This Is a Good Time to Stop Getting Your Information from Ideological Zealots
Image
All humans are political and ideological. We’re political in the sense that we have beliefs about the groups we’re part of—what those groups ought to have done in the past, ought to do now, ought to do in the future, and what sort of people should lead them. And we certainly have strong views about the groups we’re not part of.
We’re also ideological. Even the most down-to-earth among us hold to some big ideas, reject some big ideas, and look at the world through an ideological set of lenses. People’s worldviews range from highly rational, systematic, and coherent to highly random, chaotic, and contradictory, but we all have them.
And we’ve all got narratives we believe in that both flow out of, and sustain, our political and ideological commitments.
But something’s wrong if we let group identities, dogmas, and stories dominate our thinking to the point that we’re no longer able to recognize bunk (as in balderdash, hooey, flimflam) when it’s being sold to us by those we see as “our own.”
From where I sit, this seems to be a growing problem on “the right” these days. It’s probably an equal or greater problem on “the left,” but we’re primarily responsible for ourselves, and we’re supposed to be better than that.
Zealots and COVID-19
The latest example is the assortment of ill-informed attitudes and claims about COVID-19 I’m seeing echoed by fundamentalists, conservative evangelicals, and not-at-all-Christian folks on the right. I say “echoed,” because they seem to originate from two often-overlapping flavors of political-right media: partisan-right media and conspiracy-right media. I don’t want to get into a tiff about what sources belong under which heading, but the partisan-right media are the ones who are in lock-step with the GOP talking points—which means in lockstep with President Trump’s talking points.
These are the media personalities who were sure COVID-19 was a big politically motivated hoax … until they were sure it wasn’t … until they were sure it was “just overhyped, and we should all get back to work by Easter” … until they were sure that “nothing would be worse than declaring victory before the victory is won.” Their messaging is perfectly synchronous with the White House.
By conspiracy-right sources I mean media personalities who occasionally or constantly trot out a range of anti-mainstream suggestions and claims, usually with bad data and sloppy reasoning for support—if there’s any effort to support it at all. Sometimes its theories of sinister secret machinations, sometimes just dumb (and misleading) comparisons of supposed death rates (COVID-19 vs. flu, COVID-19 vs. lightning, etc.), and the like.
In both cases, what we’re getting is not very good information. One is just GOP propaganda—thoughtless cheerleading for the administration. The other is a weird mix of paranoia, reflexive nonconformity, and cynicism.
Either way, what you get from these sources is advocacy for a group, a leader, a movement, or a mood—not advocacy for truth and solutions to problems. Zealots are loyal to their agenda and truth is only one tool in the box to use, or abuse, in service of that agenda.
Toward Better Sources
It may come as a shock to some, but the majority view isn’t always wrong. There’s a really strong consensus that sunshine is warm, that birds are generally poor swimmers, and that horses don’t have feathers. Contrarianism has gotten so mindless on the right lately, I wonder if I could start a movement and get famous on the claim that horses really do have feathers, because “the left and the mainstream media say they don’t … and it’s all a plot to make Trump look bad.”
Here’s the point: for many matters in life, political and ideological zealots are the worst sources of information. COVID-19 is one of them.
It’s true that nobody is really “objective.” It doesn’t follow, though, that nobody is rational, rigorous, and committed to good information. Thankfully, some are much more interested in being accurate than they are in advancing a party, ideology, or conspiracy theory!
At the top of many organizations, you’re going to find some very political people. Because these leaders interface with national figures, some of whom are elected officials, that’s to be expected. But the CDC and WHO and countless other public and private organizations working on COVID-19 are full of professionals in biochemistry, virology, epidemiology, and related fields, who really aren’t very interested in what political party is dominant at the moment or what the current U.S. President’s popularity numbers are—or even who wins the next election.
We can get COVID-19 information straight from these sources as well as other more local ones.
We can also get information from media sources that aren’t dominated by political or ideological zealots. Although MSNBC on the left and Fox News on the right aren’t always delivering heavily spun information (or outright misinformation), there’s little need to go there—or turn on the TV at all—when you can read National Review, or better yet, The Dispatch. Though fallen humans like the rest of us, these folks are willing to look critically at the political “us,” and not just the political “them”—a key characteristic of any source’s commitment to truth. The Dispatch has even been known to argue that, as a nation and culture, we need to stop this madness of trying to politicize everything.
A small fact salad
These links are a bit old now, since I was gathering them mostly last weekend, but they may be of some use in countering a tiny bit of the misinformation bouncing around in the zealot-fandom echo chamber. There are also some good sources here for more up to date information.
