Tribalism Part 5: Subjects to Subjectivity

Bo Brusco | July 30, 2020

Image by @dtravisphd from Unsplash.com

The Ideal Thinker

In the Western World, there is a common consensus as to how a person should think and reason—an “ideal thinker,” if you will. Inspired by the works of Socrates (who was wisest because he claimed to know nothing) and Descartes (who used hyperbolic doubt as a fool-proof method for attaining certainty), this ideal thinker seeks to curtail error by giving “careful attention to evidence and counterevidence, coupled with a prudent avoidance of preconceived notions (Schulz, 2011, p. 115).” This type of thinking is also akin to our reliance on empirical data derived from scientific methods. Essentially, we believe that the best way to think is to rid ourselves of bias. This is why we have come to see objectivity as a sort of intellectual Holy Grail because, by definition, objectivity is reality independent of the mind. In other words, it is the absence of self: purely factual, unapologetically logical, and completely unsullied by subjectivity. 

Thus we are witnessing a commendable movement in American culture; across the states and throughout the net, we are exhorting our fellow countrymen to free themselves from the chains of bias by embracing counterevidence as a sure-fire means of discerning issues more objectively. Though a noble and worthwhile endeavor, becoming an ideal thinker is not that simple, and to suggest that it is might indicate how little we actually understand about human nature because subjectivity permeates all that we do. It is constantly lurking in our subconscious, affecting how we perceive and think. Unless we can free ourselves completely from our selves and our minds, we will never reach this coveted state of objectivity and always be subjects to subjectivity.

Subjective Perception

Edward Craig, in his book “Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction,” argues that even empiricists who like to imagine themselves as ideal thinkers capable of “pure perception untainted by any thinking (2002, p. 68),” still underestimate how subjective even our most objective observations are. 

Even to look at my table and see that there is a pen on it requires more of me than just passively registering the light patterns that enter my eyes. I need to know a little about pens, at the very least about what they look like, and then bring this knowledge to bear, otherwise I shall no more see a pen than does the camera with which we photograph the pen. Perception is interpretative, whereas cameras merely record patterns of light. So less crude empiricism will allow that classification, thought, inference, and reason all have their legitimate role. But it will take its stand on the point that they cannot generate a single item of knowledge on their own. It may be true that there is no thought-free perception; but it is also true that there is no perception-free knowledge. All claims to knowledge answer, in the end, to perception; it may be possible for them to go beyond perception, but they must start from it (2002, p. 68).

According to Craig, the fundamentals of human perception are subservient to subjectivity. We do not solely observe patterns of light like cameras, as Craig suggests, but we utilize our cognitive abilities to make sense of what we observe. The same goes for the other four senses as well, not just sight. This dependence on subjectivity is also evident in the mere way we think, much to the dismay of self-proclaimed ideal thinkers. 

Subjective Reasoning

We aren’t objective observers of the world like some sort of computer algorithm determining the factual nature of everything we experience before storing information into our cerebral archives. We are inductive reasoners, meaning we operate according to a “strategy of guessing based on past experience (Schulz, 2011, p. 118).” We make decisions based on what is probabilistically true according to our personal, and you guessed it, subjective experience. In her book, Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error, Kathryn Schulz further explains inductive reasoning. 

We don’t gather the maximum possible evidence in order to reach a conclusion: we reach the maximum possible conclusion based on the barest minimum of evidence…We don’t assess evidence neutrally; we assess it in light of whatever theories we’ve already formed on the basis of whatever other, earlier evidence we have encountered (2011, p. 125). 

Many of us upon reading this might be tempted to say to ourselves that this is likely true of our fellow humans but isn’t the case for us. Though we should all strive to extract the biases from our reasoning, it is important to note that “psychologists and neuroscientists increasingly think that inductive reasoning undergirds virtually all of human cognition (2011, p. 118).” 

Is Objectivity Possible?

Despite our best efforts, it is seemingly impossible for anyone to be absolutely objective. Even those elected officials who are supposed to be the most unbiased individuals in our nation, The Supreme Court Justices, are still observably subjective. If they were wholly objective, then the issues they oversee would be dealt with in simple matters of being true or false—no need for internal debate. But as Russell Razzaque M.D. from Psychology Today, observes, that is hardly the case. He notes that “key decisions have been split down the middle for over a decade now.” 

