Development in Progress
The concept of progress is at the heart of humanity’s story. | Jul 16, 2024
The island nation of Taiwan produces some of the world’s most advanced technology, commands a robust industrial system, and is governed by efficient state institutions. Moreover, it has succeeded in leveraging information technology and citizen participation into a uniquely successful system of “digital democracy,” most recently credited with containing COVID-19 in Taiwan. This is thanks to a legacy of innovation in response to geopolitical imperatives, namely the threat posed by mainland China. While past success does not guarantee future results, and key challenges loom, Taiwan remains one of the most functional polities in the world.
In 2020, Taiwan attracted international praise for its extremely effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic: the country suffered only seven COVID deaths in total that year and quickly restored normalcy to daily life, while much of the rest of the world was still in lockdown. Taiwan’s success drew plaudits for its unprecedented governance techniques that blended technology with democratic decentralization, with some commentators citing the nation as a model for the West to emulate.[1][2] But Taiwan’s success in this regard was not a fluke. Rather, these capacities come from the Taiwanese government’s long-standing open-mindedness to reinventing its governmental institutions and overall strategic posture based on the capabilities made possible by the latest advances in technology.
Globally, there is a widespread perception that Taiwan punches above its weight, whether it’s in the realms of technology, industry, or innovations in governance. This perception is largely true for one simple reason: it has to. Located off of the southeastern coast of mainland China, the democratic and de facto independent country is a key Western ally and a thorn in the side of the Chinese Communist Party, which has continued to officially claim Taiwan as a renegade province of mainland China, ever since Taiwan as we know it was founded by the losing side of the Chinese Civil War in 1949. With a population and economy just a fraction the size of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Taiwan’s government has always known that its continued independent existence would depend on superior strategy, with economic development, technological innovation, and institutional flexibility forming the core of such a strategy.
Throughout the 20th century, the Taiwanese government undertook conscious efforts to build an indigenous industrial base, and then an indigenous “Silicon Valley” on top of it, in an effort to imitate the best parts of the West. These efforts, ironically, have now surpassed the West itself and have also resulted in a high-trust, highly technically literate government and society that are capable of applying the same open-minded and strategic thinking necessary for foreign policy to domestic issues as well.
Taiwan was one of the first countries in the world to detect and respond to the burgeoning pandemic, in part thanks to a senior government health official reading a highly-upvoted post on Taiwan’s largest online message board about a new disease spreading from China.[3] This might be a funny anecdote in other contexts, but in Taiwan, this detail is emblematic of the reasons Taiwan’s pandemic response was so abnormally effective compared to most other countries. It was not only the government’s response that deserves credit for the country’s success on COVID, but rather the productive interactions between centralized state institutions and civil society at large, where the state develops centralized systems for decentralized, public use, and conversely pays attention to and confers legitimacy on useful initiatives and information provided by ordinary people without government titles.[4]
In addition to news and information about COVID-19 rapidly spreading through the Taiwanese internet being monitored by both ordinary citizens and government officials alike, “civic hackers” quickly built tools in collaboration with the government to help people avoid infection and prepare for the pandemic, such as live infection maps and bots to combat misinformation about the virus.[5] Both existing centralized efforts, such as integration of national health insurance data with customs and immigration institutions, online reporting of personal data, and the establishment of a national Command Center for disease control, as well as quickly developed new ones, such as cell phone tracking, ramping up mask production, and quarantine procedures, all proved to be decisive—but only with the voluntary, informed, and enthusiastic participation of a digitally active public that both trusted government measures and had also previously lived through a pandemic when SARS struck the nation more than a decade earlier, and remembered crucial lessons such as the importance of face masks.[6] All of these factors combined to power Taiwan’s success. In the West, including the United States, even though some similar actions were undertaken such as building online monitoring tools, there was no baseline of social trust and institutional capacity to put such tools to use.
Rather than shut out and oppose these confrontational, yet broadly aligned grassroots movements, the Taiwanese government decided to integrate them into the official government structure.
The most prominent civic hackers in Taiwan are organized around the “g0v” program, headed by Taiwanese Digital Minister Audrey Tang. The g0v program has its origins in 2012, when Taiwanese technologists and hackers dissatisfied with the government’s own efforts to set up new digital infrastructure decided to simply build it themselves. One of the earliest hackathons that led to the creation of g0v was named the “0th Hackathon of Martial Mobilization,” in a direct reference to Taiwan’s 38-year-long imposition of martial law from 1949 to 1987 intended to organize the entire country against any possible threat from mainland China.[7] Perhaps living memory of such geopolitical pressures, combined with a high-trust democratic culture, contributed to Taiwanese technologists’ civic mindset, which contrasts sharply with the more detached, apolitical, and market-oriented value system of Western technologists.
