Much ink has been spilled about "polarization." Most of it ignores a major cause: the widespread, misplaced faith that we already know that which we do not know.
I think I see, that when dealing with the big questions of life, most people stop inquiring after they receive an answer that makes them feel good about themselves. However, truth doesn't owe any of us a damned thing. At some point, I decided to pursue truth whether or not it makes me feel good. But those of us with like minds seem to be outliers. Sadly. There is joy in learning.
Thank you for bathing my poor, stressed and battered mind in the warmth of beautiful, insightful writing. I rejoice in the feeling that I know more, but not all, than I did 15 minutes ago.
I fear that this will only get worse in the US in at least the near term. We already had laws that prevented actually studying things (like gun violence) or providing accurate measurements of sea level rise (my home state explicitly set an upper limit on reporting). Now we have Musk and Trump chaotically dismantling our knowledge-seeking departments (CDC, NIH, NOAA, etc), removing data from websites (CDC, NOAA, probably others), and shredding documents that must be retained under the law (USAID). And that's what we know about. This wanton destruction of the country's knowledge base will make it much harder to know things, to say nothing of how hard it will be to counter deliberate lies by the administration.
One thing about our culture, especially online, is that people don't argue or debate to find knowledge or consensus, but merely to "win." That gains one nothing of value.
I suspect that the difference between those who graciously change their minds when they are demonstrably wrong and those who don’t, is something that neuroscience will explain in the, probably distant, future. But of course, I don’t know that.
An important piece. I am an oceanographer, recently retired after 54 years of research and teaching. While my discipline is inherently interdisciplinary, I.ve always studied widely beyond my core interests. The best advice I’ve ever given students was to cultivate their peripheral vision and think broadly about problems. Real world context matters. In my old age my only regret that there isn’t enough time to discover it all. It’s magnificent to have this life. Even Greek theater taught me about living in this fragile world. Thanks.
One thing I think you neglected to cover. You treat Knowingness on the individual level. But Knowingness may be essential for maintaining your position in your "tribe." In a nation as fractured as ours has become, and one that has lost so many of the communal activities that Putnam identified, Knowingness creates a kind of community. Having lost the face to face communities of the past, many are now finding community in the less relational community of Knowingness. Most people I know who have spent their lives volunteering in service communities have less reliance on Knowingness and are more open to realities.
The question I always run into when considering articles like this is, what if I'M the one who is wrong? What if I THINK I know something, but don't really? I have a transgender daughter. I love her and support her and believe that this isn't something she chose, it is an aspect of her that I simply don't understand, so I trust her knowledge of herself. BUT...what if there is a data point out there that proves me wrong but I don't know about it? What if 10 years down the road I learn something new? Let me be clear, loving and accepting her will never be a mistake for me. But when I try to argue for her rights, what if I'm WRONG?
And so on, applied to everything I think I know and disagree with. The DOGE cuts...what if I'm wrong and they turn out to be a good thing, I just can't see it?
Is the quality of "knowingness" at all dynamic or contextual? Do we all shut off various aspects of our intellectual curiosity when we are stressed or suffering some other sort of disequilibrium, real or perceived? (I.e., is there a "knowingness spectrum"?) Does the choice to shut off eventually cease to become a choice after it's made so many times, as with alcoholism? I've run into truly non-curious individuals, and they absolutely fascinate me. I feel like all children come into the world with this gift, right? So what happens? And now, I'm off to find your latest in The Atlantic. Thank you as always for your writing.
The political and cultural right in the US has consistently preferred lies to truth, and angrily rejected attempts to set them straight. The classic case, going back to the 1980s was the Proctor and Gamble satanic panic, spread almost entirely by word of mouth (relying on the pre-Internet form of social network created by Amway) https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/procter-gamble-satan-conspiracy-theory
I think I see, that when dealing with the big questions of life, most people stop inquiring after they receive an answer that makes them feel good about themselves. However, truth doesn't owe any of us a damned thing. At some point, I decided to pursue truth whether or not it makes me feel good. But those of us with like minds seem to be outliers. Sadly. There is joy in learning.
Thank you for bathing my poor, stressed and battered mind in the warmth of beautiful, insightful writing. I rejoice in the feeling that I know more, but not all, than I did 15 minutes ago.
