Biofoundationalism III: Verbal Intelligence & Factual Sediment
It's not fake news, it's fake narrative
This can be read standalone, however it incorporates biological assertions made in Biofoundationalism Part II: The Moral Genotype.
All chapters, including derivative essays called Applied Biofoundationalism, are linked at the end.
I listened to this while writing. Enjoy.
A dyad is a pair of oppositional and interdependent elements, each identified in reference to the other. E.g. day is undefined without night; left is unknown without right.
Prelude
Facts don’t care about your feelings, but more importantly feelings don’t care about your facts. This asymmetry defines modern political discourse.
The causal arrow runs in one direction: instinctive feelings generate beliefs, which we use to craft narratives, curating facts to reinforce what we viscerally perceive to be true. Which is to say what we consider moral. That similar sets of facts produce different conclusions is a feature of our political biology, not a bug. What looks like dysfunction is actually group-level design.
We evolved within collectives, not as individuals.
Competing moral blueprints are not coincidences of culture, but critical components of a naturally occurring, equilibrium-sustaining dyad. Masculine and feminine, conservative and liberal: these are dyads. They are complements that augment society’s moral ecosystem; one where contrasting beliefs lead to a more-resilient whole. We evolved in GROUPS, not as INDIVIDUALS.
Our orientations, priorities, principles, and motivations are designed to be varied and supposed to be in productive conflict. This is not a shortcoming; it’s evolutionarily beneficial. Oppositional, symbiotic moral polarities act as an inhale and exhale for civilizational breathing.
The reality behind these statements is apparent when you invert their claims: imagine if we were all architected to absorb information identically. This would necessarily mean all ethical values could be encapsulated in one person. You can be morally everything everywhere all at once if you read the right books and grow up in the right place!
Imagine assuming this about sexual or morphological characteristics: they can all be embodied within one person. Ascribing this premise to temperament, cognition, or politics is equally ridiculous.
The rightwing worships ‘Sovereign Individual’, the leftwing sanctifies ‘Blank Slate’: these are the same fictions with different political scaffolding. Twin myths against biology, wearing different civic religion vestments.
We are encoded to emphasize diametric moral claims: just as a symphony requires distinct notes in counterpoint to achieve harmony, so too does a society require disparate moral dispositions to stay balanced. All things are poison, and nothing is without poison.
Not recognizing these inborn neural disparities as temperamental is tantamount to believing anyone can be an athlete, intellectual, masculine, or feminine, if they just… put their minds to it. A Blank Slate/Sovereign Individual presupposition: a religious stance rooted in pure mythological hope.
Morality and temperament differences are genetic, like any other traits we accept as innate. This is a good, useful thing that goes unappreciated at micro scale, but its utility is easily seen at the macro, societal one. Structurally countervailing forces within a populace facilitate superior scaled human coordination. Nature’s way of fostering moral homeostasis: one that evolves as our environment requires.
The error is not that we disagree. The error is believing disagreement is error.
The natural dyads of masculine/feminine and conservative/liberal yield complementary moral frameworks, gestated by Darwinian pressures to advance human survival and prosperity. One is not ‘bad’ and the other ‘good’; they are mutualistic elements that further human coordination.
We are animals built for scalable group cooperation, genetically fashioned to supplement each other’s strengths and compensate for weaknesses. A species evolved not as isolated individuals but as a collective, which means our cognitive traits are engineered for diversity, not uniformity. A mosaic rather than a monolith. Developed to exist within societies, we are inherently tailored to be different.
Internalizing these hardcoded disparities — as well as how and why they manifest — is Biofoundationalism’s intention. You are going up against neurally programmed instruction sets when you engage with the moral principles of The Other.
It’s Not “Fake News”, It’s “Fake Narrative”
Depending on your takeaways from a set of facts, one narrative will seem true and the other false; identical facts frequently produce opposing narratives and conclusions. This indicates you're not engaging in objective debate when discussing conflicting political philosophies, but witnessing a promotional war over which virtues deserve primacy. Two moral languages talking past each other.
There is nothing to ‘fix’ here; this is simply part of the human condition.
The narratives we form are expressions of our values. Values are predicated on your morality, your morality derives from your temperament, and your temperament is biologically imposed. As discussed in Part II, there are moral genotypes and political phenotypes; political biology is real. Your temperament informs how you interpret and respond to facts and reflexively sort them into stories.
This is why the overwhelming majority are indifferent to facts that contradict their narrative, because facts don’t refute values.
Facts cannot change someone’s morality, because you can’t reprogram biological temperament with words.
A person’s ‘educated stance’ is saturated with post-hoc justifications for innate programming. The adage “People don’t have ideas, ideas have people” is true, but incomplete. It’s better understood as: you don’t have morals, your morals have you. The possession runs much deeper than just ‘ideas’.
