What is intellectually interesting about visions are their assumptions and their reasoning,
but what is socially crucial is the extent to which they are resistant to evidence.
All social theories being imperfect, the harm done by their imperfections depends not only
on how far they differ from reality, but also on how readily they adjust to evidence, to
come back into line with the facts.
One theory may be more plausible, or even more sound, than another, but if it is also
more dogmatic, then that can make it far more dangerous than a theory that is not initially
as close to the truth but which is more capable of adjusting to feedback from the real world.
The prevailing vision of our time—the vision of the anointed—has shown an extraordinary
ability to defy evidence.
Characteristic patterns have developed among the anointed for dealing with the repeated
failures of policies based on their vision.
Other patterns have developed for seizing upon statistics in such a way as to buttress
the assumptions of the vision, even when the same set of statistics contain numbers that
contradict the vision.
Finally, there is the phenomenon of honored prophets among the anointed, who continue
to be honored as their predictions fail by vast margins, time and again.
PATTERNS OF FAILURE A very distinct pattern has emerged repeatedly when policies favored
by the anointed turn out to fail.
This pattern typically has four stages: STAGE 1.
THE “CRISIS”: Some situation exists, whose negative aspects the anointed propose to eliminate.
Such a situation is routinely characterized as a “crisis,” even though all human situations
have negative aspects, and even though evidence is seldom asked or given to show how the situation
at hand is either uniquely bad or threatening to get worse.
Sometimes the situation described as a “crisis” has in fact already been getting better for
years.
STAGE 2.
THE “SOLUTION”: Policies to end the “crisis” are advocated by the anointed, who say that
these policies will lead to beneficial result A. Critics say that these policies will lead
to detrimental result Z.
The anointed dismiss these latter claims as absurd and “simplistic,” if not dishonest.
STAGE 3.
THE RESULTS: The policies are instituted and lead to detrimental result Z.
STAGE 4.
THE RESPONSE: Those who attribute detrimental result Z to the policies instituted are dismissed
as “simplistic” for ignoring the “complexities” involved, as “many factors” went into
determining the outcome.
The burden of proof is put on the critics to demonstrate to a certainty that these policies
alone were the only possible cause of the worsening that occurred.
No burden of proof whatever is put on those who had so confidently predicted improvement.
Indeed, it is often asserted that things would have been even worse, were it not for the
wonderful programs that mitigated the inevitable damage from other factors.
Examples of this pattern are all too abundant.
Three will be considered here.
The first and most general involves the set of social welfare policies called “the war
on poverty” during the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson, but continuing
under other labels since then.
Next is the policy of introducing “sex education” into the public schools, as a means of reducing
teenage pregnancy and venereal diseases.
The third example will be policies designed to reduce crime by adopting a less punitive
approach, being more concerned with preventive social policies beforehand and rehabilitation
afterwards, as well as showing more concern with the legal rights of defendants in criminal
cases.