The AI analysis is interesting and I will learn about the limitations of AI from it. But you lose me here:
“Until Democrats recognize that presenting complex social and political realities as unquestionable certainties, they will continue to lose voters who might otherwise be open to engaging with their ideas.”
A couple of things. Do you hold the same standards for the GOP? In fact, isn’t it the GOP is filling the info ears unquestionable lies as opposed to most DEMS who are actually using historical facts to demonstrate the reality of institutional racism?
Do you really think that the trump cultist voters are really interested in engaging in truth as they applaud trumps violent obscene rhetoric.TRUMP debated Harris once and said Haitians are eating pets. How or even why do you engage with this?
The problem goes back to the educational system that continues to promote the cultural American LIE that WHITE CHRISTIAN MEN are superior. The question is can the Dems develop leaders that will admit this and confront it. We are not exceptional but anchored by our inequities and oppression. If we don’t change this and just keep normalizing Trumpism: first the fascists will come for the LGBTQ. Then they will pick off the next small vulnerable group.
You seem pretty certain Stan. And have adopted the means of attributing to other’s opinions ignorance, stupidity and malice. Very intentional and evil malice.
There’s a nice video up of Redstone presenting her Certainty Trap hypothesis at UMASS Amherst. The audience seemed to agree with her premise, adding that it’s the responsibility of white males to engage to remediate their certainty flaws.
Redstone wasn’t saying “they” are trapped by “their” certainty, she was saying “we” are trapped by “our” certainty. As she largely works in a liberal professional environment, her message is largely heard by other liberal professionals, who are certain of progressive ends.
As today’s progressive have moved left of yesterday’s, they are losing their base as a striking rate. But asking political extremes to self-reflect can be fruitless.
Hi! I'm new here! I don't understand the link you make between our education system and the results an AI bot will give. Certainly I can see the ties to cultural mechanisms, including social media and internet publications, at work here, but how do you demonstrate that it's our education system reflected in the AI results.
Hi Gwen, I don't know how deep a dive you feel like doing here. You might be interested in The Certainty Trap book (or, frankly, even just the free sample that's on Amazon). The point isn't that an AI's response should be taken as gospel. I've been writing about these patterns for a long time. It's more that it was reflected back to me so pointedly.
So... just to make sure I understand the argument:
1) Our educational system has taught generations of students things that are to be accepted as true. These include statements <A>, <B> .... <N>
2) An AI, given, say "<A> is true", reaches conclusions that strongly condemn people who in any way appear to question the veracity of <A>
3) People who are condemned for merely appearing to question the veracity of <A> are likely offended and angered by those who condemn them. And eventually simply ignore them.
4) We divide into 2 camps: Those who believe <A> and everyone else (by virtue of being condemned by the first group).
Makes sense to me. (I decided sometime ago that the word "racist" lost the moral weight it once had due to it's widespread over-use)
And there's probably a number of people who believe <A> and <B>, but not <C> who give loud support to <A> and <B> and are silent about <C>. In fact, fear of being "outed" about <C> may make them the loudest defenders of <A> and <B>.
I'd suggest that, in most cases, questioning <Statement-A> is a *virtue*. Not in all cases. But it's "certainly" (there's that word!) how Western Civ got where it is. Starting with Socrates.
As an old woman who doesn’t know much about AI, but couldn’t quite “nail down” what we may or may not be telling ourselves-this was fascinating. Thank you.
AIs responses to your questions read like statements from activists and leftists quoted in the NYT. While the sheer volume of left-leaning mainstream media sources overwhelms the right-leaning sources, both may contain similar content wrt answer to your questions. AI isn’t an Oracle of Truth - just a smart mirror, reflecting “us”. Certainty was plentiful before 5Nov, but now certainty has fragmented on the election outcomes.
Totally fair. It's not an Oracle. And these are patterns I've been writing about for a long time. I was, however, surprised to see it come back to me in this form.
Hi Jody. The point is the link between certainty and judgment. The statements "I'm sure that gender is a spectrum" and "I don't judge people who see things differently" are actually contradictory. I know those are my words, not yours, but hopefully the distinction is useful. In other words, if I genuinely believe that reasonable people might disagree (on this or any other issue), then I'm not really 100% certain, by definition. And if I'm certain, then reasonable people can't disagree. It's the certainty that has become pervasive, not the possibility of one idea or another.
The AI analysis is interesting and I will learn about the limitations of AI from it. But you lose me here:
“Until Democrats recognize that presenting complex social and political realities as unquestionable certainties, they will continue to lose voters who might otherwise be open to engaging with their ideas.”
A couple of things. Do you hold the same standards for the GOP? In fact, isn’t it the GOP is filling the info ears unquestionable lies as opposed to most DEMS who are actually using historical facts to demonstrate the reality of institutional racism?
Do you really think that the trump cultist voters are really interested in engaging in truth as they applaud trumps violent obscene rhetoric.TRUMP debated Harris once and said Haitians are eating pets. How or even why do you engage with this?