Neurological predispositions exert a gravitational pull on ethical intuitions no one can escape.
The moral foundations ascendant in society (resulting in which narratives become widely accepted and which policies follow suit) shift with the utility of those values within the environment. Morality useful in hardship isn’t equally useful in prosperity. Ideals that help you win a war don’t carry the same utility when determining social safety nets. Biofoundationalism IV elaborates on how the environment dictates the expression of societal values.
Fact Check < Narrative Check
We see the facts we want. An illustration:
Here is a list of twenty facts in random order. I bet some stick out to you as more correct than others. Notice which ones feel true and which feel like propaganda; that’s your temperament talking.
Neural pathways allow pain sensation as early as 12 weeks
61% of Americans support legal abortion (Pew)
WHO estimates 23,000 annual deaths globally from unsafe abortions
There are long adoption waiting lists with many couples waiting years
90% of abortions occur before 13 weeks
Fetal cardiac activity detectable at ~6 weeks
Estimated 5,000 annual US deaths from unsafe abortions pre-Roe
96% of biologists surveyed say life begins at fertilization
Bans don't work: Latin America (abortion largely illegal) has higher abortion rate (44 per 1,000) than Europe (29 per 1,000) and US (17 per 1,000)
Critical exceptions needed for rape/incest/health
All major organs present by week 10 of development
75% of abortion patients are low-income
Premature infant survival possible at 21 weeks
Fetus shows brain activity in week 6, touch response at week 8
Legal abortion access linked to reduced maternal mortality
60% of abortion patients are already mothers
Only 1.3% of abortions occur after 21 weeks
38 states have fetal homicide laws (double homicide for killing pregnant woman)
95% of women don't regret their abortion after 5 years
63 million U.S. abortions performed since 1973
Lots of facts here, how do we sort them? With moral instincts.
Is your response to some of these sympathetic? Perhaps a twinge of disgust? Your ACC and insula are constructing a narrative taking shape in your head right now. If you made an “ick face” or scoffed while reading any, your insula sends its regards; it’s responsible for sympathy responses in liberals and disgust reactions in conservatives. The story writes itself; you just hold the pen.
Here’s how you’d organize these facts into partisan narratives, depending on what you instinctively feel is morally ‘true’. Just the facts, man.
Both form compelling narratives and are replete with factual fact-y-ness. You could even swap some around, depending on how you frame the fact! For example: the 1.3% fact (#10 in pro-life column) could augment a pro-choice stance if you present it such that there’s no need to limit abortion access at 21 weeks since women naturally self-regulate around that time. Thus, if it happens beyond then, it must be an edge case requiring special consideration, and the woman knows best.
Here are the moral foundations we draw from when assessing information:
Pro-choice fact curation is led by the Care/Harm moral foundation as it relates to the mother, and the Liberty/Oppression foundation regarding female choice by depicting restrictions as oppressive to women.
Pro-life facts are compiled almost exclusively by the Sanctity/Degradation moral foundation applied to the fetus and sanctity of life. You could also interpret it as Care/Harm in relation to the fetus, however conservative temperaments tend to be primarily concerned with violations of what’s considered sacrosanct (life in this case) rather than protection of the weak.
You cannot uphold all values equally. The very essence of moral conviction is unavoidably hierarchical in that you must prioritize certain virtues over others in order to have them at all. To value all equally is to effectively value none.
All moral decisions require tradeoffs, which means you elevate one value over another. If no tradeoff is made, you make no decision of consequence. If you sacrifice nothing, you decide nothing.
Verbal Intelligence & Factual Sediment
It's morally governed feelings, not facts, that drive narratives; these narratives then shape political policy. Facts matter for implementing policies, not for persuading those who hold them. Wherever ethical certainty runs deep, facts are artillery support for positions already occupied.
Do you support the new congestion tax? Public transportation investment? For tepid topics like this, facts can sometimes work. Not every political disagreement is a forceful moral output, only most of them (though I’m sure some temperamental libertarians are seething at the notion of public investment and taxes of any kind).
As a simple heuristic: the more morally polarizing the topic, the more impervious it is to facts. High-conviction assertions aren’t a product of logical deliberation, but outputs of your amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex, and insula architecture.
We know with a brain scan what you believe without you saying a word. The mind's silent confession precedes the tongue's testimony.
Facts are relevant to the execution of ideas; they do not alter advocacy of the ideas themselves nor convince people their narratives are wrong.
“Wow, you actually were unaware of this FACT? Also you failed to mention this FACT and another FACT that undermines your whole world view. Read a book!”
“Aha foolish you are for completely ignoring these little-known FACTS over here. Which when viewed in conjunction with this FACT, shows you to be nothing more than a chimp in shoes!” - 98% of political debates
Intelligent people with high verbal IQs are more adept at obfuscating their moral imperatives with carefully arranged info that concocts convincing narratives. This creates illusions that their stance is more correct or ‘informed’. The uninitiated mistake eloquence for objectivity. They don’t have better conclusions; they have better camouflage.
