Let me invite you to a thought experiment that you can conduct in the privacy of your own mind. Carefully observe your own inner reaction to the following statement of mine, which truthfully reflects my opinion on the matter:
Donald Trump is a pathologically narcissistic, dangerously manipulative, clinically sociopathic and conspicuously unintelligent individual whose sole priority is himself, and who has no scruples about lying through his teeth so to deceive and use millions of people for the sole sake of his own personal agenda.
I've chosen my words so to deliberately evoke a strong emotional response in you. Now that you are aware of my opinion, you can conduct the thought experiment—whose results only you will ever know—by checking which of the statements below you now think applyto me:
- Bernardo would have voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
- Bernardo is a liberal/lefty/democrat.
- Bernardo likes Joe Biden.
- Bernardo doesn't espouse conservative values.
- Bernardo is a manipulative elitist.
Make a mental note of how many of the 5 statements above you are inclined to think are applicable to me, because of my opinion about Trump. Now let's try another sincere opinion of mine:
Consuming red meat regularly is something that we, at an individual level, should stop doing for our collective sake.
Don't overanalyse it, just check which of the following statements youfeelapply to me, given my sincere opinion above:
- Bernardo is ignorant of the nutritional value of red meat.
- Bernardo doesn't understand that meat consumption is entirely natural for predatory primates such as ourselves.
- Bernardo is too romantic and naive about animal suffering, for nature is ruthless anyway.
- Bernardo is trying to take away my personal right to choose my own diet and life style.
- Bernardo is not sympathetic to the economic needs of animal farmers.
You, of course, know where I am going with this, given the title of this essay. Therefore, you are more-than-likely analysing all this with much more attention than usual, so to find whatever trap I might be laying for you. That's fine, but keep in mind that, undernormalcircumstances, you would be judging my opinions much more spontaneously and unthinkingly than in the context of this essay, andthatis what I am trying to get at.
In this spirit, here is another sincere opinion of mine:
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is unjustified, criminal and completely unacceptable. It should be opposed economically, politically and militarily by the West.
Now, what do you think applies to me, given my opinion above?
- Bernardo doesn't understand that NATO's eastwards expansion was provocative towards Russia.
- Bernardo is ignorant of the plight of Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Donbas and Crimea.
- Bernardo is a hypocrite, for Western powers have carried out criminal military interventions in other countries.
- Bernardo is a hypocrite, for the West supports authoritarian regimes in the middle east.
- Bernardo wants World War 3 and nuclear apocalypse.
Now go back and look more carefully at each of these three opinions of mine. This time, avoid the emotional knee-jerk reaction andanalyseobjectivelywhat follows from my opinions and what doesn't; what I did say and what I didn't. If you do it carefully, you will see thatnoneof the five seeming implications listed below each opinion is actually entailed or implied by the respective opinion. If you thinkanyof them is, you are suffering from what I shall call 'Hallucinated Implications Creep,' or HIC, a very common bane of these troubled times.
Let us now review all this together, starting from my third opinion expressed above: it is perfectly coherent tobothagree that NATO's expansion was a needlessly provocative stepandbelieve that such a provocation doesn't justify—not even remotely—the barbaric invasion of another country. It is perfectly coherent toboththink that the Ukrainian government has neglected the needs and rights of its Russian-speaking citizens—which it probably did—andbelieve that a barbaric invasion that indiscriminately kills and maims all Ukrainians, Russian-speaking and otherwise, isnotthe way to address the issue. To acknowledge that the West is guilty of criminal military actions doesnotmean that it is OK for Russia to do so now, let alone at a much greater scale; two wrongs don't make a right. The regretful Western support for totalitarian regimes elsewhere in the world doesn't mean that the West shouldoverlook Russia's ravaging of another country in Europe; compounding a problem doesn't solve it. And finally, it doesn't follow from any of the above that I want a nuclear apocalypse; I just think that we shouldn't surrender to criminal totalitarian regimes such as Russia's because of a remote risk of wider confrontation. Otherwise, we might as well hand over everything we have to North Korea tomorrow. If the risk of nuclear confrontation justifies cowardly surrender, where does the surrendering then stop?
Notice that the key error here has to do with creating false dichotomies.
Now let's shift our attention to my perceived need for dramatically reducing our consumption of red meat. It doesn't occur to many—perhaps not to you either—that such an opinion may be motivated by, and based on, reasons other than the ones you would ordinarily expect. As a matter of fact, my key motivation for urging a reduction of red meat consumption has to do with the extremely inefficient, wasteful use of resources—think of land, energy, water, etc—required by intensive, industrial-scale red meat production (on a side note, only intensive red meat production can satisfy current demand levels, let alone the expected future demand as countries in Asia become more affluent). With the same resources, much more food—calories, proteins, vitamins—can be produced with much less detrimental environmental impact, feeding a lot more people more affordably. To mention only one example, red meat production is driving the destruction of the amazon, both directly—i.e. land clearances for pasture—and indirectly—i.e. land area used for the production of animal feed. As such, my opinion has little to do with the health value of red meat, the naturalness of predation, your personal dietary rights, etc. You may just have projected all that on me, but if so, that was your own hallucination, not anything I said.
Indeed, the error here has to do withassumingcertain motivations or justifications for my opinion. In other words, the error is attributing to me something I did not say.
Now on to Trump. My opinion about his character is an opinion about, well,his character;not a global statement of general political positions or sympathies. As a matter of fact, I am largely a conservative, in the sense that I live my life rooted in certain traditions, have a strong sense of historical continuity and context, a relationship with the very land under my feet, have respect—even a feeling of responsibility—towards my ancestors, and a profound appreciation for a truly religious life. I have a deep anti-elitist mentality—which is rather obvious in both my work and interviews—and generally do not sympathise at all with Hillary Clinton. Were I an American citizen, I would have nullified my vote in 2016, as a protest against what I perceive as a profoundly dysfunctional two-party system.
The error here is trying to bin every political opinion in one of only two baskets. So if I am against Trump, I can only be pro Biden, right? If I detest Trump, I can only be a liberal and not a conservative, right? And so on: everything is either black or white—or rather, blue or red. This is, of course, silly. Indeed, it is entirely arbitrary and extraordinarily implausible to imagine that society is so simple as to allow for a binary classification of every position.
Hallucinated Implications Creep (HIC) is characterised by false dichotomies, unjustified assumptions, projections, implausibly simplistic categorisations, failures to recognise what was said and, perhaps even more importantly, what wasnotsaid. It renders us blind to every nuance and subtlety, thereby being literally stupefying.
The projections and hallucinations underpinning HIC spread like a web of false inferences and unjustified conclusions, creeping through the entire social dialogue like a virus. Indeed, it has come tocharacterisewhat passes forthe present social dialogue.It causes us to talk past one another, fail to see what is being said, fail to understand what is and isn't entailed or implied by what is said, and generally make a mess of everything. It makes us argue against mere hallucinations—ghosts, fantasies—like deranged zealots, seeing enemies everywhere. It renders it impossible to find consensus.
HIC is a cognitive plague that social media has amplified to a level never before seen. And it may be our demise.
PS: You probably noticed that I've switched to British spelling. It's just that I have a newly-developed aversion for the letter 'Z' and what it has come to represent in 2022.
Share: