# Scratch Script 1 What the fuck is wrong with everyone? I am exhausted. I'm struggling to even force my brain to produce the language to describe how exhausted and beaten down I feel as a result of how genuinely insane the world seems to have become as of late. Was the internet a mistake? Am I just terminally online and need to go touch some grass? Am I a doomer staring in a window that reveals to me an entirely made up world, where the actions and consequences don't actually exist in reality? I don't think so. But, what am I talking about? Even answering that question is difficult and multifaceted. A bit of research has yielded me a single term that describes a big part of the picture, so that is what I have decied will be the first chapter of this video. That term is: # Epistemic Exhaustion According to Cambridge University, Epistemic Exhaustion is: > "cognitive fatigure generated by efforts to determine, retain, or communicate what one believes under conditions that make doing so especially taxing." It's no s ecret that the political landscape in the United States has become polarized, hostie, and--for lack of a better term--downright preposterous. (I am not going to speak on elsewhere in the world because I do not live there and don't have the necessary experiences nor knowledge to do so.) --- # Epistemic Exhaustion Paper Read-Through Notes [Link to the paper](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/hypatia/article/epistemic-exhaustion-and-the-retention-of-power/D53FD093288CDC9DAAB02DE4C0740ACE "Epistemic Exhaustion and the Retention of Power (2024)") # The nature of epistemic exhaustion Paper examines 3 environments prone to creating epistemic exhaustion: 1. sociopolitically polarized environments 2. epistemically chaotic environments 3. epistemically opporessive environments And posits that such exhaustion allows powerful people to remain powerful by making certain types of progress difficult - Note: the Russian advisor to Putin referenced in Benn Jordan's Twitter video would be a great example of just how powerful this phenomenon, when weaponized, can become --- (Dictionary lookup) Interlocutor - Someone who takes part in a conversation, often formally or officially - OR the performer in a minstrel show who is placed midway between the end men and engages in banter with them - OR one who takes part in dialogue or conversation; a talker, interpreter or questioner --- There are 3 kinds of tasks that may lead to epistemic exhaustion 1. determining for oneself what one believes --> belief-determination exhaustio 2. retaining one's belief --> belief-retention exhaustion 3. communicating what one already believes to others --> belief-communication exhaustion These tasks and their consequences are not mutually exclusive, nor are they inherently good or bad (consider: someone with despicable beliefs). Additionally, you can be quite confident in your own beliefs and arguments, but exhausted by continual failures to get otehrs to understand or accept them. > " . . . normative appraisals of conditions that give rise to epistemic exhaustion should account for the nature of the beliefs in question." The author refers to epistemic activities as "activites we engage in where at least one of our aims is belief formation, belief retention, or belief communication." Additionally, the other provides a lengthy list of ways in which epistemic exhaustion can manifest, and states: > "The unifying factor across variations is that epistemic exhaustion is marked y a decreased interest in or energy to manage one's epistemic life well." Hilariously, the opening of the very next paragraph reads: > "Indications of epistemic exhaustion can show up in mundane ways. You dread receiving a phone call from a relative with opposing political views because you don't have the energy to have another fruitless and unsatisfying discussion about politics." The entire next paragraph of examples is too good to not include in its entiriety: ​​ The epistemic exhaustion one feels is rarely a product of epistemic activities alone, but, instead, often the result of a combination of that plus situations such as the exhaustion from living in a highly polarized society. In such a society, powerfully frustrating divides form between family members, friends, and loved ones. It can turn those we live into unrecognizable figures espousing morally repugnant views. It lives our electorate feeling disenchanted, sometimes even apathetic, and discourages engagement in the necessary actions for changing such a polarity. It also leaves us less willing to entertain, debate, or consider the opposing viewpoints or counterarguments of interlocutors. The constant reminders of injustice also can contribute heavily to this feeling of exhaustion. # Conversational behavior and epistemic exhaustion > "Our likelihood of becoming epistemically exhaustion by an epistemic activity increases as the cognitive or emotional cost of undertaking