Great writing, again. Favorite sentence, “This is motivated reasoning achieving escape velocity from reality.”
Very much on the mark and clarifies complicated interactions; thank you. Also though I think a pure desire for power and to be on the side of power is its own motivator, with some who are very aware of the hypocrisy and illogic of their arguments.
What truly annoys me about the rationalist movement is its assumption that they are purely objective and unbiased. However, this directly conflicts with their belief that Bayesian thinking is the only way to go. All good Bayesian thinking must begin with priors, which are inherently biased.
Your point that these folks are not updating their priors, of course, conflicts with the supposed strength of rationalists—that within the framework of Bayesian reasoning, you do update your priors. The Popper in me says that these folks are stuck in an epistemic closed loop, making their beliefs unfalsifiable. They've become exactly what they hated in terms of epistemology. They've turned into good Marxists in their thinking.
I had a 20-year career in Silicon Valley as a systems reliability engineer, and honestly, I do not miss arguments with rationalists.
The strong point of the Bayesian approach is that, given enough data, priors cease to matter, as long as they are not too tight. To restate Mike's point in Bayesian terms, even with a strong prior belief that Trump is not a fascist, the accumulation of observations that are inconsistent with this belief should lead you to revise. But if your prior is so tight as to exclude the possibility altogther, you end up accepting crazy alterantives.
The term "derp" has gone out of use, I think, but it's appropriate here. Noah Smith defined it as "the endless repetition of tight priors".
I like the idea of tightness, but I would simply say biased. The entire foundation of the framework, at least as presented by rationalists, seems shaky. With each update, either an endogenous or exogenous bias will slip in.
From a Bayesian viewpoint, "biased" is pretty much meaningless. Your prior beliefs will be updated (with probability 1) on the basis of new evidence.
But I suspect that the presentation of Bayesianism by the group now using the label "rationalist" may be misleading. They seem to display an odd mixture of rationality (as I would understand it) and collective delusion.
Exactly right from my point of view, in theory Bayesianism is neat, but when run by humans, who are subjective creatures, priors get updated based on that subjective human will, which introduces bias. And in my view, that bias can never be completely discarded in the rationalist or any Bayesian rational framework. But that is my inner Fodor talking...
Far, far too many late hours and weary eyes in the olden, golden days of digitally embodied closed loops. Sites such as LW and SSC where, if you could pull back for just a little bit, the roving over bottomless navels became starkly apparent. And then the money boom hit.
Nosir, nosir, it won't catch me, that near universal human truth of history. I'll stand firm; I'll keep an eye on my future self. I'll give it all away. Crossed heart. What's that? No, no time to look back. There're things to break. Besides, wary reflection is so painfully analog.
If the parameter is not point identified, no amount of data will make the posterior converge do the truth. Another interpretation is that their likelihood (mental model) is confounded by ommited variables.
You are absolutely right about Vance and the anti- anti- felonpotus regime. They are profoundly, deeply, rabidly suffused with hatred, raw hatred, of Democrats and liberals. Nothing a liberal says or does, even if obviously right or moral, is accepted by the regime. Once the No Kings millions of patriots did not, in fact, set fire to whole cities, or beat up law enforcement; Vance, Johnson, Bessent, etc., in public displays of major gaslighting, did not express joy that tragedy did not occur. No, they still branded the protestors as radical left lunatic Hamas Marxist communists and criminals. And stated that we WANTED to destroy cities and kill people, but were fortunately prevented ftom doing so. The vitriolic hate speech felonpotus and this regime’s spokespersons spew, seems to be escalating. They accuse liberals of being the hatemongers, never pointing the finger at themselves, of course; as they are marching us into a nightmare of despotic fascism.
When Trump was first elected, I didn't like him, but I also agreed with the anti-anti-Trump people, as you call them here, in thinking that the way people reacted to him was hysterical, and that he couldn't really be as bad as liberals claimed he was. The claims were so extreme that they just had to be over-the-top partisan hysteria. Then all their worst predictions came true, and more. The political situation now is one that even liberals would call you hysterical for imagining in 2016. At some point, you have to admit you were wrong, and the people you thought were hysterical were right. People who still treat the liberal warnings as hysterical in 2025, after everything that's happened, are a sad sight. It's like they haven't updated their priors in the last decade.