Audrey Tang herself had worked in Silicon Valley and was a major open-source software contributor, including to the g0v program, prior to getting involved in Taiwanese politics. She was one of the activists who stormed and occupied Taiwan’s parliament in 2014 as part of the “Sunflower Student Movement,” which demanded greater transparency about a proposed trade deal with mainland China that critics argued would leave Taiwan vulnerable to political pressure from Beijing.[8] Rather than shut out and oppose these confrontational, yet broadly aligned grassroots movements, the Taiwanese government decided to integrate them into the official government structure. A self-described anarchist, Audrey Tang was nonetheless first hired as a consultant to the Taiwanese government in 2015 and then appointed as the first “Digital Affairs Minister” in 2016 with a “non-hierarchical” staff of fifteen to help implement Taiwan’s new eight-year “Digital Nation Plan.”[9]
Much as the government’s integration of information technology into its functioning proved decisive in Taiwan’s COVID response, the Taiwanese government has similarly thoroughly integrated information technologies into the day-to-day business of government for officials and citizens alike.[10] This “digital government” or “e-government” strategy may seem somewhat novel or foreign in America, where jokes and complaints about trips to brick-and-mortar DMV offices are as salient as ever, but in Taiwan an ordinary citizen can largely and productively interact with government bureaucracies with not just a web browser, but on a single website. Moreover, this isn’t even just because the Taiwanese government has successfully digitized most of its functions, but because it deliberately wanted to design a system where citizens would enjoy online ease of access to any conceivable government service.
Another government-operated web service allows citizens to inquire about and discuss legislation and policy issues as they are being drafted and implemented, including a feature for citizens to send emails directly to the heads of government agencies.
Taiwanese citizens who log on to this central web portal, using the very simple and appropriate URL www.gov.tw, are able to quickly find links to government services from birth certificates to registering deaths and every other service that might be useful at any stage of life in between, organized, quite literally, according to a graphic of a presumably Taiwanese stick-man’s life from birth, to education, work, and then retirement and death. Searching the site directory yields information and forms covering everything from military service to registering candidacies for elections, from both the national government as well as city and county governments. The government operates a platform called MyData that allows citizens-—after proper verification–to download any information the government has on them, such as home or vehicle ownership registration, insurance status, personal income data, and even their own national ID photograph.[11] Another government-operated web service allows citizens to inquire about and discuss legislation and policy issues as they are being drafted and implemented, including a feature for citizens to send emails directly to the heads of government agencies.[12]
This digitization extends to the back end of government services as well: Taiwanese government agencies began exchanging documents electronically all the way back in the year 2000 on a dedicated broadband internet network, as well as maintaining an official online system for government procurement, including a database of unsatisfactory contractors.[13] The Taiwanese government’s computerization push dates from the 1980s, though it was in 1997 that the Research Development and Evaluation Commission (RDEC) established the government’s “backbone network” and began the push for digitizing government operations and services. In the early 2000s, this also included official efforts to bring internet access to rural areas.[14] By 2019, the internet penetration rate in Taiwan stood at 93% of the population, with 98% of internet users using a mobile phone to connect to the web.[15]
Taiwan’s large digital footprint—both governmental and civilian—and poor relationship with mainland China naturally create a serious cybersecurity problem for the country. Taiwan’s government faces 20 to 40 million cyber attacks every month, including about 100,000 each month that specifically target Taiwan’s National Security Bureau.[16] Moreover, it is no surprise that about 80% of successful attacks are identified as coming from mainland China.[17] The first “Taiwan-China Hacker War” occurred all the way back in 1999 as mainland Chinese retaliation to statements by the then-Taiwanese president, when Chinese hackers infiltrated Taiwanese computer networks more than 160 times.[18] This incident prompted the creation of Taiwan’s National Information and Security Taskforce (NICST), which was the Taiwanese government’s primary organization for cyber defense until 2016, when the government established the Department of Cyber Security. Shortly afterwards, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen created the Information, Communication, and Electronic Force Command (ICEF) as an independent military command tasked with confronting China’s “hacker armies.” This independent cyberwarfare command was the first of its kind in the world. According to President Tsai, “cybersecurity is national security.”[19]
The Taiwanese government has not only long spearheaded and integrated innovations in digital government, but is itself responsible for spearheading the development of Taiwan’s technology industry as part of its overall strategy for economic development and national sovereignty.
