Mental Models Face Coronavirus

It's been a rough month for populist conservatives.  Boris Johnson has the coronavirus.  Donald Trump is flailing.  Although Trump's popularity is doing well in polls, he continues to take a beating in the mainstream media and his leadership with regard to the pandemic has been incoherent.

• $2 Trillion Coronavirus Relief Bill Presents A Reckoning For Libertarians
• Trump’s Break With China Has Deadly Consequences

We all have our mental models of how the world works:

The fact is that people often cannot handle the truth.  This is neither good nor bad, but a fact of human nature.  The condition is known as epistemic learned helplessness.  This means that we tend not to go along with weird theories, even if the person propounding a theory seems to have logical arguments.  Most often, we do not have enough knowledge ourselves, in the specific domain under discussion, to argue with the proponent of the weird theory.  But we know that the theory is not backed by the experts we trust, that we do not have enough time to become experts ourselves, and that weird theories are often used to fool or cheat us into doing something we shouldn't.

With regard to contemporary politics, there are 4 prevalent mental models as I show in my diagram Political / Economic Quadrants.  Though we all tend to see ourselves in one of the quadrants, I believe there are underlying principles with merit in each of the quadrants; i.e. liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist.  I think we need to look toward socialism at the present time, and I think the liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism are to some extent weird theories -- implausible models of how the world works.  Others look at socialism as a weird model.

Most of us interpret the coronavirus pandemic in the context of one of these four mental models.  Our natural tendency is to:

• Find validation for our mental model in the way events unfold.
• Avoid thinking about unpleasant ways in which our model does not fit with the way events have unfolded.

This is natural.  A social model is a big part of one's identity.  We can't afford to casually toss it overboard, and if it's working then we are due increased status in the community because we have demonstrated that we know what's right for the community.  The temptation is to blame others or to withdraw from the debate.  The former may be justified.  The latter may be prudent as one digests developments.

I think this is where we are societally at the moment -- angry and/or confused.  Liberals and socialists are angry at the conservatives and libertarians.  We believe that conservatives and, especially, libertarians have brought us to this dystopia.  Conservatives and libertarians are confused, as the pandemic has forced them to rethink their America first model.  Some are angry, lashing out at China in an attempt to vindicate their flawed mental model.  Other conservatives are even more angry at the libertarians, although they have already been angry in this regard since Trump came to power as a populist outsider.

Of course, socialists such as myself remain angry at liberals, and vice versa.  My view is that the liberals have increasingly adopted the right wing xenophobia, with regard to countries such as Russia and Venezuela.  And the reaction to the virus has proven that the issue of how to pay for sensible programs such as single payer, universal health care is misguided.  Money can be and is created out of thin air when necessary.

Liberals, on the other hand, see vindication of their anyone but Trump ideology, pointing again and again to the failures of his administration and him personally in handling the situation.

While acknowledging that the political battles are valid and necessary, I think it is also helpful to step back and consider the larger forces at work.

• The unipolar world of the U.S. led liberal-conservative empire continues to unravel.
• China and Russia have been successful in their defiance.
• The empire is deeply divided against itself.
• Liberal-conservative capitalism is proving inadequate to address 21st century problems.

Of course, as a socialist, I would say these things which support my worldview.  

I want to reiterate what I said earlier:  I believe there are underlying principles with merit in each of the quadrants; i.e. liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist.  Liberals want to reinforce good behavior, and discourage bad behavior.  Conservatives want to maintain societal order, without which we will perish individually.  Libertarians abhor groupthink, and stand up for the rights of individuals and minorities.  Socialist want justice and greater equality for humans.  These are all valid to a certain extent.

So we must limit broad name calling and focus on more specific points in seeking to achieve a viable meeting of the minds.  Here are some ways in which this can work during the current upheaval:

• We should cooperate with China and other countries in dealing with the coronavirus.
• Demonizing China has been factually incorrect and counterproductive.
• Demonizing other countries including Russia, Venezuela, Syria, and Iran has been factually incorrect and counterproductive.
• We need more and better public health.
• The U.S. has an overly complicated patchwork of medical insurance plans which provides inadequate care at an exorbitant cost.
• We can do more to combat climate change and deal with technology run amok.
• Government has the power to save corporations.  Government should also have the power to regulate corporations in the public interest.
• There is much waste in society that can be eliminated.  For example, many people can work from home, saving energy.  We can change dramatically without losing our lives and our values.

By focusing on more detailed issues and avoiding name calling, we stand a better chance of a finding common ground.  Respecting each other's mental models is part of understanding the enemy, which is crucial to winning the war.

Complexity v Coherence

I'm formulating a new rule for technology and scholarship in general.  It's something along the lines of "If something doesn't make sense after you've made a good faith attempt to understand it, it's probably wrong".  This probably applies to traditional religion, conventional wisdom regarding money, and quantum computing.

Liberalism

Following up on my last post, it seems that many politically prominent "liberals" are demagogues.

I’ve been a proud liberal my entire life, but these days I’m not sure that always a good thing. It (the value of liberalism) depends upon the specifics (details) of a particular issue, and also on how liberalism is defined. Liberalism is opposed to conservatism. Sometimes it’s good to be conservative — with regard to the environment for example.

Of course, most prominent American political "conservatives" haven't been in favor of environmental conservation in recent decades.  Liberals and conservatives became two political tribes with policy positions divorced from supposed underlying principles.  Nevertheless, economic liberalism supports global capitalist preeminence as opposed to economic conservatism which has favored restrictions on the emerging capitalists (bourgeoisie).  Thus, the Economist is a liberal magazine, while the Soviet Union was more conservative economically.  Labels are generally used to demonize those in opposing tribes, but there are competing principles which underlie the varying labels, and the principles are all worthy of respect, in my opinion.

Also, elitism is sometimes conflated with liberalism, in my view.  Back in the day, Christian was the equivalent of Liberal today.  Demagogues such as the seemingly liberal John Calvin would enforce their conventional views by calling their populist rivals heretics.  Similarly, the Democratic presidential candidates lined up to call Bernie Sanders a dangerous socialist who had once said something complimentary about Cuba under Castro. 

During the inquisition, political leaders across Europe denounced Jews, pagans, and Muslims as heretics.  In retrospect, we see this as bad.  But at the time, it was beyond the pale, so to speak, to defend these heathens and heretics.  Thus, today, Tulsi Gabbard is beyond the pale when she questions the U.S. role in Syria vis a vis that of Assad and Syria.  Supporting Trump with regard to the Russiagate investigation is likewise beyond the pale for liberals.  And God forbid that anyone should favor more socialism or have ever spoken positively with regard to Communist countries or leaders.  

I see political landscape in 4 quadrants -- Political / Economic Quadrants -- and I see some merit in each of the 4 labels; i.e. liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist.  I'm not in favor of using these as epithets and judging people by how they self-identify.  Details and circumstances vary and matter.