Read on Twitter
Tragedy of the epistemic commons: A pseudo-problem? (
of 28)
Ben Williams is concerned about the impact of ignorance on democracy. He describes a paradox between maintaining convenient false ideas versus accepting inconvenient knowledge as the tragedy of the epistemic commons.
of 28)Ben Williams is concerned about the impact of ignorance on democracy. He describes a paradox between maintaining convenient false ideas versus accepting inconvenient knowledge as the tragedy of the epistemic commons.
I will reframe the problem in the hope it reveals a solution to the tragedy of the epistemic commons. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2021/01/13/to-communicate-scientific-research-we-need-to-confront-motivated-ignorance/
Williams suggests two useful categories of ignorance.
1) People may be uninformed because they are uninterested in a subject area.
1) People may be uninformed because they are uninterested in a subject area.
2) People may be misinformed due to selfish personal reasons or due to social incentives. This category is sometimes referred to as tribalism. He calls it rational motivated ignorance.
Williams frames the problem of becoming correctly informed as one of overcoming costs to remaining misinformed.
Williams rightly suggests the solution to ignorance "must be targeted towards interests and incentives" (a paraphrasing), but I say it is misleading to present the problem as one of overcoming costs. Rather, it is a problem of resolving conflicts between ideas one cares about.
And if we look at the problem in this this way, it becomes clear what interests and incentives must be targeted.
I guess Williams' mistake arises from assuming the perspective of a social engineer wanting to make the world right, rather than taking the perspective of an individual person acting in the world.
The second category of ignorance, referred to as misinformation, can only be seen as ignorance from an outside standpoint, by someone who knows better. One who "suffers" this kind of rationally motivated ignorance is not misinformed about situation.
On the contrary, they sometimes attest they know better than the so-called informed or enlightened view. Or at least, and importantly, they have reasons not to accept that view.
Let me explain. One who is misinformed, rather than uninformed, does not choose to remain misinformed by refusing to accept knowledge because it arouses an uncomfortable feeling.
When a person does not accept new knowledge, it is because it is presented to them in a way that they see conflicts with their existing knowledge that they care about
When they cannot see how to resolve those conflicts, they do not accept the new knowledge. That is what causes the uncomfortable feeling, the experience of conflict between ideas.
Whether it is a tension between valuing personal freedom versus complying with orders to lock-down, or whether it is aversion to a proposed solution to climate change which conflicts with ideas about economics, ...
these conflicts must be resolved satisfactorily before one will accept the "correct information".
Where the knowledge in conflict involves "socially adaptive beliefs", this does make it more difficult for people, but not in the way Williams imagines. People cannot help but adopt the better knowledge if and when they resolve their conflicts.
How that influences their behavior amongst their social group varies according to their individual personality. Some may leave the tribe. Some may even become hostile toward it.
Others may teach and evangelize from within the tribe, sharing how they came to resolve the conflicts between ideas. Whilst others may keep their head down and remain quiet about their "heresy".
So, how does one resolve these conflicts? Or as Williams would like to know, how does the social engineer help someone resolve these conflicts?
The follow stages must occur. How they occur is a separate matter.
Firstly, one must be interested. One must be at least curious or concerned that there might be a real unresolved problem worthy of concern.
Firstly, one must be interested. One must be at least curious or concerned that there might be a real unresolved problem worthy of concern.
Secondly, one must understand what the problem and the solution options and evaluate each with respect to everything else one knows and cares about.
Thirdly, if and when one discovers a conflict between any of this and what one already knows and cares about, one must search for what can be modified or replaced to resolve the conflict, whilst still solving all the problems of interest.
And I mean all problems of interest, not only the novel problem, all problems that one cares about. That may well mean discarding an already known explanation for a better one. It might mean replacing several.
Do you see the magnitude of this task!? We should however remain optimistic, because this is how our minds work. This is how we learn, deeply learn. This is what we must do every time we creatively solve a problem.
Do you see the magnitude of this task!? We should however remain optimistic, because this is how our minds work. This is how we learn, deeply learn. This is what we must do every time we creatively solve a problem.
But this doesn't yet satisfy the social engineer. What can they do to influence, persuade, teach, to solve society's evils?
I think the best way is to engage in interesting conversations. With as many people with varied backgrounds and perspectives as you can. To explore the objections, implications, and sub-problems.
To maintain a fallible attitude, to make yourself vulnerable to seeing you are mistaken in some ways. To remove the errors from your arguments. To be interesting and fun and kind and respectful.
This is how you help people resolve conflicts in their ideas about what is and what should be.
This is why the tragedy of the epistemic commons is a pseudo-problem.
/end
This is why the tragedy of the epistemic commons is a pseudo-problem.
/end
h/t: thank you @olliewaters for sharing the article.
