Skip to main content


Y'know how "#realist" became a synonym for "#asshole?" As in, "I'm not a racist, I'm just a #RaceRealist?" That "realism" is also used to discredit the idea of democracy, among a group of self-styled "#LibertarianElitists," who claim that social science proves that democracy doesn't work - and can't work.

-

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read/share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

pluralistic.net/2023/05/04/ana…

1/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/2

You've likely encountered elements of this ideology in the wild. Perhaps you've heard about how our #CognitiveBiases make us incapable of deliberating, that "reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth. Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments."

2/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/3

Or maybe you've heard that voters are "#RationallyIgnorant," choosing not to become informed about politics because their vote doesn't have enough influence to justify the cognitive expenditure of figuring out how to cast it.

There's the #BackfireEffect, the idea that rational argument doesn't make us change our minds, but rather, drives us to double-down on our own cherished beliefs.

3/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/4

As if that wasn't bad enough, there's the #Asch effect, which says that we will change our minds based on pressure from the majority, even if we know they're wrong.

Finally, there's the fact that the public Just Doesn't Understand Economics. When you compare the views of the average person to the views of the average PhD economist, you find that the public sharply disagrees with such obvious truths as "we should only worry about how big the pie is, not how big my slice is?"

4/

#asch
in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/5

These fools just can't understand that an economy where their boss gets richer and they get poorer is a good economy, so long as it's growing overall!

That's why noted "realist" #PeterThiel thinks women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Thiel says that mothers are apt to sideline the "science" of economics for the soppy, sentimental idea that children shouldn't starve to death.

5/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/6

That leads to votes for politicians who are willing to tax rich people. Thus do we find ourselves on #TheRoadToSerfdom:

cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/pe…

Other realists go even further, suggesting that anyone who disagrees with orthodox (#ChicagoSchool) economists shouldn't be allowed to vote: "[a]nyone who opposes surge pricing should be disenfranchised. That’s how we should decide who decides in epistocracy."

6/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/7

Add it all up and you get the various "libertarian" cases for abolishing democracy. Some of these libertarian elitists want to replace democracy with markets, because "markets impose an effective 'user fee' for irrationality that is absent from democracy.

7/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/8

Others say we should limit voting to "Vulcans" who can pass a knowledge test about the views of neoclassical economists, and if this means that fewer Black people and women are eligible to vote because either condition is "negatively correlated" with familiarity with "politics," then so mote be it. After all, these groups are "much more likely than others to be mistaken about what they really need":

bleedingheartlibertarians.com/…

8/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/9

These arguments and some of their most gaping errors are rehearsed in an excellent *Democracy Journal* article by @henryfarrell, #HugoMercier, and #MelissaSchwartzberg (Mercier's research is often misinterpreted and misquoted by libertarian elitists to bolster their position):

democracyjournal.org/magazine/…

9/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/10

The article is a companion piece to a new academic article in *#AmericanPoliticalScienceReview*, where the authors propose a new subdiscipline of #PoliticalScience, #AnalyticalDemocracyTheory:

cambridge.org/core/journals/am…

What's "Analytical Democracy Theory?" It's the systematic study of when and how collective decision-making works, and when it goes wrong.

10/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/11

Because the libertarian elitists aren't completely, utterly wrong - there *are* times when groups of people make bad decisions. From that crumb of truth, the libertarian elitists theorize an entire nihilistic cake in which self-governance is impossible and where we fools and sentimentalists must be subjugated to the will of our intellectual betters, for our own good.

This isn't the first time libertarian political scientists have pulled this trick.

11/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/12

You've probably heard of the "#TragedyOfTheCommons," which claims to be a "realist" account of what happens when people try to share something - a park, a beach, a forest - without anyone owning it. According to the "tragedy," these commons are inevitably ruined by "rational" actors who know that if they don't overgraze, pollute or despoil, someone else will, so they might as well get there first.

12/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/13

The Tragedy of the Commons feels right, and we've all experienced some version of it - the messy kitchen at your office or student house-share, the litter in the park, etc. But the paper that brought us the idea of the Tragedy of the Commons, published in 1968 by #GarrettHardin in *Science*, was a hoax:

memex.craphound.com/2019/10/01…

13/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/14

Hardin didn't just claim that some commons turned tragic - he claimed that the tragedy was *inevitable*, and, moreover, that *every commons* had experienced a tragedy. But Hardin made it all up. It wasn't true. What's more, Hardin - an ardent #WhiteNationalist - used his "realist's account of the commons to justify colonization and genocide.

