Against Choice

[lord of flies]

I have thought about this for a while. In large part, I'd say, my current formulations are a response to incorrect ideas on the subject (mainly Eliezer Yudkowsky's).

 

First of all, what we consider 'choice' is really the deterministic product of environment and biology. If I'm completely honest, I never picked out my political opinions. I didn't go down to the corner store and search through all the different variants on fascism, anarchism, liberalism, feudalism and other ideas before finally settling on vanguardist revolutionary socialism. My formative experiences are varied, and they aren't all things I'm proud of. It wasn't all "I read about rapid industrialization in the USSR, which pointed me towards socialism." Some of it was fairly stupid, some of it was extraordinarily stupid, but I wound up with these ideas and I'm pretty sure they're right and rejecting an idea because the process that lead to it was not completely rational isn't going to get me any closer to the truth.

 

My point is, we don't choose what we choose to do. We didn't pick who we would be. We were saddled with it, at one point or another. Maybe we were born this way, or raised this way, or taught this way, or obtained information that lead us this way, but the point is that we didn't get here on our own.

 

This leads to something else, some other logical conclusion: the privileging of (the perception of) choice is just another instance of the privileging of what already is. The media is biased. Our educational system is biased. We are biased, intrinsically. I am biased to avoid closing my eyes while taking the stairs, I am biased to not shove my arm down a garbage disposal, I am biased not to walk off a building. The solution is not to support these biases over all others simply because they happen to be our biases right now. The solution is to craft biases that are socially constructive: biases that encourage life and pleasure, that discourage death and pain.

 

Where is this all going? It's meandering a bit, I'll admit, so I'll get back on track.

 

Suppose you have the choice to live in two societies. In both societies, technology has provided us with two amazing, magical potions. One causes painful death. The other cures all diseases. In one society, you can only purchase the cure-all, while the painful death potion is illegal (it is also not produced or sold anywhere at all, for this society is very effective at stopping such things). In the other society, you can buy either, but you are misinformed as to which is the cure-all. Which one would you choose to live in? Well, that's obvious: the one where you won't get killed.

 

Here is the thing, however: if you live in any society where both potions are legal, someone will be misinformed about which one is fatal. Some people have been told, taught, and genuinely believe, through no real fault of their own, that not wearing a seatbelt is safer. Others have been socialized to believe that crystals, or homeopathy, or acupuncture, or any one of a million other stupid things is more effective than traditional, scientific medicine. It's not their fault, they didn't choose to be misinformed, they didn't choose not to be exposed to information about how important it is to go look into scientific studies, they didn't choose to be taught by their friends or family that faith is good and scientific skepticism is bad. But they were, and now some of them are dead, because they got acupuncture when they needed chemo, got homeopathy when they needed antibiotics, got prayer when they needed a doctor.

 

Excepting the possibility of some absurdly thorough methodology, allowing people to choose between A and B - where A is good and B is bad - is going to get people hurt, or made unhappy, or even dead. And the marginal advantage that choosing (or being able to choose) to suck down water that is one part per million snake venom in a desperate attempt to cure your cancer provides, does not even begin to compare to the advantage that not dying provides.

 

This whole long post has ignored utilitarian concerns about "paternalism," because that's not my point. I believe, for example, that most drugs should be legalized, because regulated and controlled drugs will be better for the public health than illegal drugs. But that's not because I want people to choose, or be able to choose, to do drugs. It's because I want people to not be hurt by drug gang violence in Latin America, by drugs that were cut with rat poison, by dealers pushing hard drugs on users of soft drugs, and by a million other negative effects that come from drug illegalization.

 

I don't want to assume that giving people a choice is better. I don't want to assume that giving people no choice is worse. I want to make an analysis and come to a conclusion for every choice on everything, and it seems that for an awful lot of choices there's quite a few that are obviously bad.

 

For a very serious example: censorship. Letting people choose to consume media that is socially harmful - by, say, portraying an extremely overidealized female form, leading to body image issues, leading in turn to public health epidemics of bulimia, anorexia and other negative eating behaviors - is a bad idea. Is the marginal benefit of allowing them to consume socially harmful media greater than the harm? Well, I'm pretty sure no one will die or be made particularly unhappy because they didn't see a picture of an airbrushed, heavily make-uped, photoshopped woman, so no. The only harm is to the employees and stockholders of corporations that benefit from this socially harmful behavior (cosmetics, dieting, etc), and I say **** them, their opinion simply isn't worth as much, their benefit simply isn't as great. They can find new jobs, women who die of anorexia because every picture in every magazine is photoshopped to the point of unrecognizability can't find new lives.

 

If you disagree with my argument for censoring this method of portraying women because of utilitarian reasons, like that say there's this social advantage that you hadn't considered, or really there's not enough evidence to say that exposure to those images leads to negative eating behavior, then realize that you have also accepted that it is not an intrinsic quality that we should prefer to give people the choice to do X socially harmful thing. You've merely said this thing happens to not be socially harmful.

[pmp10]

First of all - your train of thought is really hard to follow.

