Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Open the White House Watch newspaper for free
Your guide to what the 2024 US election means for Washington and the world
A few days ago, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, I heard a number of world experts analyze this week’s inauguration of Donald Trump. Over a dignified, grilled trout dinner, they shared their concerns about economic, political and geopolitical ups and downs. Then a world leader turned to ancient Greece.
“We have an epistemological crisis,” he said, citing Greek words. Alphabet (“Knowledge”) and Logos (“Study”). In particular, he fears that “democracy is being undermined” because different social groups are now interpreting knowledge in different ways.
so true. Never mind that, as Harvard professor Graham Allison told me, Trump will “weave together fact, fiction, and fantasy” this week in his deliberately provocative rhetoric at Davos.
Of particular interest are the findings of two recent studies. One, led by the WEF; It shows that For the second year in a row, the meeting’s (mostly) elite delegates see it as the biggest near-term global threat, ahead of war and climate change. The issue is not even on the concern list before 2024.
The second PollThe Edelman Public Relations Group found that 61 percent of people (in 28 countries) are dissatisfied with government, business and the wealthy — and 40 percent support hostile action to force change.
What’s more, two-thirds of business leaders think governments and the media deliberately lie to them, a figure that has increased significantly in recent years. Trump is shouting at experts and experts – including scientists National Institutes of Health – reflects this. As one Trump-supporting CEO told me, after the US president’s bombshell speech to the WEF, “people are outraged.
So how should elites and professionals respond? Judging from the Davos chatter, two responses are prevalent. Some business leaders (such as those in technology) ignore Trump’s “novel” to cut deals. Others (like frustrated progressives) are dismissing him and his supporters as misguided, stupid, or evil — and saying Trump will go away and/or “fix” the lies of regulators and Big Tech.
But, I suggest there is another way: Leaders should consider what they themselves can do to heal this theological divide. how is? There are several possible steps. The first is to participate in “.Deep listening”, to quote a concept coined by journalist Emily Kasriel. That means hearing what Trump supporters have to say through as many preconceived filters as possible. We need empathy to understand why public discontent has exploded.
We need this to make another point: Many of Trump’s supporters believe they are at war to save Western civilization — and have the same emotional intensity as climate activists. That cannot be dismissed or ignored.
Second, if leaders want to restore public respect for knowledge, they must embrace the “error bar,” the longstanding scientific principle that researchers must be honest about their faith in research results. During this pandemic, politicians made dogmatic statements about medical issues (e.g. vaccinations) – and sometimes debated – the science was forgotten, even if it was temporary.
This was understandable, perhaps in shock. But, according to entrepreneur Peter Thiel, it has contributed to public confusion about “experts.” It was mentioned recently By FT. Therefore, all political leaders must accept a margin of error in the future if they want to restore credibility.
Third, leaders must (as I have). It was written many times ago) acknowledge that vertical trust in authorities and institutions is crumbling today. Instead, people are relying on peer groups or local communities as sources of advice (in other words, on lateral trust relationships). Leaders may hate this, but they have to work with it – they don’t want it to go away.
Fourth, if you believe in the revelation principle of critical logic, you should put your money behind it. This means paying for quality journalism, supporting intellectual inquiry in think tanks and universities, and promoting this in policy-making. For inspiration, see 314action.orgA political action committee created by American scientists that aims to put more scientists in public office. He gathered thousands of volunteers. But more could be done.
Fifth, leaders must overcome the initiative to prevent online misinformation. This does not mean using a hierarchy to suppress free speech. But it also means planting safeguards against violent activity and supporting social reality-checking platforms. These crowd-sourced tools are now the primary means of combating online fraud as Meta and others decide to cut content moderation.
These steps are not a magic wand. But they are better than comforting, discouraging, and blaming. But the hard truth is that neither Big Tech nor government can or will fix the epistemological crisis. The responsibility lies with all of us.
