I’m of course concerned about the problems Davies describes in this book, and sympathetic to the feelings he has about them, but much of this book just felt like a vague enumeration of run-of-the-mill vaguely leftist talking points. What remotely aware person doesn’t know about how bad climate change is, or the increasingly totalitarian monopolies of tech companies? We all know that mental health problems are on the rise, and more and more disaffected people are turning to antisocial, negative behaviors and ideas to express their anger. In this way, this entire book felt like an introduction to something that would come after. Where are the ideas here? Instead of presenting some vision of what is going on in western societies, we are instead presented with a tableau of every neurosis, malaise, and malignancy. This list-like quality is exacerbated by Davies dry, flavorless writing which consists of many short declarative sentences. He seems interested in cultivating an impression of neutrality, especially because this book is partially meant as a jeremiad to the era of expertise, science, and rationality. But this posturing ends up sapping his writing of urgency, and sometimes even reminded me of AI generated writing.

I think Davies’ writing on the psychology of addiction and how it plays into self-destructive behaviors was his most clear and interesting. I had never considered how, as Davies suggests, drug use gives addicts a sense of control of their lives, even it is only to do harm, because this is preferable to the feeling of helplessness endemic in so many places today. Davies follows this strand of thought to includes people who vote against what the experts say is in their best interest. I’m not sure if this argument is true, but it at least felt novel to me. ( )

Generally a good read though there were parts of the book that I skimmed through. I’ve read so many similar books, especially in the era of Trump, bemoaning the loss of reason and the disregard and contempt for expertise expressed by many, particularly on the right.

The author wrote this book early in the days of Trump and before Covid so my guess is that the author might be more pessimistic about Democracy and the behavior of many voters and citizens.

Davies provided an excellent overview of the influence and thoughts of various philosophers including Hobbes and Descartes. This book was an incorporation of various disciplines including philosophy, history, political science, psychology and economics.

P.S. I never considered the author’s contention in the book that Trump voters tended to be less healthy and more out of shape than Clinton voters based on the appearance of their supporters at rallies. ( )

William Davies, sociólogo y economista inglés, escribe sobre la manipulación de las masas y el cambio de paradigma de la ciencia como estudio de las emociones en la era digital.
Dice Davies que en el “turbio espacio que media entre la mente y el cuerpo, entre la guerra y la paz, se sitúan unos estados nerviosos: individuos y gobiernos que viven en un constante y agudizado estado de alerta que se apoyan cada vez más en el sentimiento que en la realidad”. Actualmente, las tesis objetivas sobre economía y ciencia no pueden aislarse de las emociones y estas poseen una gran incidencia política. Desde el nacimiento del conocimiento experto en el siglo XVII hasta su falta de credibilidad actual han bajado a expertos y tecnócratas de su pedestal.
Esto ha hecho que el uso de las emociones con fines políticos por parte de las élites nos llevan a un control de las masas que está más al servicio de la guerra que de la paz. La masa ha sustituido a múltiples seres individuales, cada uno con sus experiencias y pensamientos. Es el tamaño de la masa lo que invita a cada uno de estos seres a participar en actividades que podríamos considerar como inmorales o bochornosas. Por eso la psicología de la masa se consideró un riesgo que en cualquier momento podría estallar.
Esto influye, cada vez más en la consideración del lento discurrir de la ciencia, lo estamos viendo con la irrupción del COVI19, con su recogida e análisis crítico de los datos y su presentación, que contrasta con la rapidez de las redes sociales. Una vez que el conocimiento se valora atendiendo a su velocidad en lugar de su credibilidad pública, la posición de la ciencia y el saber experto en la sociedad se ven transformados. Su descalificación por parte de economistas que afirman que también son científicos pero que se comportan agresivamente con todo aquel que no considere el libre comercio como un acierto.
Y cuando el valor del conocimiento reside en su comercio, lo importante es si una tesis puede ser vendible, y no que sea cierta. “El saber experto se configura como una promesa: confía en mí, éstos son los hechos. Pero lo que aparece en el contexto de la guerra moderna y la estrategia empresarial no es tanto una base para el consenso social como una serie de herramientas para la coordinación social. La orden esencial de cualquier líder es ésta: sígueme.”
Davies señala el descrédito de los tecnócratas sobre todo debido a la desigualdad política, poniendo como ejemplos los rescates bancarios de los que culpa al conocimiento experto.
La consideración del conocimiento como activo económico privado ha fomentado los servicios de consultoría de gestión convirtiendo a las universidades en entidades comerciales más que en centros de investigación y educación.
Esto nos lleva al problema de las pseudociencias y la posverdad que han dejado espacio para los nuevos populismos. Ya no hay hechos, dice Davies, sólo tendencias y sentimientos y los mercados no exigen consenso sobre lo que está ocurriendo pero coordinan un conglomerados de sentimientos e ideas contradictorias que gobiernan el mundo y eximen de responsabilidad a los gobiernos.
Davies también examina la añorada libertad intelectual que actualmente vemos atacada constantemente por el derecho de los llamados “ofendiditos,” así como la libertad de expresión que parece consistir en decir lo que nos pete sin recibir una sola contestación ni réplica por parte de nadie.
Solo en el reconocimiento de una humanidad común y de la Igualdad como exigencia ética y política ve Davies una solución a la situación actual que describe.
( )