14/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/15

After all, if the people who lived in these colonized places didn't have property rights to keep their commons from tragifying, then those commons were already doomed. The colonizers who seized their lands and murdered the people they found there were actually *saving* the colonized from their own tragedies.

15/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/16

Hardin went on to pioneer the idea of #LifeboatEthics, a greased slide to mass-extermination of "inferior" people (Hardin was also a #eugenicist) in order to save our planet from "overpopulation."

Hardin's flawed account of the commons is a sterling example of the problem with #economism, the ideology that underpins neoclassical economics:

pluralistic.net/2022/10/27/eco…

16/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/17

Economism was summed up in by Ely Devons who quipped ""If economists wished to study the horse, they wouldn’t go and look at horses. They’d sit in their studies and say to themselves, ‘What would I do if I were a horse?’"

Hardin asked himself "If I were reliant upon a commons, what would I do?" And, being a realist (that is, an asshole), Hardin decided that he would steal everything from the commons because that's what the other realists would do if he didn't get there first.

17/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/18

Hardin didn't go and look at a commons. But someone else did.

#ElinorOstrom won the Nobel for her work studying the properties of successful, durable commons. She went and looked at commons:

onthecommons.org/magazine/elin…

Ostom codified the circumstances, mechanisms and principles that distinguished successful commons from failed commons.

18/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/19

Analytical Democratic Theory proposes doing for democratic deliberation what Ostrom did for commons: to create an empirical account of the methods, arrangements, circumstances and systems that produce good group reasoning, and avoid the pitfalls that lead to bad group reasoning. The economists' term for this is #microfoundations: the close study of interaction among individuals, which then produces a "macro" account of how to structure whole societies.

19/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/20

Here are some examples of how microfoundations can answer some very big questions:

* Backfire effects: The original backfire effect research was a fluke. It turns out that in most cases, people who are presented with well-sourced facts and good arguments change their minds - but not always.

link.springer.com/article/10.1…

20/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/21

* Rational ignorance: Contrary to the predictions of "rational ignorance" theory, people who care about specific issues become "#IssuePublics" who are *incredibly* knowledgeable about it, and deeply investigate and respond to candidates' positions:

tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.108…

Rational ignorance is a mirage, caused by giving people questionnaires about politics *in general*, rather than the politics that affects them directly and personally.

21/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/22

* #Myside bias: Even when people strongly identify with a group, they are capable of filtering out "erroneous messages" that come from that group if they get good, contradictory evidence:

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?is…

22/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/23

* Majority bias: People are capable of rejecting the consensus of majorities, when the majority view is implausible, or when the majority is small, or when the majority is not perceived as benevolent. The Asch effect is "folklore": yes, people may *say* that they hold a majority view when they face social sanction for rejecting it, but that doesn't mean they've changed their minds:

alexandercoppock.com/guess_cop…

23/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/24

Notwithstanding all this, democracy's cheerleaders have some major gaps in the evidence to support their own view. Analytical Democratic Theory needs to investigate the nuts-and-bolts of when deliberation works and when it fails, including the tradeoffs between:

* "social comfort and comfort in expressing dissent":

sci-hub.se/10.1016/S0065-2601(…

* "shared common ground and some measure of preexisting disagreement":

sci-hub.st/10.1037/0022-3514.9…

24/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/25

* "group size and the need to represent diversity":

nicolas.claidiere.fr/wp-conten…

* "pressures for conformity and concerns for epistemic reputation":

academic.oup.com/princeton-sch…

Realism is a demand dressed up as an observation. Realists like #MargaretThatcher insisted "#ThereIsNoAlternative" to #neoliberalism, but what she meant was "stop trying to think of an alternative."

25/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/26

Hardin didn't just claim that some commons turned tragic, he claimed that the tragedy of the commons was inevitable - that we shouldn't even bother trying to create #PublicGoods.

The Ostrom method - actually studying how something works, rather than asking yourself how it would work if everyone thought like you - is a powerful tonic to this, but it's not the only one.

26/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/27

One of the things that makes #ScienceFiction so powerful is its ability to ask how a system would work under some different social arrangement.

It's a radical proposition. Don't just ask what the gadget does: ask who it does it *for* and who it does it *to*. That's the foundation of #Luddism, which is smeared as a technophobic rejection of technology, but which was only ever a social rejection of the specific economic arrangements of that technology.