I fear that this will only get worse in the US in at least the near term. We already had laws that prevented actually studying things (like gun violence) or providing accurate measurements of sea level rise (my home state explicitly set an upper limit on reporting). Now we have Musk and Trump chaotically dismantling our knowledge-seeking departments (CDC, NIH, NOAA, etc), removing data from websites (CDC, NOAA, probably others), and shredding documents that must be retained under the law (USAID). And that's what we know about. This wanton destruction of the country's knowledge base will make it much harder to know things, to say nothing of how hard it will be to counter deliberate lies by the administration.
One thing about our culture, especially online, is that people don't argue or debate to find knowledge or consensus, but merely to "win." That gains one nothing of value.
Yes, exactly this.
For those of you who follow Brian, heads up on his new piece in The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/doge-musk-catastrophic-risk/682011/
That was a fantastic piece. The saddest part is that it needed to be said at all.
Susan, his piece landed right after I saw this…https://substack.com/@marlonweems/note/c-99468362?r=4445c&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action.
utterly amazing.
Sharp as ever.
I suspect that the difference between those who graciously change their minds when they are demonstrably wrong and those who don’t, is something that neuroscience will explain in the, probably distant, future. But of course, I don’t know that.
Brian
An important piece. I am an oceanographer, recently retired after 54 years of research and teaching. While my discipline is inherently interdisciplinary, I.ve always studied widely beyond my core interests. The best advice I’ve ever given students was to cultivate their peripheral vision and think broadly about problems. Real world context matters. In my old age my only regret that there isn’t enough time to discover it all. It’s magnificent to have this life. Even Greek theater taught me about living in this fragile world. Thanks.
Dennis Taylor
One thing I think you neglected to cover. You treat Knowingness on the individual level. But Knowingness may be essential for maintaining your position in your "tribe." In a nation as fractured as ours has become, and one that has lost so many of the communal activities that Putnam identified, Knowingness creates a kind of community. Having lost the face to face communities of the past, many are now finding community in the less relational community of Knowingness. Most people I know who have spent their lives volunteering in service communities have less reliance on Knowingness and are more open to realities.
I think that’s definitely true - and it also relates to my essay on Granfalloon Politics! https://www.forkingpaths.co/p/the-rise-of-granfalloon-politics
A great synthesis. Thanks Dr Klaas.
The question I always run into when considering articles like this is, what if I'M the one who is wrong? What if I THINK I know something, but don't really? I have a transgender daughter. I love her and support her and believe that this isn't something she chose, it is an aspect of her that I simply don't understand, so I trust her knowledge of herself. BUT...what if there is a data point out there that proves me wrong but I don't know about it? What if 10 years down the road I learn something new? Let me be clear, loving and accepting her will never be a mistake for me. But when I try to argue for her rights, what if I'm WRONG?
And so on, applied to everything I think I know and disagree with. The DOGE cuts...what if I'm wrong and they turn out to be a good thing, I just can't see it?
Knowingness...meet overthinking.
Is the quality of "knowingness" at all dynamic or contextual? Do we all shut off various aspects of our intellectual curiosity when we are stressed or suffering some other sort of disequilibrium, real or perceived? (I.e., is there a "knowingness spectrum"?) Does the choice to shut off eventually cease to become a choice after it's made so many times, as with alcoholism? I've run into truly non-curious individuals, and they absolutely fascinate me. I feel like all children come into the world with this gift, right? So what happens? And now, I'm off to find your latest in The Atlantic. Thank you as always for your writing.
Beautifully written.
Such an on-point article about the various spheres of information consumption and curiosity in the US. Thank you, Dr. Klass.
excellent, brian. thank you.
Brian, thank you. I will be paying this one forward as far and wide as I can. Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.
The political and cultural right in the US has consistently preferred lies to truth, and angrily rejected attempts to set them straight. The classic case, going back to the 1980s was the Proctor and Gamble satanic panic, spread almost entirely by word of mouth (relying on the pre-Internet form of social network created by Amway) https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/procter-gamble-satan-conspiracy-theory
More here
https://johnquiggin.com/2019/01/27/fake-news-the-medium-is-not-the-message/