You move from promoting determinism through a thought experiment to advocating regulating media.

The argument would be far easier to understand if it was made in reverse order.

 

If you disagree with my argument for censoring this method of portraying women because of utilitarian reasons, like that say there's this social advantage that you hadn't considered, or really there's not enough evidence to say that exposure to those images leads to negative eating behavior, then realize that you have also accepted that it is not an intrinsic quality that we should prefer to give people the choice to do X socially harmful thing. You've merely said this thing happens to not be socially harmful.

 

And the problem I find here is that nobody needs to deny that some social behaviors are socially harmful to not want censorship.

Some can easily argue that attempt at regulation can be far more dangerous than the behavior in question.

In fact I think you made that argument yourself in the case of drugs.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Im feeling way too pragmatic at the moment for this kind of discussion. And you use far too many words to make a fairly simple point.

[Hurlshort]

I thought the first three paragraphs were fairly reflective and interesting.

 

But then it jumped the shark.

[lord of flies]

Some can easily argue that attempt at regulation can be far more dangerous than the behavior in question.

On the other hand, photographs of impossibly pretty girls - jokes to the contrary aside - are not addictive. I wouldn't seek them out. If tomorrow all photographs of impossibly pretty girls vanished, such that I looked up at billboards and the women there were largely unretouched, I looked at magazine covers and the women there hadn't been photoshopped beyond the pale, I watched ads and the women looked normal, well, I might notice, but I wouldn't go "My god! I've got to get my hands on photoshopped pictures of ladies!" like someone who regularly takes recreational drugs or whatever. This isn't filling some need. It isn't making me happy. It isn't helping me make positive decisions. It isn't increasing my access to truth. It's just making hundreds of young women die each year.

[Hurlshort]

I don't think most reasonable people will disagree with you that the media plays a large role in the body issues of many young women, but your means to an end are not acceptable to me. I would rather fight this problem through education, offering alternative publications, and working to create more healthy female role models than blanket censorship.

 

Also, I'm a fan of free will. But I was probably brainwashed into believing that

[Tigranes]

I disagree that the promotion of education, alternative options, and such 'positive' methods should mean that censorship and other reactive measures are not necessary, or cannot be helpful. I think realistically, we need to consider both part of the toolset for reaching the solution.

 

Talking very broadly, our society is geared in such ways that when the commodity logic has pushed a certain idea or practice into the mainstream, it is very difficult to use conscious means of education, etc. to roll it back, or to fight it on its own turf (i.e. media commodities) and win. Crudely, pornographic sex sells so much better than gender / sexually conscientious products sell or campaigns persuade.

 

As LOF says, establishing censorship measures on impossibly doctored and hypersexualised women (and men) doesn't hurt anyone. Such measures also help justify and lend weight to more positive programs - it's hard to convince some people that such campaigns are worthwhile, feasible or even beneficial, in the face of the current media landscape. Censorship and other prohibitive legal measures should always be approached with caution but when used right they complement more positive actions and they should not be ruled out.

 

(Obviously someone will yell FREE SPEECH, I don't want to get into that big tangential can of worms... I guess one thing I might note is that money, peer pressure, discrimination, commodity logic, investment decisions - those things are barriers and manipulative factors to 'free speech 'just as much as laws and legal enforcement might be. It's burying your head in the sands to say let the market sort it out.)

[Orogun01]

I disagree that the promotion of education, alternative options, and such 'positive' methods should mean that censorship and other reactive measures are not necessary, or cannot be helpful. I think realistically, we need to consider both part of the toolset for reaching the solution.

This is probably the first time i'm going to agree with LoF, a lot the censored material it's due to ignorance. Plus there it's a lot of double standards when it comes to both censorship and drug regulation. I would say that censorship it's unnecessary and should be taken with a standard, which we don't have. I think the solution will reach itself eventually,

Talking very broadly, our society is geared in such ways that when the commodity logic has pushed a certain idea or practice into the mainstream, it is very difficult to use conscious means of education, etc. to roll it back, or to fight it on its own turf (i.e. media commodities) and win. Crudely, pornographic sex sells so much better than gender / sexually conscientious products sell or campaigns persuade.

What you say it's true, not that we should seek a puritan society where none of us think about sex. Most likely we should get rid of the double standard of being the biggest porn consumer and have such puritan views regarding the subject. Namely we should grow up.

As LOF says, establishing censorship measures on impossibly doctored and hypersexualised women (and men) doesn't hurt anyone. Such measures also help justify and lend weight to more positive programs - it's hard to convince some people that such campaigns are worthwhile, feasible or even beneficial, in the face of the current media landscape. Censorship and other prohibitive legal measures should always be approached with caution but when used right they complement more positive actions and they should not be ruled out.

I think that's another think that eventually will sort itself out, we tend to have reactionary views to whatever doesn't fit or scheme of things. A series of people who don't fit in the idealized model are eventually find their way to whatever reactionary movements begin, considering that most of us are imperfect the balance of power will change to include more realistic models. Because after an ideal image, the only way to go it's to the opposite.

