The Scarcity of Doubt

Monday Map

THE SCARCITY OF DOUBT

I closed the 2021 Busyminds year with my review: The Fat Lady Origins. Just in case you could not get through that ramble, I summarily talked about the problem of certainty – how our strong appetite to be certain of things to come does more harm than we talk about; and how we should learn to enjoy uncertainty. I shall again be writing something of that sort in this essay because I think I still need to talk about it.

But I will start from this angle: we need more doubt. We need fewer believers; or at least, people who are willing to live with the burden of doubt. Let me say beforehand, before we get into the dirty stuff, that my advocacy for skepticism should be taken lightly. I do not expect that you will be skeptical in every detail of your life so much that you rob yourself of joy. If that happens to you after reading this, then you did not read this. So, let’s get dirty.

On Data

Every time I have to write about lowering our faith in numeracy, data, and statistics, my heart skips beats. Imagine walking into a conservative church and pronouncing from the altar (in your rugged jeans and sneakers) that God approves of pre-marital sex. Envision the looks, “oohs,” and “aahs” from the old ladies in their large hats. It feels like that every time I have to say “numbers lie, or at least they don’t tell the truth.”

I know we hate anecdotal experiences – not because we dislike our biases or inaccuracies. But because we want to appear objective, unbiased, rational, and worse, “scientific.”

Let me make this distinction: the desire to appear unbiased is not the same as disliking bias. More often than not, the work we put in to appear rational is just hard labor we are willing to do to mask our bias. And numbers go a long way to help mask the bias.

The craving for certainty; like the craving for chocolate, eroticism, food, or anything that pleases influences our need to source for credible numbers to support everything we want to do. Why is this? First, you must ask what you think numbers have that you don’t. And that is pretty easy to answer: numbers don’t have motives and experiences. Numbers are lifeless.

By finding the lifeless (or objective) entity, we shift our opinions onto the objective entity which can say what we need it to say without provoking argument or lifting eyebrows. You will see that once you find an attached motive or experience to a set of numbers, your outlook on the number changes. It is suddenly no longer lifeless.

My objection to data worship is the worship, not the data. It is a dangerous thing to assume that we have found something – especially something of our own invention or discovery – that we believe to be infallible. That is how destructions happen.

DNA tests can yield wrong results. Genotype tests too (personal experience on this one). You will wonder how long you have lived a lie because you believed that something cannot fail. You will hate the day certain certainty failed you.

On Knowledge

Facts are great. But if you are not learning facts (and more facts) more for entertainment than for utility, facts will drive you crazy soon.

There is a knowledge threshold. If you cross that line, most of what you accrue after then is useless to your life or project. Yet, men jostle for more facts and more facts, sinking in this sea of information that they cannot swim in. Shame. Why? Because we think knowledge is power. (LMFAO).

But hear me: knowledge is not power. Knowledge is what we pursue endlessly when we don’t have power. And by power I mean omnipotence.

I remember Cersei and Petyr Baelish from Game of Thrones with the “power is power” dialogue. Interesting stuff. Cersei was not omnipotent but she had access to raw power (as limited as it was). Littlefinger advanced in his pursuits because he had access to knowledge. But imagine an omnipotent man who can do whatever he wants and cannot be harmed – not by any single incident. That man I believe will pursue knowledge as entertainment. Because it interests him rather than helps him. After all, no amount of ignorance can thwart his purpose and existence. Imagine an Achilles without a betraying heel. I guarantee that he could be as stupid as he wanted and the best we can do is loathe him.

If you find yourself pursuing more knowledge as a way to improve your life, I hope you are reminded that it is because you are a weak human being who is weakened increasingly by certainty and uncertainty, and by knowledge and ignorance. I hope you remember that.

On Status

This one messes everything up. Take any mundane or benign substance or activity. Once you attach the promise of advancement to the benign substance, it becomes a poison. In this case, what is perfectly an end in itself becomes a means to a better position on the stratum. Status seeking is lethal.

So, take truth as an ultimate good in itself and tether it to status gain for anyone who possesses it, and truth becomes something worth killing for. Whereas, truth is something actually worth dying for. This reminds me of the “rational bros.”

The rational bros think they see things clearly. No one could be more stupid. Once you see them advancing towards you with the “oh, let’s be rational here,” or “I’m being objective,” or the absolute worst “critical thinking should be taught in schools,” just leave the way for them to dance to the tune in their heads. These guys are not seeking to be rational. They seek rationality to enhance their reputation or gain one advantage or another. A truly rational person is complete in his character and knows for a fact that rationality is a property of knowledge, not people. But I digress.

The citation ring in academia is the worst version of this malignant ability of status-seeking. People publish, not because they are passionate about what they published. But because you either publish or perish. What is knowledge in the hands of these people except tools to keep their Bishopric garments active and retain their “expert” positions? What if people cite your stuff? People cite popular materials; not things that are necessarily correct. Popularity will never be the measure of truth. But we won’t know this if we listen to what the numbers have to say without a shred of doubt. But you know what? Forget I said all that. Go, smile, be happy, and enjoy your week.

You Can’t Describe Your Way Out of Reality

I read Wokal_distance’s substack and his essay was amazing. He summarily described the sleight of hand that happens with language when insincere people intend to throw mud everywhere. In case you have a knack for that, you will find his piece interesting. Enjoy.

Hey, here is your picture for the week:

Have a curious week.