Best of 2018

In no particular order, these are the best essays/blog posts I read in 2018.

Conflict Theory vs. Mistake Theory, by Scott Alexander.
The entire Slate Star Codex post is long but worthwhile. However, I'll use David Brooks to sum it up:

"Mistake theorists believe that the world is complicated and most of our troubles are caused by error and incompetence, not by malice or evil intent...Basically, we’re all physicians standing over a patient with a very complex condition and we’re trying to collectively figure out what to do. 

In the conflict theorist worldview, most public problems are caused not by errors or complexity, but by malice and oppression. The powerful few keep everyone else down. The solutions to injustice and suffering are simple and obvious: Defeat the powerful."

Complicating the Narrative by Amanda Ripley
A fantastic, long read that builds a roadmap for the future of journalism.

"Journalism has yet to undergo this awakening. We like to think of ourselves as objective seekers of truth. Which is why most of us have simply doubled down in recent years, continuing to do more of the same kind of journalism, despite mounting evidence that we are not having the impact we once had.... If we want to learn the truth, we have to find new ways to listen.

The lesson for journalists (or anyone) working amidst intractable conflict: complicate the narrative. First, complexity leads to a fuller, more accurate story. Secondly, it boosts the odds that your work will matter — particularly if it is about a polarizing issue. When people encounter complexity, they become more curious and less closed off to new information. They listen, in other words."

The Anthropology of Manhood by Sebastian Junger, National Review. I've written about this before and it still holds up well.

The Bulverizing of the American Mind, by Aaron Sibarium, The American Interest. I've mentioned this before as well and come back to it for two reasons. This quote: "Give people too much freedom, and soon they’ll come crawling back to their chains," which reminds me of the paradox of choice in moral terms. And that it introduced me to the term bulverizing, which exposes ad hominem, identity politics arguments for the logical fallacy they are (or am I only saying that because I'm a straight, white, cisgendered man?).

Do the Rich Capture All the Gains from Economic Growth, by Russ Roberts.
Speaking of complicating the narrative, this Medium post by Russ Roberts made me think that maybe income inequality isn't as bad as we think. Make sure you watch the videos too.

A Better Way to Look at Most Every Political Issue by Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic. Talk about nuance. His focus on "limits and equilibrium" reminds me of my post about viewing topics as trying to minimize false positives or false negatives.

"Most political stances can be understood in terms of an equilibrium. For instance, some people might believe that access to abortion in a conservative state is too restricted under the status quo, and favor relaxing the rules regulating abortion clinics. That is, they might favor shifting the equilibrium in a “pro-choice” direction.

But ask those same voters, "Should there be any limits on legal abortion?" and they might declare that the procedure should be banned in the last trimester of pregnancy unless the mother's health is threatened. Insofar as the abortion debate is framed around the equilibrium, they will align with the pro-choice movement; but insofar as it is framed around limits, they will align with the pro-life movement."

Libertarian Paternalism

I often read thought-provoking books that get deep into the "what is wrong with modern society" discussion. I enjoy them, but their next-step conclusions often leave me underwhelmed.

They amount to things like "people just need to understand that..." or "we need a public discussion about..." and other pie-in-the-sky proclamations that will never fucking happen. There just aren't enough people who are going to make serious enough changes in their lives to have an impact.

For example, I truly believe if everyone read The Righteous Mind, the world would be a better place. At the very least, we would fight less, understand more, and tone down our self-righteousness. But I'm grounded enough to know that most people are not going to read that book.

I keep coming back to one of Jonathan Haidt's essays, which he opens by talking about how the cosmic settings of the universe are tweaked just so, allowing for the possibility of life. He then relates how our founders searched for the same fine tuning to establish a Republic that would work.

Maybe Richard Thaler and Cass Sustein's concept of libertarian paternalism would do a better job of fine tuning the settings to improve society.

We all know that social media is bad for us, but we lack the self-restraint to do anything about it. What if a community decided to shut off internet access every Sunday, but allowed people to fill out an opt-out form if they didn't want to be included.

Or each Sunday, designate several streets closed to traffic. Pedestrian only. Let kids play in the street without fear and encourage them to get outside, play, interact, and develop their social skills--something our schools no longer allow them to do.

For problems like rampage shootings, defraying social trust, addiction, depression, and suicide, maybe tackling them head on is the wrong approach. It might be better to attack the conditions that cause them: isolation, technology/social media, and hyper individualism. These causal problems are better addressed by looking at changes to their environment than trying to educate individuals and expecting them to change themselves.

I've lost some interest in Better Angels because I don't think it's sustainable. You get a few reds and blues in a room, they talk it out, and and feel more comfortable around those they met in the workshop. I don't see that reverberating throughout the community.

But if you invest in social infrastructure that gets parents talking to each other in social spaces, gets kids making friends in unstructured, unsupervised play, rally everyone together around a virual bowling league at the library or a Friday night football game, you might not need to worry about convincing people that reds and blues are actually normal people just like you. You'll already be identifying them first as friends and neighbors than by political ideology.

And the more reason you give people to leave their home, the less lonely and at-risk for depression, suicide, and anti-social behavior they will become.

American mythology

I'm reading Sapiens and learned something fascinating. Several similar species lived alongside homo sapiens at the same time. One of our distinguishing characteristics was the ability to tell fiction.

Most tribes, of all sapiens, couldn't grow by much more than 150 people without destabilizing. At that point it took a belief in the same story to get a large group of people to work together. That is how we got spirit animals, Greek Gods, contemporary religion, and patriotism.

One of the problems with America is that there are two competing fictions about our identity.

One says that we created a system based on freedom, pluralism, checks and balances, and a refuge to people seeking a better life and economic opportunity. This produced the longest lasting government in world history and the most powerful country ever.

The other fiction says that colonizers came here and wiped out native americans while stealing their land. They imported African slaves and made mint off their backs. All progress is from from slavery and thievery. We are the products of mass murderers who used their power to oppress women and minorities and continue to do so today.

The problem is that, hyperbole aside, both stories are true. But if we don't find a fiction we agree on, this isn't going to last.