The problem goes back to the educational system that continues to promote the cultural American LIE that WHITE CHRISTIAN MEN are superior. The question is can the Dems develop leaders that will admit this and confront it. We are not exceptional but anchored by our inequities and oppression. If we don’t change this and just keep normalizing Trumpism: first the fascists will come for the LGBTQ. Then they will pick off the next small vulnerable group.
Thanks
Stan
You seem pretty certain Stan. And have adopted the means of attributing to other’s opinions ignorance, stupidity and malice. Very intentional and evil malice.
There’s a nice video up of Redstone presenting her Certainty Trap hypothesis at UMASS Amherst. The audience seemed to agree with her premise, adding that it’s the responsibility of white males to engage to remediate their certainty flaws.
Redstone wasn’t saying “they” are trapped by “their” certainty, she was saying “we” are trapped by “our” certainty. As she largely works in a liberal professional environment, her message is largely heard by other liberal professionals, who are certain of progressive ends.
As today’s progressive have moved left of yesterday’s, they are losing their base as a striking rate. But asking political extremes to self-reflect can be fruitless.
What happens when Claude views the Republican take on these subjects?
- "Inequalities in education, wealth, and health are due to individual behavior"
- "Biology determines gender"
- "Gender is binary"
- "Hamas is a terrorist organization that should be destroyed"
Does moral certainty in the other direction reveal similar results?
I love your question. Here's what Claude spit back. Fascinating.
"Inequalities are due to individual behavior":
Poor people are lazy and deserve their circumstances.
Disadvantaged groups lack work ethic or personal responsibility.
Systemic factors and historical context are irrelevant excuses.
"Biology determines gender":
Trans and non-binary people are delusional or mentally ill.
Gender identity beyond biological sex is invalid.
People challenging this view are science deniers.
"Gender is binary":
Non-binary people are confused or seeking attention.
Cultural traditions with third genders are primitive.
Gender fluidity is a modern corruption of natural order.
"Hamas must be destroyed":
All Palestinians share responsibility for terrorism.
Critics of military action are terrorist sympathizers.
Complex regional history and civilian impacts are irrelevant.
Hi! I'm new here! I don't understand the link you make between our education system and the results an AI bot will give. Certainly I can see the ties to cultural mechanisms, including social media and internet publications, at work here, but how do you demonstrate that it's our education system reflected in the AI results.
Hi Gwen, I don't know how deep a dive you feel like doing here. You might be interested in The Certainty Trap book (or, frankly, even just the free sample that's on Amazon). The point isn't that an AI's response should be taken as gospel. I've been writing about these patterns for a long time. It's more that it was reflected back to me so pointedly.
So... just to make sure I understand the argument:
1) Our educational system has taught generations of students things that are to be accepted as true. These include statements <A>, <B> .... <N>
2) An AI, given, say "<A> is true", reaches conclusions that strongly condemn people who in any way appear to question the veracity of <A>
3) People who are condemned for merely appearing to question the veracity of <A> are likely offended and angered by those who condemn them. And eventually simply ignore them.
4) We divide into 2 camps: Those who believe <A> and everyone else (by virtue of being condemned by the first group).
Makes sense to me. (I decided sometime ago that the word "racist" lost the moral weight it once had due to it's widespread over-use)
And there's probably a number of people who believe <A> and <B>, but not <C> who give loud support to <A> and <B> and are silent about <C>. In fact, fear of being "outed" about <C> may make them the loudest defenders of <A> and <B>.
I'd suggest that, in most cases, questioning <Statement-A> is a *virtue*. Not in all cases. But it's "certainly" (there's that word!) how Western Civ got where it is. Starting with Socrates.
Interesting. Thank you!
As an old woman who doesn’t know much about AI, but couldn’t quite “nail down” what we may or may not be telling ourselves-this was fascinating. Thank you.
AIs responses to your questions read like statements from activists and leftists quoted in the NYT. While the sheer volume of left-leaning mainstream media sources overwhelms the right-leaning sources, both may contain similar content wrt answer to your questions. AI isn’t an Oracle of Truth - just a smart mirror, reflecting “us”. Certainty was plentiful before 5Nov, but now certainty has fragmented on the election outcomes.
Totally fair. It's not an Oracle. And these are patterns I've been writing about for a long time. I was, however, surprised to see it come back to me in this form.
I am confused by this.
Just because we might be willing to accept something as true, such as:
"Gender is a spectrum,"
That doesn't mean I see "Anyone who sees gender as binary is promoting hate." or that
"Those who use traditional pronouns enable oppression." Nor did I see that in my news feeds/ media.
I and most people I know who voted for Harris use traditional pronouns. AI is offering extreme views, not common ones, I don't think.
I can't say I agree to this being a pattern. At least not from anyone I know.
Hi Jody. The point is the link between certainty and judgment. The statements "I'm sure that gender is a spectrum" and "I don't judge people who see things differently" are actually contradictory. I know those are my words, not yours, but hopefully the distinction is useful. In other words, if I genuinely believe that reasonable people might disagree (on this or any other issue), then I'm not really 100% certain, by definition. And if I'm certain, then reasonable people can't disagree. It's the certainty that has become pervasive, not the possibility of one idea or another.
Hmmm. Interesting.