Loserthink, page 14
How you feel about President Trump’s criticisms of the press depends on how accurate you think the press has been when covering him. If you believe the press has been willfully inaccurate to the point of delegitimizing itself, any criticism of the press is warranted, even if it comes from a president. If you think the press has been an honest broker of facts, you might believe that criticizing the free press is something only dictators do.
Former president Jimmy Carter, who no one would call a dictator, said this about press coverage of President Trump: “I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I’ve known about. I think they feel free to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.”1
As I was writing this book, I noticed a pattern in the eyes of three prominent Democrats: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cory Booker, and Adam Schiff. I added a fourth image (Charles Manson) on Twitter for humor purposes. Now, I am not saying there is any predictive value to noting that those folks have similar eyes. But you can see how patterns can be persuasive even when they shouldn’t be. It’s hard to look at those four photos together without reflexively assuming something is wrong with all of them.
Patterns like this one can form mental prisons when they seem to be telling you more than they should. The wide-eyed photos of this group only tell us that four people were photographed on at least one occasion each with their eyes wide open. You can find plenty of photos of these same folks on Google Images with ordinary eye expressions, so all we know is that sometimes their eyes are more open than other times. That is literally all we can know from the photos. But human minds are pattern-recognition machines, and not good ones. We assign meaning to things that are coincidental, or in a case such as this, a manufactured coincidence. I manufactured the coincidence by not showing the majority of photos of each person that are more ordinary in the eye department.
Patterns, and the analogies that often include them, are a form of what I call feels-the-same, meaning humans see patterns in lots of things, and those patterns might remind us of other things. But that’s all patterns usually mean. If you think an analogy is helping you predict the future, you might be in a mental prison. Analogies don’t have that power. To predict the future, look for causation, not patterns.
If you are making near-term predictions based on causation, you might have an accurate view of the world. But if your prediction is based on pattern alone, you are probably in a mental prison. And your jailers are the people who try to dupe you with patterns that mean nothing. I manufactured a meaningless pattern with the bug-eye photos. Your preferred news source intentionally manufactures fake patterns almost every day. Fake patterns add color and interest to boring news stories.
I often say on social media, and elsewhere, that analogies are useless for persuasion. Analogies are also useless for predicting what happens next, especially if the analogies are of the “history repeats” type.
Analogies are great when used for humor. They are also handy for describing a new concept. But I try to avoid using analogies in the service of persuasion or prediction because analogies are not good for that. The target of your persuasion will simply pick it apart for not being exactly the same as the situation you are debating. If you live to be a million, you’ll never see anyone win a debate with an analogy.
Good use of an analogy (describing something): His posture reminded me of macaroni.
Bad use of an analogy (persuasion and prediction): We should disband the U.S. Postal Service because the Hitler Youth movement started with cool uniforms too. That’s where it’s all headed.
As bad as analogies are for persuading, they are even worse for predicting. If someone tells you a male lion looks like a gigantic tan-colored house cat with a neck beard, it doesn’t help you predict how the lion will work out as a house pet.
If you find that your best argument depends on the predictive or persuasive characteristics of analogies, you are likely in a mental prison of your own making.
FRICTION
In political discussions, you often see partisans talking in binary terms—for example, that a particular plan will completely stop some bad thing, or otherwise it will do nothing. But in the real world, often the best you can do is to create some friction to slow down the things you wish would stop completely.
As I write this page, the United States is debating whether or not border walls (or fences) work. One side says yes and the other says no. Both positions are loserthink. A more productive way to look at the situation is to see that adding friction to anything reduces the number of people who try it. Increasing taxes on cigarettes encourages some (but clearly not all) people to quit. Adding speed traps to highways encourages many people (but clearly not all) to drive closer to the speed limit than they otherwise might. If your goal is zero illegal immigration, walls and fences won’t get you there. But if your objective is to substantially reduce illegal immigration, border barriers almost certainly have an impact by adding friction. And you can test how much difference it makes by building a bit of it and measuring how it changes behavior. I guarantee that adding friction changes behavior, in the case of immigration and in everything else in life.
You also see binary thinking around gun control. Critics of gun control will tell you criminals and nuts will still get guns whether they are legal or not, so maybe law-abiding citizens need guns to protect themselves from that crowd. This position ignores the universal truth that friction changes behavior. Gun control certainly wouldn’t change the behavior of hardened drug dealers, but a little bit of friction would almost certainly discourage some people from stocking up on guns that might someday be used for evil.
