Misinformation and the Three Languages of Politics (with Arnold Kling)

about the importance of truth-seeking and the dangers of censorship in the pursuit of truth.

Arnold Kling, economist and author, recently appeared on EconTalk with host Russ Roberts to discuss the topic of misinformation and the challenges of navigating the complex landscape of truth in today’s society. Kling emphasized the importance of viewing the pursuit of truth as a process rather than a fixed outcome, highlighting the dynamic nature of knowledge and the evolution of beliefs over time.

Kling argued that the history of science is replete with examples of beliefs that were once widely accepted but were later proven to be incorrect. He emphasized the value of allowing different ideas to compete with one another in the marketplace of ideas, as this process ultimately leads to a better understanding of the truth. Kling cautioned against the dangers of censorship and the suppression of dissenting viewpoints, noting that the quest for truth requires a willingness to engage with uncomfortable or unpopular ideas.

The conversation between Kling and Roberts also delved into the philosophical underpinnings of truth-seeking, with Kling advocating for a process-oriented approach over one focused solely on outcomes. He drew parallels between the challenges of navigating truth and the debates surrounding rules versus discretion in economic policy, highlighting the seductive allure of taking shortcuts or deviating from established principles in pursuit of a desired outcome.

One of the key takeaways from the discussion was the importance of maintaining an open and inclusive public discourse, where a wide range of ideas and perspectives are allowed to coexist. Kling referenced the concept of the Overton window, which represents the range of acceptable ideas in public discourse, and stressed the need for this window to remain wide enough to accommodate diverse viewpoints, even those that may be deemed controversial or offensive.

In conclusion, Kling’s insights on the pursuit of truth and the dangers of censorship serve as a timely reminder of the importance of fostering a robust and open intellectual environment. By embracing the process of truth-seeking and engaging with a variety of perspectives, we can collectively work towards a deeper understanding of the world around us. As Kling aptly stated, “Trust people who seek the truth. Don’t trust people who claim to have found it.” The conversation between Russ Roberts and Arnold Kling delves into the complexities of censorship, freedom of speech, and the power of information in today’s society. They touch upon the famous case of David Irving and Deborah Lipstadt, highlighting the importance of allowing even those with controversial views to express themselves.

Roberts and Kling express their support for competition and trial-and-error in economics, emphasizing the role of profit-and-loss systems in distinguishing between good and bad innovations. However, they question whether the same feedback loops apply in the realm of information. They ponder whether the truthfulness of information is enough to ensure its prevalence in a world where beliefs are often tied to personal identity and feelings.

Kling acknowledges that certain beliefs, such as the denial of historical events like the Holocaust, may not face immediate consequences for being false. He also mentions the challenge of testing beliefs that are not empirically verifiable, such as the existence of a higher power.

Roberts brings up the example of the moon landing, questioning how individuals can be certain of historical events they did not personally witness. He suggests that credibility plays a significant role in shaping beliefs, as people tend to trust sources that have proven themselves to be reliable in the past.

The conversation ends with a personal anecdote from Kling about spikes in his water meter, illustrating how even seemingly mundane occurrences can prompt individuals to question the information they receive. Overall, the discussion between Roberts and Kling highlights the complexity of navigating the information landscape in a world where truth and belief often intersect. But, I think I’ve always had a skepticism of giving power to someone to suppress ideas. And, I think in a world where we have so much information available to us, it’s important to have a wide range of perspectives and ideas to consider. The marketplace of ideas should be open and competitive, and the best ideas should rise to the top based on their merit, not because they were censored or suppressed.

In the case of social media platforms like Meta, there is a fine line between promoting free speech and ensuring that harmful or false information is not spread unchecked. It’s a difficult balance to strike, and there are valid arguments on both sides. Elon Musk’s approach of allowing almost anything except threats of violence is an interesting one, and his introduction of Community Notes to correct mistakes shows a willingness to address misinformation without resorting to outright censorship.

Ultimately, I believe that the answer to combating mistruths and untruths is not to censor or suppress ideas, but to promote critical thinking and media literacy. Encouraging people to question information, fact-check sources, and consider multiple perspectives can help to combat the spread of misinformation in a more proactive and empowering way.

In the case of Arnold Kling’s water bill dispute with his water company, the issues of misinformation and dispute resolution are brought to light in a personal and relatable way. The challenge of proving a leak without evidence, and the frustration of dealing with a self-regulating monopoly, highlight the importance of transparency and accountability in resolving disputes and ensuring fair treatment for consumers.

As we navigate the complex landscape of information and communication in the digital age, it’s crucial to uphold the principles of free speech and open dialogue while also addressing the challenges of misinformation and censorship. Finding the right balance between promoting diverse viewpoints and protecting against harmful content is a ongoing challenge, but one that is essential for maintaining a healthy and democratic society. In a recent conversation between Arnold Kling and Russ Roberts, the topic of censorship, misinformation, and noble lies was discussed in great detail. Kling and Roberts delved into the dangers of giving too much power to a single entity or individual to decide what information is true or false, highlighting the risks of corruption and unethical behavior that can arise from such authority.