Much as mainland China tries to disrupt Taiwan’s digital footprint to its advantage, it also tries to leverage Taiwan’s democratic discourse. Since Taiwan began to liberalize in the late 1980s, Taiwan has enjoyed a flourishing media and journalism sector with a relatively free press, though arguably also dominated by tabloid sensationalism.[20] Taiwan’s four largest newspapers are editorially divided by their sympathy or antipathy to unification with mainland China. The China Times and the United Daily News are broadly considered to be nationalistic and sympathetic to China. The Liberty Times—whose owners also publish Taiwan’s largest English-language paper, the Taipei Times— and Apple Daily are broadly considered pro-Taiwanese independence and anti-China. These divides are more than merely editorial however: the Hong Kong-resident founder of Apple Daily was arrested by the Chinese government in 2020 for violating the territory’s new “National Security Law,” and sentenced to 14 months in jail in 2021. Conversely, the China Times’ tycoon owner lives in Shanghai, has massive business interests in mainland China, and ideologically supports unification.[21] Over the years, China has deliberately used its economic and demographic heft, as well as domestic censorship, to shift Taiwanese media discourse into a pro-China direction.[22]
Intuitively, it makes sense that a global leader in digital government like Taiwan is also a global leader in technology. But why exactly is that the case? Simply put, because the Taiwanese government has not only long spearheaded and integrated innovations in digital government, but is itself responsible for spearheading the development of Taiwan’s technology industry as part of its overall strategy for economic development and national sovereignty.
Take for example a current project, seeking approximately $1.34 billion U.S. dollars of foreign research and development investment in the country, while simultaneously spending approximately $350 million in subsidies to help attract the capital.[23] Crucially, unlike many other countries spending vast sums in order to shift themselves into an information technology-driven service economy, Taiwan can in fact credibly follow through on converting that capital into valuable R&D. The best justification for this is not statistical—the number of doctorates within the country cannot tell us if those doctorates are in fact evidence of skill, or if the nation has the social technology to use those skills. Rather, we note that Taiwan is the site of standout technology conglomerates like the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, TSMC, which is a leading supplier of integrated circuits to the world, supplying such firms as Apple.[24] The firm was founded by Morris Chang in the late 1980s, after Chang worked at various chip manufacturers in the United States and realized that he could create a firm back home in Taiwan that simply manufactured whatever the engineers back in the states dreamed up: a “fabricator-less foundry.”[25] This strategy most recently led to TSMC, along with South Korea’s Samsung, successfully beating U.S.-based Intel to create 7-nanometer scale and 5-nanometer scale chips in 2018 and 2020 respectively, by partnering with outside designers, including America’s AMD.[26] The centrality of TSMC to the world economy was vividly demonstrated in the 2021 chip shortage, caused in large measure by surging demand and a shortage of some raw materials.
While this could demonstrate Taiwan’s capability for manufacturing, not R&D, the country’s ability to control a sizable amount of the market by naturally scaling with the human resources and capital available shows R&D prowess too. Taiwan has a highly educated workforce, with 45% of the working age population possessing a bachelor’s degree, compared to 44% of U.S. workers and 17% of Chinese workers.[27][28] As it developed, the nation also demonstrated itself culturally able to take advantage of educational systems abroad in order to boost the skills of their own workforce—Morris Chang himself was educated at MIT and Stanford before going on to found TSMC.
Whether it’s in technology, industry, or good governance, East Asian governments from Japan to South Korea to Taiwan seek to replicate some successful Western effect, and end up building an entire rationalized institutional system that is geared to produce and maintain that effect, often ending up with a far more streamlined system than the messy and contingent Western system which produced the success in question in the first place.
TSMC was also not the first semiconductor company in Taiwan. The first, the United Microelectronics Corporation, still exists and along with TSMC was spun out of the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), a Taiwanese government R&D institution founded in 1973. ITRI is headquartered within the Hsinchu Science Park, an industrial park set up by the Taiwanese state in coordination with Taiwan’s leading universities and which is often dubbed the “Silicon Valley” of Taiwan. Hsinchu Park was proposed by Shu Shien-Shu, the former president of Taiwan’s National Tsing Hua University and then-minister of science and technology for the country.[29] Shu had traveled the world looking for effective strategies to improve Taiwan’s technology industry, and was directly inspired by California’s Silicon Valley.