In this book, Willilam Davies explains that facts and expertise have fallen into second place behind feelings in how people relate to the world. Experts, he explains, deal with facts and are therefore unable to relate to the prime concerns and perspectives of the population. It is an interesting idea and there is much in this book that is thought-provoking.

I found it densely written -- the style is not easily engaging. And he makes some real leaps in logic (in my opinion), such as when he links a rise in chronic pan to the appeal of authoritarian leaders.

On the plus side, I really liked the way Mr. Davies went back to the philosophical beginnings of rational expertise. He draws a trajectory from Descartes to artificial intelligence and from Hobbes to the free market to growing income inequality. And I applaud that he didn't call simply for better leadership, but for a different model and ideal of leadership.

The novel ideas and historical context make this book worth reading, I think, despite its flaws. ( )

This is essentially an account of the breakdown of the scientific, rational, objective way of looking at the world that western society has been developing since the early seventeenth century, or how we got from Hobbes and Descartes to Trump and Facebook.

Instead of taking the primacy of rational expertise and scientific method for granted, Davies goes back to look at where they come from and why we needed them, and then at how some of the most important ideas it relies on have been undermined. Inter alia, Descartes's concept of the objective, rational mind as something separate from the subjective body falls in the light of modern developments in physiology and psychology, and the parallel development of artificial intelligence; the ideas of Hobbes about our need for an authoritarian regulator to enforce the rule of law are undermined by the ideology of free-market capitalism and by the disproportionate economic and political power of a few wealthy capitalists (who are in effect their own regulators), whilst the distinction between peace and war that was at the heart of Enlightenment ideas of civil order has come into question, not only as a result of terrorism and revolutions but also from the increasing tendency to use the language and attitude of war in areas that ought to belong to civil life. The speed at which knowledge moves and decisions have to be taken in the internet world are more akin to Clausewitzian war than to civil peace, as well.

One of the things it's most difficult to grasp if you've been brought up in the rational, liberal tradition is that very often people don't act in the self-interested way that Hobbes and common sense say they ought to. Self-harm is a classic response of the powerless to their powerlessness, and it happens at the ballot-box just as much as it does in the off-licence or the pharmacy. Inequality isn't just an economic fact, either, but it is often an existential one: Davies draws attention to the figures that show how life-expectancy in the poorer sectors of society is declining in many developed countries, especially in the US. And how a disproportionate number of the people who voted for Trump have chronic illnesses.

Davies doesn't suggest any easy answers, but he does insist that we can't turn back the clock to an Age of Enlightenment rationalism any more than populists can turn the clock back to an imagined age of national supremacy and prosperity. You can't win arguments against people who don't accept the terms of rational debate, a new strategy is needed. He sees a kind of glimmer of hope in the realisation that we will soon be forced into concerted action against the climate emergency: like a war, this stands the chance of giving people a united purpose and a willingness to accept collective decisions. Oddly enough, I don't find the thought of wet feet very comforting...

Still, this is a useful, well-written book, that seems to make sense of a lot of stuff that doesn't actually make sense. ( )