Yes..."inverted the burden of proof". Spot on. I have been yelling about the update downers of everything. But you nailed the reason that no amount of info, truth or results will budget them.
Unfortunately many are in positions of power outside of government. They could help stop this
But they don't want to.
Hate is the primary motivator. Hate is eating they alive but they can't see it.
I also think they really get off on being to label large swaths of people "the other". Makes them more exclusive.
The very definition of insanity: the paucity of the capacity to "divide truth", recognize reality, and the lack of discipline and character to respond appropriately in any case. Dangerous indeed. It's up to us.
This is why I'm convinced that we should give up any hope that conservative voters harmed by and upset at Trump's policies will abandon MAGA. They will not. They will argue that sure, he's implemented a fascist authoritarian takeover of America and dismantled our structure of government, but I can't vote for a Democrat because they will destroy America.
Totally on point with your logical analysis within the Bayesian frame. Wanna go a bit deeper? Maga is psychologically driven by self-hate expressed as hatred of the left, liberals, “weakness”…….all the way out toward humanity and nature itself. The depth of MAGA’s unrelenting self-loathing is impossible to mitigate through reason. Power is the only language spoken there. But we do have the numbers and if we can steadfastly work to marshal that energy — as you do in your writing for example — the power of numbers might prevail. Not will prevail — might prevail. I’m Canadian and I have no illusions about MAGA psychopathy staying on its side of the border. With these folks there are no borders. So keep connecting, keep caring, keep resisting, and keep supporting each other. (Btw, Toronto’s Blue Jays are nationally beloved right now across regions, languages, and all our provinces because it’s another way to boycott MAGA America. Go Jays!)
Really enjoy your writing, your ideas, & your complex explorations in areas mainstream journalism tends to shy away from or play down. I guess I would like a little more clarity though as to who exactly you're counting as the "anti-anti-Trump right." Obviously the MAGA faithful & their elite leadership DO "hate" anything they perceive as "the left." And their true agenda is ultimately extreme & very dangerous. However there's that entire ecosystem composed of never-Trump /former/now-orphaned Republicans, 'Bulwark' types, old-style small-c conservatives, etc.. who do often seem to be striving desperately to maintain some sort of normalcy, but who I wouldn't think of as "liberal-haters." I believe many of them mean well, & add thoughtfully to the common dialogue, even if I wish they more willing to acknowledge the need for dramatic change. The NYTimes' David Brooks & David French come to mind here, as well as former Reagan Republicans like Bill Kristol. Temperamental/philosophical conservatives are by nature institutional & averse to rapid change & in this they have a lot in common with centrist liberals. I'm assuming these are not who you are referring to as "haters" of all things (small & capital l) liberal? (Speaking as an unapologetic progressive social democrat here, btw.)
Go dip your toe in at NRO (National Review Online), or The Dispatch. They are the quintessential anti-anti's.
I do read The Bulwark, Rick Wilson and The Lincoln project. They are never trump former republicans that just can't get to calling themselves Democrats. I do have some quibbles with them (mainly their belief that people like Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, and similar are the path forward. To me, they will guarantee more MAGA) but they have been reliable allies in the fight against MAGA.
Bullseye! Something you’ll never hear from the anti-anti-Trumpists, or even from many never-Trumpists: “The Left was right about the Right all along.” Hat tip to @driftglass.
I don't dispute your point about the visceral hatred. But why is this? Because it seems to me there is no reciprocal left-wing equivalent. What the hell the left ever do to these people, except make their lives a zillion times better?
> "the real performance was Newsom’s concern. The concern was what offended their calibrated sensibilities."
from umberto eco's catalog of fascist traits in Ur-Fascism:
"#3. The cult of action for action's sake, which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
You pretty well nailed it Mike. Nothing we should already know, but too many are fooled by this magic act and you have taken the trouble to show how the tricks are done. I'm awarding you the "UNFOOLED US" award. You ought to get a show in Las Vegas, too, like Penn and Teller offer, but unfortunately I don't have the magic for that.
