Very strange article for several reasons, predominantly on the politics of it all.
The first problem I have with it is comparing CA manipulation to schizophrenic delusions. fact of the matter is that there was a conspiracy. CA really was hired by wealthy elites trying to shift politics by engaging in mass influencing campaigns. Whether it was technically effective is another matter, but the thing happened, that's not a delusional person talking to the radio.
The second big issue is the flat-out rejection that manipulation is possible, mocking 'mechanistic' views of individuals and politics. This is a very romanticized story of decision-making and arguably close to being debunked. Bartels and Achen in Democracy for Realists showcase how incoherent and flimsy political decision making is, behavioral research has shown the effectiveness of nudging in policy, Nick Chater in the mind is flat drawing on lots of research casts doubt on the narrative of 'deep beliefs' and so on.
The idea that we're inoculated against manipulation because we're all deeply complex people with coherent ideologies is not really tenable.
Overall much of the article really strikes me as a rant against 'centrism'. The author seems to think that the focus on CA is a product of people wanting to blame tech or shadowy organizations and builts up a strawman likening it to delusion, without offering a compelling reason to buy that argument.
The first problem I have with it is comparing CA manipulation to schizophrenic delusions. fact of the matter is that there was a conspiracy. CA really was hired by wealthy elites trying to shift politics by engaging in mass influencing campaigns. Whether it was technically effective is another matter, but the thing happened, that's not a delusional person talking to the radio.
The second big issue is the flat-out rejection that manipulation is possible, mocking 'mechanistic' views of individuals and politics. This is a very romanticized story of decision-making and arguably close to being debunked. Bartels and Achen in Democracy for Realists showcase how incoherent and flimsy political decision making is, behavioral research has shown the effectiveness of nudging in policy, Nick Chater in the mind is flat drawing on lots of research casts doubt on the narrative of 'deep beliefs' and so on.
The idea that we're inoculated against manipulation because we're all deeply complex people with coherent ideologies is not really tenable.
Overall much of the article really strikes me as a rant against 'centrism'. The author seems to think that the focus on CA is a product of people wanting to blame tech or shadowy organizations and builts up a strawman likening it to delusion, without offering a compelling reason to buy that argument.