that epistemic activity increases. Paradigmatic instances of epistemic exhaustion result from an epistemic activity being made much more difficult or unpleasant that i needs to be or ordinarily is." The cognitive fatigue generated from epistemic activities that are generally universally difficult for everyone under most circumstances are distinctly different from ones that are difficult because of the specific circumstances under which one aims to pursue or accomplish said epistemic activites. (This paper deals with the latter.) A decline in epistemic returns from these activites also play a significant factor in the occurence of epistemic exhaustion, and (I assume) are symptomatic of paradigmatic indicators of an increase in epistemic societal issues and increasing polarity. --- (Dictionary lookup) Paradigmatic - Of or relating to a paradigm - OR exemplary --- > "Thus, cognitive fatigue generated by studying for a challenging exam is not a paradigmatic case of epistemic exhaustion, while cognitive fatigue generated by continually testifying to audiences exhibiting willful ignorance is." The author argues that there are certain conversational tactics and habits that have a tendency to promote or push people towards states of epistemic exhaustion, and so by raising the cognitive cost of epistemic activites for whom they are deployed against. The tactics are as follows: 1. Burden-shifting measures - examples include Gish galloping, sealioning, and "bullshitting" (yes). Both enduring and capitulating to these measures induce epistemic exhaustion because they make even simple epistemic tasks and conversations require a seemingly unbearable volume of effort (that likely begins to full unworth whatever goal you might have). 2. "Sealioning" consists of " . . . repeated, unreasonable requests for one's interlocutor to provide evidence for their claims" ([citation](https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3185593)). Generally, conversations and debates assume a significant amount shared knowledge and understanding--plus an (often) unspoken acknowledgement of good faith participation--but sealioning spikes to cognitive load of any debate by eroding these shared knowledge assumptions. This is especially excruciating when the sealioner sports a mask of politness while doing so (and makes me want to fucking murder them, generally speaking) that piles on the social pressure to comply with their behavior or arguments. 3. (finally) Bullshitting - "communicating with indifference to the truth" (unsurprisingly). Bullshitting is often--especially lately in the US--combined with sealioning and burden-shifting. As I and countless others have pointed out before (to seemingly no effect), it takes very little effort to just make up bullshit, but an exorbitant amount of effort to gather the necessary evidence for a response, consume and process it, and then consider best ways of presenting it so as to best convince the target audience (also, usually by his point, the public has not only moved on, but have chalked the initial bullshit up in their minds as a truth that fits as a brick in the foundation of growing bullshit paradigms living as a cancer in our society). 1. Brandolini's Law or the "bullshit asymmetry problem" states that "the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it ([citation](https://www.nature.com/articles/540171a "Take the time and effort to correct misinformation (2016)")). These 3 techniques, ultimately, pressure one's interlocutors to take up an "asymmetrical conversational workload," which increases the cognitive burden for the other party just to remain in the conversation (often with that burden growing heavier with every moment that passes and with every exchange that occurs). Another form of this sort of asymmetry is "asymmetrical trust," meaning, for example, someone oscillating between extreme gullibility incredulity. Conspiracy theorists are a great example of this behavior: someone who will buy outlandish claims about conspiracy narratives with little evidence but exhibits extreme suspicion of evidence from anyone working to debunk said conspiratorial claims. Patterns like such--of selective skepticism and selective gulliblity--make epistemic progress nearly impossible, and are extremely taxing for anyone brave (or unfortunately unknowing) enough to attempt to meet the inconsistent standards of the selective skeptic. ([Kate Abramson, 2014](https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1111/phpe.12046) - Turning Up The Light On Gaslighting) Gaslighting can also push someone towards epistemic exhaustion by undermining their sense of epistemic agency. Being gaslit epistemically exhausted people via (1) spending cognitive and emotional energy to resist the gaslighting, and (2) by getting people to give into the gaslighter's picture of our epistemic situations and doubt our own epistemic competency. This almost always takes place over multiple