27/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/28

Specifically, the Luddites rejected the idea that machines should be "so easy a child could use them" in order to kidnap children from orphanages and working them to death at those machines:

pluralistic.net/2023/03/20/lov…

There are sf writers who are making enormous strides in imagining how deliberative tools could enable new democratic institutions. @r_emrys's stunning 2022 novel "A Half-Built Garden" is a tour-de-force:

pluralistic.net/2022/07/26/ais…

28/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/eof

I like to think that I make a small contribution here, too. My next novel, "The Lost Cause," is at root a tale of competing group decision-making methodologies, between post-Green New Deal repair collectives, seafaring anarcho-capitalist techno-solutionists, and terrorizing white nationalist militias (it's out in November):

us.macmillan.com/books/9781250…

eof/

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/27
Isn't science fiction acting here more like Economism than Ostromism? It's someone just asking themselves, "If I lived in this universe, what would I do?"
in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/26
Cory, much better and eaiser to read @pluristic.net (hope I got this correct)
in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/25
"Stop trying to think" is absolutely the underlying credo of the "debate me!" libertarian. There's a reason the whole conservative movement is actively trying to destroy education...other than the fact they can profit on the way. The flat-circle logic of "I believe I hold well-reasoned beliefs, therefore any argument against them is unreasonable, therefore anyone who argues is unreasonable, and any education informing that argument is unreasonable and etc., etc."

Cory Doctorow reshared this.

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/18
Hardin apparently didn't read Polanyi, either. In "The Great Transformation" Polanyi recounts how market economy was birthed rather painfully and artificially by forcefully limiting the commons in order to enable the rich to extract more for themselves. Commons didn't fail in Tudor-era England because it was somehow untenable in itself, it failed because was deliberately destroyed.
in reply to Cory Doctorow

Long thread/10
oh rad! if I ever go back to school this is exactly what I want to study, and now I know the name of the subfield to watch for! THANKS
in reply to Cory Doctorow

I kind of hate how those people ahistorically co-opted 'realism' and used the term that way. Same with 'rationalism'.

Realism and rationalism are mental tools intended to divorce your thinking from your prejudices and let you make decisions based on the actual facts before you. Not to buttress your prejudices with rationalizations.

As a result of this doublespeak, anyone who follows the Stoic path becomes suspect for using the terms properly.

in reply to Cory Doctorow

Thanks for this. To be honest, I kept thinking that if one compares this framing and rhetoric to the turn of phrase/ideology of 'gender critical', there are some pretty striking similarities.

Cory Doctorow reshared this.

in reply to Cory Doctorow

@rhiannonrevolts

Yup, I tend to suspect that anyone who needs to double down on 'reality' is trying to force the issue while at the same time baking in their own stipulated assumptions about what *constitutes* reality….

in reply to Cory Doctorow

I grew up in fundamentalism; this is no different than the insistence that their beliefs are “the plain simple text of Scripture” while everyone else’s are suspicious “interpretations.” It’s ideology laundering.
in reply to Eaton

"my interpretation is better than your interpretation."
in reply to Locksmith

@locksmithprime more precisely, “my interpretation is not an interpretation at all, while yours is. I am a ‘default’ and have no need to justify myself”
in reply to Cory Doctorow

Looking forward to "The Lost Cause" as I'm happy to be known as a Luddite.
in reply to Cory Doctorow

Oh yeah, the "I'm just being honest" folks are cut from the same cloth.
Makes about as much sense as saying "well, it's MY truth." Which admits being subjective, but it doesn't sound like it in the moment if you're not listening carefully. It's just a discussion ender.
The way I look at religion, esp Christianity, is there are as many types as there are Christians. Even in the same congregation, you're gonna have differing thoughts & each person will stick to theirs like glue.
in reply to Cory Doctorow

adopting the terms "realist", "rationalist", "skeptic" and other similar terms is a way of preweighting any arguments in your favor.

It was really quite a clever move when it originated, and it's annoyingly effective when people are playing to the audience.

in reply to Cory Doctorow

The problem with "realists" is when they start from a flawed base. Right-libertarians (propertarians) believe that the right to do what they want with property that they own is the key right that all others are derived from. For example, personal freedom exists because they own themselves. From that fallacy, they go sideways from the rest of society.

If you've ever had to talk to a libertarian, and noticed that there was something strange about how they discuss property rights, that's where it's coming from.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properta…