There are two parts of the illusion I would pull back the curtain even a little more than you did:
1. "But here’s the actual mechanism driving this madness: they hate the left, liberals, and Democrats so much that even when they’re empirically, demonstrably, undeniably right, they still can’t acknowledge it."
I'm not sure this only applies to people who "hate the left". I equally applies to those who may love the left, but find reasons not to acknowledge what is in plain sight. There are sincere, left of center influencers and pundits who still can't acknowledge what other liberals have warned them about and turns out to be true. Many reasons for that, but we can see it in almost every media interview.
2. "This is the pathology at the core of the anti-anti position: they cannot possibly believe that people outside their cynical, smug bubble could have been seeing patterns they were paying no attention to.
Again, there are those in the anti-anti [Trump] cabal that "cannot possibly believe". But there are also a sizable number of them that believe and ignore what they believe. The see the patterns, but do not attach any importance to them, or have any of number of reasons the patterns, themselves don't matter.
A final suggestion for easier reading: There are multiple levels of persuasion in this dance: there are the bat-shit crazy Trumpers and hard-core Destructionists, the naive and manipulated Trumpers and trumpettes, there are the actual designers and inner-circle sycophants, the anti-trumpers, the naive liberals, the anti-anti-trumpers, the open-eyed, fully Woke liberals, the screaming radicals, and blah, blah. You have 3 or 4 of them in the essay. Easier to read if you don't shorten the names, like 'anti-anti-trumper' to 'anti-anti', and other short forms. Harder to follow whose on first, better to keep the long form, or find more specific, commonly recognized terms.
Great writing, again. Favorite sentence, “This is motivated reasoning achieving escape velocity from reality.”
Very much on the mark and clarifies complicated interactions; thank you. Also though I think a pure desire for power and to be on the side of power is its own motivator, with some who are very aware of the hypocrisy and illogic of their arguments.
What truly annoys me about the rationalist movement is its assumption that they are purely objective and unbiased. However, this directly conflicts with their belief that Bayesian thinking is the only way to go. All good Bayesian thinking must begin with priors, which are inherently biased.
Your point that these folks are not updating their priors, of course, conflicts with the supposed strength of rationalists—that within the framework of Bayesian reasoning, you do update your priors. The Popper in me says that these folks are stuck in an epistemic closed loop, making their beliefs unfalsifiable. They've become exactly what they hated in terms of epistemology. They've turned into good Marxists in their thinking.
I had a 20-year career in Silicon Valley as a systems reliability engineer, and honestly, I do not miss arguments with rationalists.
Well, I hope nobody mistakes me for a rationalist. I prefer my epistemology with a glass of wine and touch of despair.
The strong point of the Bayesian approach is that, given enough data, priors cease to matter, as long as they are not too tight. To restate Mike's point in Bayesian terms, even with a strong prior belief that Trump is not a fascist, the accumulation of observations that are inconsistent with this belief should lead you to revise. But if your prior is so tight as to exclude the possibility altogther, you end up accepting crazy alterantives.
The term "derp" has gone out of use, I think, but it's appropriate here. Noah Smith defined it as "the endless repetition of tight priors".
I like the idea of tightness, but I would simply say biased. The entire foundation of the framework, at least as presented by rationalists, seems shaky. With each update, either an endogenous or exogenous bias will slip in.
From a Bayesian viewpoint, "biased" is pretty much meaningless. Your prior beliefs will be updated (with probability 1) on the basis of new evidence.
But I suspect that the presentation of Bayesianism by the group now using the label "rationalist" may be misleading. They seem to display an odd mixture of rationality (as I would understand it) and collective delusion.
Exactly right from my point of view, in theory Bayesianism is neat, but when run by humans, who are subjective creatures, priors get updated based on that subjective human will, which introduces bias. And in my view, that bias can never be completely discarded in the rationalist or any Bayesian rational framework. But that is my inner Fodor talking...