Have you noticed that there have been no recent mass shootings in the United States involving fully automatic weapons? It would be reasonable to assume mass shooters prefer the best tool for the job. And yet we observe that they almost always limit their weapon purchases to choices that have less friction both in terms of cost and in raising suspicion via the paperwork. You can buy a fully automatic weapon in the United States, but not without some government-induced friction. If that friction didn’t work, surely we would be seeing more mass shootings with fully automatic weapons, because those are the best tools for the evil job. Instead, we see shooters using weapons that can be obtained with the lowest level of friction. In effect, we have already proven that gun control “works” when it introduces friction.
I’m in favor of the Second Amendment, and I realize the issue of gun control is about more than keeping guns from bad people. It is also about freedom, self-defense, sporting, and, for some people, an insurance policy against a government that turns on its people. Those are all important issues. But it is not productive to say gun control “doesn’t work” when we observe friction working whenever it is introduced, including with guns.
Adding friction to any human choice will reduce the number of people making that choice. To assume otherwise is loserthink.
MENTIONING IS NOT COMPARING
Let me tell you about some of the things I enjoy in life. I love my girlfriend, good food, exercise, creative ideas, dogs, cats, and world peace. That list seems uncontroversial, doesn’t it?
But if someone in a mental prison sees this list, they might write a snarky article or tweet claiming I “compared my girlfriend to a dog.”
If you find yourself arguing that someone else has “compared” two things in a way you feel is offensive—but the so-called comparison is in the form of a list—you might be in a mental prison. Sometimes things are on the same list because they have something trivial in common. My grocery list has cheese and fabric softener on it, but that doesn’t mean I am comparing cheese to fabric softener. All they have in common is that they come from the same store. One is not being compared to the other.
You might be thinking this “compared to” problem is rare. But if you watch political news, you see it all the time. It’s a form of gotcha commentary at worst and of stupidity at best. Let’s split the difference and call it loserthink, because it doesn’t make anything better for anyone.
If two or more items are mentioned in the same conversation, that doesn’t mean anyone is comparing them for relative value.
“DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH”
Pundits and social media trolls like to tell you it is important for you to “do your own research” in order to have informed opinions. Is that rational? Does that make sense?
Sometimes.
In 2004, I lost my ability to speak. My doctors couldn’t figure out what the problem was. So I did my own research, using Google, and eventually discovered the name of my condition was spasmodic dysphonia—a fairly rare condition that makes your vocal cords spasm when you try to speak. Once I knew the name of the problem, I sought out experts who treat such things, and they told me it was incurable. I didn’t like that answer, so I did my own research and tracked down the only doctor on the planet who was pioneering a new surgical procedure that worked for most but not all patients. After doing some more research on my own, including visiting the doctor, I signed up for the surgery and am now cured.
You might conclude from that story that “doing my own research” works. And I would agree that in the context of healthcare, that’s often true. I also think doing your own research helps in areas such as law, construction, and other situations you encounter in your daily life.
The domains in which “do your own research” does not work include anything in the political realm that is big and complicated. In that category I would put climate change, national economic policies, trade negotiations, and gun control. Those are the obvious ones.
In each of those cases, you can research as much as you want, and all you will learn is that there are studies and data supporting opposite positions, and you’re not qualified to know which ones are reliable.
For big, complicated political questions, “doing your own research” is a waste of time.
When believers of the Q hoax argued with me on Twitter that Q was a real insider with real predictive powers, they chastised me for not “doing my own research,” because that’s what they did. At the same time, the nonbelievers in Q were sending the believers long lists of failed Q predictions, easily available with a simple Google search. In this example, which group was “doing their own research”? I’d say both. And did it help them? No. The nonbelievers found evidence that agreed with their beliefs and declared the research complete. The believers pointed to evidence that supported their belief in the Q hoax and declared themselves the best researchers. Both sides declared victory based on “doing their own research.”
I’m not against research, of course. And as I said, in many situations, such as your health, doing your own research can be a useful supplement to your normal healthcare. The problem is that “doing your own research” on political topics generally leads people to conclusions that agree with their starting opinions. Confirmation bias looks exactly like knowledge gained from doing your own research. When it comes to political topics, and probably religion too, we humans can’t tell the difference between rational opinions and confirmation bias. But we think we can. That’s a problem.
Pundits and online debaters often imply they have superior opinions because they have researched a topic more thoroughly. Sometimes those cocky folks are 100 percent right. But other times, they are suffering from confirmation bias, or they are engaged in advocacy instead of reason, and you probably have no way to tell the difference. Doing your own research is usually better than not doing any research, but don’t assume you can tell the difference between actual knowledge and your own confirmation bias. There would be no such thing as confirmation bias if we could recognize it when it happened.
