“Humans are, to put it mildly, not entirely rational.” This is my Roman Empire (if I can shamelessly borrow a phrase I learned from TikTok)! Learning about all our cognitive distortions and biases has, at times, led me to wonder if we can ever accurately perceive reality. I appreciate their evolutionary advantages, but they seem mismatched for our current world. An awareness of our brains tendencies towards these biases is an important first step, but monitoring your own thoughts and actions isn’t enough. As a social species, we are heavily influenced by the people around us and as you point out, only being around people who share your views limits our ability to think critically. Hopefully more organizations and institutions take on this model of diversity!
O’Sullivan’s Curse clearly also applies to political parties and the prime example of this is my Democratic Party.
If you have seen my post before just consider it my pamphlet. Thomas Paine printed a hundred thousand copies of his pamphlet Common Sense so many people could be aware of his wisdom. Consider my repeated posts just my way of spreading my wisdom. It would be unpatriotic to believe otherwise. 😎
After the election the Democratic Party (my party) must rethink many of its policies as it ponders its future.
To be entrusted with power again Democrats must start listening to the concerns of the working class for a change. As a lifelong moderate Democrat I share their disdain for many of the insane positions advocated by my party. We are no longer the patriotic, sensible party of FDR and JFK.
Democrat politicians defy biology by believing that men can actually become women and belong in women’s sports, rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons and that children should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
They believe borders should be open to millions of illegals which undermines workers’ wages and the affordability of housing when we can’t house our own citizens.
They discriminate against whites, Asians and men in a futile effort to counter past discrimination against others and undermine our economy by abandoning merit selection of students and employees.
Democratic mayors allow homelessness to destroy our beautiful cities because they won't say no to destructive behavior. No, you can’t camp in our city. No, you can’t shit in our streets. No, you can’t shoot up and leave your used needles everywhere. Many of our prosecutors will not take action against shoplifting unless a $1000 of goods are stolen leading to gangs destroying retail stores. They release criminals without bail to commit more crimes.
The average voter knows this is happening and outright reject our party. Enough.
Thank you for Quoting O'Sullivan's First Law! 🇬🇧🇺🇲⚖️
I have watched it prove true consistently ☑️☑️☑️ since first reading it in NR. The drift 🚽 toward progressive collective do-gooderism is like a gravitational force among the leadership of any institution or organization not specifically organized around & ⚓✍🏼 anchored to conservative principles of Individual Liberty, Private Property and Personal Responsibility based upon real and open honest humility. Hopefully FIRE 🔥 can keep the heat directed toward freedom 🗽📜📯 and open civil discourse.
As an interested observer of FIRE, I would like to point out that FIRE's success at being "nonpartisan" is precisely because it has moved leftward. At its origins, FIRE was perceived as a conservative organization (albeit with strong principles), run by conservative leader David French, that adopted many conservative views (such as refusing to criticize conservative Christian colleges). While FIRE (sadly) still maintains that legacy in its speech code list (with the repressive Christian colleges going "unrated" as a euphemism for the red light they obviously deserve), FIRE has actually shifted its position and now criticizes religious colleges such as Liberty. Under Greg's leadership, FIRE has not been limited by its origins as a conservative organization attacking the left, and while it retains those origins, it is more willing to attack conservative censors. The "curse" of a conservative group moving to the left has been a great blessing for FIRE and the rest of us who benefit from its work.
FIRE’s challenge remains how it intends to avoid the fate of the ACLU. Moving left, with all the cultural support for that leftward drift, is very dangerous for any organization ostensibly committed to a nonpartisan agenda. I wish them luck - they’ll need it.
Good balance. I have to tolerate things and ideas I disagree with in a civil republic. So long as we aren't forcing a 'confessional' regime upon our neighbors.
Organizational 'drift' is a threat to freedom of discussion, employment and opportunity. BIAS stays hungry......
Mr. Lukianoff, thank you for this and yes, group think is not only dangerous to good group thinking but over time it also shrinks the ability of the individual to see outside increasingly narrow blinkers, all while thinking they are correct in their views and analysis. And as the individual goes, so goes the group, ever deeper into darkness, into blindness; unfortunately often into self righteous blindness where prophets, messengers of contrary opinions, are attacked and worse.
I remember way back in business school we studied the difference between the decisions made with two JFK cabinet decisions, the first about the Bay of Pigs and the second about the Cuban Missile Crisis. With the Bay of Pigs, no contrary views were elicited and people indeed self censored themselves for various reasons including all the group belongingness/professional survival reasons you mentioned. Every one appeared to be on the same page. But they weren't and a disastrous decision was made that probably wouldn't have been if contrary views had been elicited. With the second decision there was a concerted effort to draw out contrary views and hallelujah, objectives were achieved, getting Soviet ICBM's out of Cuba and preventing WWIII!
