I want to start off with a major caveat. These are just my impressions about two competing forms of human psychology. All of this could be wrong. I haven’t shown this piece to a psychologist or anything. I’m happy to correct this piece if it turns out to be flawed, inaccurate, or confused.
What should we prioritize? We all have to choose what to prioritize in life. My impression is that there’s a “truth/justice psychology” (TJP) and a “defensive psychology” (DP):
in life, people make allegations
TJP prioritizes truth and justice
TJP asks: “Are these allegations true? If so, what is a just outcome?”
DP prioritizes the accuser’s tone, the accused’s feelings, and the accused’s career
DP asks: “Was the accuser rude? Was the accuser shrill? Were the accused’s feelings hurt? Was the accused’s career harmed?”
In February, Dean Baker tweeted a link to Thomas Friedman’s 2017 piece about Mohammed bin Salman’s “big plans” to reform Saudi Arabia. Someone pointed out that Friedman never faces any consequences for being repeatedly wrong, to which Baker replied:
What’s pathetic is that I’m sure that most professional types would view the idea that Friedman should lose his job as being mean-spirited and vindictive.
Friedman could be completely wrong on everything he wrote for two decades and still not put his job at risk. It is only people at the bottom of the ladder who are held accountable for the quality of their work.
Friedman needs to be fired because he’s grossly incompetent and he gets everything wrong over and over and over. Is that rude to say? Yes. Would I say that to Friedman at a cocktail party? No. That would be really awkward. I would never say that to Friedman at a cocktail party.
Regarding Friedman, Noam Chomsky powerfully commented that we live in a “super-racist society with Nazi values”:
To get back to terrorism, this is a more subtle question about terrorism because there at least is a difference of opinion. Should we accept the South African exception? Or should we join the rest of the world and not accept it—that is, insist upon the right of people to resist racist and oppressive regimes and military occupation? Of course, we do agree to it in the case of people resisting, say, the Russians in Afghanistan. But not resisting guys we like—say, Israeli forces in Lebanon.
Just to give you an example, the chief diplomatic correspondent of the New York Times, Thomas Friedman, when he won his last Pulitzer Prize, was interviewed in the press in Israel, where he was. It was April 1988—I remember, because I was there, and I read the reports in the press. He was interviewed, and he was asked for his advice as to what Israel should do with the occupied territories. Here’s what he said. He said Israel ought to run the occupied territories the way it runs South Lebanon. That is, with a terrorist military force and a mercenary army and prison torture-chambers which the Red Cross has never been allowed into but where it’s well-known that hideous tortures go on to try to coerce the local population into supporting the Israeli-run mercenary force. He said that’s how Israel should run the occupied territories. But, he said, I’m a dove so I think you should give the Palestinians something because—and now I’m quoting—“if you give Ahmed a seat in the bus, maybe he’ll lessen his demands”.
Just try that out the other way. Imagine a New York Times correspondent in, say, Syria, wins a Pulitzer Prize and is asked by the Syrian press, “What do you think we ought to do about Israel?” He says, “I think you ought to run Israel the way you run Beirut. But I’m a dove so you ought to give the Jews something because if you give Hymie a seat in the bus maybe he’ll lessen his demands.” Would the next step be that this guy becomes the chief diplomatic correspondent of the New York Times where nobody bats an eyelash? If you live in a super-racist society with Nazi values. But we’re talking about us.
Thomas Friedman made absolutely shocking comments about the Iraq War:
Rose: Now that the war is over, and there’s some difficulty with the peace, was it worth doing?
Friedman: I think it was unquestionably worth doing, Charlie. I think that, looking back, I know I certainly feel I understand more what the war was about. And it’s interesting to talk about it here in Silicon Valley. Because I think looking back at the 1990s, that there were actually three bubbles of the 1990s. There was the NASDAQ bubble. There was the corporate governance bubble. And lastly there was what I would call the terrorism bubble. And the first two were based on creative accounting. The last was based on moral creative accounting. The terrorism bubble that basically built up over the 1990s said: “Flying airplanes into the World Trade Center? That’s OK. Wrapping yourself with dynamite and blowing up Israelis in a pizza parlor? That’s OK. Because we’re weak and they’re strong and the weak have a different morality. Having your preachers say that’s OK? That’s OK. Having your charities raise money for people who do these kinds of things? That’s OK. And having your press call people who do these kind of things martyrs? That’s OK.” And that built up as a bubble, Charlie. And 9/11 to me was the peak of that bubble. And what we learned on 9/11, in a gut way, was that that bubble was a fundamental threat to our open society. Because there is no wall high enough, no INS agent smart enough, no metal detector efficient enough to protect an open society from people motivated by that bubble. And what we needed to do was go over to that part of the world, I’m afraid, and burst that bubble. We needed to go over there, basically, and take out a very big stick, right in the heart of that world, and burst that bubble. And there was only one way to do it. Because part of that bubble said: “We’ve got you. This bubble is actually going to level the balance of power between us and you because we don’t care about life. We’re ready to sacrifice. And all you care about are your stock options and your Hummers.” And what they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house—from Basra to Baghdad—and basically saying: “Which part of this sentence don’t you understand? You don’t think we care about our open society? You think this bubble fantasy, we’re just going to let it grow? Well, suck on this.” OK? That, Charlie, was what this war was about. We could’ve hit Saudi Arabia. It was part of that bubble. Could’ve hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could. That’s the real truth.