Far, far too many late hours and weary eyes in the olden, golden days of digitally embodied closed loops. Sites such as LW and SSC where, if you could pull back for just a little bit, the roving over bottomless navels became starkly apparent. And then the money boom hit.
Nosir, nosir, it won't catch me, that near universal human truth of history. I'll stand firm; I'll keep an eye on my future self. I'll give it all away. Crossed heart. What's that? No, no time to look back. There're things to break. Besides, wary reflection is so painfully analog.
If the parameter is not point identified, no amount of data will make the posterior converge do the truth. Another interpretation is that their likelihood (mental model) is confounded by ommited variables.
You are absolutely right about Vance and the anti- anti- felonpotus regime. They are profoundly, deeply, rabidly suffused with hatred, raw hatred, of Democrats and liberals. Nothing a liberal says or does, even if obviously right or moral, is accepted by the regime. Once the No Kings millions of patriots did not, in fact, set fire to whole cities, or beat up law enforcement; Vance, Johnson, Bessent, etc., in public displays of major gaslighting, did not express joy that tragedy did not occur. No, they still branded the protestors as radical left lunatic Hamas Marxist communists and criminals. And stated that we WANTED to destroy cities and kill people, but were fortunately prevented ftom doing so. The vitriolic hate speech felonpotus and this regime’s spokespersons spew, seems to be escalating. They accuse liberals of being the hatemongers, never pointing the finger at themselves, of course; as they are marching us into a nightmare of despotic fascism.
When Trump was first elected, I didn't like him, but I also agreed with the anti-anti-Trump people, as you call them here, in thinking that the way people reacted to him was hysterical, and that he couldn't really be as bad as liberals claimed he was. The claims were so extreme that they just had to be over-the-top partisan hysteria. Then all their worst predictions came true, and more. The political situation now is one that even liberals would call you hysterical for imagining in 2016. At some point, you have to admit you were wrong, and the people you thought were hysterical were right. People who still treat the liberal warnings as hysterical in 2025, after everything that's happened, are a sad sight. It's like they haven't updated their priors in the last decade.
Yes..."inverted the burden of proof". Spot on. I have been yelling about the update downers of everything. But you nailed the reason that no amount of info, truth or results will budget them.
Unfortunately many are in positions of power outside of government. They could help stop this
But they don't want to.
Hate is the primary motivator. Hate is eating they alive but they can't see it.
I also think they really get off on being to label large swaths of people "the other". Makes them more exclusive.
Nailed it.
The very definition of insanity: the paucity of the capacity to "divide truth", recognize reality, and the lack of discipline and character to respond appropriately in any case. Dangerous indeed. It's up to us.
Thank you for your amazing writing and searing clarity.
What a cogent argument. Loved the analysis.
This is why I'm convinced that we should give up any hope that conservative voters harmed by and upset at Trump's policies will abandon MAGA. They will not. They will argue that sure, he's implemented a fascist authoritarian takeover of America and dismantled our structure of government, but I can't vote for a Democrat because they will destroy America.
Totally on point with your logical analysis within the Bayesian frame. Wanna go a bit deeper? Maga is psychologically driven by self-hate expressed as hatred of the left, liberals, “weakness”…….all the way out toward humanity and nature itself. The depth of MAGA’s unrelenting self-loathing is impossible to mitigate through reason. Power is the only language spoken there. But we do have the numbers and if we can steadfastly work to marshal that energy — as you do in your writing for example — the power of numbers might prevail. Not will prevail — might prevail. I’m Canadian and I have no illusions about MAGA psychopathy staying on its side of the border. With these folks there are no borders. So keep connecting, keep caring, keep resisting, and keep supporting each other. (Btw, Toronto’s Blue Jays are nationally beloved right now across regions, languages, and all our provinces because it’s another way to boycott MAGA America. Go Jays!)
