Search the KHIT Blog

Showing posts with label Jacob Soboroff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jacob Soboroff. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 7, 2026

Effective Dissent in our Age of Fear

    
I love Jacob Soboroff's new MS NOW show "Connect." It's where I was apprised of this timely new book last weekend. On Courage jumped my endless Kindle backlog rope line.
 


Serious piece of work thus far. I'm way into it already. Some related priors, quickly: "The ICE Storm," "Oopsie...Too Late." 
_____
 
STING

'eh?
 
UPDATE
 
I was just watching PBS News Hour and saw a segment featuring this author.
 
A Professor at UPenn.
 
Amazon blurb:
A compelling exploration of concrete strategies to reduce partisan animosity by building on what Democrats and Republicans have in common.

One of the defining features of twenty-first-century American politics is the rise of affective polarization: Americans increasingly not only disagree with those from the other party but distrust and dislike them as well. This has toxic downstream consequences for both politics and social relationships. Is there any solution?

Our Common Bonds shows that—although there is no silver bullet that will eradicate partisan animosity—there are concrete interventions that can reduce it. Matthew Levendusky argues that partisan animosity stems in part from partisans’ misperceptions of one another. Democrats and Republicans think they have nothing in common, but this is not true. Drawing on survey and experimental evidence, the book shows that it is possible to help partisans reframe the lens through which they evaluate the out-party by priming commonalities—specifically, shared identities outside of politics, cross-party friendships, and common issue positions and values identified through civil cross-party dialogue. Doing so lessons partisan animosity, and it can even reduce ideological polarization. The book discusses what these findings mean for real-world efforts to bridge the partisan divide. 
 I've just downloaded the Amazon preview for some initial impressions. to wit,
1. Is Overcoming Division a Fantasy? 

On a blustery January day, just moments after being sworn in as the forty-sixth president of the United States of America, Joe Biden delivered an address centered on “that most elusive of things in a democracy: unity.” This was perhaps a slightly odd choice, as the country seemed to be more divided than ever. Just two weeks before, supporters of former President Trump had stormed the US Capitol in an attempt to block the certification of Biden’s victory in the November 2020 election. January 6 marked only the second time in US history that the Capitol had been breached, but the first time that American citizens—rather than foreign troops—had been the ones doing the ransacking. Even before that insurrection, few would have characterized the United States as unified: the country was seemingly torn asunder by divides over how to address the COVID-19 pandemic and associated economic recession, as well as a centuries-overdue reckoning about the legacy of slavery and racism. Dissolution, not unity, seemed like a more appropriate topic for the moment. 

Biden acknowledged that there were deep and significant challenges to be overcome. But he argued that to confront these challenges, we have to “end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal.” He acknowledged that this will be difficult, and that unity does not imply unanimity: “The right to dissent peaceably, within the guardrails of our Republic, is perhaps our nation’s greatest strength. Yet hear me clearly: Disagreement must not lead to disunion.” But he argued that if we could come together as one, we could “heal a broken land” and “write an American story of hope, not fear, of unity, not division, of light, not darkness” (Biden 2021). 

Those stirring words, poetic as they were, likely seemed hopelessly naïve to most Americans. Biden himself acknowledged as much, saying that he knew his words sounded like “a foolish fantasy” to many. The public agreed with his assessment: in a poll by the Pew Research Center early in his term, of all of the issues polled, the public was the least confident in Biden’s ability to unify the country, even when compared to major challenges like responding to the COVID-19 pandemic or reforming immigration policy (Pew Research Center 2021). This skepticism reflects the conventional wisdom about American politics: politicians in Washington, DC, are hopelessly divided and cannot come together on almost any issue, and ordinary voters are little better. Indeed, not only do voters disagree with one another, they also fundamentally dislike and distrust one another. This animosity seemingly eviscerates any calls for unity among members of the public…
the conventional wisdom about American politics: politicians in Washington, DC, are hopelessly divided and cannot come together on almost any issue, and ordinary voters are little better. Indeed, not only do voters disagree with one another, they also fundamentally dislike and distrust one another. This animosity seemingly eviscerates any calls for unity among members of the public…

Levendusky, Matthew (2023). Our Common Bonds: Using What Americans Share to Help Bridge the Partisan Divide (Loc 60). Kindle Edition.  
Seems relevant to the topic. Note a few priors, too: "High Conflict," "The Age of Grievance," "A Science of Deliberation?" "Civility," anyone? "Being Influential." Also, how about a shout-out to one of Matthew's UPENN colleagues, Kermit Roosevelt III.
 
