It's been two years since I started this blog and I haven't said a thing until now. There's too much noise in this world - every man and his dog are standing on a platform and are trying to make themselves heard above the babble. The information overload has fragmented people into bubbles where others say what they themselves already think, so they can sit in the comfort of confirmation bias whilst knowing even less than they did before.
Why should I join in?
Well, it's largely because I've done a lot of thinking and I may have something to say, and if just a few people find it interesting then it's worth saying it. I don't want to become a somebody. I'm 57 and it's too late for that. Nobody is interested in older white males who don't already have some celebrity status. Obscurity suits me fine but if a handful of readers like what I say then I'm happy with that.
Let me pick a random but contemporary topic: confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias in particular as regards the Ukrainian war. Everybody I've read or heard has chosen one side or the other, either overtly or implicitly. This means it is almost impossible to get to the truth of what is happening over there. Andrei Martyanov claims to be factual and he does supply plenty of facts, but he glosses over the initial bungling of the Russian offensive in February and early March. The Duran, who really try to be objective, hold to notion that Russia has committed only 1/5 of their standing army in Ukraine and we haven't seen anything yet.
The Western media...yeah, we know what their take is: show a blown up Russian tank and affirm the Russians are running out of armour. Show the Ukrainians gaining a few villages and affirm they are driving the Russian army out of Ukraine.
Most of these people aren't wilfully lying. Confirmation bias doesn't work like that. They're sincere enough but they're throwing the truth overboard and making it impossible to get an accurate picture of what is going on. How does that work?
I have a few sayings I made up that I repeat to myself. I made them up because they are about things I do all the time and have to stop doing. But I think they're relevant to others (we humans are really not original in the ways we go wrong). This one is my favourite:
The imagination is a liar.
We imagine things all the time and think they are truth: why someone isn't friendly, why the driver in front of me is slowing down, why people of a certain class or position are all the same (built on the assumption that they are all the same), why people who disagree with me are fools or dishonest (built on the assumption that they are foolish or dishonest). The list goes on and on. Most of our assumptions - that we never realise are assumptions - come from the imagination, and they are all wrong. I can say this as one of the few things I am sure about: most of what you believe to be true is false.
This is never more the case than now, when we are bombarded by data all day, every day, and that data consists almost entirely of somebody's unverified assertions. There are a few facts we can be certain of, sure: the price on the label for a loaf of bread is the price you pay at the till. The opening times on the sign outside the supermarket are the times the supermarket opens. Mundane things about which we have no strong feelings. It's when we have strong feelings that the imagination takes over.
How do you know you have the truth on a topic? There is only one way: you have a lot of reliable, detailed first-hand information about it and a sufficiently acute intellect to draw conclusions that are accurate.
That's it. Outside of this you can be sure of nothing.
And that's the problem. We don't have the time, background, training or contacts to acquire the in-depth information we would need if we really want to know whether Livy's account of the Battle of Cannae is less reliable than Polybius', or just how well the Russian army is performing in Ukraine. We have to trust the opinions of people who claim to be experts. And experts can talk a load of undiluted cr*p. Really, they can. Experts - academic authorities, journalists, generals, whoever - tend to repeat each other and avoid going against the popular theory of the moment since their prestige depends a great deal on being part of the pack.
An expert - an academic, say - doesn't necessarily have a discerning intellect. He has spent time amassing the data on his topic, but his conclusions on that data can be as off-beam as the aim of an imperial stormtrooper. Knowing the facts is one thing; understanding what they mean is another.
So what does an average joe do? What do I do?
I start by admitting that outside of my fields of expertise which are few and limited, I know diddly-squat about anything other than a few basic ground truths. I know that Russia is to the right of Europe and fills the top of Asia, has a population of 144 million people. I know it's next door to Ukraine that is much smaller and has a population of about 40 million people.
Past that, what do I really know about the war between them?
I know that the 1/5 figure touted by pro-Russian or Russian-inclining commentators doesn't apply to Russia's ground infantry, who number about 100,000 men. Russia has mobilised 300,000 reservists simply because it needs more grunts, not because it has a lot of infantry in Russia which it will send to Ukraine and which will be replaced in their posts by the reservists.
I know that Ukraine is taking much heavier manpower losses than Russia, but I've unlearned the 8:1 or 10:1 ratios given by some commentators. Nobody knows how many Ukrainian and Russian dead or wounded there are. Given the nature of the war heavier Ukrainian losses are to be expected. Russia has a massive superiority in artillery - nobody denies that - and it uses its artillery to decimate Ukrianian defensive positions, killing, wounding or driving mad the infantry manning them, until they are ripe for a walking over by Russian infantry.
Other than that? Not much. Plenty of incidental stuff, sure, what you see on news reports and YouTube videos. Russia makes small gains here, Ukraine makes small gains there. Both sides lose tanks, vehicles, men. Nothing that gives any indication of the overall picture and all loaded with confirmation bias.
To figure out the difference between the solid data and the anecdotes I had to start by refusing to root for either side. It was difficult as I have a sneaking admiration for the Russians. They are showing the West the middle finger which I very much like as I can't stomach the West's woke political correctitude. But that doesn't make Putin a hero. How to become neutral enough to be interested only in the truth?
I did it by finding things I don't like about either side. I don't like Putin's jingoism which makes him play fast and loose with the truth as regards Russia's past. I don't like the corruption and incompetence, at least at the beginning of the war, which made such a pig's breakfast of the initial Russian offensive. And I don't like Putin's reasons for starting the war. He wanted a secure anti-NATO perimeter around Russia but you need more justification than than to loose your army on another nation. That's three don't-likes. Enough to go with.
I don't like anything about Zelensky. He lies like he breathes and he has no compunction about sacrificing the lives of his soldiers in futile last stand battles for indefensible positions, along with suicidal offensives that serve only as media stunts. I don't like the Ukrainian treatment of Russians in Ukraine, either before or during the war.
Once neutral, I was more open to discounting the propaganda and looking for the facts that accurately describe the overall situation. Those facts are hard to come by, so right now it's more a case of I don't know than I know for sure. What I know for sure is that Russia's army isn't as massive as pro-Russian commentators paint it to be, but it is strong enough to defeat Ukraine. What happens after that? I haven't a clue.
