Freedom House (FH) is a non-profit organization that was founded in 1941, with Wendell Willkie and Eleanor Roosevelt serving as its first honorary chairpersons. Best known for political advocacy surrounding issues of democracy, political freedom, and human rights, the organization's annual Freedom in the World report assesses the political rights and civil liberties of countries and territories around the world.
In prepping for this series on social justice, I came across a great meta-analysis on the research and theory of "relative deprivation", which the authors define as "the judgment that one is worse off compared to some standard accompanied by feelings of anger and resentment" (Smith, Pettigrew et al, 2011, p 203)
It's no accident that political arguments about social justice tend to focus on the role of hard work versus luck. For instance, in a recent Pew Research Survey, 73 % of Solid Liberals agreed that “hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people”, compared to 4% of Core Conservatives. That's a huge difference. No wonder the partisan divide has turned into a chasm. The disagreements are on so many levels: bickering turtles all the way down.
So how does this all connect with the psychology of social justice? Mainly to show that there is no "natural" response to status differences and inequality. Whether we respond with resentment, depression, fear, stress, envy, anger, indignation, admiration, aesthetic pleasure, or even happiness at another's good fortune...all depends.
Hmmm. There is a general drift downward since around the Great Recession, although confidence in small business didn’t fall until the pandemic crash. Confidence in big business took a hit after the 2001 dot-com recession, after which it remained fairly flat until 2018 when it fell further. Confidence in the presidency plunged during the second Bush II term, recovered and then fell again during the Obama years, actually going up during Trump, and falling once again with Biden. Congress hit a high point circa 2003-2004 (I’m guessing before disillusion with US wars set in) and basically hasn’t recovered since. As for confidence in higher education, the trend is obvious and rather alarming.
Mmm…pretty steady in the confidence department until around 2017, then a downward trend, accelerating since 2020. I put the “civil unrest” lines in the chart to see if confidence in police dipped after periods of anti-police civil unrest. No pattern there until 2020, when high confidence responses dipped 5 points over the period of 2020 - 2023.
Since 2012, the US violent crime rate has fluctuated a bit, but it’s still higher than in 1960, when the violent crime rate was 161 crimes per 100,000 population, compared to a rate of 381 per 100,000 in 2022 (the most recent year available).
There actually have been people and movements that were more broadly antiscience than today’s this-or-that skeptics: what we used to call “new age” types, e.g., members of religious cults and believers in the occult. In his oft-cited 1993 book Science and Anti-Science, Gerald Holton mentions “interest in astrology” as indicative of antiscience beliefs, as least as “conventionally” understood (his word).
Our brains run simulations, the better to survive and reproduce. Simulations don't have to be rational; they just need to be possible. Or possibly possible…Beliefs aren't either/or propositions; they are points along a continuum of felt credibility.
So the author defines antiscience as the rejection of mainstream scientific views and their replacement with unproven or deliberately misleading theories. What does that even mean? Science is a process that moves forward by questioning received wisdom. Does “rejection” encompass doubt or criticism? At what point would a theory be considered “proven”? . And why all the ad hominen verbiage (“deliberating misleading”, “nefarious”)? Can’t people just disagree without being accused of bad faith?
The inspiration for this post came from reading a bunch of articles on how to combat “antiscience”. Each one cautioned against trying to reason or debate scientific issues with people who hold antiscience views. Rather, one should try to relate to their emotions and social needs, e.g., be warm, tell stories, find common ground, establish a connection. Above all, don’t acknowledge their ideas have any merit.
And I thought: don’t any of these authors know about the “persuasive backfire effect”? Here’s a brief review…
“Antiscience is a set of attitudes that involve a rejection of science and the scientific method. People holding antiscientific views do not accept science as an objective method that can generate universal knowledge...Lack of trust in science has been linked to the promotion of political extremism and distrust in medical treatments…for some, rejecting scientific consensus or public health guidance serves as an expression of political allegiance or skepticism towards perceived authority figures.” Wikipedia
Hmm…
“Science is broadly understood as collecting, analyzing, publishing, reanalyzing, critiquing, and reusing data.” Wikipedia,
In other words, science is a process. More specifically, science is a self-correcting process for deepening our understanding of the world. It is a process that comes with safeguards to minimize error. Data is the direct outcome of that process.
“For context, the U.S. debt is rising by $1 trillion every 100 days, and neither leading presidential candidate seems focused on tackling the issue this election cycle. ‘Neither is talking about fiscal rectitude and [Trump] is actually talking about extending tax cuts,’ said David Page, head of macroeconomic research at Axa Investment Managers.” - Caleb Naysmith/Yahoo!Finance, April 3, 2024
What would you consider the “science” in these scenarios? What science would you trust? What leads you to trust one science claim and not another? If the credibility of the source, how do you determine the credibility of a source? …
“During the COVID-19 pandemic, Sweden was among the few countries that did not enforce strict lockdown measures but instead relied more on voluntary and sustainable mitigation recommendations. While supported by the majority of Swedes, this approach faced rapid and continuous criticism. Unfortunately, the respectful debate centered around scientific evidence often gave way to mudslinging. However, the available data on excess all-cause mortality rates indicate that Sweden experienced fewer deaths per population unit during the pandemic (2020–2022) than most high-income countries and was comparable to neighboring Nordic countries through the pandemic. An open, objective scientific dialogue is essential for learning and preparing for future outbreaks.” - The Swedish COVID-19 approach: a scientific dialogue on mitigation policies, Björkman et al, 2023
This all seems so counterintuitive. You don’t die of Covid unless you are infected with Covid, so why wouldn’t there be an association between infection and death rates?
“It is an increasingly familiar experience. A request for help to a large language model such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT is promptly met by a response that is confident, coherent and just plain wrong. In an AI model, such tendencies are usually described as hallucinations. A more informal word exists, however: these are the qualities of a great bullshitter… The fundamental problem is that language models are probabilistic, while truth is not.” - AI models make stuff up. How can hallucinations be controlled? The Economist February 28, 2024
A sense of panic rarely leads to thoughtful planning. More often panic leads to bad policies, rushed implementation, poor outcomes, and political backlash. Better to tread carefully and self-correct as necessary.
So what does that mean for humans and the planet? Some predictions: unpredictable weather, extreme heatwaves, heat stressed cities, increased wildfires, severe droughts, water scarcity, increased frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy rain and flooding, loss of species/mass extinctions, deforestation, lower crop yields, reduced food security, and widespread economic hardship. These problems will vary by region and local preparedness. Worst off will be countries that lack the resources or political will to build resilience and adapt to the coming onslaught of troubles…What to do?