I was really looking forward to this interview/topic. As a scientist (hard science not the squishy sciences :) ) I’ve been trained in my whole career to try to examine my belief in any conclusion as contingent. In other words, have a level of confidence but never certainty and be willing to change that confidence based on new information. I agree with the guest that more people should embrace the idea that, whatever their belief is, there is room for uncertainty in that belief.
Unfortunately the guest made for a very hard interview because she almost never finished a sentence. Her stream of thought was so disorganized that if I wasn’t predisposed to want to hear what Meghan had to say I would have given up after the first 15 minutes.
This interview was both interesting but also a bit frustrating for the reasons articulated here. It did make me want to go through the list of things I regard as "certain" and assign a confidence level to each of them -- this is a good exercise.
Re: "I don't know" -- this phrase is a hot button for me -- these are THE THREE WORDS (alternatively, "we don't know") that I want to hear more often from politicians, scientists, journalists, and anybody else who is "certain". I totally get that it's hard to do this, but, I've much more respect for people willing to say this in public. Just one example - public health departments across the country have done untold harm to their reputations with their certainty about what should be done to respond to covid.
A related phrase I like: "there are no solutions, only tradeoffs". Instead of your certainty, discuss the tradeoffs, and let people make up their own decisions about what makes sense for them.
I've been writing so long that I still find myself editing poorly written books in my head as I read them. Sometimes, the writing is so bad that I just give up on trying to read them altogether.
It's rare that I edit a podcast in my mind. I lasted 12 minutes on this one. She lost me shortly after "whatever the other sort of reasons are that people have."
"For whatever reason" would have worked just fine.
Also, as you've said, her chain of thought was disorganized.
The notion of uncertainty as a good thing has been a cornerstone of Western liberal thought and literature going back to Montaigne. Many of our leaders in politics, academia and the media have abandoned it because there were rewards for doing so. It's not the easy path and it doesn't pay. You have to think, see things from multiple perspectives, be willing to change your mind and defend that change. This is where it gets uncomfortable, especially online where nuanced conversation is pretty impossible. But it is the path away from certainty and towards confidence that your guest advocates.
Uncertainty isn't being taught as a laudable value. Young people are encouraged to develop hardened simplistic points of view, followed by demonization of the other, especially to build their profiles on social media. Good to hear that your guest is asking students at the university level to question all this. We need more.
She's right to say we've lost public trust in most institutions—many of us have the sense that our government and media think we're stupid, given their mishandling of so many issues and so much news.
I was a bit annoyed with the guest's somewhat choppy and scattered delivery as well.
I found her totally unconvincing, and will not adopt her model. My real-life 45-year model has worked for me - I have lost no friends in this polarized age, and have, in fact, gained many on the right - which is to remain certain of my the beliefs that I am, in fact, certain of. There is no reason to use "confidence" as - in reality - you can have great discussions with folks who are certain of the opposite. But, one can be kind, open to listening, look for common ground, acknowledge things that are true in their position, probe where they might have doubts (and visa versa), etc and have lovely discussions. As I mentioned on the hang-out, I've been an atheist since I was four and am certain of this belief. To wit: there is no Christian (Jewish or Muslim) model of God. (I profess uncertainty if there is a "Star Wars" sort of Force.) But I have dozens of friends who are certain I am wrong. We talk about it, we debate, we probe - and we love each other because we know that we are both good and kind human beings wanting the best for everyone in the world. We can live with each other's certainty and not be at war. So, I think changing language isn't the thing that will work - but the approach to other human beings with different views is THE crucial element. You can use the word "confidence" all you want - but it your approach is wrong, you will get no where.
