From Theory to Myth

I was reading this post by Brian Tamanaha, and I got to this portion: ...recognize that much (though not all) of theory involves myth construction, it might encourage a greater sense of humility about the products of our efforts. I strive to be true to the facts, and I strive to build a vision that will advance the good, but I never forget that it’s a construction, and I am open to the possibility that I am wrong descripitvely or prescriptively. That strikes me as better than laboring with the conviction that the stories I weave are truth and nothing but. He adds: To be clear, I should define what I think of as a “myth”: a big story that helps us make sense of or understand what it purports to describe, a story that claims to be true but which is substantially at odds with or departs from the facts. It is either mostly not true, or substantial aspects of it are not fact-based (despite claims otherwise) but a construction with limited or unverified connections to the facts. This, I think, is very important. When we create our ideas about the underlying motivations for things we see (i.e. Muslims are evil, the US Government is only about the money, etc.), that formulation is subject to this analysis. Some of the stimuli are outside our control, but some are a product of our own making. Allow me to explain. In creating a theory, several steps are involved. They may not be either rigorous nor serial, but all steps must eventually be taken. It is also not essential that these steps are taken objectively, as we will see. 1. Data acquisition 2. Data assimilation 3. Modeling 4. Sensitivity testing 5. Model application 1. Data Acquisition The data acquisition phase seems to be the most objective of steps, assuming one is making an honest attempt to understand the situation from all positions. there are 2 problems with this assumption. 1. Most people do NOT make an honest attempt to understand all positions. 2. Data distribution is inherently polarized by the distribution source. In the case of problem 1, not much can be done. If an individual will not (or cannot) make the honest attempt to look at a situation from multiple angles, the creation of a myth theory is a certainty. In the case of problem 2, we have a systemic deficiency. It is beyond debate that media outlets, who disseminate the "data" regarding ideological and social issues, are slanted. Be it Fox News to the Right or NBC to the Left, acquiring a full data set from either will invariably lead to the development of false theory - myths. Even if one makes the effort to review all possible perspectives through the use of both mainstream and alternative media, the resulting understanding of the data will still be imperfect. This imperfect data, when used to create a theory, will pass its imperfections into the theory itself. this is step 1 in creating an objective myth. 2. Data Assimilation Even with the data being available, one still needs to absorb and comprehend the information. This process passes through our internal filters and prisms - personal prejudices, pre-conceived notions, and internalized desires all create a situation whereby even an honest attempt to assimilate the available data will lead to an incomplete, or possibly skewed, comprehension of what the data means. This skew compounds the error that began in the data acquisition phase, further de-legitimizing our theory. 3. Modeling Now, for the difficult part. With a stack of data and an understanding of what the data means, it is now time to construct a predictive model that explains the data. In social experiments, this most often starts in the form of a series of cause-effect scenarios; this leads to the creation of a theory to explain the relationship between the cause and the effect. Again, we must remember that the understanding of the cause-effect scenarios themselves is subject to the imperfections in steps 1 and 2. These imperfection will then percolate their way through the model (theory). In addition, the model created will not be 100% accurate, nor will it necessarily accurately predict future cause-effect scenarios that may develop. 4. Sensitivity Testing In this step, the theory/model developed in step 3 will be used to predict the outcome of new situations that have not yet come to their conclusion. In each of these new situations, the model will either be shown to be accurate or inaccurate. At this point, several options emerge. In the case of an accurate prediction (inasmuch as the new scenario can be shown to comply with the model, given the data issues discussed earlier), the new data point will serve to strengthen the model. An inaccurate prediction, however, is much more interesting. In this case, one can choose to accept that their model is flawed, and seek to modify the model to encompass the new information. More often, however, we attempt to explain away the inconsistency and cling to the model/theory as constructed. Repeated use of this clinging takes a model that may have been initially constructed with an objective basis and turns it into a myth. This is the most dangerous of outcomes, because the original model contains objective truth, often recognizable as such. However, any new data that would serve to update or refine the model is discarded, creating something that we refer to as "fundamentalism". Whether it is religious, legal, social, or economic, the inflexibility of existing theories and models is the basis for the rise of fundamentalism. 5. Model Application Step 5 is often the only step that many people ever take. Steps 1-4, where the development and validation of a theory takes place, is often replaced by demagogues. Many people act on models and theories developed by others, with no thought to their veracity or applicability to a particular situation. Fundamentalism, as discussed in step 4, propagates outward by demanding step 5 action from people who have not participated in steps 1-4. However, for the purposes of discussion, we will assume that the individual wants to participate in all 5 steps. After we have collected objective information from many sources, assimilated that information and learned what that data actually means, constructed a model from the data, and tested the model for predictive quality with new data, we must now decide what to do with this new, and seemingly accurate, theory. In large measure, step 5 is forgotten. The entire point of steps 1-4 is so we can learn about the mechanisms that drive the world around us. The expected reason for this learning is so that we can use it to act in a way that we deem appropriate. Many people who have theories based in myth act with abandon. However, it is also very common to put extraordinary effort forth to understand a theory, yet take no action. Often, the construction and validation of a social theory is so ideologically exhausting that the logical action that should result is forgotten. I am certainly a victim of this. That is part of the reason I created this blog. I wanted a forum to engage in all 5 steps of the theory/myth process. Step 1 is achieved, as well as is possible, though the variety of information sources that are available through this site, from Counterpunch to NRO. Step 2 can only occur through diligent reading and a concerted effort to be objective in interpretation. (This is extremely difficult, even when it is at the forefront of the exercise.) Step 3 is partially done through other people. Noam Chomsky, Christopher Hitchens, and a score of others have created a series of theories that, either wholly or in part, contain elements that I try to amalgamate and combine with my own thoughts and observations into a personal theory. Step 4 requires significant diligence, and an attempt at objective application of the theory to current conditions. One must be well-informed to do this (see step 1 again). Step 5 is the fruit of that labor, where formulated and tested theories help to govern ones actions and opinions about the world. This is an ongoing and iterative process, and we must guard against theory stagnation, else the theory will inexorably veer toward myth. Over the next few weeks, I think I will try to show the progression of theory creation, and the transformation of theory into myth, in some current events. This seems like a good way for me to test my current theories and to determine what, if anything, I should add to them based on current information. Of course, this is a blog, so I may not do any of that - propagating myths is so much easier.