From questions to cynicism?

From a recent e-mail I received:

George
I've been a long-time reader of Question Everything and I got hooked on the way you raise questions about how well democracy and free markets actually work. But with your piece on August 2nd, "Getting serious" [link] you seem to have really crossed the line from skeptical to cynical. Now, today's piece, "Is Obama passing the acid test?" [link] you really do seem to be coming down hard on Obama and the hope that we all felt when he got elected. Please tell me you haven't given up on change from this administration. My own feeling is what you expressed in the original acid test post. If Obama can't or doesn't do it, who will?" [Links added for convenience]

Do I really sound cynical???

Here is Dictionary.com's definition of a cynic:

cynic
—noun
1. a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view.
2. (initial capital letter) one of a sect of Greek philosophers, 4th century b.c., who advocated the doctrines that virtue is the only good, that the essence of virtue is self-control, and that surrender to any external influence is beneath human dignity.
3. a person who shows or expresses a bitterly or sneeringly cynical attitude.

I don't think I qualify under #1. I don't believe ONLY selfishness motivates, etc. I do believe that selfishness provides some motivation and that it can get disproportionately large at times (like seems to be the case in the upper echelons of management, e.g. CEO compensation).

I'm not old enough to fit in #2, and I'm not Greek! Nor would I claim to be a modern proponent of that philosophy, though it would be great to see more virtue in our public leaders, wouldn't it?

Well, I admit I might be sounding much more cynical under #3. Sometimes I do sneer, but I contend I am not bitter. So, personally, I don't think I am really a cynic, at least by the dictionary definition. Your version may differ!

The reason I am not bitter is because I actually see all that is happening as perfectly natural given what I believe is the low level of sapience in the general population. We're all participants in the grand process of evolution. And right now our species, being a bit deficient in wisdom, has created for itself a world in which selection forces are going to make decisions about what comes next. Evolution is neither good nor bad. It just is. Selection isn't fair or unfair. It just happens based on fitness and conditions. What is there to be bitter about that?

And humans are what they are. Evolution produced us. Co-evolution between culture and biology made us what we are, including our lack of fitness in the wisdom area. There is nothing to be bitter about that. We didn't do this to ourselves intentionally. We sort of stumbled into it. It is what it is.

That isn't to say that I don't lament our situation. I'm just as scared as the next person regarding how this selection thing is going to play out for me and my children. I'm both sorry to be alive at this particular time, and witness to what is happening, and grateful to have a chance at a ringside seat for the main event. I am intensely curious.

But what gets me, and what leads to blogs like those mentioned above, is that there are wizened people in this world; there must be a few individuals in the population who have the genetic propensity to grow wise with age, to have developed wisdom commensurate with the challenge. But they never become our leaders. There are just too many of us ordinary schmucks drowning out the wise words that occasionally get spoken. And then there are quite too many of the sub-ordinary schmucks, the ones who carry guns to town hall meetings, who are even more effective at drowning out the voices of us ordinary ones.

The real reason I wish we could get some wise persons into positions of authority, and the real cause of my frustration and growing skepticism (which sounds like cynicism I guess) is that I still think it is feasible to have a manageable wind-down of civilization with catastrophic consequences not entirely avoided, but reasonably minimized. The way things are going, in Washington and around the world capitals, I'm losing all hope for such a wisely managed (one might almost say rational) process. Hence, I'm guessing that we face the worst and that evolutionary selection process is going to be very painful.

Here is an interesting twist to the whole thing. The way representative democracy and profit-oriented capitalism work, the truly wise people steer clear of politics and getting themselves elected. Really, when you think of it, what was Obama thinking to want to be president of this country, especially following after George W. Bush and the mess he left. Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread. Moreover, the way the governance process works in the US (currently claimed as the world leader, but probably not much longer) even if a wise person got to be president, what could they do? Sixty percent of the Senate and fifty percent plus one of the House members would have to be wise too. We seem to be maximally far from that condition. The President can't get much done otherwise. Just look at the spectacle that is the healthcare reform debate.

I just hope the leaders of China are wise. No there isn't much evidence that that is the case. In fact maybe plenty of evidence to the contrary. But if they were wise, they are in a much better position to actually get things done so they might fit the bill. In fact, China is more than likely going to take over as the dominant global power as long as the oil holds out. When the US defaults on its debt to China, look out. The only collateral we put up is, well, our country. It will be theirs to do with as they please. If the leaders are wise maybe they can fix things so selection won't hurt so much.

I'm not bitter, and neither should you be. But I can't help but be disappointed in us. We're apparently not even sapient enough to realize we need more sapience in the right places. So I guess from time to time I am going to sound cynical, but I'm really not. As long as I have breath I will continue to seek ways forward, as should you. Being disappointed doesn't mean giving up.

Comments

[Lutrinae]

I don't know what the original emailer meant, but wikipedia seems to have a different definition of cynicism:
"...a new understanding...of cynicism to mean an attitude of jaded negativity, and a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of other people. Modern cynicism, as a product of mass society, is a distrust toward professed ethical and social values, especially when there are high expectations concerning society, institutions and authorities which are unfulfilled. Cynicism can manifest itself as a result of frustration, disillusionment, and distrust perceived as due to organizations, authorities and other aspects of society, and thus is roughly equivalent to a substantive form of the English word "jaded"."

I would say you meet this definition better, although by the definition cynicism may not be bad thing. Also, it is my experience people use "cynical" this way more often, and bitterness never comes into play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism

I have some comments on china, but I'll get to that later.