Kling and Roberts both expressed skepticism towards the idea of having a single person or entity act as a censor, with Kling emphasizing the potential for both unwise and immoral decision-making in such a scenario. They raised concerns about the susceptibility of individuals to corruption and the dangers of concentrating too much power in the hands of a select few.

The conversation then shifted towards the handling of information during the COVID-19 pandemic, with Roberts pointing out what he perceived as missteps in controlling information about the virus and its impact. He highlighted instances where dissenting views or alternative perspectives were suppressed or censored, leading to a lack of transparency and accountability in decision-making.

Kling offered insights into the motivations behind such censorship, suggesting that factors such as the desire to maintain status, protect grant funding, or quell conspiracy theories could influence the suppression of certain narratives. He argued that the reluctance to admit mistakes or acknowledge alternative viewpoints may stem from a need to uphold professional reputation and credibility.

Roberts echoed these sentiments, referencing the concept of noble lies where individuals may convince themselves that withholding the truth is necessary for a greater good. He emphasized the complexity of human nature and the tendency to rationalize decisions that may compromise honesty or transparency.

Overall, the conversation between Kling and Roberts shed light on the challenges of navigating information dissemination, censorship, and ethical decision-making in a rapidly evolving digital landscape. It served as a reminder of the importance of critical thinking, transparency, and accountability in shaping public discourse and policy. In a recent conversation between Arnold Kling and Russ Roberts, the topic of noble lies and self-interested motives was discussed. The conversation revolved around the idea that individuals often convince themselves that their noble reasons are the driving force behind their beliefs and actions, when in reality, it is their self-interested motives that play a significant role.

Kling used the example of the bootlegger and Baptist problem to illustrate this point. The bootlegger and Baptist problem refers to a situation where two seemingly opposing groups, Baptists who are against drinking on Sunday for religious reasons and bootleggers who profit from selling illegal liquor, come together for a common goal. Politicians mention the Baptists to gain support, while taking money from the bootleggers behind the scenes.

This concept can be applied to individuals as well, as they often hold views based on a mix of noble reasons and self-interest. Kling highlighted the importance of honesty and humility in this context, noting that those who are trustworthy and honest tend to possess a great deal of humility. He praised writer Megan McArdle for her honesty and humility in her writing, contrasting it with individuals who suppress information for personal gain.

Roberts added to the discussion by suggesting that individuals who have spent a long career in positions of power, such as politicians or bureaucrats, may struggle with admitting mistakes due to the survival game they have to play. The need to rise in the ranks and maintain power can lead to a lack of honesty and humility.

Kling further elaborated on the idea that organizations tend to select for individuals who may lack honesty and humility, leading to a deterioration in certain fields. He pointed out that academia has shifted from a prestige hierarchy to a dominance hierarchy, where power and coercion play a significant role.

The conversation touched on the increase in funding and power in academic and research institutions, which may have contributed to the shift towards a dominance hierarchy. The emphasis on fundraising and grant acquisition has led to a focus on power and manipulation, rather than the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

Overall, the discussion shed light on the complex interplay between noble lies, self-interested motives, honesty, and humility in shaping individual beliefs and actions. It serves as a reminder to reflect on our own motives and be mindful of the influence of power and self-interest in decision-making processes. The landscape of academia has shifted drastically in recent years, with the disparity in salaries between faculty members reaching new heights. Gone are the days when the highest paid faculty member made only a fraction more than the lowest paid. Now, superstar faculty members are making hundreds of thousands of dollars, creating a competitive and ruthless atmosphere that prioritizes gaming the system over pursuing truth.

In a conversation between Arnold Kling and Russ Roberts, the two delve into the implications of this salary divide on the academic environment. Kling argues that the shift in incentives has led to a selection process that favors individuals who are skilled at gaming the system rather than those who are passionate about their work. This has created a breeding ground for academic fraud and misconduct, as the pressure to succeed and climb the tenure ladder intensifies.

The conversation also touches on the flaws of the peer review process, which has been romanticized but is not always effective in determining the validity of research. With the increased value placed on publishing in prestigious journals, the focus has shifted from pursuing truth to simply getting published by any means necessary. This shift has led to a rise in academic fraud and a decline in the quality of research being produced.

Kling’s book, “The Three Languages of Politics,” is brought into the discussion as a framework for understanding the tribalism and division that has permeated academia. The book outlines how different political tribes claim ownership over certain narratives, demonizing those who disagree with them. This tribalistic thinking has seeped into the academic world, creating an environment where individuals are more focused on advancing their own agendas than on pursuing knowledge and truth.