isntances and over long streches of time--with multiple parties playing the role of gaslighter. ([Abramson, 2014](https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1111/phpe.12046)) > " . . . it is repeated eposure to such challenges over long stretches of time by multiple people that can slowly wear us down to a state of epistemic exhaustion." # Partison polarization and epistemic chaos The author identifes two types of structural, sociopolitical conditions that give rise to epistemic exhaustion: 1. Partisan polarization 2. Epistemic chaos The author contends that a political system divided into two political "teams" is especially susceptible to epistemic exhaustion, especially when party lines are drawn along aspects of identity like race, religion, national origin, socioeconomic status, or education level. Partison polarization will be used to describe sociopolitical polarization--it can lead to "partisan epistemology," a state where someone grants more credibility to those who share their beliefs than is warranted. ([Regina Rini, 2017](https://sci-hub.se/10.1353/ken.2017.0025)) (Fake News and Partisan Epistemology) It can also lead to tribal epistemology, which occurs when the primary way of assessing information is in terms of how well it conforms to a team's narratives and values ([Roberts, 2017](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/22/14762030/donald-trump-tribal-epistemology)) Two epistemic structures that tend to arise alongside partisan polarization are epistemic bubbles and echo chambers. An epistemic bubble is “an informational network from which relevant voices have been excluded by omission” and an echo chamber is “a social structure from which other relevant voices have been actively discredited” ([Nguyen, 2018](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/hypatia/article/epistemic-exhaustion-and-the-retention-of-power/D53FD093288CDC9DAAB02DE4C0740ACE#ref27)). Successful communication often relies on shared background assumptions--matters of both fact and value. Partisanship reduces shared narratives, schemas, ideologies, and norms underlying how we process information. As common ground erodes away, the cognitive burden of succesfully communicating what we believe or understand the beliefs of others climbs. With increasing cost of successful communication, the total number of instances of successful communication declines as failures become more emotionally costly and people inevitably give up more often. Epistemic chaos occurs when a society experiences a glut of conflicting information while lacking widely agreed upon epistemic authorities to resolve the conflicts. It has two features: 1. A large volume of conflicting claims 2. An absence of widely acknowledged epistemic authorities to help sort out which of the conflicting clais are true and false (or justified/unjustified, reasonable/unreasonable, etc.) Having agreed upon and trusted experts is important. Example, the massive decline in smoking in society would not have happened without trusted experts publicly disseminating information that that was so. There are multiple reasons that partisan polarization, epistemic chaos, and epistemic exhaustion allow bad actors to remain in power. They increase to cognitive effort to make meaningful change. --- # Responses to epistemic exhaustion The author lists 4 different responses to epistemic exhaustion: 1. Reactive partisanship (doubling down and dying on your hills to reduce internal dissonance) 2. Skepticism (increased skepticism: nothing is real or true) 3. Disengagement 4. Pressing on Pressing on: > But I'm tired. I'm tired because this is the conversation I've been having since the 2016 election ended … And although I'm tired, because I have just had this conversation with multiple people for multiple hours the evening before, here I am having it again, hearing what I have always heard: the problem in American society is not race, it's class. ([Oluo, 2019](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/hypatia/article/epistemic-exhaustion-and-the-retention-of-power/D53FD093288CDC9DAAB02DE4C0740ACE#ref29), 8–9) - Thought: firehoses of disinformation and lies normalize the unacceptable and make people feel numb Garry Kasparov tweeted in December 2016: > "The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth." # How should we respond to epistemic exhaustion? 1. Conceptualize epistemic exhaustion as a tool for the powerful 2. Be selective on how you expend your energy 3. Be intentional about your epistemic goals 4. Indentify and name relevant epistemic dyanimcs 5. Be considerate and cultivate awareness of the epistemic demands you put on others 6. Account for your epistemic position # When is epistemic exhaustion worth it? Answer: during an epistemic reboot like I had in 2016 OR > " . . . when epistemic exhaustion is generated by confronting one's own privilege and the ignorance that privilege has created and preserved."