by Philip Monte Verde
I worry a bit about what we do or do not emphasize in our thoughts or in conversation. This may be a cognitive bias in humans, or perhaps it is just our politics coming out. But it can cause real harm and should be looked out for.
The example that sticks out most to me is the hot button topic of 'welfare fraud'. Presumably this is an actual thing that happens. Anywhere there is an availability of money or resources there is a good chance you will find someone gaming or cheating the system. Because this is a thing that happens (though I've never actually seen it), it is hard to argue against fighting it.
But we must be careful when discussing this topic with someone who is harping on it. Whether it exists or not, or what to do about it is not what we should be paying attention to. We should be asking why is this the thing that is getting emphasized?
When fraud is what is being discussed, missing is a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of welfare from the perspective of its recipients, or from a societal good. There is also the glaring point that fraud takes place at all income levels. Fraud and the stealing of taxpayer money happens in countless ways, under countless names.
Welfare fraud is emphasized not because it is a serious problem, but because it is a surface level reason for cutting welfare funding. It can cast a shadow of doubt in a reasonable person's head. Because the fraud aspect is being discussed, it makes it seem that it is a larger problem than it is. It plays on the implicit bias and fears of the middle class of the 'others' from below stealing their money and resources.
The welfare fraud debate is not meant to be a debate but a planting of the seed of lawlessness and anarchy as a legitimate fear. It is emphasized not as a policy point, but as a mind worm that crawls inside your ear and convinces you that money and power are better off sealed at the top. That those at the bottom are criminals coming for your stuff.
These emphasis biases can be found all over the place if you look for them. If we are in a negative, cynical mood, we look for evidence that confirms that the world is crap. These 'debates' prime us to be in just such a mood.
The lesson I guess is just to look out for these sort of things. To avoid getting lost in debating a point with someone, but rather ask why are we talking about this? What is going non-analyzed as a consequence?
I worry a bit about what we do or do not emphasize in our thoughts or in conversation. This may be a cognitive bias in humans, or perhaps it is just our politics coming out. But it can cause real harm and should be looked out for.
The example that sticks out most to me is the hot button topic of 'welfare fraud'. Presumably this is an actual thing that happens. Anywhere there is an availability of money or resources there is a good chance you will find someone gaming or cheating the system. Because this is a thing that happens (though I've never actually seen it), it is hard to argue against fighting it.
But we must be careful when discussing this topic with someone who is harping on it. Whether it exists or not, or what to do about it is not what we should be paying attention to. We should be asking why is this the thing that is getting emphasized?
When fraud is what is being discussed, missing is a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of welfare from the perspective of its recipients, or from a societal good. There is also the glaring point that fraud takes place at all income levels. Fraud and the stealing of taxpayer money happens in countless ways, under countless names.
Welfare fraud is emphasized not because it is a serious problem, but because it is a surface level reason for cutting welfare funding. It can cast a shadow of doubt in a reasonable person's head. Because the fraud aspect is being discussed, it makes it seem that it is a larger problem than it is. It plays on the implicit bias and fears of the middle class of the 'others' from below stealing their money and resources.
The welfare fraud debate is not meant to be a debate but a planting of the seed of lawlessness and anarchy as a legitimate fear. It is emphasized not as a policy point, but as a mind worm that crawls inside your ear and convinces you that money and power are better off sealed at the top. That those at the bottom are criminals coming for your stuff.
These emphasis biases can be found all over the place if you look for them. If we are in a negative, cynical mood, we look for evidence that confirms that the world is crap. These 'debates' prime us to be in just such a mood.
The lesson I guess is just to look out for these sort of things. To avoid getting lost in debating a point with someone, but rather ask why are we talking about this? What is going non-analyzed as a consequence?