The Taiwanese finance minister for the first thirty years of independence, Li Kwoh-Ting, in the late 1970s even consulted Frederick Terman, Dean of Engineering at Stanford, on the correct strategy for getting Taiwanese nationals who had gone overseas to return to build Taiwan’s technology sector. Terman was not only a bright technological mind in his own right, but the architect of both Stanford University’s own strategy of public-private partnership on research after World War II, and of Stanford Industrial Park—today renamed Stanford Research Park—that has provided a physical home to companies such as Hewlett-Packard, Varian, Xerox PARC, Steve Job’s NeXT, Tesla, and Facebook over the decades.[30] The successful creation of a “Silicon Valley” by design evidences vision and operational capacity on the part of the Taiwanese government.
This is an instance of a recurring phenomenon in the imitation of the West by the late-to-industrialize East: whether it’s in technology, industry, or good governance, East Asian governments from Japan to South Korea to Taiwan seek to replicate some successful Western effect, and end up building an entire rationalized institutional system that is geared to produce and maintain that effect, often ending up with a far more streamlined system than the messy and contingent Western system which produced the success in question in the first place.
Following the creation of Hsinchu Park, firms and government institutions flocked to the zone, attracted by advantageous tax breaks and co-location. TSMC and UMC are now both headquartered within the park, as are various other firms, foreign and domestic, and the Taiwanese space agency. Chiao Tung University and National Tsing Hua University are headquartered next door. This was not an accident; Shu intentionally mimicked Silicon Valley’s proximity to Berkeley and Stanford. Overall, this strategy seems to have been a resounding success. Stanford officials now regularly visit.
It’s hard to find a country as obviously constrained by geopolitical logic as Taiwan. The island has been viewed by communist-ruled mainland China as a rogue breakaway province ever since its founding in 1949, when Chiang Kai-Shek and his nationalist Kuomintang (KMT) party government fled to the island, which to this day is officially known as the Republic of China—implying that the ruling Chinese Communist Party are illegitimate usurpers. Cross-strait relations did enjoy a thaw in the late 1990s when mainland China opted for a strategy of economic integration with Taiwan, aimed at eventual unification, but recent years have seen a reversion to high mutual tensions, in part spurred by the aforementioned Sunflower Student Movement that rejected further economic integration with the mainland, and China’s correspondingly more aggressive posture since then. With a resurgent mainland having basically caught up with, and in some areas such as military technology surpassed, the earlier-to-develop Taiwan, the future of the island as a de facto independent state looks uncertain.
One should not underestimate the extent to which this pressure from Beijing has directly translated into effective responses in Taiwan.
It is possible that Taiwan’s highly warranted apprehension of an invasion by the mainland Chinese has provided the national cohesion and trust necessary to undertake long-term efforts in technological and industrial planning, and maintain trust and collaboration between the state and the people. As WWI-era intellectual Randolph Bourne put it, war is indeed the health of the state. Profits aside, this is reason enough to pursue industrial and technological autarky.
Simultaneously, one should not underestimate the extent to which this pressure from Beijing has directly translated into effective responses in Taiwan. This is true even in the realm of national defense itself. From a purely theoretical perspective, Taiwan is eminently defensible. Occupying the island would require the largest amphibious invasion in history, and it is only possible on a select number of narrow beachheads for a few months of the year. Through a combination of fortification, terrain, cyber and missile attacks on the mainland, urban warfare, rabid near-suicidal citizen participation, and the feasible possibility of an American blockade of the Straits of Malacca near Singapore, one can indeed imagine a credible Taiwanese signal to Beijing that they are really not worth the price of invasion.[31]
However, we do not see such a signal when we examine the current reality in Taiwan. China analyst Tanner Greer has convincingly asserted a more pessimistic view of Taiwan’s geopolitical posture today, developed over nine months of interviews with Taiwanese security researchers, recently discharged conscripts, officials in the governing DPP party, arms engineers, and active-duty ROC army and navy officers. According to Greer, the Taiwanese simply do not have the will to turn their island into an “impenetrable fortress.” Challenges in the recent two decades or so include paralysis within the military and national service establishment, partisan gridlock, poor military strategy, poor military training and procurement, brain drain from the military, and a spirit of defeatism among the political class.[32] These security concerns are of course only the most obvious weaknesses that the mainland could exploit; economic pressure and even a naval blockade appear far more likely than an invasion. This is all the more reason for Taiwan to pursue innovation and capacity-building in areas of technology and industry not directly related to military affairs—but without the military capacity to back these spheres up, they remain ultimately vulnerable.