Overall, the increasing salary divide in academia has had far-reaching consequences, reshaping the landscape of higher education and changing the incentives for faculty members. As the pressure to succeed and compete grows, the pursuit of truth and knowledge becomes secondary to the pursuit of status and financial gain. This shift has profound implications for the future of academia and the integrity of research being produced. A month or two ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech to Congress that sparked controversy and debate. During the speech, Netanyahu used the framing of civilization versus barbarism within the first minute of his address. This framing set the tone for his speech and highlighted the deep-rooted tensions and conflicts in the region.

In a recent discussion between economist Russ Roberts and author Arnold Kling, they revisited Kling’s book that was originally released in 2013. The book delves into the dynamics of political discourse and how individuals tend to view issues through the lens of oppressor versus oppressed. This framework has become increasingly mainstream and is now a common perspective in today’s political landscape.

Kling’s book highlights the idea that individuals often see the world through their own paradigm, leading to a lack of understanding or acceptance of opposing viewpoints. This narrow focus can make it difficult for people to engage in meaningful conversations with those who hold different beliefs.

One particular issue that has become a focal point of contention is the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. This complex and nuanced issue has been reduced to a binary perspective, with individuals aligning themselves either with Israel or Palestine. This narrow viewpoint has led to heightened tensions and polarization on the topic, making it challenging for meaningful dialogue to take place.

Kling’s book emphasizes the importance of understanding different perspectives and recognizing the limitations of one’s own viewpoint. By acknowledging the diversity of opinions and engaging in open-minded discussions, individuals can work towards finding common ground and fostering mutual understanding.

In conclusion, the conversation between Roberts and Kling sheds light on the challenges of political discourse and the need for empathy and open-mindedness in engaging with differing viewpoints. By taking a step back and considering the impact of our words and actions, we can strive to bridge the divides that separate us and work towards building a more inclusive and harmonious society. In a recent conversation between Russ Roberts and Arnold Kling, they delved into the purpose of writing op-eds, tweets, and other forms of punditry. They discussed whether the goal should be to change minds, open them up, or find the truth. Kling pointed out that in many cases, these forms of communication actually serve to close minds rather than open them.

Kling highlighted the concept of orthogonality, which refers to the incompatibility or unrelatedness of different axes that people use to view the world. For example, progressives may not be receptive to arguments framed in terms of civilization versus barbarism because it does not align with the framework they use to analyze issues.

Roberts added that this phenomenon helps explain intersectionality, where people’s views on one issue are indicative of their views on all issues. This allows individuals to maintain tribal alignment and avoid cognitive dissonance by fitting everything into a single lens.

The conversation then turned to the complexities faced by progressive Jews who are also Zionistic. Kling noted that resolving conflicts between different tribal loyalties can be challenging and that people often try to avoid such conflicts by keeping everything within one lens.

Roberts shared an anecdote about a friend who had shifted politically due to concerns about rising anti-Semitism and threats to their community in Israel. He emphasized that when one’s life or the lives of their loved ones are at risk, certain axes, such as civilization versus barbarism, become more compelling.

The discussion concluded with Roberts expressing concern about the influence of social media in reinforcing people’s existing beliefs and closing their minds to opposing views. He warned that the current political climate, exacerbated by social media, could lead to increasingly divisive and nasty election cycles in the future.

Overall, the conversation between Roberts and Kling shed light on the complexities of tribal loyalties, cognitive frameworks, and the role of communication in shaping beliefs and attitudes. It serves as a reminder of the importance of critical thinking, humility, and openness to differing perspectives in a polarized world. When Arnold Kling discussed the idea of everyone learning Buddhism in order to better navigate social media, it sparked an interesting conversation. He emphasized the importance of detaching oneself from immediate desires and reactions when consuming social media content. Kling pointed out that much of what we see on social media is designed to grab our attention and evoke strong emotions, whether it’s fear, anger, or excitement.

By approaching social media with a more detached mindset, we can better understand the underlying motives behind the headlines and posts that we encounter. Instead of reacting impulsively, Kling suggested that we should ask ourselves what these messages are trying to achieve and how they are attempting to manipulate our emotions. This level of awareness and mindfulness can help us resist the urge to be constantly swayed by sensationalized content.

While Kling acknowledged that his proposal for everyone to learn Buddhism might not be a practical solution, the underlying message is clear. In a world where social media is pervasive and often overwhelming, developing a sense of detachment and critical thinking is crucial. Rather than being passive consumers of information, we should strive to be more mindful and discerning in our interactions online.

In conclusion, Kling’s insights on the intersection of Buddhism and social media offer a thought-provoking perspective on how we can navigate the digital landscape more effectively. By cultivating a sense of detachment and awareness, we can better protect ourselves from being constantly bombarded by sensationalized content and misinformation. It may not be a perfect solution, but it’s certainly a step in the right direction towards creating a more balanced and mindful online experience.