10 ways to think for yourself in the age of groupthink
10 ways to think for yourself in the age of groupthink
Every content creator, influencer, propagandist and journalist wants to do all the thinking (so you don't have to). Here's how to maintain your intellectual independence.
Pardon my quotation marks, but everyone these days is "consuming" a lot more "journalism" and other "content" than ever before.
Quantity is pushing out quality.
(Which is not to jump on the "journalism sucks" bandwagon. Our best journalism has never been better than it is now. What's new is the sheer volume of bad journalism shoveled in our direction.)
Meanwhile, the "content creators" and "journalists" are competing with each other using bold, shocking, opinionated headlines and tweets to grab attention.
Because everyone is skimming, angry and partisan, people are forming strong opinions without knowing anything — and without realizing that they don't know.
Received opinions replace knowledge.
Here's an example: Millions were told recently on Twitter that Whole Foods CEO John Mackey said that people don't need healthcare, they just need to shop at Whole Foods.
The stories almost universally claimed or implied that, in a November Freakonomics interview, Mackey said that if everybody just bought the right foods, nobody would need healthcare.
Trouble is, Mackey didn't say that.
Mackey's offending comments came in response to a question about Republicans and Democrats and whether they could ever work together, to which he replied:
"I mean, honestly, we talk about health care. The best solution is not to need health care. The best solution is to change the way people eat, the way they live, the lifestyle, and diet. There’s no reason why people shouldn’t be healthy and have a longer health span. A bunch of drugs is not going to solve the problem. And I think there will be innovations."
What Mackey is saying, as far as I can tell, is that the two major political parties (who fight endlessly over who pays for health insurance) might be able to agree that the diets and lifestyles of Americans need to be improved and thereby bring down the need for and costs of healthcare.
To say that "The best solution is not to need health care." Is like saying "The best solution is to not need the fire department." It’s obviously true. It doesn’t people shouldn't call the fire department when their house catches fire or that the fire department should be abolished.
Many liberal journalists are mad at Mackey for publicly opposing Obamacare, and also because Whole Foods in 2019 ended healthcare for part-time employees. He also opposes labor unions and holds other libertarian opinions. He’s made controversial moves over his career. Mackey is a Libertarian, not a Democrat.
It's fine to oppose Mackey’s politics, or disagree and criticize for things he’s said and done. But to convince the skimmers that he opposes healthcare is to leave them with a false belief.
Before Amazon bought Whole Foods, the company was held up by some as a model for offering great healthcare to employees, including to part-time workers.
But Mackey went beyond that. He offered special programs for employees to greatly improve their health, and used incentives for them to do so.
Mackey's actions suggest what he actually believes — that people should have healthcare, but should also be helped and encouraged to improve their health so they’re less likely to need it.
(The move to end healthcare for part-time employees at Whole Foods came long after Amazon bought Whole Foods.)
The idea that becoming healthier is better than needing healthcare isn't or shouldn't be controversial. The idea that much of our healthcare spending is a direct result of diet and lifestyle also isn't controversial.
The Harvard School of Public health stated the obvious when it reported that "chronic diseases —including heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer— account for some of the most common health problems in the United States… Yet many of these chronic diseases are preventable, as they’re linked to poor diet and lifestyle choices including tobacco use, excessive alcohol consumption, and inadequate physical activity."
And here's the kicker, according to Harvard: "75% of our healthcare dollars are devoted to treat these diseases."
Applying this to Mackey's claim: If everyone in America made healthy lifestyle choices, the cost of the nation's healthcare would be cut by 75%.
Even non-lifestyle health problems can be driven by diet. Consider this recent story: "How the American Diet Turbocharges COVID-19."
Mackey is being vilified for saying something he didn't say and doesn't believe. In fact what he did say was presumably acceptable even to his critics in the media — that being healthy is better than needing healthcare.
Mackey is vilified mostly for vocally opposing "Barack Obamacare" — the former president's initiative to get more Americans on health insurance.
But Mackey is a huge proponent of "Michelle Obamacare" — to get Americans healthier through diet and exercise so they’re less likely to need healthcare. The former First Lady's "Let's Move" initiative was about tackling childhood obesity through diet and exercise, not healthcare and drugs.
Even liberal critics who oppose Mackey's libertarianism probably agree with some of his libertarian remedies to both smaller government and improving public health — for example, that the federal government should stop subsidising junk food.
I'm not here praise or bury John Mackey. I would encourage you to agree with or disagree with Mackey’s opinions and politics around healthcare, but based on your own conclusions after learning the facts. Make sure you haven’t been misled by someone with an agenda.
Here are my 10 ways to think for yourself in the age of groupthink:
Know the difference between a fact, a mischaracterization, a claim and an opinion and recognize which of these you're reading, watching or hearing. "Men walked on the moon" is a fact. "Experts disagree about whether men walked on the moon" might be technically true but is in fact a misleading mischaracterization. "Men enjoyed walking on the moon" is a claim. "Men walking on the moon is mankind's greatest achievement" is an opinion.
Know the difference between reporting and editorialization. This used to be easy because newspapers not only had more formal discipline in their style, but also because they put the editorialization on the Op/Ed page. It's harder now. Editorialists (a.k.a. opinion writers) have always used reporting, and nowadays reporters increasingly editorialize.
Consider the context of why people said what they said. One of the most common ways to mislead is to take things out of context, which enables people to mislead even with facts or direct quotes.
Don't rush to believe; it's OK to not know what you in fact do not know. Overconfidence is a barrier to understanding.
Seek out primary sources, and use caution when these aren't available. This is especially valuable when someone slanders by paraphrasing. Don't accept the paraphrase; seek out the direct quote and the context in which it was made.
Beware of the motive of content creators and journalists. Are they trying to get you to love the "good guys," hate the "bad guys" or join a movement? If so, they probably aren't trying to give you the objective facts so you can make up your own mind.
Avoid contrarianism. The flip side of blindly accepting every claim that supports your pre-existing opinion is blindly rejecting everything out of a spirit of contrarianism. Instead, seek the facts and the truth in everything regardless of whether those facts agree or disagree with someone else’s views.
Work hard to be skeptical of the claims made by your own "side." It's easy to be skeptical of the "other side," especially in politics. It's harder to be skeptical of your own side, which is far more valuable.
Value truth and fact over impact and effect. Too many people actually don't care if an opinion or position is exactly true or right, as long as it supports the right cause. Resist this brand of apathy. It's OK to challenge any particular claim or opinion and still support the larger cause.
It’s OK to realize that sometimes a liar told the truth, an opponent has a good point, or that one’s own side is mistaken on any particular point. Because believing or accepting something out of a desire to conform is the very definition of groupthink. Instead, get the facts and think for yourself.