I enjoyed the discussion. I agree about being young and how that fosters certainty which is really ignorance in disguise. Like Meghan said: Only life experience changes this. There’s a fatal flaw with the guest’s ideas though, at least as it pertains to our contemporary moment: in order to think this way you have to THINK to begin with...and that’s what we’ve basically lost with the young generations. They aren’t interested in thinking or understanding another person’s perspective; they’re interested in being right and proving the ‘other side’ is wrong/immoral/evil. It’s become a linguistic cognitive game wherein the young lefties have solved the moral Rubix cube and everyone else is a moral cripple. (Is that ‘ableist’ to say?) It’s the new religion. Social media worsens the problem and expands the notion of certainty. I think two things create certainty: Youth and/or ignorance. Reading serious books is very rare for the young nowadays, sadly. Literature has been replaced by social media, the obsession with devices; the attention-economy has soiled serious journalism. Critical thinking is a thing of the past, so 2012. I genuinely wonder if a generation or two are simply sort of ruined. Maybe the kids after Gen Z will rise up and push back like the Boomers did against their Depression-era parents, or like Old millennials and young Gen Z did against their Boomer parents. (Millennials are my generation.)
I do think it’s fantastic that there’s a legitimate institution in academia where they’re encouraging viewpoint-diversity. I found it fascinating and hopeful that students grasped a difference between their personal success versus a media narrative they’ve inherited. For example, a young non-white student might realize he succeeded because he studied harder and longer and cared more about school than some of his friends. It wasn’t racism that held his friends back, it was a lack of motivation. Now, a deeper question is: Where does that lack of motivation come from? Or where does the student’s motivation come from? Different parenting? Single mother versus two parents? Domestic violence? Poverty? Then you might ask: Does domestic violence solely occur in non-white homes? Etc.
It’s a very important topic: The more certain people are, the more suspicious it should seem. As Meghan said: The older you get the less certain most of us become, because we grasp (from cold hard experience) that just about everything in life is more complicated if you dig even an inch beneath the pretty narrative surface.
I was really looking forward to this interview/topic. As a scientist (hard science not the squishy sciences :) ) I’ve been trained in my whole career to try to examine my belief in any conclusion as contingent. In other words, have a level of confidence but never certainty and be willing to change that confidence based on new information. I agree with the guest that more people should embrace the idea that, whatever their belief is, there is room for uncertainty in that belief.
Unfortunately the guest made for a very hard interview because she almost never finished a sentence. Her stream of thought was so disorganized that if I wasn’t predisposed to want to hear what Meghan had to say I would have given up after the first 15 minutes.
This interview was both interesting but also a bit frustrating for the reasons articulated here. It did make me want to go through the list of things I regard as "certain" and assign a confidence level to each of them -- this is a good exercise.
Re: "I don't know" -- this phrase is a hot button for me -- these are THE THREE WORDS (alternatively, "we don't know") that I want to hear more often from politicians, scientists, journalists, and anybody else who is "certain". I totally get that it's hard to do this, but, I've much more respect for people willing to say this in public. Just one example - public health departments across the country have done untold harm to their reputations with their certainty about what should be done to respond to covid.
A related phrase I like: "there are no solutions, only tradeoffs". Instead of your certainty, discuss the tradeoffs, and let people make up their own decisions about what makes sense for them.
It's a good topic, thank you.
I've been writing so long that I still find myself editing poorly written books in my head as I read them. Sometimes, the writing is so bad that I just give up on trying to read them altogether.
It's rare that I edit a podcast in my mind. I lasted 12 minutes on this one. She lost me shortly after "whatever the other sort of reasons are that people have."
"For whatever reason" would have worked just fine.
Also, as you've said, her chain of thought was disorganized.
The notion of uncertainty as a good thing has been a cornerstone of Western liberal thought and literature going back to Montaigne. Many of our leaders in politics, academia and the media have abandoned it because there were rewards for doing so. It's not the easy path and it doesn't pay. You have to think, see things from multiple perspectives, be willing to change your mind and defend that change. This is where it gets uncomfortable, especially online where nuanced conversation is pretty impossible. But it is the path away from certainty and towards confidence that your guest advocates.
Uncertainty isn't being taught as a laudable value. Young people are encouraged to develop hardened simplistic points of view, followed by demonization of the other, especially to build their profiles on social media. Good to hear that your guest is asking students at the university level to question all this. We need more.