(Obviously someone will yell FREE SPEECH, I don't want to get into that big tangential can of worms... I guess one thing I might note is that money, peer pressure, discrimination, commodity logic, investment decisions - those things are barriers and manipulative factors to 'free speech 'just as much as laws and legal enforcement might be. It's burying your head in the sands to say let the market sort it out.)

Yeah, I believe in free speech. What I don't believe is in corporations being treated as an individual, and as such they should be closely regulated. Not just by the FCC but held to a higher intellectual standard. Or at least a program set to help the really good networks to survive without selling out (RIP the Tube )

[Tigranes]

Most likely we should get rid of the double standard of being the biggest porn consumer and have such puritan views regarding the subject. Namely we should grow up.

 

Absolutely, but what is the solution - i.e. what does it really mean to grow up? Does it simply meant to say "fine let's just embrace our society's love with porn, photoshoped ladiez and whatnotelse"? I think it's really dangerous to believe that, because in part, the way we currently treats pornography, beautiful airbrushed ladies, etc. is a reaction to or otherwise concerned with those 'puritan views'. So if we're thinking let's move on from this denial and such, good, but we need a better idea of where to go.

 

A series of people who don't fit in the idealized model are eventually find their way to whatever reactionary movements begin, considering that most of us are imperfect the balance of power will change to include more realistic models.

 

Wishing I could share your optimism - but don't you think in a significant number of individual cases, actually, it's more likely that people will over time either learn to internalise and agree with the idealisation, or at best live in silent apathy and mixed feelings? That's why activism always has a tough job - it's not easy to mobilise people who agree with you, much less persuade those who have already been convinced another way.

[Moose]

I'd live in either society, because I could drink the death potion and then keep chugging till I find the cure-all.

[Raithe]

And while there's a lot of people wanting to say about Free Speech.. What we tend to have is more "potential free speech". The upswing of the internet does partially prevent the natural bias of various corporate / political media groups that tend to have more of a lock on the papers and tv markets. But then you tend to lose a lot of internet based media because there's so much drivel and few people want to be bothered with looking around for the few gems in the mess.

 

Or maybe I'm just cynical, jaded and apathetic..

[Humodour]

I like getting stoned when there is not much work to be done.

[Orogun01]

Absolutely, but what is the solution - i.e. what does it really mean to grow up? Does it simply meant to say "fine let's just embrace our society's love with porn, photoshoped ladiez and whatnotelse"? I think it's really dangerous to believe that, because in part, the way we currently treats pornography, beautiful airbrushed ladies, etc. is a reaction to or otherwise concerned with those 'puritan views'. So if we're thinking let's move on from this denial and such, good, but we need a better idea of where to go.

That would presume that the shared consciousness of our super ego is something that everyone it's constantly aware of. I don't think that there is any chance for people to take control of the movements since for the last 500 years they have been mostly reactionary. Thus making it only possible for people to migrate in large scale from the idealized to the imperfect.

 

Wishing I could share your optimism - but don't you think in a significant number of individual cases, actually, it's more likely that people will over time either learn to internalise and agree with the idealisation, or at best live in silent apathy and mixed feelings? That's why activism always has a tough job - it's not easy to mobilise people who agree with you, much less persuade those who have already been convinced another way.

It's not optimism, right now we have been conditioned into the current beauty model which has changed. In the past 40 years we have gone through a lot changes regarding the public's view on beauty, we have gone from manly, hairy Burt Reynolds to baby faced Taylor Lautner. Although we have become more inclusive as a result of globalization, and the overexposure of starlets.

The reason for the current obsession with idealized symbols is the contrasting reality, we seek the

[Hurlshort]

I know LoF partially addressed this in his last paragraph, but I was watching a special on anorexia last night and it was hard not to notice how much deeper that problem is than just having too much airbrushing on magazine covers. Here is a statement I found online about causes of eating disorders:

 

"There is no single cause for eating disorders. Although concerns about weight and body shape play a role in all eating disorders, the actual cause of these disorders appear to result from many factors, including those that are genetic and neurobiologic, cultural and social, and behavioral and psychologic.

 

Although much has been written about the role of families and parenting as causes of eating disorders, there is no evidence supporting this claim."

 

So is censoring really going to fix this problem? I'm not saying it will not help, I just wonder at what point we get diminishing returns.

[Tigranes]

Certainly Hurlshot, but at the moment we effectively have, well, not a lot of censorship at all. A little bit couldn't hurt, especially with the sexualisation of infants, for instance. With airbrushing and such in particular, it's fun to note that (a) it has been around for decades, and (b) it really changes a lot of things you wouldn't expect - it's not just about making breasts perkier and getting rid of stomach fat, and thus it affects our ideas of beauty in various ways. For instance, see the before and after of vintage pin-up models:

 

 

Anorexia is definitely another problem in the sense that we are quickly getting a lot of social stigma associated with it - if you have anorexia you're in a right rut. You sort of want to be thin like everyone else but you feel so much more guiltier about it, and at the same time you want to try and cure your anorexia, you feel the need to defend yourself from people thinking you're just a crazy dieting chick, etc.