“Separate but equal isn’t”
navigating the second Gilded Age through humor, invective and insight
“Separate but equal isn’t”
Paul Krugman — whom you should really follow if you don’t already — posted an interesting piece on BlueSky recently, The Paranoid Style in American Politics. It suggested a connection between paranoia and projection which had escaped me, even though I’ve spent a lot of time musing separately about delusional paranoia and projection over the years.
Paranoia is the sense that someone or some group is out to harm you, to get you, in the absence of objective information. Fear when a person points a gun at you isn’t paranoia, because observation shows you are at risk. Fear that some unknown and unidentified party or parties is going to do you harm very likely is paranoia, because the “observation” supporting the feeling is purely internal to you.
Paranoia likely exists in our species because it has survival value. Wondering what might come at you from over the horizon, or what the intentions of strangers arriving in your midst actually are, no doubt played an important role in helping early humans survive, particularly in areas of low population density.
But it becomes less and less useful as population density increases, because the number of interactions among strangers explodes. If everyone living in New York City allowed their “instinctual paranoia” to be triggered, they’d likely either all go insane, or be constantly fighting each other, or both. What replaces it, in terms of survival value, are socialization, norms, laws and regulations and law enforcement.
This is similar to what likely causes many of us1 to struggle with our diet and weight. Foods like fats are tasty and desirable precisely because you need a certain amount of them in a healthy diet…but they’re hard to get in primitive conditions. Most fats come from animals, who have this thing about being killed and eaten which causes them to fight like crazy when they’re hunted. Now that we can deliver tons of tasty fats wherever we want, what was an important drive morphs into a health risk.
Paranoia poses a special risk because you can lose yourself fretting about all the things that might possibly go wrong, even in low population density environments. But it holds a special attraction, because it appears to be able to explain everything. Data that doesn’t fit the paranoid delusion can simply be ignored or wished away. Trump cultists are simply the latest group to practice this behavior at scale.
Like avoiding cognitive dissonance, projecting paranoiac beliefs is common, and for the same reason: it’s easier, and more comfortable, to assign blame to others than yourself. Instead of having to make tough choices yourself, you merely need to constrain the behavior or choices of others.
It’s pretty clear to me that Trump suffers from fairly severe delusional paranoia. Just consider his fixations with being killed by sharks, or the dangers posed by wind turbines, or any one of a number of other irrational notions he comes back to again and again. Which means we should expect him to be a past master at projection.
And he is. Objective evidence that he engaged in a not-too-hidden conspiracy to overthrow the results of the 2020 election inevitably led him to claim that Obama, Clinton and Biden were all involved in similar conspiracies directed at him. Similarly, in weaponizing his Justice Department against his opponents — which he is pursuing with a vengeance — he’s just doing what he sincerely — and delusionally — believes others in power have already done to him.
Normally the body politic acts to constrain this kind of delusional paranoia and projection, by isolating the individuals displaying it. We all tend to walk around the crazy guy ranting out his delusional fantasy when we encounter him. But don’t expect those Americans2 who have opted to join the Cult of Trump to understand this. The one sure thing you can count on from a cultist is unwavering devotion, however idiotic it might be, to Dear Leader. Who can never be wrong, because that might mean the belief system they’ve joined might also be wrong.
For many reasons, I will never forget Mr. Muchio, who taught me algebra in the 7th grade.
One of the biggest challenges in learning algebra isn’t the math itself. It’s learning how to parse descriptions into mathematical equations you can then use the rules of algebra to solve. It’s a process of abstraction, figuring out what are the essential details and what is “merely” descriptive and/or reflective of a particular situation. This is commonly known as learning to solve word problems.
We quickly became masters of this…or thought we had.
As Mr. Muchio pointedly kept reminding us, what we were actually doing was leaving stuff out to overly simplify the problem. I still remember his admonition, decades later: “You’re using a silly rule: ‘when in doubt, leave it out’. But it means the problem you solve isn’t the one you were supposed to solve. Be careful about what you leave out!”
Once upon a time I was chief financial officer of a startup biotech company. One day my boss, the CEO, and I were traveling back to meet with investors to pitch them on why they really wanted to keep buying our stock.
During the flight I reviewed the financial models and presentation I’d spent days creating. Somewhere over the Midwest I suddenly realized several of the key summary values, which were central to my analysis, had gotten hard-coded. They didn’t reflect the revised assumptions I’d made.
This meant my beautiful and compelling pitch was completely wrong. In fact, we didn’t look like such a good investment after all.
Needless to say, I didn’t get much sleep that night. I had to revise everything.
Ever since, my Excel models are littered with “check figure” lines, that confirm totals are, in fact, reflective of the data they claim to summarize.
One of my earliest political memories was of Joe Namath, a very talented and famous quarterback in 1968, being asked who he thought should be our next President. I was 13 at the time.
I remember thinking “He’s a phenomenal quarterback. But why in the world would anyone think that’d make him an expert on national politics and the Presidential candidates?”
It takes a lot of time and effort — and focus — to become an expert in anything. Very few of us have the resources to do that in many different fields.
This spillover expertise effect really comes into play, at least in the United States, with business titans and governing.
Just because someone is successful in business, they don’t necessarily have a clue as to how to successfully lead a community in its pursuit of happiness and the greater good. Business, for all its challenges, is a much, much simpler environment to operate in than government. I know this from personal experience because I worked in each for 20 years, as a financial executive and as a local elected official.
In business, you succeed by focusing on making money while not breaking the rules. Or at least not breaking them too much.
In government, at least in a representative constitutional democracy, there is no single goal, and no marketplace in which to value tradeoffs from moment to moment. In fact, there’s often no market at all.
The Michelson–Morley experiment, which produced the data that overthrew Newtonian physics, was performed in 1887.
But it went unexplained until 1905, when Albert Einstein published the special theory of relativity.
What were the world’s physicists doing during those 18 years? Ignoring the data and hoping it would go away? Playing pinochle?
No, they were trying to jam the empirical data into Newtonian physics. Because that just had to be true! It’d successfully explained everything (well, almost everything) for centuries!
Once you accept the box you’re in, it’s damn hard to break out of it. Or even realize you’re in a box.
Ever wonder why research reports in Science, Nature, or any other scientific journal are terribly boring and hard to read?
It’s because the authors are required to disclose, fully, materials and methods, how they did their analysis, etc. They have to establish provenance, and reproducibility…both of which are key to critical thinking.
They only get to discuss what their results (might) mean in the last few bits.