Only with this (industrial) base can the virtuous cycle of innovation take off—even seemingly immaterial innovation, such as in the realm of software, both ultimately comes from material breakthroughs in silicon technology and must be undertaken in tandem with evolving systems of hardware.
Technology does not come from a vacuum, and it is not enough for a government to merely spend money on spurring innovation, or to establish R&D institutes and special economic zones. Rather, a thriving innovation ecosystem requires an industrial base. New technologies must be iterated upon and manufactured, and technologists must be able to draw upon a deep pool of technical personnel and know-how. Only with this base can the virtuous cycle of innovation take off—even seemingly immaterial innovation, such as in the realm of software, both ultimately comes from material breakthroughs in silicon technology and must be undertaken in tandem with evolving systems of hardware. And since the state has a crucial role in terraforming systems of political economy such that industry and technology can flourish, for example by implementing effective industrial policy, all of this is intimately bound up in problems of public policy.[33]
The origins of the Taiwanese industrial system are not hard to discern, since they closely follow state policy throughout the latter half of the 20th century. In the 1950s, the government of the island, newly severed from the spheres of control of both the imperial Japanese and the Chinese mainland itself, pursued a policy of import substitution—by which imports of manufactured goods are blocked in order to increase demand for domestically produced goods—as a means of economic recovery after World War II. By the 1960s, in order to spur growth and accelerate the process of industrialization, Taiwanese policymakers shifted to a policy of export orientation, by which the state spurs fierce competition among industrial firms by picking and supporting ones which can manufacture the most goods for export, with an eye towards weaning those infant industries that they support by compelling them to eventually become self-sufficient, a concept known as export discipline. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, this strategy worked, and Taiwan’s industrial sector grew.[34]
This system encountered some barriers as the 1970s wore on, especially as the oil crisis of that decade began to eat into profits. Taiwan’s strategy of industrialization, which hitherto had focused on labor-intensive industries in order to employ the maximum number of people, no longer made economic sense, and the island’s elites found that it would not be sufficient to catch up with the West. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Taiwanese government changed tack again, shifting their policy to favor capital- and technology-intensive industries as an avenue of development. In order to reignite growth and deepen their industrial system, Taiwanese policymakers used the postwar industrial base that they had built as a foundation atop which to create the highly functional technical system that we know today. It was in 1980, for example, that Hsinchu Science Park was founded. Into the 1980s, the government began targeting particular strategic industries as foci of capacity-building and innovation—one of the earliest ones being semiconductors—and this process of strategic economic planning continues to this day.[35]
Although the growing threat from Beijing looms over Taiwan’s successes, it would be a mistake to let recent tensions and uncertainty cloud our judgment about the remarkable feats of Taiwan’s government. Taiwan has been ensuring its sovereignty by combining technological innovations with institutional flexibility for decades, as most recently indicated by the democratized and resoundingly successful response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Whatever Taiwan’s future holds, it is obvious that the island has already provided us with a valuable case study into the power of institutions to shape public policy, industry, and technology.
The noun was coined by the American ecological psychologist James J. Gibson. It was initially used in the study of animal-environment interaction and has also been used in the study of human-technology interaction. An affordance is an available use or purpose of a thing or an entity. For example, a couch affords being sat on, a microwave button affords being pressed, and a social media platform has an affordance of letting users share with each other.
Agent provocateur translates to “inciting incident” in French. It is used to reference individuals who attempt to persuade another individual or group to partake in a crime or rash behavior or to implicate them in such acts. This is done to defame, delegitimize, or criminalize the target. For example, starting a conflict at a peaceful protest or attempting to implicate a political figure in a crime.
Ideological polarization is generated as a side-effect of content recommendation algorithms optimizing for user engagement and advertising revenues. These algorithms will upregulate content that reinforces existing views and filters out countervailing information because this has been proven to drive time on-site. The result is an increasingly polarized perspective founded on a biased information landscape.