Really enjoy your writing, your ideas, & your complex explorations in areas mainstream journalism tends to shy away from or play down. I guess I would like a little more clarity though as to who exactly you're counting as the "anti-anti-Trump right." Obviously the MAGA faithful & their elite leadership DO "hate" anything they perceive as "the left." And their true agenda is ultimately extreme & very dangerous. However there's that entire ecosystem composed of never-Trump /former/now-orphaned Republicans, 'Bulwark' types, old-style small-c conservatives, etc.. who do often seem to be striving desperately to maintain some sort of normalcy, but who I wouldn't think of as "liberal-haters." I believe many of them mean well, & add thoughtfully to the common dialogue, even if I wish they more willing to acknowledge the need for dramatic change. The NYTimes' David Brooks & David French come to mind here, as well as former Reagan Republicans like Bill Kristol. Temperamental/philosophical conservatives are by nature institutional & averse to rapid change & in this they have a lot in common with centrist liberals. I'm assuming these are not who you are referring to as "haters" of all things (small & capital l) liberal? (Speaking as an unapologetic progressive social democrat here, btw.)
Andrew Sullivan, Bari Weiss, John Bolton (ironically enough), a bunch of people at NRO, Tyler Cowen, Glenn Greenwald, etc.
Go dip your toe in at NRO (National Review Online), or The Dispatch. They are the quintessential anti-anti's.
I do read The Bulwark, Rick Wilson and The Lincoln project. They are never trump former republicans that just can't get to calling themselves Democrats. I do have some quibbles with them (mainly their belief that people like Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, and similar are the path forward. To me, they will guarantee more MAGA) but they have been reliable allies in the fight against MAGA.
Your recent Bari Weiss article brings her strongly to mind. Her TFP colleagues as well.
Bullseye! Something you’ll never hear from the anti-anti-Trumpists, or even from many never-Trumpists: “The Left was right about the Right all along.” Hat tip to @driftglass.
I don't dispute your point about the visceral hatred. But why is this? Because it seems to me there is no reciprocal left-wing equivalent. What the hell the left ever do to these people, except make their lives a zillion times better?
> "the real performance was Newsom’s concern. The concern was what offended their calibrated sensibilities."
from umberto eco's catalog of fascist traits in Ur-Fascism:
"#3. The cult of action for action's sake, which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
You pretty well nailed it Mike. Nothing we should already know, but too many are fooled by this magic act and you have taken the trouble to show how the tricks are done. I'm awarding you the "UNFOOLED US" award. You ought to get a show in Las Vegas, too, like Penn and Teller offer, but unfortunately I don't have the magic for that.
There are two parts of the illusion I would pull back the curtain even a little more than you did:
1. "But here’s the actual mechanism driving this madness: they hate the left, liberals, and Democrats so much that even when they’re empirically, demonstrably, undeniably right, they still can’t acknowledge it."
I'm not sure this only applies to people who "hate the left". I equally applies to those who may love the left, but find reasons not to acknowledge what is in plain sight. There are sincere, left of center influencers and pundits who still can't acknowledge what other liberals have warned them about and turns out to be true. Many reasons for that, but we can see it in almost every media interview.
2. "This is the pathology at the core of the anti-anti position: they cannot possibly believe that people outside their cynical, smug bubble could have been seeing patterns they were paying no attention to.
Again, there are those in the anti-anti [Trump] cabal that "cannot possibly believe". But there are also a sizable number of them that believe and ignore what they believe. The see the patterns, but do not attach any importance to them, or have any of number of reasons the patterns, themselves don't matter.
A final suggestion for easier reading: There are multiple levels of persuasion in this dance: there are the bat-shit crazy Trumpers and hard-core Destructionists, the naive and manipulated Trumpers and trumpettes, there are the actual designers and inner-circle sycophants, the anti-trumpers, the naive liberals, the anti-anti-trumpers, the open-eyed, fully Woke liberals, the screaming radicals, and blah, blah. You have 3 or 4 of them in the essay. Easier to read if you don't shorten the names, like 'anti-anti-trumper' to 'anti-anti', and other short forms. Harder to follow whose on first, better to keep the long form, or find more specific, commonly recognized terms.
Otherwise, you get a perfect score on this one,.