- Testing lag: due to the shortage of tests in the U.S., we don’t have reliable numbers on the infection rate or how many are infected now. (We’re catching up now, though.)
- Probability of death by COVID-19: many misleading comparisons are going around fueled by confusion on the difference between case fatality rate and infection fatality rate or by simple innumeracy.
- Probability of hospitalization: the focus on relatively low death rates often results in overlooking the larger problem of high hospitalization rates. Overwhelming the medical system with a surge of hospitalizations is a serious problem as well—one that could unnecessarily increase death rates (more on this here).
- Data on what’s happening: The interactive data map from Johns Hopkins Center for Systems Science and Engineering is a great source of visualized data, close to “real time.”
- Canada: Probably the best COVID-19 information in Canada.
- Scams: Keep an eye out as well for Coronavirus Scams. See also Coronavirus Rumor Control, and info on Coronavirus stimulus scams.
What if they’re wrong?
Maybe the people I trust are giving me bad info. Maybe the thousands of medical professionals at CDC and NIAID, the state health departments, the private and university researchers, and the many national health departments all over the world will somehow turn out to all be wrong about the severity of the disease and the need to flatten the curve. The economic analysts I’ve been reading have me convinced that COVID-19 was going to tank the economy with or without all the state and local efforts to flatten the curve, so crushing it on purpose to save lives was the right strategy. Maybe they’ll turn out to have been wrong, too.
But if my sources turn out to be wrong, it won’t be because they put their passion for a political agenda, or party, or leader ahead of their commitment to reason, research, and helping people. If they’re wrong, it will be because they did their best to get the facts right and the response right, but failed. I’ll take that over the distortions of ideological zealots any day.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service.
- 17 views
that the effects of a Trump presidency were so disastrous that you could see no way for a Christian to support him.
I don’t think a Trump vote is a clear win in the outcome analysis department, but this is not primarily what I have argued. The most important part of my view on this is that, independent of the question of outcomes, it isn’t right to vote for a man who lacks the character for the office. The question of character is prior to the question of outcomes… and makes it moot in this case. I was going to repeat a lot of stuff I’ve already said on that, but… I’ve already said it many times. I don’t (yet) have any new ways to say it, and I’m weary of watching myself type it. :-)
As for the outcomes/cost of flattening the curve, it’s not at all up to me to determine that. I don’t have the expertise, and I don’t yet have any reason to think the expert consensus on that is incorrect. The consensus view that the cost of ending the “flattening the curve” strategy now would be greater than the cost of continuing it seems like the best guess. That’s how it looks to me, for what it’s worth (not really very much).
My thesis here isn’t really that these guys are right… it’s that these guys are the best minds we have on these matters and they’re most likely to be right (vs. the ideological zealots who are extremely likely to be wrong).
About modeling
It’s easy to not see the use of modeling if you’re a layman. I’m also not a scientist or a mathematician, but I’ve read enough to know that modeling is SOP in all sorts of statistical analysis, engineering, and so many many fields of study. Sometimes models fail. Sometimes they work but are misused. Sometimes they work but are fed bad numbers. This SEP entry is a pretty good read on modeling in general as a methodology… or just as a tool.
One more thing about modeling and COVID … in this case, the models are, best I can tell, statistical projections. So they’re structured and rigorous ways to guess about the future. The alternative would be to randomly guess instead. We have no choice but to do some guessing on this. I’m for the modeling as a way to guess in a disciplined way.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]My thesis here isn’t really that these guys are right… it’s that these guys are the best minds we have on these matters and they’re most likely to be right (vs. the ideological zealots who are extremely likely to be wrong).
My question is this: does it even matter? God is sovereign, and God works in the minds of kings to accomplish his plan for the ages. I’m not promoting fatalism, I’m saying that we should take comfort and continue to be vessels for his use. Pray for whoever is in authority - mostly for their salvation, but also for wisdom. But pray that God is glorified in all of this. Pray for those in Christ, all of us, to willingly submit to God and increase in our dependence on him. It really doesn’t matter whether these guys are right or wrong, statesmen or scoundrels - God will have his way. We really are just along for the ride; the manner in which we conduct ourselves on the ride will play out at our judgment.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
JNoël, I mostly agree.
I want to nuance it though. The fact that God is in control and we clearly are not doesn’t change the fact that we’re to love Him with heart, soul, mind, and strength. This means, among so many other things, that what what we believe about things matters. We are supposed to be lovers of truth and wisdom as a way to love Him and express His nature (“glorify Him”) as His image bearers. So, on the matter of COVID and the response to it, it matters not only what we think but how we do our thinking… and sometimes there can even be practical outcomes in how we physically behave, what our attitudes are, and how we influence others’ attitudes and behavior.