To “cherry pick” when making an argument is to selectively present evidence that supports one’s position or desired outcome, while ignoring or omitting any contradicting evidence.
The ethical behavior exhibited by individuals in service of bettering their communities and their state, sometimes foregoing personal gain for the pursuit of a greater good for all. In contrast to other sets of moral virtues, civic virtue refers specifically to standards of behavior in the context of citizens participating in governance or civil society. What constitutes civic virtue has evolved over time and may differ across political philosophies. For example, in modern-day democracies, civic virtue includes values such as guaranteeing all citizens the right to vote, and freedom of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or gender identity. A shared understanding of civic virtue among the populace is integral to the stability of a just political system, and waning civic virtue may result in disengagement from collective responsibilities, noncompliance with the rule of law, a breakdown in trust between individuals and the state, and degradation of the intergenerational process of passing on civic virtues.
Closed societies restrict the free exchange of information and public discourse, as well as impose top down decisions on their populus. Unlike the open communications and dissenting views that characterize open societies, closed societies promote opaque governance and prevent public opposition that might be found in free and open discourse.
A general term for collective resources in which every participant of the collective has an equal interest. Prominent examples are air, nature, culture, and the quality of our shared sensemaking basis or information commons.
The cognitive bias of 1) exclusively seeking or recalling evidence in support of one's current beliefs or values, 2) interpreting ambiguous information in favor of one’s beliefs or values, and 3) ignoring any contrary information. This bias is especially strong when the issues in question are particularly important to one's identity.
In science and history, consilience is the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can “converge” on strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own.
While “The Enlightenment” was a specific instantiation of cultural enlightenment in 18th-century Europe, cultural enlightenment is a more general process that has occurred multiple times in history, in many different cultures. When a culture goes through a period of increasing reflectivity on itself it is undergoing cultural enlightenment. This period of reflectivity brings about the awareness required for a culture to reimagine its institutions from a new perspective. Similarly, “The Renaissance” refers to a specific period in Europe while the process of a cultural renaissance has occurred elsewhere. A cultural renaissance is more general than (and may precede) an enlightenment, as it describes a period of renewed interest in a particular topic.
A deep fake is a digitally-altered (via AI) recording of a person for the purpose of political propaganda, sexual objectification, defamation, or parody. They are progressively becoming more indistinguishable from reality to an untrained eye.
Empiricism is a philosophical theory that states that knowledge is derived from sensory experiences and relies heavily on scientific evidence to arrive at a body of truth. English philosopher John Locke proposed that rather than being born with innate ideas or principles, man’s life begins as a “blank slate” and only through his senses is he able to develop his mind and understand the world.
It is both the public spaces (e.g., town hall, Twitter) and private spaces where people come together to pursue a mutual understanding of issues critical to their society, and the collection of norms, systems, and institutions underpinning this society-wide process of learning. The epistemic commons is a public resource; these spaces and norms are available to all of us, shaped by all of us, and in turn, also influence the way in which all of us engage in learning with each other. For informed and consensual decision-making, open societies and democratic governance depend upon an epistemic commons in which groups and individuals can collectively reflect and communicate in ways that promote mutual learning.
Inadvertent emotionally or politically -motivated closed-mindedness, manifesting as certainty or overconfidence when dealing with complex indeterminate problems. Epistemic hubris can appear in many forms. For example, it is often demonstrated in the convictions of individuals influenced by highly politicized groups, it shows up in corporate or bureaucratic contexts that err towards certainty through information compression requirements, and it appears in media, where polarized rhetoric is incentivized due to its attention-grabbing effects. Note: for some kinds of problems it may be appropriate or even imperative to have a degree of confidence in one's knowledge—this is not epistemic hubris.
An ethos of learning that involves a healthy balance between confidence and openness to new ideas. It is neither hubristic, meaning overly confident or arrogant, nor nihilistic, meaning believing that nothing can be known for certain. Instead, it is a subtle orientation that seeks new learning, recognizes the limitations of one's own knowledge, and avoids absolutisms or fundamentalisms—which are rigid and unyielding beliefs that refuse to consider alternative viewpoints. Those that demonstrate epistemic humility will embrace truths where these are possible to attain but are generally inclined to continuously upgrade their beliefs with new information.