She's right to say we've lost public trust in most institutions—many of us have the sense that our government and media think we're stupid, given their mishandling of so many issues and so much news.
I was a bit annoyed with the guest's somewhat choppy and scattered delivery as well.
Well said Anne :)
I’m only 1/3 of the way through this episode but I can already tell this is going to get a 2nd listen. Great stuff.
I’ve often thought- “I don’t necessarily know the answer to X, but I DO know when I’m hearing a dishonest/bad faith argument for or against it”
I found her totally unconvincing, and will not adopt her model. My real-life 45-year model has worked for me - I have lost no friends in this polarized age, and have, in fact, gained many on the right - which is to remain certain of my the beliefs that I am, in fact, certain of. There is no reason to use "confidence" as - in reality - you can have great discussions with folks who are certain of the opposite. But, one can be kind, open to listening, look for common ground, acknowledge things that are true in their position, probe where they might have doubts (and visa versa), etc and have lovely discussions. As I mentioned on the hang-out, I've been an atheist since I was four and am certain of this belief. To wit: there is no Christian (Jewish or Muslim) model of God. (I profess uncertainty if there is a "Star Wars" sort of Force.) But I have dozens of friends who are certain I am wrong. We talk about it, we debate, we probe - and we love each other because we know that we are both good and kind human beings wanting the best for everyone in the world. We can live with each other's certainty and not be at war. So, I think changing language isn't the thing that will work - but the approach to other human beings with different views is THE crucial element. You can use the word "confidence" all you want - but it your approach is wrong, you will get no where.
I enjoyed the discussion. I agree about being young and how that fosters certainty which is really ignorance in disguise. Like Meghan said: Only life experience changes this. There’s a fatal flaw with the guest’s ideas though, at least as it pertains to our contemporary moment: in order to think this way you have to THINK to begin with...and that’s what we’ve basically lost with the young generations. They aren’t interested in thinking or understanding another person’s perspective; they’re interested in being right and proving the ‘other side’ is wrong/immoral/evil. It’s become a linguistic cognitive game wherein the young lefties have solved the moral Rubix cube and everyone else is a moral cripple. (Is that ‘ableist’ to say?) It’s the new religion. Social media worsens the problem and expands the notion of certainty. I think two things create certainty: Youth and/or ignorance. Reading serious books is very rare for the young nowadays, sadly. Literature has been replaced by social media, the obsession with devices; the attention-economy has soiled serious journalism. Critical thinking is a thing of the past, so 2012. I genuinely wonder if a generation or two are simply sort of ruined. Maybe the kids after Gen Z will rise up and push back like the Boomers did against their Depression-era parents, or like Old millennials and young Gen Z did against their Boomer parents. (Millennials are my generation.)
I do think it’s fantastic that there’s a legitimate institution in academia where they’re encouraging viewpoint-diversity. I found it fascinating and hopeful that students grasped a difference between their personal success versus a media narrative they’ve inherited. For example, a young non-white student might realize he succeeded because he studied harder and longer and cared more about school than some of his friends. It wasn’t racism that held his friends back, it was a lack of motivation. Now, a deeper question is: Where does that lack of motivation come from? Or where does the student’s motivation come from? Different parenting? Single mother versus two parents? Domestic violence? Poverty? Then you might ask: Does domestic violence solely occur in non-white homes? Etc.
It’s a very important topic: The more certain people are, the more suspicious it should seem. As Meghan said: The older you get the less certain most of us become, because we grasp (from cold hard experience) that just about everything in life is more complicated if you dig even an inch beneath the pretty narrative surface.
Michael Mohr
‘Sincere American Writing’
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/
Hey, Mike. It's Mike.
I'm Generation X. And I'm disabled. I rolled my eyes at your "ableist" comment.
“Thinking about shit don’t make it stink less.”
Excerpt From
Remember Who You Want To Be
Michael C. Haymes
This material may be protected by copyright.
Ha--the ‘ableist’ part was in jest 😂
You think I didn't know that? I'm offended! :-P
cf. [hashtag] DisabilityTwitter, and you'll know I never bother with "disability Twitter."