The Politicization of Social Science. Notes on Rousseau, brain chemistry, and the ubiquity of bad academic “data.”

James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal ^ | February 15, 2023 | Loretta G. Breuning

[karpov]

Science is not supposed to be filtered through a belief system. It’s supposed to go wherever the facts lead. But the human brain doesn’t work that way. Our brains zoom in on details that fit our preconceptions and skim over details that conflict with them. We don’t do this consciously, so we believe we’re objective. And we trust the objectivity of researchers because they have high status in today’s world. As a result, we don’t notice the belief system used to filter their facts.

The belief system I’m talking about is Rousseau’s idea that nature is good and civilization is the cause of all that’s bad. Social-science researchers may not say this openly, but their findings almost always fit the belief that peace and love are the default state of nature, and problems are due to “our society.” They claim that cooperation and harmony are the natural state by producing “studies” that profess to show cooperation and harmony among animals, children, and hunter-gatherers. When there’s conflict among these groups, they overlook it (or, again, blame “society”).

In the past, people would not have believed such “studies” because animals were easily observed in the wild. People saw animals attack each other, so they’d laugh at you if you said animals lived in harmony. In the past, people were attacked by neighboring tribes and surrounded by squabbling children, so they’d question the assertion that humans are naturally cooperative. Today, we tend to believe these presumptions because we’re told that “The Science” proves it, and you’re dismissed as an anti-science nut if you disagree.

This is not just a philosophical debate because public policy is rooted in the Rousseauian paradigm. It tells us that problems are caused by society, so we can solve problems by removing social constraints.

[mjp]

The statement that "nature is good and civilization is the cause of all that’s bad" is a fallacy known as the "noble savage" myth. This myth assumes that human nature is essentially good, and that society and civilization corrupt individuals. However, history and human experience have shown that societies and civilizations have improved the quality of life for people, promoted freedom and individual rights, and advanced technology and knowledge.

Moreover, the idea that cooperation and harmony are the natural state of nature is also a fallacy, as competition and conflict are inherent in nature and human interactions.

Blaming society for problems and conflicts overlooks the individual responsibility and agency of people. Society is not a monolithic entity that solely determines human behavior and outcomes. Rather, society is made up of individuals and their choices, actions, and interactions. Therefore, addressing problems and conflicts requires individuals to take responsibility for their actions and work towards positive solutions.

[robowombat]

The more complex the social order the more cooperation in human interactions is required. The very large Chinese family model which required cooperation by units measuring in the hundreds was one reason, and a big one, that the Chinese model of hydraulic civilization functioned more efficiently than any other for over a millenium.

[robowombat]

Methvin’s book ‘The Rise of Radicalism has an excellent treatment of Rousseau and his responsibility for a large part of what has been negative in modern European history.

[seowulf]

I've always thought Thomas Hobbes was closer to the mark than Rousseau.

Hobbes turns Aristotle's claim on its head: human beings, he insists, are by nature unsuited to political life. They naturally denigrate and compete with each other, are very easily swayed by the rhetoric of ambitious persons, and think much more highly of themselves than of other people.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Hobbes/Political-philosophy

[nicollo]

Hobbes is always worth a re-look, because he is far more serious than the simplified version of both “nasty, brutal and short” and the “Leviathan.”

Like other Enlightenment texts, you have to suffer through his establishment of premises, but if you slow down and consider it all, it’s marvelous.

[seowulf]

I think an amalgamation of Hobbes and Locke pretty much nails human nature.

Each individual has much more than just one aspect. You need Locke for individualism and free will. You need Hobbes for the darker side of human nature and the strong government needed to control it.

The only French philosopher who had a somewhat accurate view of human nature was Voltaire.

[otness_e]

I wouldn’t even say Voltaire had a particularly accurate view of human nature, since he essentially adhered to the Joker’s view of human nature. He demanded that the church be crushed and that humanity be allowed to go all out and reject religion in the name of reason, and his views, more than even Rousseau’s, set the path for the French Revolution and by extension, Karl Marx (on that note, I don’t recall Marx EVER using Rousseau as a basis for anything or even interacting in even a small way with his treatises, yet he definitely learned a lot about Voltaire and his Candide book from his father as bedtime stories. As much of used junk Rousseau was, I’d argue Voltaire if anything was even WORSE, especially when unlike Rousseau who was merely delusional, Voltaire deliberately pushed lies onto the masses just because he, like Lex Luthor regarding Superman in fact, can’t stand the idea that there was anyone smarter than himself, ESPECIALLY someone who was far above humanity.).