Skip to main content

My Opinion, or Someone Else's?

Meet Shmily, he is 23 years old and lives in Williamsburg. He is part of a very insular community known as Satmar Chassidus. He spends his day praying, studying religious texts, helping out with the three kids at home, and then more praying. Shmily’s whole world exists within a few blocks of the home where he grew up. His synagogue is on the corner, his grocery store is a few minutes down the block, his children's school is across the street. His entire life is based in the community with virtually no outside exposure. His friends and acquaintances live similar lives, share similar opinions, and are similarly confined to this world of several blocks. No one in Shmily's community is fluent in English, only Yiddish, Shmily included. None of them had any kind of secular education. The very notion of attending a public school would have resulted in excommunication from his community. 

In Shmily’s community, voting in general elections is absolutely encouraged. For Shmily, every political opinion, including choice of candidates, begins and ends at the pulpit. His rabbis choose candidates every election, and the community votes accordingly. News of the outside world, as well as Shmily's entire political worldview, come from the sermons his rabbi gives on the sabbath. By default, he has no choice in where he gets his information from and is therefore locked into the biases and viewpoints of his authority figures.

Shmily is effectively in a cult. He is who we all imagine when we think of someone who lacks freedom. But does the average American, who has the opportunity to be exposed to more viewpoints and perspectives, actually have more freedom? 

Meet Michael, he is 45 years old and lives in San Antonio, Texas. He has a diverse social group and considers himself to be extremely open minded. He has the complete freedom to go anywhere he wants, talk to anyone he wants, read anything he wants, and pick which news outlets to follow. Michael is who we imagine when we think of a free man. He uses that freedom to expose himself to the narratives and viewpoints he considers the most accurate and sensible. In the past, Michael has spent time flipping through the news channels on TV to get a sample of all the different viewpoints. Nowadays, he's settled on a channel whose analysis he considers to be both accurate and trustworthy. He has done away with listening to other commentators and news sources, as none of them compare to the analysis of his chosen network. Since this was a free choice on his part, he still considers himself a free thinker.

Michael’s circumstances are different than that of Shmilly’s. He has more choices and is therefore generally considered much more free. Due to his freedom, people like Michael are perceived as open minded. In contrast, people like Shmily, due to his lack of freedom, are viewed as close minded. However, are Shmily and Michael really that different?

Despite Michael's illusion of freedom, he has ended up just as isolated as Shmily. Both Michael and Shmily block out the influences of all other viewpoints other than that of their authority figures.

True freedom requires constant effort and is easily lost when that effort is not applied. If someone like Michael were to make the effort to become truly free, it would not be simple. First and foremost, it would require opening himself to a broad range of sources for news and political discourse--most importantly, those that conflict with each other and with his own views. It's a terrifying task to subject your opinions to such thorough intellectual critique, but this is what is necessary for real intellectual objectivity. The more sources he reads, the more he’ll notice how some he previously considered trustworthy are still lacking in their thoroughness or, in fact, even outright deceptive by using logical fallacies and other forms of rhetorical manipulation. 

No one writer can ever truly remove their biases from their writings, so sticking to a single source, however trustworthy, will always result in a limited and skewed range of thought. In order to be truly free, one must be informed about all potential opinions, aware of all arguments, and able to completely make their own decisions based on the facts.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Smarter Politics?

During the 1988 presidential election, then senator and presidential candidate George H. W. Bush said “Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES”. Yet throughout his presidency, taxes were raised twice and by no small amounts. So why did Bush lie? Well, why do politicians lie? This can be traced back to the most fundamental principle of politics: if you tell people what they want to hear, you will earn their vote. If you fail to reach the masses with your rhetoric, however, you will be out with yesterday’s trash. And let’s be honest, the truth usually isn’t good news.       So why don’t politicians just lie outright, saying only what the masses want to hear and ignoring any negativities? The short answer is that there is too much risk involved with telling blatant lies. Because outright lies are easier to detect, the risk-reward factor is unfavorable thus disincentivizing this behavior. Instead, you will typically see distortion, exaggeration, misrepresentation, deception, half-tru...

Academic Philosophy is Broken -- Here Is How We Fix It

My introduction to philosophy was not through the study of philosophical books. Rather, it was through discussion. Whenever my friends and I discussed questions about philosophy, morality, or politics, I would take a position and present the idea to my friends. They would then ask me questions to expose the flaws in my thinking. They would criticize every aspect of my thought process, starting with my premises and axioms and ending with my conclusions. My friends would not do this as a way to spite me. Nor as a way to prove themselves superior to me. Rather, we would all do this to each other to develop our ideas and potentially find the “truth.” I never thought of myself as a philosopher, and I always thought of philosophy as an esoteric academic process to reach true ideas. When I read Plato’s Republic , widely regarded as one of the most important philosophical works in history, I was surprised to read what I did. Socrates’s friends presented their understanding of concepts, such as...

The Makings of a Political Disagreement

Why does it feel like political discussions never get anywhere? During a political debate at a family dinner with your stubbornly opinionated uncle, have you ever felt like you are just going in circles? Have you noticed how, at those family dinners, no one came out with a different opinion than the one they started with? There are probably many answers to why this happens. I think it comes down to one very specific problem: the all-or-nothing political mindset. When you make an argument with a general theme that someone disagrees with, people with the all-or-nothing political mindset may feel the need to view you as wrong. You, as opposed to your argument which is what they actually disagree with. From this point forward, any further arguments you make, whether correct or incorrect, whether they agree with it or not, already fall into the category of “wrong” in the eyes of this individual. When that happens, any further discourse you try with this person just results in meaningless, o...