The key piece is elicitation: does the group have as part of its "DNA" the requirement to draw out and seriously consider, with suspended judgement, contrary views?
I think of the Roman Catholic Church's, "Devil's Advocate," who was designated as someone who'd argue against someone's canonization. Or about the Israeli's, "10th Man," who was someone designated to challenge group decisions and thinking. And related to that there is, "Red Teaming," which is a strategy used by militaries, and others, to assure that contrary thinking is indeed elicited.
At the base of these strategies is a 'first principle' decision by the group and the individuals within to pursue truth which itself, this explicit decision, must be elicited, drawn out of everyone in the group. Without such elicitation the chances of providing a rational, educational environment for decision making is significantly hampered, if not completely precluded.
The Israeli "Tenth Man" (Ipcha Mistabra) idea is briefly outlined in the movie, "World War Z," (don't laugh, there's zombies out there hoping you do!). Designed to help decision makers avoid the blindness that produced such 'surprises' as the Yom Kippur War, it appears that the absence of the practice contributed to the blindness of the intelligence agencies that resulted in Oct. 7th.
Check it out:
Should IDF intel. Unit 8200 be blamed for October 7 massacre?
There's much much more out there on this topic (it's a problem rife throughout human history because the problems lies within our nature). See Socrates, The Socratic Method, elenchus and the scientific method ...
Long and short of it, do you seek out and hear what Gadflies have to say? Or do you screen yourself off from them and swat those that are already in your house?
"Why did I get this case wrong? After doing some soul-searching, I realized that it was because I was biased. Firstly, I thought other organizations, especially those who tend to focus more on cases of left-leaning people getting in trouble for speech, would call us hypocrites if we didn't come out strongly in favor of this professor. Second, I myself was critical of the war and could relate to the professor’s sentiments. Because of that, I liked the case and I let my own bias lead me to the wrong decision."
With all respect, even in the prior article in this series, when you made a point of listing many cases where FIRE defended very left wing professors, seems to show that you're still occasionally making this mistake. I support the mission of FIRE, but a review of some of those cases looks more like you've set an informal quota of left wing radicals to defend annually (precisely to maintain a list of counterexamples against left-leaning organizations accusing FIRE of being right-leaning) than that FIRE has been philosophically and legally consistent in applying standards for what cases deserve your support.
Bluntly, you still seem too beholden to what other organizations or leftists will think of you and FIRE. You've put in place mostly effective structural safeguards against openly partisan bias, but it's telling that your primary claim to nonpartisanship is taking cases from both sides. That's not necessarily consistent with your cited "Drive this bus into the wall" philosophy. After all, according to FIRE's own tracking, assaults on Free Speech aren't coming equally from both sides. I'm not so sure that you have likewise guarded against a "reputation over reality" status-preservation bias. If only conservative clients objectively deserved FIRE's aid in a given year because it's only the Left that's legally overreaching (hypothetically), are you really comfortable, or even willing, for FIRE to take only conservative cases for a year? Or would you feel pressured to "counterbalance" by taking some progressive cases even if they were, like the case you just mentioned, well within existing case law as justified? Is the goal to be consistent in applying the same standard to both sides? Or is the goal to maintain your reputation by taking cases from both sides? Because those two goals CAN conflict.
It's a very old philosophical question: Is it better to deserve praise and receive none, or to receive praise and deserve it not? You took a case you shouldn't have because you wanted the praise, though the case didn't deserve it. It looks to me like that's happened more than once since, so just having a mix of viewpoints in the room isn't preventing it. I can maybe chalk that up to "no system implemented by humans is perfect", but I'd really rather have a more concrete guardrail in place against unworthy cases getting FIRE support just because the last few cases taken were on the other side of the aisle and everybody is starting to subconsciously think "we'll be criticized as partisan if we don't take a case from the other side soon".
So does this mean you might choose one qualified candidate over another because their politics were in a certain direction and you wanted more of that side to balance the office? A kind of ideological affirmative action?
The DNC has abandoned the proletariat. They have become a monoculture that doesn't tolerate any disagreement with their Dogmas. It's hard for a rural olde school New Deal southern Democrat to understand any of the 🎓🏳️🌈⚧️ BiCoastal NonSense....