I asked Chomsky about Friedman’s absolutely shocking comments:
I read it. In fact, it is such sheer idiocy that I and others circulated it as illustrations of the depths to which media can sink. Apart from the extreme racism and the vulgarity, which are sickening, he is apparently so utterly ignorant that he is unaware that the invasion of Iraq radically increased terrorism, exactly as predicted by the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and later revealed by studies that anyone writing on foreign affairs should be aware of. And it’s beyond ignorance to think that abusing innocent people in Basra is going to reduce terrorism.
Of course, a comical figure like TF could never comprehend that the US and Israel are guilty of vastly greater terrorism. That would take minimal knowledge of international affairs, and ability to look honestly at the states he worships.
Baker is correct that “most professional types would view the idea that Friedman should lose his job as being mean-spirited and vindictive”. That reaction—from professional types—is a perfect illustration of DP.
And Baker is also correct that “only people at the bottom of the ladder” get held accountable. Baker explained this point back in 2011:
If you’re a dishwasher who doesn’t wash the dishes, if you’re a cab-driver who gets lost, most people in their jobs are held accountable. We have to do that with Washington, otherwise we get real bad policy.
Thomas Friedman is not a dishwasher or a cab-driver, though.
DP asks: “Doesn’t Baker have a rude tone? Doesn’t Chomsky have a rude tone? What about Friedman’s feelings? What about Friedman’s career?”
TJP doesn’t care about Baker’s tone, Chomsky’s tone, Friedman’s feelings, Friedman’s career. TJP asks: “Are the allegations true? If so, what is the just outcome?” TJP only cares about truth and justice—not tone, feelings, and careers.
I think that The Tale (2018) is one of the greatest films in the history of cinema. It’s not an easy film to watch. In fact, I’ve only watched it once, because it’s so hard to watch. The film left a profound impression on me, though. This is how the film ends:
Jennifer goes to an awards ceremony where Bill is being honored to confront him, spelling out the abuse in front of his wife and the other attendees. Bill denies everything and leaves. Jennifer has a panic attack and goes to the bathroom, and imagines sitting with her 13-year old self.
When it comes to TJP and DP, the scene at the awards ceremony is very profound to reflect upon. Jennifer calls out Bill for being an abuser at an awards ceremony where Bill is being honored. Bill’s wife is there. Many important people from Bill’s life are there. That scene was painfully awkward to watch. You really feel for Bill.
You cringe when you watch that scene because this man just got called out for a serious crime in front of his wife and other important people in his life. And all of this happens at an awards ceremony where Bill is being honored. It’s maybe the most socially awkward thing that I could possibly imagine. I could barely watch that scene because it was so awkward—I felt so much awkwardness when I watched that scene.
But we need to think about this scene in terms of the two different psychologies. TJP doesn’t care about Jennifer’s rude tone, Bill’s feelings, or Bill’s career. TJP only cares about whether the accusation is true, and if so, what is a just outcome.
Truth and justice? Tone, feelings, careers? There are different things that you can choose to prioritize. I have seen people dramatically roll their eyes in response to “shrill” accusations of injustice. And the accusations that I’m thinking of were indeed “shrill” in their tone—I don’t dispute that the tone was “shrill”. But what is the priority? Should tone be a priority?
To take an example from academia, Richard Carrier called out the most prominent scholar in biblical studies (Bart Ehrman) for being a liar. That’s a no-no. That’s like calling someone a rapist at a cocktail party. It’s rude. It’s awkward. It’s unpleasant. It’s unprofessional. It makes everybody uncomfortable. DP says that Carrier stepped over the line, that Carrier was rude, and that we should frown at Carrier’s conduct. In contrast, TJP says—well, Carrier put it well:
When someone lies, and we catch them at it with abundant evidence, we are obligated to call them a liar.
You will never find any instance of my ever calling someone a liar without that statement being immediately followed by extensive and clear evidence that they lied.
You should be attacking them for lying. Not me for proving it. Otherwise, your standards of respectability are quite backwards.…
In every case, I present evidence of actual lying. Show me an example where I did not.
Quite frankly that their lying doesn’t bother you is disturbing. You are literally defending liars, and suggesting there be no consequences to lying, and that we never catch them at it or admit they did it. “How dare you expose a liar!” Seriously? I don’t take moral advice from someone whose advice is to shield liars from the consequences of their lying, and whose amorality is so shameless they attack the person who exposes liars and not the liars themselves.
You should be ashamed of yourself.…
Identify any instance in which I fail to adduce sufficient evidence to conclude someone lied or (if so I say) might be lying.
Without any examples of that, nothing you just said is relevant.
For example, you cannot dispute I caught Ehrman lying. Not only once, but twice.
Why are you not disgusted by Bart Ehrman having lied like this?
Carrier lays out what TJP is about. Tone, feelings, careers? These things do matter. But the priorities should be truth and justice. Otherwise, we should be ashamed of ourselves.