Identity Idiocracy

Click on the image above to play the video (flip your phone to widescreen if you want image to be bigger)

Identity Idiocracy

First, thank you to those who filled out last week's survey about what we care the most about. As you can see from the graph below, the 6 categories that I quickly picked were all very important to all respondents and 2 of them (health and safety/security) were the most important to all. As you also can see by my green box, all 6 were given a rate of importance close to 8 or above. That's a rather strong sign of alignment.

Obviously, there is likely selection bias at play here. First off, the people subscribing to this newsletter probably have a certain posture, interest, and outlook. Secondly, of those thousands of subscribers, the 100 or so that filled out this survey are possibly even more aligned with one another than even the general population of this newsletter. Regardless, I would say that this still confirms the point I tried to make, which is that our discourse at large would radically improve if we turned more of our attention to what we agree on rather than what we disagree on. It's easier to agree on the HOW once you agree on the WHAT.

This brings me in a circuitous way to today's topic: identity idiocracy.

This is the cultural tendency of our public discourse to force-fit any person, any idea, or any preference into a broad-based, poorly defined, catch-all label, and often with maligned intentions. It’s a chronic disease we must treat. Aggressively. It's literally killing us.

Our belief systems as human beings are a complicated matter. Way too rich, colorful, and layered to be dumbed down to a simple sloppy label of right or left, capitalist or socialist, anti or for.

Social media has also made this worse as it is so much easier and more convenient, in the comfort of your pajamas far away from other humans to click, like, and be part of this massive identity game. The algorithms then feed you with more of what you align with and less of what you don't which further deepens your "digital identity" and creates moats and walls between you and other people belonging to other identities.

Let's take a less loaded example, like music. I love music. And I am often asked, "What kind of music do you like? Do you like rock, pop, jazz, classical, blues, or folk?” I often say, “Yes, I like some of them all, but don't like all of them all. I particularly like intersections of them. Like Sting, a sort of folksy, jazzy, classical rock!”

The same is true for authors, journalists, and almost all people. That is to say, I love some aspects of all people. There is always something to admire in another fellow human. If you look hard and close enough. But I don't love all aspects of almost anyone, including myself!

The way I see it, we are stuck in a particularly pernicious combination of both identity idiocracy AND binary bias. This means that we push all people and their opinions into only one of two choices.

Let's try to make an example. Consider the graph below.

In our political sphere, where division and dehumanization run rampant, we typically refer to (at least in the U.S.) people as either a Democrat or a Republican. Like it's that simple—it's not. 

Consider person A and person B in the graph. They are very far apart and might really struggle to find anything in common. I get that. And there are people like that, for sure. But the problem with our current state of two-party identity politics is that most people are, in fact, closer to C and D. The distance between them is far less than between A and B! But since either party is more defined by the extreme positions, we all get affected and infected by our labels. And this acts as a deterrent of conversation and public discourse. If you are C, then you must be the same as A. There is just no room for nuance, complexity, and combinations in a world of confining political identity and binary biases. 

I firmly believe that the vast majority of Americans would fall somewhere inside the green circle. However, our public debates are living in the extreme ends and political labels as they stand fail to represent an accurate picture of real-life views. And as a result, we feel removed, disconnected, and disengaged from the important conversations we all need to participate in. 

I will end with 2 examples of infuriating identity idiocracy. I think they are worth reflecting on. 

The first hits very close to home for me: the notion that capitalism can do well and do good at the same time. It's basically been the work of my life. And still is. Most people actually agree that capitalism both can, do, and should. But the identity idiocracy pushes people to extreme ends of either being for doing well (making money) OR for doing good (creating positive change in society).

I have argued profusely for over 30 years that this is a false choice. The current debate over ESG and other forms of impact measures (ESG stands for Environmental, Social, and Governance and refers to a set of standards used by socially conscious investors to screen potential investments) is a great example of this. The label itself is not helpful and as it stands risks alienating a lot of well-intentioned companies trying to drive long-term value for all its stakeholders. 

The CEO of Coca-Cola, James Quincey, said this about this rather silly debate at a Fortune dinner in Davos:

“If ESG becomes toxic as a phrase, which it basically has in the U.S., it doesn’t matter to me. I’m just going to stop saying ‘ESG.’ But the idea that for my basic product, I want to be water positive, I want to have a circular economy on my packaging, and I want to grow our business with less sugar—you can call it anything you like, but no one with common sense says those are bad ideas.

“My business strategy is constant and clear and centered around the business and the things that consumers care about and that fix societal problems. If people want to attach labels to it, that’s their issue. I’m saying this business will be great if I fix these problems, and it will be good for shareholders and be good for society.”

Haven't seen many say it better than that. I will have a Coke to celebrate!

The other example is a podcast conversation that Bari Weiss recently had with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of Medicine, Economics, and Health Research at Stanford University. If you aren't subscribing to Bari's Free Press Platform, I highly recommend it. They are growing their subscriber base and I find most of their content to be useful, well-balanced, and always in pursuit of truth, not labels. 

The basic gist of this story is that Professor Bhattacharya and a host of very well-reputed scientists in 2020 wrote The Great Barrington Declaration. They brought forward their view that lockdowns had severe negative consequences, particularly for children, and that they lacked scientific support in the data. 

People can of course have different points of view on this. Many do. And we should welcome that debate. It was and still is important. And science should have nothing to do with politics. Or labels. But it wasn't welcomed. It was silenced. Dr. Bhattacharya was banned. Despite his desire to host symposiums to debate this strategy, he was more or less silenced. 

The consequences of this silencing are impossible to know. But most likely they are catastrophic and should make us all pause. We need better discourse. Particularly when someone is saying something we might not agree with. That's the time to really listen. Isn't that what our academy should be all about? 

Please listen to their conversation. It is thoughtful, troubling, and should at least make us think. I am sure others could have arguments that also might be valid. But that's exactly why debates and discussions should be welcomed, not discouraged. 

So, let's help each other transcend stupid labels. There is only one religion. Love. And there is only one race. The human race. The rest should just be a vibrant, beautiful, and elevated conversation. 

Have a great week!