Great stuff Greg. Your work is appreciated along with everyone else at FIRE
“Humans are, to put it mildly, not entirely rational.” This is my Roman Empire (if I can shamelessly borrow a phrase I learned from TikTok)! Learning about all our cognitive distortions and biases has, at times, led me to wonder if we can ever accurately perceive reality. I appreciate their evolutionary advantages, but they seem mismatched for our current world. An awareness of our brains tendencies towards these biases is an important first step, but monitoring your own thoughts and actions isn’t enough. As a social species, we are heavily influenced by the people around us and as you point out, only being around people who share your views limits our ability to think critically. Hopefully more organizations and institutions take on this model of diversity!
O’Sullivan’s Curse clearly also applies to political parties and the prime example of this is my Democratic Party.
If you have seen my post before just consider it my pamphlet. Thomas Paine printed a hundred thousand copies of his pamphlet Common Sense so many people could be aware of his wisdom. Consider my repeated posts just my way of spreading my wisdom. It would be unpatriotic to believe otherwise. 😎
After the election the Democratic Party (my party) must rethink many of its policies as it ponders its future.
To be entrusted with power again Democrats must start listening to the concerns of the working class for a change. As a lifelong moderate Democrat I share their disdain for many of the insane positions advocated by my party. We are no longer the patriotic, sensible party of FDR and JFK.
Democrat politicians defy biology by believing that men can actually become women and belong in women’s sports, rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons and that children should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
They believe borders should be open to millions of illegals which undermines workers’ wages and the affordability of housing when we can’t house our own citizens.
They discriminate against whites, Asians and men in a futile effort to counter past discrimination against others and undermine our economy by abandoning merit selection of students and employees.
Democratic mayors allow homelessness to destroy our beautiful cities because they won't say no to destructive behavior. No, you can’t camp in our city. No, you can’t shit in our streets. No, you can’t shoot up and leave your used needles everywhere. Many of our prosecutors will not take action against shoplifting unless a $1000 of goods are stolen leading to gangs destroying retail stores. They release criminals without bail to commit more crimes.
The average voter knows this is happening and outright reject our party. Enough.
Thank you for Quoting O'Sullivan's First Law! 🇬🇧🇺🇲⚖️
I have watched it prove true consistently ☑️☑️☑️ since first reading it in NR. The drift 🚽 toward progressive collective do-gooderism is like a gravitational force among the leadership of any institution or organization not specifically organized around & ⚓✍🏼 anchored to conservative principles of Individual Liberty, Private Property and Personal Responsibility based upon real and open honest humility. Hopefully FIRE 🔥 can keep the heat directed toward freedom 🗽📜📯 and open civil discourse.
As an interested observer of FIRE, I would like to point out that FIRE's success at being "nonpartisan" is precisely because it has moved leftward. At its origins, FIRE was perceived as a conservative organization (albeit with strong principles), run by conservative leader David French, that adopted many conservative views (such as refusing to criticize conservative Christian colleges). While FIRE (sadly) still maintains that legacy in its speech code list (with the repressive Christian colleges going "unrated" as a euphemism for the red light they obviously deserve), FIRE has actually shifted its position and now criticizes religious colleges such as Liberty. Under Greg's leadership, FIRE has not been limited by its origins as a conservative organization attacking the left, and while it retains those origins, it is more willing to attack conservative censors. The "curse" of a conservative group moving to the left has been a great blessing for FIRE and the rest of us who benefit from its work.
FIRE’s challenge remains how it intends to avoid the fate of the ACLU. Moving left, with all the cultural support for that leftward drift, is very dangerous for any organization ostensibly committed to a nonpartisan agenda. I wish them luck - they’ll need it.
Good balance. I have to tolerate things and ideas I disagree with in a civil republic. So long as we aren't forcing a 'confessional' regime upon our neighbors.
Organizational 'drift' is a threat to freedom of discussion, employment and opportunity. BIAS stays hungry......
Mr. Lukianoff, thank you for this and yes, group think is not only dangerous to good group thinking but over time it also shrinks the ability of the individual to see outside increasingly narrow blinkers, all while thinking they are correct in their views and analysis. And as the individual goes, so goes the group, ever deeper into darkness, into blindness; unfortunately often into self righteous blindness where prophets, messengers of contrary opinions, are attacked and worse.
I remember way back in business school we studied the difference between the decisions made with two JFK cabinet decisions, the first about the Bay of Pigs and the second about the Cuban Missile Crisis. With the Bay of Pigs, no contrary views were elicited and people indeed self censored themselves for various reasons including all the group belongingness/professional survival reasons you mentioned. Every one appeared to be on the same page. But they weren't and a disastrous decision was made that probably wouldn't have been if contrary views had been elicited. With the second decision there was a concerted effort to draw out contrary views and hallelujah, objectives were achieved, getting Soviet ICBM's out of Cuba and preventing WWIII!