I'm pretty far along into On Courage tonight. Lots to reflect upon.
 
ANOTHER UPDATE
 
CLICK
Stay tuned...

Sunday, June 28, 2026

"Connect," indeed


I have long dug Jacob Soboroff's work. Loving his new perch on MSNOW. He has this cool new schtick he does where he goes to various farmers' markets to just walk around and randomly buttonhole people asking for their opinions regarding where a variety of current socioeconomic-political issues might be headed. Goofing on Polymarkets and Kalshi, etc online betting apps, he calls it "Prediction Markets."
 
Love it.
 
I was watching his show this morning, and one guest he interviewed was UPenn Law Professor Kermit Roosevelt III.

Sheee-it. Having just finished the voluminous Hagerman-Swan book Regime Change, I'm tired, y'all (I've concomitantly had 3 other topically related new books in play as well delving into Your Favorite President).
 
Nonetheless, The Power of Kindle 1-Click Compels Me. I'm now up through MLK and Malcolm X on the Mall in 1964 (pre-green algae era).

QUICK UPDATE
 
I got hooked on Dr. Kermit's book and am now well into it.
 
Yeah, our personal and aggregate life "stories." One immediate reaction: I am reflexively reminded of Steiner's 1976 "Script Theory."

 
Steiner summation: To the extent you are the star/hero/victim in your own developmentally acquired melodrama, you are incapable of fully rational moral agency. "notandus, ergo sum," anyone?
 
Stories. Still largely how we communicate, given the path of human social history.
 
e.g., see
 
The world is full of theories of everything. The smartphone theory of everything argues that our personal devices are responsible for the rise of political polarization, anxiety, depression, and conspiracy theories—not to mention the decline of attention spans, intelligence, happiness, and general comity. The housing theory of everything pins inequality, climate change, obesity, and declining fertility on the West’s inability to build enough homes. If you treat theories of everything as literal theories of everything, you will be disappointed to find that they all have holes. I prefer to think of them as exercises in thinking through the ways that single phenomena can have large and unpredictable second-order effects.

My new favorite theory of everything is the orality theory of everything. This theory emerges from the work of mid-20th-century media theorists, especially Walter Ong and Marshall McLuhan. They argued that the invention of the alphabet and the rise of literacy were among the most important events in human history. These developments shifted communications from an age of orality—in which all information was spoken and all learning was social—to an age of literacy, in which writing could fix words in place, allowing people to write alone, read alone, and develop ever more complicated ideas that would have been impossible to memorize. The age of orality was an age of social storytelling and flexible cultural memory. The age of literacy made possible a set of abstract systems of thought—calculus, physics, advanced biology, quantum mechanics—that form the basis of all modern technology. But that’s not all, Ong and his ilk said. Literacy literally restructured our consciousness, and the demise of literate culture—the decline of reading and the rise of social media—is again transforming what it feels like to be a thinking person…
Yeah, man. I once had a prominent trial attorney visit our UTK senior seminar in Psychology of Law who simply noted "he with the best story wins."
 
He was pretty much right. apropos, see "Why do humans reason?" Spoiler alert: To win the argument. Should objective truth happen along the way, so much the better. Adaptive utility; win the argument and survive to fight another day.
 
Tell the better "story." It's rooted in our "Orality"-based evolution.
 
UPDATE
 
More Dr. Kermit:
 
 
I continue to plow through. A fine read. Adroitly argued, with ample credible supporting historical evidence. Certain to piss off Trumpworld (Stephen Miller in particular).
 
I reflect on my own middle class Whitey life history. See "Aghast." 

Stay tuned...