This form of nihilism is a diffuse and usually subconscious feeling that it is impossible to really know anything, because, for example, “the science is too complex” or “there is fake news everywhere.” Without a shared ability to make sense of the world as a means to inform our choices, we are left with only the game of power. Claims of “truth” are seen as unwarranted or intentional manipulations, as weaponized or not earnestly believed in.
Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowing and the nature of knowledge. It deals with questions such as “how does one know?” and “what is knowing, known, and knowledge?”. Epistemology is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with ethics, logic, and metaphysics.
Derived from a Greek word meaning custom, habit, or character; The set of ideals or customs which lay the foundations around which a group of people coheres. This includes the set of values upon which a culture derives its ethical principles.
The ability of an individual or group to shape the perception of an issue or topic by setting the narrative and determining the context for the debate. A “frame” is the way in which an issue is presented or “framed”, including the language, images, assumptions, and perspectives used to describe it. Controlling the frame can give immense social and political power to the actor who uses it because the narratives created or distorted by frame control are often covertly beneficial to the specific interests of the individual or group that has established the frame. As an example, politicians advocating for tax cuts or pro-business policies may use the phrase "job creators" when referring to wealthy corporations in order to suggest their focus is on improving livelihoods, potentially influencing public perception in favor of the politician's interests.
Discourse oriented towards mutual understanding and coordinated action, with the result of increasing the faith that participants have in the value of communicating. The goal of good faith communication is not to reach a consensus, but to make it possible for all parties to change positions, learn, and continue productive, ongoing interaction.
Processes that occupy vast expanses of both time and space, defying the more traditional sense of an "object" as a thing that can be singled out. The concept, introduced by Timothy Morton, invites us to conceive of processes that are difficult to measure, always around us, globally distributed and only observed in pieces. Examples include climate change, ocean pollution, the Internet, and global nuclear armaments and related risks.
Information warfare is a primary aspect of fourth- and fifth-generation warfare. It can be thought of as war with bits and memes instead of guns and bombs. Examples of information warfare include psychological operations like disinformation, propaganda, or manufactured media, or non-kinetic interference in an enemy's communication capacity or quality.
Refers to the foundational process of education which underlies and enables societal and cultural cohesion across generations by passing down values, capacities, knowledge, and personality types.
The phenomenon of having your attention captured by emotionally triggering stimuli. These stimuli strategically target the brain center that we share with other mammals that is responsible for emotional processing and arousal—the limbic system. This strategy of activating the limbic system is deliberately exploited by online algorithmic content recommendations to stimulate increased user engagement. Two effective stimuli for achieving this effect are those that can induce disgust or rage, as these sentiments naturally produce highly salient responses in people.
An online advertising strategy in which companies create personal profiles about individual users from vast quantities of trace data left behind from their online activity. According to these psychometric profiles, companies display content that matches each user's specific interests at moments when they are most likely to be impacted by it. While traditional advertising appeals to its audience's demographics, microtargeting curates advertising for individuals and becomes increasingly personalized by analyzing new data.
False or misleading information, irrespective of the intent to mislead. Within the category of misinformation, disinformation is a term used to refer to misinformation with intent. In news media, the public generally expects a higher standard for journalistic integrity and editorial safeguards against misinformation; in this context, misinformation is often referred to as “fake news”.
A prevailing school of economic thought that emphasizes the government's role in controlling the supply of money circulating in an economy as the primary determinant of economic growth. This involves central banks using various methods of increasing or decreasing the money supply of their currency (e.g., altering interest rates).
A form of rivalry between nation-states or conflicting groups, by which tactical aims are realized through means other than direct physical violence. Examples include election meddling, blackmailing politicians, or information warfare.
Open societies promote the free exchange of information and public discourse, as well as democratic governance based on the participation of the people in shared choices about their social futures. Unlike the tight control over communications and suppression of dissenting views that characterize closed societies, open societies promote transparent governance and embrace good-faith public scrutiny.
The modern use of the term 'paradigm' was introduced by the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn in his work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Kuhn's idea is that a paradigm is the set of concepts and practices that define a scientific discipline at any particular period of time. A good example of a paradigm is behaviorism – a paradigm under which studying externally observable behavior was viewed as the only scientifically legitimate form of psychology. Kuhn also argued that science progresses by the way of "paradigm shifts," when a leading paradigm transforms into another through advances in understanding and methodology; for example, when the leading paradigm in psychology transformed from behaviorism to cognitivism, which looked at the human mind from an information processing perspective.
