Another Parable On Obsolete Ideologies
See also: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ltey8BS83qSkd9M3u/a-parable-on-obsolete-ideologies
Four hundred years ago, in the nation of Crusonia, scientists made a groundbreaking discovery. Consumption of a single small pretzel, daily, reduces all kinds of ailments. Cancer, chickenpox, ebola, or bad breath, whatever it is, staying on the pretzel regimen will make it less likely to strike you and less severe if it does. For hundreds of years, almost everyone believed this. A few skeptics pointed out that, despite the use of this supposed miracle supplement, Crusonianites weren’t living any longer than neighboring peoples who didn’t eat the pretzels. But these objections were declared “discredited” and most people ignored the skeptics.
Then, Crusonia lost a war. In the grand scheme of things, the loss wasn’t very important. It had to give up a small, mountainous region inhabited by not more than thirty thousand people. But the shock of losing the war somewhat discredited the old order. The pretzel supplement could now be questioned. Soon, a third of society were “pretzel deniers,” a third were “pretzel believers,” and the rest were neutral or somewhere in between. The Pretzel Question became a major issue in Crusonia’s politics. There’s no inherent reason why a man’s opinion on pretzel supplementation should correlate with his opinion on tariffs or education subsidies. In Crusonia, they did.
Some created a syncretic version of pretzel belief. Sure, they said, pretzels don’t have direct health benefits. But doing the pretzel ritual each mourning makes people more conscious of what they choose to put in their bodies. They might consume less sugar, alcohol, and other harmful substances. Buying pretzels helps the economy and supports jobs for farmers and pretzel makers. (These people had never heard of, or pretended not to know of, the broken windows fallacy.) It was noticed that while these syncretists did not believe in the pretzel myth, their parents, friends, and romantic partners usually did.
There was another, seemingly more rational syncretic argument. These people appealed to the pretzel deniers to simply humor the pretzel believers. Taking the mantle of consequentialism, they said, “look, you think the pretzel supplement does not work. I agree with you. But it won’t hurt you either. A single pretzel has ten calories. A bag costs four bucks. Taking it will not make you fat, and it will not break your budget. And anyway, I’m not actually asking you to eat the pretzel. Just pretend to do so. Have a bag of pretzels in your cupboard, and tell people you eat them every morning. If everyone did this, the whole political issue would disappear, and politicians could start talking about issues that actually matter rather than pandering to the pro-pretzel or anti-pretzel vote. And consider the anguish of the mother who really believes that pretzels improve health, who is terrified for her pretzel-refusing son. Her beliefs are false, but her tears, her anguish, are real. Why not just eat the d*** pretzel, or at least lie to her about doing so?”
Many were convinced by these arguments and decided to resume the pretzel supplement. Some attributed their earlier pretzel-refusal to “immaturity” and “teenage rebellion.” Now that they are older and wiser, they said, they realize that eating the pretzel is the right thing to do.
Others rejected the argument. One man, responding to the argument, gave a memorable speech:
“Yes, it is true that, for many pretzel believers, their hearts are pure even if their brains are mushy. That mother honestly believes her son is in danger by not eating the pretzel, and she is honestly concerned with his welfare. But that is not universally the case with these pretzel believers. You all know who I’m talking about. You’ve all met the guy who pretends he cares about “health” but is really just enjoying the opportunity the pretzel issue gives him to bully, silence, and ostracize others. By complying, or pretending to comply, you’re rewarding and incentivizing more of that behavior. You are standing with the bully and turning your back on his victim.”
“You know what else you’re doing? You’re telegraphing to the entire world that you will do things you know to be irrational if only a large enough slice of society has a negative emotional reaction to you not doing them. Needless to say, this is NOT a recipe for an emotionally healthy society. It is a recipe for a society where emotional blackmail is the go-to weapon of choice.”
“After you agree to eat the pretzel, SOME pretzel believers will be satisfied. Others, however, will go farther. It won’t be enough to just eat the pretzel. They will demand you publicly proclaim that you believe with perfect certainty that the pretzel myth is true. Others will go further still, demanding you support making pretzel denial illegal. A few want to wage aggressive war on neighboring countries because they are full of pretzel deniers. Yes, that’s an extreme minority position shared by not even a lizardman’s constant of pretzel believers. But the seeds of that terrible ideology are there, and by giving in to them, we would be watering that seed.”
“Finally, I will be the first to acknowledge that there are bullies and extremists on our side as well. That some of the people drawn to pretzel denial are not motivated by a love of science and rationality. They want a reason to feel superior to others and put them down. But there is a crucial difference between them and us. A victory for our side will be a victory for truth, rationality, and empiricism. A victory for their side will be a victory for irrationality, sentimentality, and credulity. If their side wins, it will encourage lazy thinking on many more issues. We are right and they are wrong. Let us not shy away from saying so.”