I've argued many times that constructing a gratifying self-image has replace wanting to know the truth as the ultimate priority for adults in our society. Instead of arriving at conclusions after careful evaluation of competing arguments and evidence, most people simply adopt prepackaged conclusions that are marketed to them as the correct opinions to hold.
If you want your perception of the world to accurately reflect what's really going on out there, but you are aware of the power of mass media and ubiquitous digital technology to persuade and shape attitudes, you will be motivated to question and scrutinize the torrent of information that is projected at us 24/7. Putting in that effort is the only chance you have of sifting truth from propaganda.
If your priority is social validation then you won't bother with any of that. You will simply scan the culture for attitudes associated with virtue and right-thinking and you will adopt them as your own deeply held convictions. The appeal of this approach is obvious: You get to assume your own moral excellence and the infallible correctness of your opinions without actually having to do anything to cultivate those qualities.
These two priorities are starkly distinct and they're pretty easy to spot. The person who has put the time and effort into developing his own point of view has that legacy of critical examination to call upon in support his of position. He has examined position A. He has examined position B. And he can tell you what's wrong with B and why he believes A is superior.
The person who has simply made himself a vehicle for the socially sanctioned attitude can repeat the talking points embedded in the narrative to justify the conclusion. But these are merely free-floating concepts that have been memorized and parroted when required. When the generic talking points are challenged he has to fall back on his own reasoning to justify his position. And more often than not, that's when he'll tell you that adopting the status quo position simply makes him a better person than you.
And that's what it's ultimately all about folks.
You see this pattern with every dominant, overarching cultural narrative - whether it's Donald Trump, or BLM, or climate change, or feminism, or the transgender issue and now with COVID-19. It goes something like this: 1. People will adopt and represent the popular narrative as the only plausible perspective to hold, 2. They will justify that position by parroting generic talking points as if they are expressing their own insights, and 3. They will characterize your refusal to affirm their views as moral inferiority.
These are people who are not driven by a desire to know the truth. They are driven by a desire to think of themselves as morally excellent and enlightened. And they believe identifying with the popular opinion conveys those virtues to them. The truth or falsity of the proposition is never tested. It never even comes up. It's simply assumed to be true if it's considered at all.
The interaction below is a good illustration of this phenomenon.
The Globe and Mail article is one of those emotionally manipulative pieces pushed out by the media on a regular basis. The messaging is that you're supposed to blame Albertans and their 'apathy' towards surrendering their civil liberties for the work-related stress experienced by nurses. Basically it's meant to bypass reason and shame the public into unquestioning compliance.
Coincidentally, I came across a video made by an Albertan nurse just prior to seeing this article. In the video she categorically disputes the narrative being pushed by the media and health bureaucrats. I quoted her and pasted a link to the video as counterbalance to the messaging in the article. Notice how commentator Cheryl responds to someone presenting evidence and argument that challenges the official narrative: She scolds me for "posting this crap" and pronounces that anyone who do such a thing is a very bad person.
Comments