The theory and practice of teaching and learning, and how this process influences, and is influenced by, the social, political, and psychological development of learners.
The ability of an individual or institutional entity to deny knowing about unethical or illegal activities because there is no evidence to the contrary or no such information has been provided.
First coined by philosopher Jürgen Habermas, the term refers to the collective common spaces where people come together to publicly articulate matters of mutual interest for members of society. By extension, the related theory suggests that impartial, representative governance relies on the capacity of the public sphere to facilitate healthy debate.
The word itself is French for rebirth, and this meaning is maintained across its many purposes. The term is commonly used with reference to the European Renaissance, a period of European cultural, artistic, political, and economic renewal following the middle ages. The term can refer to other periods of great social change, such as the Bengal Renaissance (beginning in late 18th century India).
A term proposed by sociologists to characterize emergent properties of social systems after the Second World War. Risk societies are increasingly preoccupied with securing the future against widespread and unpredictable risks. Grappling with these risks differentiate risk societies from modern societies, given these risks are the byproduct of modernity’s scientific, industrial, and economic advances. This preoccupation with risk is stimulating a feedback loop and a series of changes in political, cultural, and technological aspects of society.
Sensationalism is a tactic often used in mass media and journalism in which news stories are explicitly chosen and worded to excite the greatest number of readers or viewers, typically at the expense of accuracy. This may be achieved by exaggeration, omission of facts and information, and/or deliberate obstruction of the truth to spark controversy.
A process by which people interpret information and experiences, and structure their understanding of a given domain of knowledge. It is the basis of decision-making: our interpretation of events will inform the rationale for what we do next. As we make sense of the world and accordingly act within it, we also gather feedback that allows us to improve our sensemaking and our capacity to learn. Sensemaking can occur at an individual level through interaction with one’s environment, collectively among groups engaged in discussion, or through socially-distributed reasoning in public discourse.
A theory stating that individuals are willing to sacrifice some of their freedom and agree to state authority under certain legal rules, in exchange for the protection of their remaining rights, provided the rest of society adheres to the same rules of engagement. This model of political philosophy originated during the Age of Enlightenment from theorists including, but not limited to John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It was revived in the 20th century by John Rawls and is used as the basis for modern democratic theory.
Autopoiesis from the Greek αὐτo- (auto-) 'self', and ποίησις (poiesis) 'creation, production'—is a term coined in biology that refers to a system’s capability for reproducing and maintaining itself by metabolizing energy to create its own parts, and eventually new emergent components. All living systems are autopoietic. Societal Autopoiesis is an extension of the biological term, making reference to the process by which a society maintains its capacity to perpetuate and adapt while experiencing relative continuity of shared identity.
A fake online persona, crafted to manipulate public opinion without implicating the account creator—the puppeteer. These fabricated identities can be wielded by anyone, from independent citizens to political organizations and information warfare operatives, with the aim of advancing their chosen agenda. Sock puppet personas can embody any identity their puppeteers want, and a single individual can create and operate numerous accounts. Combined with computational technology such as AI-generated text or automation scripts, propagandists can mimic multiple seemingly legitimate voices to create the illusion of organic popular trends within the public discourse.
Presenting the argument of disagreeable others in their weakest forms, and after dismissing those, claiming to have discredited their position as a whole.
A worldview that holds technology, specifically developed by private corporations, as the primary driver of civilizational progress. For evidence of its success, adherents point to the consistent global progress in reducing metrics like child mortality and poverty while capitalism has been the dominant economic paradigm. However, the market incentives driving this progress have also resulted in new, sometimes greater, societal problems as externalities.
Used as part of propaganda or advertising campaigns, these are brief, highly-reductive, and definitive-sounding phrases that stop further questioning of ideas. Often used in contexts in which social approval requires unreflective use of the cliché, which can result in confusion at the individual and collective level. Examples include all advertising jingles and catchphrases, and certain political slogans.
A proposition or a state of affairs is impossible to be verified, or proven to be true. A further distinction is that a state of affairs can be unverifiable at this time, for example, due to constraints in our technical capacity, or a state of affairs can be unverifiable in principle, which means that there is no possible way to verify the claim.
Creating the image of an anti-hero who epitomizes the worst of the disagreeable group, and contrasts with the best qualities of one's own, then characterizing all members of the other group as if they were identical to that image.
Discussion
Thank you for being part of the Consilience Project Community.
0 Comments