“BE YOURSELF”
One of the most dangerous forms of loserthink is the notion that people should “be themselves” or be “authentic”—whatever that means.
This line of thinking imagines your mind is who you are, and there isn’t much you can do about it. You were born with a certain personality, either good or bad, and that’s the person you will always be. Case closed.
Our DNA does program us to a huge degree. But a more productive way of thinking about your experience in this life is that you are what you do. And you have some executive control over what you do. In other words, you can change who you are by changing what you do. For example, learning good manners and making it a habit to use them often will turn you into a polite person even if you weren’t “born that way.”
One of the best mental habits you can develop is to think in positive terms even when you don’t feel positive.2 For example, I was a negative person in my twenties, but I didn’t know it. I thought I was humorously pointing out the flaws in everything around me. I wasn’t aware of how damaging it was to the people who had to listen to it. Nor did I realize how the negativity affected my own sense of happiness. Dwelling on the negative is expensive in terms of your social life, your mental health, and even your career success. People like to be around positive people, for all the right reasons.
One day a friend explained to me with brutal honesty (alcohol might have been involved) that I was too negative and it was a drag. I was surprised to hear that my continuous complaining about just about everything wasn’t being well received by the people I liked most. So I set out to change that with a simple technique that I borrowed from another friend: if I need to talk about something negative, I pair it with at least one positive thought. I’ve made such a habit of this over the years that I feel uncomfortable expressing pure criticisms without a healthy dollop of optimism about something—anything—to balance things out.
My original loserthink approach involved complaining any time I was in the mood to do so, under the theory that I was just being me. In my complaining years, I didn’t realize I was grinding away on the positive feelings of friends, romantic partners, and coworkers. Now I realize I have a choice not only about how others perceive me but also in creating myself. If I don’t want to be a negative person, I simply remind myself to consider the positive in situations as often as I can. Once it becomes habit to do so, that’s the person I have become. And I like that person.
Never be yourself if you can make yourself into something better through your conscious actions. You are what you do.
“COWARD!”
If you’re calling someone a coward, you probably aren’t saying anything useful. We all weigh the costs and the benefits of decisions before acting. And fear is one of those variables.
After almost any terrorist attack or mass shooting, you will see politicians and pundits proclaim that the perpetrators were “cowards.” That is ridiculous. People who sacrifice their lives for causes—including evil causes—are the opposite of cowards. If they were cowards, they wouldn’t do what they did.
The problem with labeling terrorists and mass murderers of any kind as cowards, aside from it being ridiculous on the surface, is that it diverts attention from any kind of deeper analysis that would be helpful.
YOU: Why did the killers do it?
PUNDIT: Because they are cowards! Cowards, I say!
YOU: Maybe I’ll ask someone else.
It is loserthink to call people cowards after those people risked their lives for a cause.
“APOLOGIST!” AND WORDS LIKE THAT
If you and I agree on a particular issue, you are likely to call me a genius for being on the same side as your nearly divine wisdom. But if we happen to disagree, you might be tempted to label me an “apologist” for whatever badness you imagine I support. No progress can be made when labels substitute for reason.
When your critics have strong arguments, they gleefully offer them. But when those critics have weak arguments, they often try to slap a label on you and hope no one notices the missing reasons. It’s a common loserthink strategy. Apologist isn’t the only word used to sidestep debate. You also see labels such as narcissist, fascist, globalist, racist, and socialist.
If your intention is to avoid real debate, hurling dismissive labels at your nemesis works great. One has no social obligation to debate with a nemesis that has been labeled into filthy irrelevance. But avoiding debates doesn’t move anything forward, it doesn’t persuade, and it doesn’t make the world a better place.
If your response to a disagreement is to assign your opponent a dismissive label, you have surrendered the moral and intellectual high ground to wallow in loserthink.
“WHY DIDN’T YOU DO IT SOONER?”
If you have ever held a job or been in a relationship, you know how easy it is for someone to frame your brilliant accomplishments in a way that makes you look lazy and dumb. All it takes is one question: “Why didn’t you do it sooner?” There’s no good answer to that question, even if you have perfectly good reasons. Your critic will happily tell you that a better and more effective human could have gotten it done sooner, and no one will be able to prove otherwise. It’s just your word against the critic, and we are primed by life to believe almost anything could be done faster.
The evil cousin of “Why didn’t you do it sooner?” is the question “Why didn’t you tell me sooner?” Here again, there is no good answer because you always could have called sooner, texted sooner, or done something sooner. There is no such thing as being soon enough. And if you waited, your critic assumes there must be some nefarious reason. Your failure to act sooner is generally seen as hard evidence of your bad character.