Explaining their inability to be objective, as well as our own, Razzaque writes, “At the end of the day, of course, the only window we have into the world ‘out there’ is actually from the world inside our heads, so everything we see and do is still an inner subjective experience.” Understanding this part of our nature, it isn’t hard to see that even when we are presented with arguably objective facts, as soon as they’re absorbed into our world, we unavoidably make opinions and have feelings about them. In fact, the 19th-century Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, would even take things a step further and argue that “truth is subjectivity.”

Objective Sources

We often hear politicians and political commentators talk about journalistic integrity when decrying certain pieces or segments that they do not agree with nor see as factual; they equate this integrity with objectivity. However, objectivity is not the key qualifier of journalistic integrity, as Matt Taibbi said in his 2015 article, “Opinion can’t be extracted from reporting...Everything journalists do is a subjective editorial choice, from the size of headlines to the placement of quotes and illustrations.” It might sound insignificant, but even our diction and syntax are susceptible to subjectivity. While it is true that certain news corporations are more credible than others, it is also true that purely unbiased organization cannot exist—at least according to the basic definitions of objectivity and the constraints of human nature. This is why, as we discussed in Tribalism Part 4: The Quest for Reliable News, it is more advantageous for us to fact-check, cross-check, and triangulate sources than to endlessly search for a completely objective source of information.

Side Note About Facts

I should note that facts exist on a spectrum. On the purely objective side lies numerical truths, such as 1 + 2 = 3. On the subjective side are opinions such as the claim that pizza is the supreme dish, but almost everything in between is susceptible to subjectivity too. Even statistics and research can be wielded in a manner that supports one bias while dispelling another. So yes, objective facts exist, but as Schulz noted, “evidence is almost invariably a political, social, and moral issue as well (2011, p. 131).”

Subjectivity and Tribalism

The purpose of this installment in our tribalism series is not to instill a feeling of futility or defeat. What we’ve discussed today should inspire the opposite. Seeing how stacked the odds are against such subjective thinkers should strengthen our resolve to reduce our biased inclinations. It is clear that aspiring to be an ideal, unbiased thinker requires more of us than occasionally challenging our echo chamber. It requires more of us than occasionally questioning the biases of our tribes. We certainly should not sit back satisfied with how objective and unbiased we are, having only read one or two articles that oppose our world views while constantly consuming sources that reinforce them. We are helplessly subjective, that is true, but our awareness of our nature compels each of us to mitigate its effects on our reasoning as much as possible. 

Our tribes will always be a collection of people united in a common system of beliefs, and that is okay—that has been the case since our earliest existence on this planet and we’re still here. (Additionally, bias has its pros and cons but we will explore those in the next installment). But if we hope to be a voice of reason for our tribes, or some sort of antidote when we see the poison of extreme tribalism overcoming our fellow tribesmen, we need to be relentlessly challenging our echo chambers and consistently exposing ourselves to different biases—we need to be committed. 

Among many tribal disputes, we are frequently witnessing attempts to dismantle arguments of opposing tribes with claims that their reasoning has been compromised because of their biases, and that since their sources aren’t objective, their claims are null. As we’ve discussed, none of us are capable of being wholly objective. Of course, as with most principles, these things exist on a spectrum and some people can arguably be more unbiased than others, and as previously mentioned, we should all be working towards objectivity. But we should not be so quick to disregard sources, voices, opinions, and even data that aren’t purely unbiased. Nearly every production of the human mind has been tainted by subjectivity to one degree or another, and just because something is biased or opinionated doesn’t mean it can’t be true. As Kierkegaard suggested, for something to be true it has to elicit passion. We will elaborate a bit more on that in the next installment, but for now, we should be more cautious when disregarding voices of opposing tribes solely based on their bias nature because if that were the universal law of reasoning, we would have to disregard the validity of our own voice by the same logic.

Consider This

As we’ve seen, our proclivity for biases is an inherent part of the human condition. This truth, though a daunting challenge, enables us to be more empathetic towards our fellow Americans who are stuck in an echo chamber, whose biases are deeply rooted, whose world views have been constructed on a single system of beliefs, and who struggle to mitigate their subjective nature. The same benefit of a doubt we, our subjective selves, are deserving of is one that we should be offering to everyone else—especially to those who belong to a different tribe. Without empathy, the divide between our tribes will only become more consequential. 

Citations

Schulz, K. (2011). Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error. New York, NY: Ecco.

Craig, E. (2002). Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.