Pragmatism and Wicked Problems

On the Ezra Klein podcast, he and Jon Haidt got into an interesting discussion about activism. Klein believes that it is important to talk about topics that make people uncomfortable in order to bring about change.

Klein says: “Confrontation is unpopular, and often necessary, in part to get people to see things they don’t want to see.”

Haidt believes that this tends to push people away and civility is more important. He talks about "wicked problems."

"The conditions for solving a wicked problem are: you have to have people who see it from multiple perspectives," Haidt says.

It reminded me of the Conflict vs. Mistake Theories post, in which Scott Alexander describes mistake theorists who view society as a diseased patient and we're all doctors trying to diagnose it, inviting different perspectives to solve the problem.

It also reminded me of the two political campaign strategies: double down on your base and turn out non voters vs. broaden your appeal and swing moderate voters.

Scott Alexander explores this in Part I of The Toxoplasma of Rage. PETA doubles down, makes people uncomfortable and, as a result, gets their message out at the cost of everyone hating them. On the other hand, Vegan Outreach is much more civil but no one has heard of them.

When Michael Collins negotiated the independence of Ireland, he conceded the territory of Northern Ireland to remain a British colony. He received backlash from De Valera who thought he should have dug his heels in and taken an all- or- nothing approach. Was he right?

All of these dichotomies can also be described as thus: self righteousness vs. pragmatism. The thing about pragmatists (or centrists or mistake theorists) is that they are never completely convinced they are right; always open to the possibility of changing their mind. That's why they believe in inviting multiple perspectives.

Activists like Klein have no patience for civility; they are so convinced they are right and anyone who isn't with them is ignorant and needs to be forcefully educated (made woke), or is evil and needs to be viciously fought.

For a while I believed that my way of thinking (pragmatism/mistake theory) was better. But I've come to realize it's a contradiction. I'm essentially telling the activists "I'm right and you're wrong for thinking 'I'm right and you're wrong.'" In this case, I'm actually not inviting their perspective and being open to changing my mind.

In all likelihood, there are instances in which digging in one's heels and refusing to engage with one's enemy is probably the better strategy.