[GaryA]

I for one, have always been proud to be a cynic (in the original meaning of the word)
Quote:
'Navia demonstrates how Diogenes fearlessly opposed every injustice and corruption of his time, surviving to create many cornerstones of modern thought. Stripped of its modern connotation (as it should be) "cynicism" is revealed as one of the most progressive and enlightened philosophical movements in history. He should be living at this hour.'

http://www.amazon.com/Diogenes-Cynic-War-Against-World/dp/1591023203

[George Mobus]

Hold on Lutrinae! From the very beginning I have tried to express the fact that I DON't hold out high expectations, ala:
"...is a distrust toward professed ethical and social values, especially when there are high expectations concerning society, institutions and authorities which are unfulfilled."

My whole point about the acid test is that if Obama fails, it will prove my main point, that we simply don't have leaders wise enough to get the job done.

I will grant I am frustrated, but mostly from living on a planet where evolution produced a sub-optimal intelligent life form!!!!

I had hoped that my 'tirades' sounded more satirical than cynical (in the modern sense). Guess I will need to work on my style!

I will eagerly await your comments on China. Big puzzle and big enigma to me.

George

[George Mobus]

GaryA,

I guess I just think Homo sapiens is too foolish to warrant cynicism in the Greek philosophical style. The existence of an injustice (in a larger evolutionary sense) would imply a capability behind the intentional mind that produced it to actually understand the consequences of their actions, and still take them. Frankly I've come to believe that the Dick Cheney's of this world really just don't understand the big picture. They are like sapient morons and can't actually be held accountable for their seeming transgressions (although I admit I would still like to see him and his ilk hang by their anatomical parts which you can imagine!) You would hope intelligence would be enough. That they could reason through their motives and decisions and then come to better conclusions. But, as I have argued all along, intelligence is not enough. It takes sapience.

But I hear your sentiment. I guess, in a sense, I share it and that is why I bother to keep writing!

George

[Scott N.]

Hello George,

In the opposite direction of cynic is naivety. Some may call this optimism. Given the opportunity, I would like to prove that the best essay of an average individual is better than the average essay of the best op-ed journalist. Provided with a higher potential of democratic visibility, I believe an individual will utilize a process of refinement and coaching to express their point of view in an intelligent and respectful manner.

George, I would suggest your cynicism is directed at the masses, while optimistic for an unforeseen intellectual authority. The 180 degree point of view would be optimistic in the masses, while cynical against any type of authoritative rule.

Just my naive point of view.

[George Mobus]

Scott,

As I tried to indicate to Lutrinae, above, my sentiments aren't ones of cynicism but of disappointment born of what I hope is a realistic insight into human nature. A cynic believes something good is possible but that the motives, or circumstances behind the "others" actions thwart the good. I have no such belief, at least not with respect to the current species of human on average. I simply think that our species is incompetent, not evil.

You seem to hold out that the average human is capable of developing reasoned arguments with the right framework and tools. Taken just a bit further this suggests that the average person is, in some sense, perfectible with the brain given to our species. I certainly do believe that the average human could be better on many counts given the appropriate educational and cultural milieu. But my investigations into the capabilities of the average brain for displaying a sufficiently high level of sapience suggests that what might be possible with the average person under the right conditions is still not sufficient to deal with the difficult problems we face.

Put another way, I argue that if our species actually had a sufficient level of sapience to begin with (native capacity), then reasoned arguments would not require the coaching and tools you imply.

Having said that, you are right that I am doubtful (not cynical) about the masses. Not sure what you mean about an "unseen intellectual authority". I certainly have never written about such an entity (assuming the standard lexical semantics of the words you used). What I have suggested is that because the genetic basis of capacities and traits are distributed in some form of Gaussian-like curve in the population, and this goes for sapience as well, then there are a few people in the right tail (high levels of sapience) of that curve already in our population. I see no signs that any of them have acquired any kind of authority (or put the other way round, none of our leaders appear to have high sapience!), with the possible exception of someone like Mandela.

What you are expressing seems to be a belief in the 'wisdom of the crowd' sentiment, and that if unleashed properly that wisdom would trump any authority. I actually share your sentiment about being cynical against authority except that I am insisting that my position is simply one of not expecting any wisdom, rather than deeply believing they have evil intent.

Nevertheless, I want to encourage you to pursue your research. I hope you know that I would be actually quite happy if you could demonstrate your thesis and put my (what seems to some as cynicism) doubts to rest. My thesis counts as a scientific hypothesis precisely because it could be proved wrong if you were to succeed in demonstrating your ideas working. So I do wish you well. I've said to friends that there are two things that will stop my writing on this blog: 1) humans start demonstrating wise choices en masse or 2) my worst-case scenarios come to pass and the Internet goes away! There is, of course a 3rd option but lets not speak of it! I assure you I'd prefer 1.

George

[Scott N.]

George,

Thank you for the encouraging words, coach.

I found "Wisdom of the Crowd" by James Surowiecki interesting, but a bit impersonal. I like to think of the DGG idea as crowd sourcing with a microscope's ability to focus to the personal point of view.

Coaching is valuable to the argument development process. I would guess Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan were coached by their peers up until their death.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, the President, Dalai Lama, and Pope are still available to query the role coaching has in their lives. Since the President is surrounded with a cabinet of his peers it is easy to conclude coaching is important to his position.

Wisdom, intelligence, or sapience is knowing what to do with the advice of a coach.