A VERY STABLE DUMBNESS: Aristotle's picture prevails!


Two scribes spot "well-informed experts:"
In the wake of Sunday night's cable show, the New York Times editorial board has been getting a bit of attention.

As presented, the hour-long TV show may have suffered from a bit of a "Cupcake Wars" feel.

Beyond that, the board—or, at least, the deputy editorial page editor—decided to endorse two candidates in a Democratic nomination fight which only one hopeful can win.

(No real attempt was made to explain how she reached the decision. She described the decision as hers, though she did share it with "the publisher.")

As we noted yesterday,
the board was mocked for its self-importance, but also for its self-indulgence. Kurt Andersen delivered the ultimate blow, saying the televised discussion snippets revealed board members to be "no smarter or more knowing or wiser than somebody at a dinner party."

In short, criticisms rolled down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. In the end, how should we regard the thirteen to seventeen different people who may sit on the board?

How should we regard the board? We were struck by a discussion which was posted at New York magazine's Intelligencer site.

Three of the journal's reporters or columnists debated whether newspaper endorsements have any real value at all. All in all, the discussion was perfectly sensible.

That said, we were struck by a larger problem. On the meta level, we were struck by the highlighted characterizations in this early statement by Josh Barro:
BARRO (1/21/20): I’m not sure they ever made sense. I’m not sure that unsigned editorials on any topic make sense....I don’t know what the particular expertise of the New York Times editorial board is supposed to be that gives these endorsements weight. They’re a bunch of well-informed liberals. But the people to whom this endorsement is directed largely are also well-informed liberals. They’re positioned to draw their own conclusions.
Barro described the board members as "a bunch of well-informed liberals." Beyond that, he may have suggested that they have some type of "expertise."

Moving much farther out on a limb, Barro even seemed to say that New York Times readers are "well-informed!" For today, let's stick with his characterization of the people who sit on the board.

Are Times board members "well-informed?" Do they possess "expertise?" Much more significantly, is that the fundamental or only way we should regard the board members?

That's the impression which may have emerged from this three-way discussion. As the discussion continued, Eric Levitz extended Barro's description in a series of remarks, and no one piped up to complain:
LEVITZ: I think the Times’ endorsements are a useful institution in the context of state and local races/ballot referenda—low salience, low visibility elections where a significant segment of the (low turnout) electorate might both want and heed the guidance of well-informed liberals.


And on those things, the subject-area expertise of certain board members is helpful.


[T]oday’s Times board is a semi-random assortment of left-of-center journalists and experts who have no reason to share a consensus take on the 2020 presidential race, and manifestly don’t.


[B]y its nature, the board can’t not be a collection of “extremely high-information, professional class” voters, and the Democratic primary electorate is not uniformly those things.
The overall discussion was perfectly sensible. That said, Levitz doubled down on Barro's initial characterization, even while drawing a useful distinction between the editorial board and the Democratic electorate.

Readers were persistently told that the New York Times editorial board is a collection of "well-informed" "experts," full and complete total stop.

Board members are “extremely high-information voters" possessed of "expertise." Full and complete total stop.

Full and complete total stop! When it came to the editorial board, no countervailing characterization was offered in this discussion.

How about it? Is the Times editorial board a collection of extremely well-informed experts? More to the point, is that the way we should think of the board, full and complete total stop?

We're going to say that the answer is no. We'll also say that Aristotle's ancient, unhelpful framework was very much alive and well in those characterizations.

"Man [sic] is the rational animal!" Aristotle is widely said to have said it.

It isn't entirely clear what he meant by whatever it is he actually said in the original Greek. But down through the annals of time, this characterization has come to define the way we humans tend to think of ourselves, at least over here in The West.

That said, we pose a question:

Can anyone read the New York Times and think they're being exposed to fully rational expositions driven by expertise, full stop?

Sadly, the answer to that question is yes. We hugely gullible liberal subscribers are strongly inclined to see the Times that way. This perceptual failure helps explain the current state of our failing democracy.

Briefly, let's be clear! The people who sit on the editorial board are not in charge of the newspaper's news reporting. Increasingly, that's the province of people barely out of college, people who may be heavily steeped in certain kinds of tribal propaganda.

Tomorrow, we'll return to the types of work which are increasingly being characterized as possessing "a very stable dumbness." Most of that work isn't done by the board.

On the other hand, some of it is.

Go ahead—we dare you! Watch the hour-long TV show the editorial board allowed to be broadcast.

(The program is available through FX or Hulu, or maybe through your cable On Demand.)

After doing so, ask yourselves if you just watched a set of discussions conducted by “extremely high-information" people possessed of "expertise," full and complete total stop.

When we watched, we thought we saw a fair amount of silly simpering of a horribly familiar kind. We also thought we might have seen occasional hints of tribal dumbness. Reading through the full transcripts of some of the interviews, the picture may have become a bit worse.

Within our modern upper-end journalism, there is no word that's more misused than the pleasing and silly term "expert."

Reporters constantly use the term in support of their own preferred views. Meanwhile, we liberals persistently read the New York Times without being able to see the presence of a very stable type of tribal dumbness.

We've lived with that unhelpful dumbness for a very long time now. By the nature of the species, it's hard for tribal members to see it.

Andersen seemed to say the dumbness was visible during that TV show. If the society hopes to survive, it's time to start spotting such manifestations, and also to loudly complain.

Tomorrow: Candidate Pete meets AOC, plus Greta and Barack


  1. "Moving much farther out on a limb, Barro even seemed to say that New York Times readers are "well-informed!""

    Why, dear Bob, most of them probably are well-informed (or, rather, "well-informed") of the latest liberal zombie cult's party line and its newest talking points. So, there.

    1. How do you know what most Times readers think?

    2. @AC/MA
      The same way Somerby knows?