Politically “educated” means a masterful recall of factoids that elevates an interpretation and advocacy of a narrative. The verbally skilled dominate political domains because they’re the most compelling proponents of their moral foundations and rally those with similar ethical constitutions.
The verbally gifted tout their moral programming at the political-policy level, layering on veneers of objectivity (arguments look like: “You’re uneducated”). The lower-IQ moral lobbyist arrives at the same destination via cruder routes (arguments look like: “You’re evil and dumb”). Both espouse their temperaments all the same. One has miles of factual sediment to traverse; the other just points at the mountain and says 'that one’.
Simple folk cut to the chase and unabashedly make virtuous declarations, unburdened by informational pageantry. The academic, pundit, and politician wade through layers of data gravel to reach the same biologically rooted instruction set. Facts don’t take us to different moral destinations, they help us tout the ones we already wanted.
As you’re aware, there are many facts. Which do you adhere to? Only the good and true ones? Ah, don’t we all.
Facts endorsing our beliefs are evidence. Facts undermining our views require nuance! A coherent narrative is born in the gap between these two standards. We elide over what’s inconvenient and are staunch advocates of what supports our priors.
We all do this; it’s not specific to any party or ideology. Assuming good faith, it’s not intentionally deceptive or manipulative; in fact it’s almost entirely unconscious. Simply part of the nuts and bolts of human nature. Our amygdala and insula are the conductors, we are the vessel. Moral genotypes presenting as political phenotypes, guided by temperamental directives we do not control.
Rather than hate The Other, remember he defends values you’re blind to, and vice versa. His strengths are your weaknesses. As individually frustrated as you may be by this, we’re collectively improved by it. Nature doesn’t do coincidences at scale.
What’s ‘liberal’ is only known by what’s conservative. What’s ‘conservative’ is defined by what’s liberal. Dyads are interdependent and defined by their opposite, and healthiest when its components are seen as complements, not enemies.
A 'fact check' would be better understood as a narrative check. Or more accurately still, a morality check.
Subscribes and shares are much appreciated. If you enjoyed this essay, please give it a like.
You can show your appreciation by becoming a paid subscriber, or donating here: 0x9C828E8EeCe7a339bBe90A44bB096b20a4F1BE2B
Biofoundationalism Chapters:
Biofoundationalism I: Moral Foundations Utility Theory & Hypermoralization
Biofoundationalism III: Verbal Intelligence & Factual Sediment
Biofoundationalism IV: Masculine Because You Have To, Feminine Because You Get To
a comment made on this essay elsewhere:
"I appreciate this framing greatly, as it provides a much needed counter-weight to what would otherwise start to resemble a determinism which precludes even the possibility of dialogue or discussion."
my response:
something to keep in mind regarding Biofoundationalism: it is largely deterministic, because it is a genetic, environment-driven explanation and deconstruction of how and why we act the way we do politically, economically, and societally. a moral genotype and political phenotype is a temperamental, biological manifestation. a story of how nature dominates nurture.
however, it’s critical to remember that these encoded differences are not something that precludes positive-sum interactions or productive coordination.
it’s a good thing we have structurally countervailing forces that have genetically evolved to not see eye to eye.
to not think this is a positive is to necessarily think a society of all conservatives or all liberals is optimum. or a civilization of all men or all women would be a better one. nature disagrees, and so do I.
reframe it away from the political dyad and see it from the lens of the sexual dyad: male and female.
man and woman are genetically, intractably at odds in many ways. constitutionally different priorities, beliefs, motivations, values, etc.
does this preclude even the possibility of dialogue between them? does it doom the species to have two sexes that are biologically diametrically opposed?
are they diametric adversaries though? or are they complementary symbiotic elements? is a yin yang comprised of two foes or two puzzle pieces that need each other?
the encoded genetic disparities of the sexual dyad should be understood the same as the conservative and liberal dyad. yes, the differences are hardwired. yes they will never agree on many things because the moral hierarchies are entirely different. such is the nature of moral genotypes.
yes it being neurological does mean it’s mostly deterministic. just like we have many deterministic predispositions by being male or female.
this is only toxic and corrosive when the environment is so extreme that they view one another as enemies to fight, rather than complements to work with. when the dynamic has degraded so thoroughly that tribalism is all they know, then you get the preclusion of productive dialogue. this is a dislocation, a result of imbalance. the environment dictates this expression.
the natural state of man and woman is as mutualistic elements that further human coordination, the same as the cognitive conservative and liberal. the prior that I want to recalibrate here is to not see this as a negative, nihilistic thing, but a synergistic, constructive one.
This is fabulous. Important side note: tell us about the artwork. Don’t care if it’s AI, I love it