So… I have to say that though God is sovereign, and we have very little influence over what our leaders decide to do, it matters very much how we think about it all.
Sovereignty is often confusing… the reality of God’s control never means that humans aren’t making genuine choices for which they’re responsible, or that we can’t influence those choices.
It does mean that whatever happens will not be meaningless or wasted in the long run.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[Aaron Blumer]So… I have to say that though God is sovereign, and we have very little influence over what our leaders decide to do, it matters very much how we think about it all.
This is a very important observation and I thank you for bringing it up, as it certainly must be figured into our thinking during this time, especially.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[Aaron Blumer]About modeling
It’s easy to not see the use of modeling if you’re a layman. I’m also not a scientist or a mathematician, but I’ve read enough to know that modeling is SOP in all sorts of statistical analysis, engineering, and so many many fields of study. Sometimes models fail. Sometimes they work but are misused. Sometimes they work but are fed bad numbers. This SEP entry is a pretty good read on modeling in general as a methodology… or just as a tool.
One more thing about modeling and COVID … in this case, the models are, best I can tell, statistical projections. So they’re structured and rigorous ways to guess about the future. The alternative would be to randomly guess instead. We have no choice but to do some guessing on this. I’m for the modeling as a way to guess in a disciplined way.
Really, Aaron? Did you see this quote? It’s going around in a lot of publications, this one is from Newsweek:
“I’ve looked at all the models. I’ve spent a lot of time on the models. They don’t tell you anything. You can’t really rely upon models.” Dr. Anthony Fauci said during a coronavirus task force meeting this week, according to the paper, citing two officials with direct knowledge of the meeting.
Here is the link
It is hard to take the “modeling” talk seriously when
- The models are all over the map and widely divergent
- Even the so-called experts say they can’t get anything out of models
We are just going on guesses, not hard science.
But we know we are committing economic suicide. We don’t need any models to tell us that.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
This is an interesting perspective coming out of the UK, but since the models used by virtually all government officials are those produced by the Imperial team, it’s worth considering.
http://hectordrummond.com/2020/03/30/soap-opera-science/
The fact is, we’re all dependent on “experts” to one degree or another, but even the experts can be really off for any number of reasons. Sometimes, it’s just politics.
Aaron, I really liked your headline, but my fist thought once I saw who the author was went something like this, “I wonder if Aaron will be able to set aside his disdain for Trump and not attack the right in this article?” I do not mean to be critical. I would have similar challenges as to not attack the left if I were to write an article with the same title. The point I am making is that it is easier said than done to set aside politics and to not look at things through a biased lens. I have noticed that some who have a disdain for Trump are upset when the media on the left is held accountable and others who almost worship Trump are upset when the media on the right are held accountable. No doubt we need to be objective when looking at all media sources. I would hope there is someone who could write an article without political bias, but I am not so sure anymore. My thoughts are that most of us who comment on these political threads already have our biases and those who do not follow politics would not be informed enough to cover the subject adequately.
I am glad that our KING is just and will be able to rule without partiality. Let us rejoice that He humbly rode into the capital city and gave His life for us. Let us also rejoice that His word is true and can be trusted.
[Don Johnson]Really, Aaron? Did you see this quote? It’s going around in a lot of publications, this one is from Newsweek:
“I’ve looked at all the models. I’ve spent a lot of time on the models. They don’t tell you anything. You can’t really rely upon models.” Dr. Anthony Fauci said during a coronavirus task force meeting this week, according to the paper, citing two officials with direct knowledge of the meeting.
Here is the link
It is hard to take the “modeling” talk seriously when
- The models are all over the map and widely divergent
- Even the so-called experts say they can’t get anything out of models
We are just going on guesses, not hard science.
But we know we are committing economic suicide. We don’t need any models to tell us that.
I’m not going to put a lot of stock in what an unnamed source says Fauci said.
But even when models are all over the place, there will usually be overlap… things they agree on. The flattening the curve strategy is not dependent on the models anyway. That part isn’t hard to figure out. What we’re looking for models for is to try to project how soon wave 1 will be over, whether measures in place are working well enough, where numbers are sick are going to exceed hospital capacity and where they’re not, etc.
You have to put it all in context, and the Fauci quote, if it even happened, needs some context as well. He has not been talking that way in general.
But let’s suppose the people who have devoted their lives to understanding pandemics are looking at the models and saying they’re all useless: that must mean they’re all going with their best guess without the models, because strategy-wise there is a strong consensus. So… who’s best guess are you going to go with, theirs or some political pundit talking head?
