at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, has found the illusory truth effect can lead people to be more likely to believe disinformation. That said, this is probably not the only thing influencing so many people to seek out disinformation around the election, according to Pennycook.
“I don’t think you need to know about illusory truth to be able to explain that the things Trump has said made people ready to accept that fraud was going to happen in the election,” Pennycook said. “Illusory truth is one aspect of that, but for some people, if they only heard Trump say it once, that would probably be enough.”
So, what has happened? According to a Morning Consult poll of 1,987 registered voters, 7 in 10 Republicans say the 2020 election was not free and fair: 48% of Republicans say it “definitely” was not free and fair, and another 22% say it “probably” was not. That’s twice the share of Republicans who said the race would not be free and fair just before the election. Yet even for states like Texas and Florida, where Trump is projected to safely win, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say the results are reliable. Overall trust in elections plummets among Republicans: Prior to the election, 68% of GOP voters said they had at least some trust in the U.S. election system. Post-election, that dropped to 34%. Democratic trust, meanwhile, jumped from 66% to 78%.
Among Republicans who believed that the election wasn’t free and fair, 78% believed that mail-in voting led to widespread voter fraud and 72% believed that ballots were tampered with — both claims that have made a constant appearance on the president’s Twitter thread. Like President Donald Trump, a majority of the people that thought the election was unfair, 84%, said it benefited Biden. The lack of trust in the election system has led to Republicans being more skeptical about the election results. Although only 18% of Republicans had said the results would be unreliable prior to Election Day, now 64% feel the same way following Biden’s victory. By contrast, 86% of Democrats say they trust the results.
Since Trump and the Republican leadership are making claims about voter fraud and since a clear majority of Republican voters agree, then we should not be surprised that so many lawsuits have been filed. What’s also “factually true,” though, is that there appears to be an extremely narrow range of states being targeted: the legal challenges are occurring only in states where Trump appears to have lost the popular vote. The arguments focus on why late-arriving ballots shouldn’t be counted, or that any state offering mail-in voting and in-person voting was acting unconstitutionally. At the same time, note that Trump and his allies have not filed any post-election lawsuits in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, and Montana. All these “battleground states” saw a surge in mail-in voting. The U.S. Elections Project confirms Florida alone had 4.7 million mail-in ballots. Yet Trump & allies have not challenged late-arriving ballots or the entire election system itself in a single county or state where the president is the projected winner, even though down-ballot Republicans in those states lost races or are on track to lose as the dragged-out vote count rolls on.
Apparently the same alleged “voter fraud” practices were not extended to the Senate and House races, but seemingly just focused on the presidency. Consider North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Before the election, Republicans sought to nullify decisions that allowed both states to extend the window of time post-election to accept mail-in ballots. Republicans a week after the election are challenging the validity of those late-arriving ballots only in Pennsylvania. But with Trump and Republican Senator Thom Tillis projected to win in North Carolina, the GOP appears to have dropped its legal effort to block the counting of those same kinds of properly postmarked ballots that arrive after election day.
A Second Death
What happens if there are no reliable “facts” any longer or if anyone and everyone’s discredited because they cannot be trusted? And what if the system cannot be trusted? In addition to the problem of getting everyone to agree on whether or not a certain person won the presidency, under what circumstances will people believe anything about an alleged pandemic (for example)? Who’s going to trust an Anthony Fauci, for example? Some may, but many do not. And he has even received death threats for simply trying to present the case for the pandemic, the “numbers,” and possible integrated responses.
Whether you agree with Fauci or not, or whether he’s “right” or not, my point is that the many in the U.S. now are divided even on the science behind COVID-19 and “best practices.” While one can certainly dispute the metrics being used for international comparisons, almost everyone agrees that the U.S. in general continues to suffer far more disastrous effects from COVID-19 than most other countries. I’m not saying what the U.S. “should do” about COVID-19. I’m simply saying that I wouldn’t even dare try to say what the “testing rate” or the “death rate” might be, or try to explain why there are more nuanced issues involved, even if I were the world’s most renowned expert in the field. I would not be confident that I could have a reasonable discussion in the U.S., because no matter how I framed the issue, I’d be attached for my “political biases” and my “scientific knowledge” would be questioned, or assumed to lack credibility, etc.
And that’s my second death. I died first as a “pure sociologist,” and died again thinking I could ever contribute something useful academically or intellectually in an environment where so people no longer value science, much less any of my “theories” or “explanations” of human behavior. As mentioned, I think at this point I’d rather just “shut up and sing”
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B_2c_ELmgI&feature=youtu.be) or build people decks & stuff like I did this past summer (see 2 attached examples). They seem to like this stuff a lot more than me trying to share anything “scientific”. Everyone apparently already knows the truth anyway. How ironic, eh? Because I certainly don’t know “the truth,” and I’ve spent the last 30 years trying to learn the truth and share what I know as best I can. C’est la vie. C'est la mort.
Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
Professor
King’s University College at Western University
266 Epworth Avenue, DL-201
London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3
Tel: (519) 433-3491
Email: [log in to unmask]
______________________
eiπ + 1 = 0
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1