The key piece is elicitation: does the group have as part of its "DNA" the requirement to draw out and seriously consider, with suspended judgement, contrary views?
I think of the Roman Catholic Church's, "Devil's Advocate," who was designated as someone who'd argue against someone's canonization. Or about the Israeli's, "10th Man," who was someone designated to challenge group decisions and thinking. And related to that there is, "Red Teaming," which is a strategy used by militaries, and others, to assure that contrary thinking is indeed elicited.
At the base of these strategies is a 'first principle' decision by the group and the individuals within to pursue truth which itself, this explicit decision, must be elicited, drawn out of everyone in the group. Without such elicitation the chances of providing a rational, educational environment for decision making is significantly hampered, if not completely precluded.
The Israeli "Tenth Man" (Ipcha Mistabra) idea is briefly outlined in the movie, "World War Z," (don't laugh, there's zombies out there hoping you do!). Designed to help decision makers avoid the blindness that produced such 'surprises' as the Yom Kippur War, it appears that the absence of the practice contributed to the blindness of the intelligence agencies that resulted in Oct. 7th.
Check it out:
Should IDF intel. Unit 8200 be blamed for October 7 massacre?
https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-791923
A freaky letter linked to off of the above, detailing a message about this very subject TWO WEEKS BEFORE 0CT. 7TH!
https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-788712
Clip from the Movie World War Z, with Brad Pitt!
10th Man Israel's Strategy - World War Z:
https://youtu.be/k25X3KY_m8k?si=zjvyLH03VCbAfDfA
There's much much more out there on this topic (it's a problem rife throughout human history because the problems lies within our nature). See Socrates, The Socratic Method, elenchus and the scientific method ...
Long and short of it, do you seek out and hear what Gadflies have to say? Or do you screen yourself off from them and swat those that are already in your house?
"Why did I get this case wrong? After doing some soul-searching, I realized that it was because I was biased. Firstly, I thought other organizations, especially those who tend to focus more on cases of left-leaning people getting in trouble for speech, would call us hypocrites if we didn't come out strongly in favor of this professor. Second, I myself was critical of the war and could relate to the professor’s sentiments. Because of that, I liked the case and I let my own bias lead me to the wrong decision."
With all respect, even in the prior article in this series, when you made a point of listing many cases where FIRE defended very left wing professors, seems to show that you're still occasionally making this mistake. I support the mission of FIRE, but a review of some of those cases looks more like you've set an informal quota of left wing radicals to defend annually (precisely to maintain a list of counterexamples against left-leaning organizations accusing FIRE of being right-leaning) than that FIRE has been philosophically and legally consistent in applying standards for what cases deserve your support.
Bluntly, you still seem too beholden to what other organizations or leftists will think of you and FIRE. You've put in place mostly effective structural safeguards against openly partisan bias, but it's telling that your primary claim to nonpartisanship is taking cases from both sides. That's not necessarily consistent with your cited "Drive this bus into the wall" philosophy. After all, according to FIRE's own tracking, assaults on Free Speech aren't coming equally from both sides. I'm not so sure that you have likewise guarded against a "reputation over reality" status-preservation bias. If only conservative clients objectively deserved FIRE's aid in a given year because it's only the Left that's legally overreaching (hypothetically), are you really comfortable, or even willing, for FIRE to take only conservative cases for a year? Or would you feel pressured to "counterbalance" by taking some progressive cases even if they were, like the case you just mentioned, well within existing case law as justified? Is the goal to be consistent in applying the same standard to both sides? Or is the goal to maintain your reputation by taking cases from both sides? Because those two goals CAN conflict.
It's a very old philosophical question: Is it better to deserve praise and receive none, or to receive praise and deserve it not? You took a case you shouldn't have because you wanted the praise, though the case didn't deserve it. It looks to me like that's happened more than once since, so just having a mix of viewpoints in the room isn't preventing it. I can maybe chalk that up to "no system implemented by humans is perfect", but I'd really rather have a more concrete guardrail in place against unworthy cases getting FIRE support just because the last few cases taken were on the other side of the aisle and everybody is starting to subconsciously think "we'll be criticized as partisan if we don't take a case from the other side soon".
So does this mean you might choose one qualified candidate over another because their politics were in a certain direction and you wanted more of that side to balance the office? A kind of ideological affirmative action?
The DNC has abandoned the proletariat. They have become a monoculture that doesn't tolerate any disagreement with their Dogmas. It's hard for a rural olde school New Deal southern Democrat to understand any of the 🎓🏳️🌈⚧️ BiCoastal NonSense....