I’m not betting on the pundits.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron, I really liked your headline, but my fist thought once I saw who the author was went something like this, “I wonder if Aaron will be able to set aside his disdain for Trump and not attack the right in this article?” I do not mean to be critical. I would have similar challenges as to not attack the left if I were to write an article with the same title.
I didn’t attack anyone at all, right or left.
I pointed out facts. Ideological zealots are devoted to their parties, their agendas, their chosen leaders, their conspiracy theories. Professionals are devoted to their professions. The zealots may have a bit of professionalism going for them and the professionals may have a bit of political bias going for/against them, but which of the two is to be relied upon is genuinely obvious.
Nobody (sane) who needs heart surgery looks at available personnel to do the job and reasons “Well, I wonder if I should go with an accredited surgeon or with this conservative who says all that heart surgery fussiness is just a bunch left wing hype, and all you really need is a mirror, a needle and thread, and a sharp knife.”
I mean, a lot of things are obvious to me, but am I wrong about this? I can’t see how. But I’m open to a reasoned argument against expertise if someone can make one.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
What’s interesting about models is 95% of experts can be in agreement, and God can (and often does) order things to either fit the 5% unlikely model or to not fit any of them at all. Just look at HIV in Africa. Most late 20th century experts agreed that HIV would run rampant in Africa and cause utter chaos. Well, that never really happened, at least not nearly on the level virtually every expert predicted.
…
[Aaron Blumer]But let’s suppose the people who have devoted their lives to understanding pandemics are looking at the models and saying they’re all useless: that must mean they’re all going with their best guess without the models, because strategy-wise there is a strong consensus.
I assume everyone saw the headlines over the weekend about the Trump administration ending the USAID PREDICT program only a couple of months before Wuhan happened? Before this past weekend, most Americans have probably never even heard of this ($200 million USD) program. That program was dedicated to the study of predicting pandemics and was staffed by many experts. Regardless the fact that it was shut down, one would think there were enough of those experts still alive with enough information in their possession to see Wuhan and immediately dust off their 2 month old practices and alert the world. This one should have been easy, were it not for China’s communist, information-suppressing ways.
It would be nice to believe that politics does not get in the way of science, but China’s most certainly got in the way of this.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[Aaron Blumer]But I’m open to a reasoned argument against expertise if someone can make one.
Medically speaking, yes - I’ll take those experts over politicians/elected officials any day.
–
This isn’t an argument, just an observation and opinion.
Economically speaking, I cannot think of a better person to be at the helm than Trump. He has three years of nothing but off-the-charts winning to back up his claims that he can handle the economy better than virtually any veteran politician.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
It would be nice to believe that politics does not get in the way of science, but China’s most certainly got in the way of this.
China is a clear example of the fact that not all “politics” is the same. If anyone is saying that an oppressive regime can’t interfere with science, it certainly isn’t me.
As for Trump on the economy, economics is complex and the current situation illustrates how other, huge fields of knowledge intersect with it. There are so many ways to kill an economy, everybody being sick is one. Everybody staying home to avoid being sick is another. If the former results in a whole lot more death, it makes sense to choose the latter. Where Trump has shown a problematic pattern is, among other things, an inability/unwillingness to discover what he really doesn’t know and ought to accept from others. The whole situation illustrates dramatically why character in leaders must come before party success. In a crisis, a leader has to have enough humility to listen to those who know better than he does on the matters most closely connected to the crisis. Trump eventually did that (at least for now), but the delay was costly.
Given the antiintellectualism and populism that now dominates on the right and how that conjoins with his lack of character, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he flipped back on all that any day now.
As for the “Aaron just hates Trump and this renders all his reasoning invalid” response I hear so often, I think those taking that tack aren’t listening to my reasoning at all, and won’t listen to this either, but maybe it helps someone else: I don’t blame Trump for what has happened to conservatism. I blame what happened to conservatism for Trump. As for him, personally, he clearly is what he is. It makes no difference at all how I feel about him… and I don’t attach any value to that.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
One of the best sites for news is https://www.foxnews.com/ But please note the difference between their straight news articles and their opinion pieces. They are much more fair on pro-life issues, politics, etc. For the record, however, I also disagree with some of their reporting.
For an example of their balance:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-taunts-media-as-mutual-disgust-reac…
David R. Brumbelow
[Aaron Blumer]In a crisis, a leader has to have enough humility to listen to those who know better than he does on the matters most closely connected to the crisis. Trump eventually did that (at least for now), but the delay was costly.
Yes - Trump delayed.
Don’t forget about what the Democrats were doing in late January and February, too, though. In other words, there’s much blame to pass around regarding the US’s response timing.
And even Fauci himself, on January 21st, said “this is not a major threat for the people in the United States and this is not something that the citizens of the United States should be worrying about.”
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Discussion