A Vaccine for Ignorance
We need to recognize how our biases for individualism tip us toward misunderstanding and rejecting reality—and the study of reality, science.
From Why Trust Science? by Naomi Oreskes.
"In a 2016 presidential debate, Donald Trump rejected the position of medical professionals—including that of fellow candidate physician Ben Carson—on the safety of vaccination. Recounting the experience of an employee whose child was vaccinated and later diagnosed as autistic, Mr. Trump stated his view that vaccines should be given at lower doses and be more widely spaced. Few medical professionals share his view . . . Many parents now reject the advice of their physicians and choose to have their children vaccinated on a delayed schedule—or not at all. As a result, morbidity and mortality from preventable infectious diseases are on the rise."
"The vice president of the United States, Mike Pence, is a young Earth creationist, meaning that he believes that God created the Earth and all it contains less than ten thousand years ago. The consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that the genus Homo emerged two to three million years ago, and that anatomically modern humans appeared about two hundred thousand years ago. . . . [Yet] 67% of regular churchgoers believe that God created humans in their present form within the last ten thousand years. Some of us may think that these people are all Republicans, but we would be wrong. According to the Gallup polling organization, while 58% of Republicans agreed with the statement that 'God created humans in their present form, within the last 10,000 years,' so did 39% of independents and 41% of Democrats."
"The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) . . . has long promoted skepticism about the scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change and disparaged the conclusions of the scientific community, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). . . . In 2016, [an AEI] scholar referred to scientists as an "interest group," demanding to know why 'scientific analysis conducted or funded by an agency headed by political appointees buffeted by political pressures … [should] be viewed ex ante as any more authoritative than that originating from, say, the petroleum industry?'"
These three well known and longstanding "controversies" seem to me to have at least one important thing in common: in every case, science offers us a collectivist and continuous view of ourselves, which strongly contradicts our folk-psychological individualistic and discrete view.
Vaccinology, for example, tells us that vaccines are both safe and vital, in general. Because of course they can't test every member of a population, scientists use samples and statistics to arrive at this conclusion. What's more, from a scientific perspective, the primary problem with so-called anti-vaxxers is not that they will get sick—the more important problem is that their decisions will make it more likely for the group to get sick. Finally, the notion that a vaccine will work across the board presents us with a view of ourselves that certainly hyper-individualists will find difficult to swallow: biologically, we are all pretty much alike. Evolutionary biology operates in a similar way—terribly confusing from an individualist and discretist perspective. Across large swathes of time, species evolve and branch continuously, we are just one of those species, we haven't been around a long time, there is very little difference between us and, say, chimps or mice, and no one made us special. And with climate science, here again we have a situation where we are collectively causing a problem, no individual is responsible, and it is continuously and incrementally getting worse despite fluctuations over shorter time frames.
There is at least some evidence to support the idea that individualism could work against science in these areas. For example, a recent study cited the conclusion that "individualist worldviews are negatively related with concern about climate change, willingness to behave in climate-friendly ways, and acceptance of related policy measures." Another citation, from this research, explains that "an individualistic worldview was associated with fewer COVID-19-related protective behaviors (e.g., social distancing and facemask wearing)." With evolutionary theory, the picture is murkier—but, I would argue, this is only because individualism and essentialism are very similar orientations:
Developmental psychologists have identified two cognitive biases in very young children that help to explain the popularity of intelligent design [creationism]. The first is a belief that species are defined by an internal quality that cannot be changed (psychological essentialism). The second is that all things are designed for a purpose (promiscuous teleology) . . .
Pre-schoolers are committed to the idea that members of a species have an inner, inviolable "essence" that makes them what they are. Four-year-olds have a basic understanding of genetic inheritance: that a calf brought up its entire life by pigs will still moo like a cow and not oink like a pig. Three-year-olds insist that a Labrador that undergoes surgery to look like a Rottwieler is still a Labrador. Two-year-olds predict that a dolphin will breathe air and not water if you first tell them that dolphins are mammals (like dogs) that look like fish.
Psychological essentialism is a powerful learning tool. In the face of all the visual evidence to the contrary, it allows us to easily group Chihuahuas and Great Danes into the same category (dogs). And once we know they are members of a familiar category, all sorts of other information comes for free; that they both bark, eat meat and like to chase postmen.
However, the idea that species are determined by an unchangeable core essence directly contradicts the theory of evolution. A consequence of adaptation by natural selection is that populations within a species gradually adapt from one form to another, as humans and apes evolved from the same ancestor. Psychological essentialism is one of the primary reasons why the theory of evolution is so widely misunderstood by both children and adults.
It's worth noting the "promiscuous teleology" bias mentioned above as well, because another common feature of resistance to vaccine science, evolutionary biology, and climate science is the claim that some malevolent cabal is "pushing" these conclusions onto a helpless public. The individualistic | essentialist bias makes it inconceivable that anyone would simply want to learn more or provide for collective benefits without some personal agenda behind it.
And Now . . . Education
Is individualism bad and collectivism good? No, of course not. We need both. But we also need to recognize how our individualistic biases—both natural and social—tip us toward misunderstanding and rejecting reality (and the study of reality, science), especially when that reality is more collective and continuous rather than individualistic and discrete.
Public K-12 education, for example, provides for a collective benefit, not individual benefits. We don't teach children about ancient Egypt because we want them to be egyptologists, we don't teach children math because we want them to be mathematicians, and we don't teach children poetry because we want them to be poets. We teach them these things because we want them to understand, hopefully join—and then maybe contribute to—the collective conversation about us as a national and global civilization in those areas. We want them to understand—and then expand—their place in the world.
If you haven't noticed, this isn't how K-12 education talks. They are individualists, discretists, and essentialists, through and through now. If Johnny thinks that 6 and 10 are not even numbers, then by golly we're going to spend 30 minutes of class time investigating that—because screw truth, history, consensus, and shared knowledge; what's MOST important is what is rattling around in this individual young child's head. Every teacher knows that's not sustainable.
Of course, we should have a respect for individual inquiry and critical thinking but more importantly for K-12 education, students should have an understanding of the importance of consensus and the collective nature of knowledge. Shouldn't students have a sense of responsibility towards the wider global community and reality?
