What Information Do We Find Plausible?

This is a thoughtful analysis about why Christians are so polarized on issues like vaccinations, climate change, etc.

I enjoyed it very much, especially the distinction between the plausibility curve and the information curve.

I guess I think this is all pretty obvious. What does it mean? And what should we do with it?

In part, it is the details behind why repetition is persuasive. And it sadly means that the press and liberal-run social media companies can bend people’s thoughts to the point where we as a country made the decision we [apparently] made last November.

What should we do with it? ugh. That’s tough. One of my favorite quotes is “If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.” I always heard it attributed to Churchill, but that is disputed. I agree with the quote to a large extent. I pardon young people who, due to wishful thinking and a lack of experience in life, think something like socialism might be nice. And I suppose that the same could be said of college professors who have never experienced life in a regular workforce or run their own business. But if you gain real life experience and that doesn’t make you see socialism as implausible, you’re dumb.

I used to look at it that way but I’m now personally acquainted with too many older people who see “socialism” as plausible and definitely aren’t dumb. Opportunities to discuss it with them haven’t been plentiful, but from the few I’ve had, I’d say their thinking isn’t more nutty/dumb than much of what I’ve seen on the right the last four years (especially the last 16 months or so).

It’s not a left or right thing. It’s a human thing. What it looks like to me is that the ‘socialism would be better’ people I know have had bad experiences with/very low quality exposures to the alternatives. They’re looking at much of what’s messed up in society and crediting it to ‘capitalism.’ And they’re pretty unaware of how much that “ick layer” is covering up—things like a faulty understanding of what capitalism is, faulty understanding of what socialism is, etc., etc.

Likewise, on the right, the “ick factor” toward “the left” and “the media” results in many not realizing how much they’re overlooking in what they endorse. In some cases, what they’re overlooking is larger than what they’re seeing. Tip of iceberg situation: as in, this little bit of ice above the water looks harmless, but there’s a mass of destructive potential below the surface.

Short version (and this seems to be what the ‘plausibility curve’ is about): people tend to believe what they want to/what fits in with what they already believe, and tend to undervalue reason as a path to truth.

What happened last November…. imagine how it might be different if voters hadn’t had to choose between a transparently self-aggrandizing, power-hungry, and unprincipled man and a man with a clear history of bad ideas and bad policies but who is at least demonstrably sane.

Many conservatives could not vote for either of those options.

[Dan Miller]

In part, it is the details behind why repetition is persuasive. And it sadly means that the press and liberal-run social media companies can bend people’s thoughts to the point where we as a country made the decision we [apparently] made last November.

I’d suggest that there’s plenty of far right press and media that are also bending people’s thoughts. It’s not just a left/liberal thing.

I tend to frequently look at both conservative and liberal news sources, and try to keep in mind the potential bias of whatever source I’m reading.

Vieth is referencing a recent article at Christianity Today. I thought of it right away when I saw Vieth’s title in the OP. The article by Dalrymple is a bit on the wonkish side, but I think it is very helpful.

Bottom line: you are what you read (or watch, or listen to…)

there is some value in understanding how the “other side” argues, but you need to keep your critical thinking operating when taking in articles, sermons, etc. however… if that is your only or main source, your thinking will reflect it.

I think the article is also a strong argument for Bible reading, prayer, and a close walk with God. That should be at the center of your plausibility curve!

I used to look at it that way but I’m now personally acquainted with too many older people who see “socialism” as plausible and definitely aren’t dumb. Opportunities to discuss it with them haven’t been plentiful, but from the few I’ve had, I’d say their thinking isn’t more nutty/dumb than much of what I’ve seen on the right the last four years (especially the last 16 months or so).

Your point is well taken. There are conservatives and liberals that are very objective and thoughtful, but the big difference is often in world view, even among people who do not know what world view is. Sadly, there are plenty of flaky people in both camps, too.

If I did not become a Christian at age 17, I think I would have definitely been in the liberal camp. It was my convictions — a change in worldview — that made me think otherwise. But if I believed in evolution, that mankind was basically good, and that people could not (often) help their lot in life, etc., that would lead me to a liberal politic.

It is also a grave mistake to think that all voters vote on the issues or the direction candidates plan to take the country. Many voters vote for a person they like. If they find the person winsome, they attach their loyalty to that person. Their thinking is that a person of good character will do a good job, and good character is determined by how a person conducts himself/herself and comes across. Not everyone puts deep thought into who they vote for.

Some vote for their party, no matter what.

Some vote for an ideology and issues, which has pretty much become a party thing.

Some vote for change. They are by nature discontent and believe we can move toward perfection. Others are angry because of an issue or problem, whether addressable or not. Some people probably voted for President Biden because they were frustrated with COVID, for example.

Some vote for the charisma of the candidate — or the least worst personality.

Some waffle and vote based upon their feelings at the time.

Some vote for who their friends are voting for.

My point is, only a relatively small percentage of voters turn the balance.

If we believe all or maybe even most vote on the issues, we are mistaken. The issue voters who aren’t committed ot a party or ideology do often tilt the balance, however.