    3. "How do you know"

      Why, I surmise, I deduce, I reckon.

      Which should be perfectly obvious to any normal person, and should need no explanation.

    4. There are a lot of comments from readers to editorials and articles in the Times. They run the gamut. Quite a few are quite intelligent. I doubt you have ever looked at any of these. I surmise you aren't interested in being objective, the same fault with a lot of 'liberals.'

    5. Meh. How do you know that "quite a few are quite intelligent"? It's utterly counterintuitive.

      Unless, of course, they read zombie propaganda for the laughs. In which case they are not really "New York Times readers" in the ordinary sense...

    6. ...well, to be fair, they could actually be "intelligent", in a highfalutin sort of way. Which is just another word for "dumb"...

    7. Hello viewers around the Globe, I was despondent because i had a very small penis, about 2.5 inches soft and 4 inches hard not nice enough to satisfy a woman, i have been in so many relationship, but cut off because of my situation, i have used so many product which doctors for me, but none could offer me the help i searched for. i saw some few comments on the INTERNET about this specialist called Dr,OLU and decided to contact him on his email: Drolusolutinthome@gmail.com) so I decided to give his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me, he gave me some comforting words with his herbal pills for Penis Enlargement, Within 3 week of it, i began to feel the enlargement was surprised when she said that she is satisfied with my sex and i have got a large penis. Am so happy, thanks to Dr OLU I also learn that Dr OLU also help with Breast Enlargement Hips and Bums Enlargement etc.. If you are in any situation with a little Penis, weak ejaculation, small breast_hips_bums do get to Dr OLU now for help on his email (Drolusolutionhome@gmail.com) or add him on whatsapp line +2348140654426 

  2. Somerby asks:

    “Can anyone read the New York Times and think they're being exposed to fully rational expositions driven by expertise, full stop?”

    His answer:
    “We hugely gullible liberal subscribers are strongly inclined to see the Times that way.”

    And thus, Somerby claims to know what Times subscribers think. At least the liberal ones.

  3. Yesterday, Somerby featured criticism of the New York Times from mainstream/liberal outlets, such as New York Magazine and Slate. This shows that there is liberal critique of the Times. (He would see even more if he would venture out of his bubble.)

    So, Somerby reduces his usual complaint about “we liberals” to “we liberal subscribers of the Times.”

    Even that is a generalization. Somerby has no idea what the reaction is from the Times’ liberal subscribers to any given story. He certainly can’t assume the recent dual politicial endorsement met with general approval.

    Somerby apparently can’t help himself. He turns a more or less reasonable critique of the Times into an unjustified and illogical mind-reading of liberals.

  4. IMHO self-importance and self-indulgence often lead to editorials that are not well-reasoned. Times editorials typically do not do a good job of convincing the reader that they're right. Too many of them more or less say, "We're the Ne York Times, so our opinion is correct."

  5. I find myself wondering whether Somerby could write a full post if he were barred the use of the word "dumb." He uses it so often that I worry about the shrinkage of his descriptive vocabulary. That is surely a sign of the onset of dementia.

    1. More likely a sign of his Trumptardism.

  6. 'Meanwhile, we liberals persistently read the New York Times without being able to see the presence of a very stable type of tribal dumbness'

    You mean 'we clueless, lying, worshippers of Trump, Roy Moore, Devin Nunes, Ron Johnson and Jim Joradan', i.e. we hardcore clueless, lying Trumptards.

  7. How i got my Husband back Thanks to Dr Padman for bringing back my Husband ,and brought great joy to my family, My Ex-Husband dumped me two weeks ago after I accused him of seeing someone else and insulting him. I want him back in my life but he refuse to have any contact with me. I was so confuse and don't know what to do, so I reach to the internet for help and I saw a testimony of how a spell caster help people to get their ex back so I contact the spell caster and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me and assure me of 48hours that my ex will return to me and to my greatest surprise the third day my ex came knocking on my door and beg for forgiveness. I am so happy that my love is back again and not only that, we are about to get married. Once again thank you Dr Padman , You are truly talented and gifted. padmanlovespell@yahoo.com is the only answer. He can be of great help and I will not stop publishing him because he is a wonderful man.Email: padmanlovespell@yahoo.com or whatsaap +19492293867 . padmanlovespell@yahoo.com

  8. 5 years ago I had warts, I was treated with some liquid applied to the warts they continued to grow and spread... The next 2 doctors did laser surgery to remove them. 1 year after the surgery, they grew back close to where the 1st ones were' so I was finally told it was hpv. I have had it for very long time, I contract it from my cheated boyfriend and I found out he was also infected and I end up the relationship between us. the warts was so embarrasses because it started spreading all over I have be dealing with this things for very long time the last treatment I take was About 2 years ago I applied natural treatment from Dr onokun herbal cure, a week after applying the treatment all the warts was gone. it's now 2 years and some months I don't have single wart or any symptoms of hpv. wow"" it's great, Dr onokun has finally cured me. Anyone living with hpv contact Dr onokun for natural treatment.
    His email address: dronokunherbalcure@gm‎ail.com  

  9. Good day to all viewer online am so happy sharing this great testimony on how i was checking for solution in the internet then miraculously i came Across Dr.LOSA the powerful herbalist that Cure Numerous individuals Herpes Simplex Virus,so I contacted him base on the testimonies I?m seeing about him on the internet, I was cured too by him, kindly contact him actoday through his email he can help you email ; dr.losaherbalhome@gmail.com and so he can cure types of diseases like,HEPATITIS B,DIABETICS,CANCER,HPV,LOW SPERM CAM HIV/STDS FIBROSIS LOST OF WEIGHT .. all thank to you Dr LOSA for your kindly help in my life his Mobile number +2349056464736

    He cure listed diseases