Louie CK Bought Babe Ruth's Hampton's Getaway For $2 million

I'm a Fan of Louie CK

First let me say that I believe Louie CK to be one of the, if not the, funniest people on Earth right now. Unfortunately for him when we consider the fact that intelligence is not an indicator of one's resistance to bias it becomes reasonable to assume that sense of humor isn't either and in the video below he proves this in a spectacular fashion. From a more meta perspective, all of the people sharing this video on social media are doing a great job of demonstrating their own biases. Note that my argument in this article has nothing to do with Donald Trump. If you think they do, you've found an excellent opportunity to examine your own confirmation bias.

The Evidence of Bias

The first piece of evidence which suggests that this is more of a display of bias than any kind of rational argument is that no rational argument is actually provided. The closest thing to a rational argument is when he says that she should be President because she is a Mother. Not only is this objectively sexist (as a man is biologically incapable of being a mother), but it is also not an argument for Hillary Clinton to be President. By this "logic" any Mother should be President. Well, except a Republican mother, no doubt. That being said, based on CK's stated criteria for President it does sound like any Mother whom he likes, and who he thinks is "great" would qualify.

But He's Just a Comedian

But surely I am reading too much into this. After all, he's a comedian, it's not his job to make rational arguments. Well it's a good thing, because he's not good at making them. And what does this say about the countless people sharing this video on social media? Are they sharing it because they think it's funny or because they think he's right? Most would probably say both.

People share information when it resonates with them and it seems to me that CK's argument does a very good job of articulating the sentiments of the average Clinton supporter. I say "Clinton supporter" because CK is, in fact, in a minority when it comes to his beliefs. Most people do not like Hillary Clinton but he does. Even among registered democrats her unfavorability rating is incredibly low at 37%. That means that more than one third of democrats don't like her despite in-group bias! To give you a reference point, Obama's approval rating among democrats is around 86%. But she's great! ... Because a comedian says so.

In-Group Bias Is Still a Thing

This shouldn't come as a surprise though as CK lives in New York City, a heavily liberal and democratic city. Therefore CK's affinity for Clinton is easily explicable by the fact that the majority of people around him are going to vote for Clinton and were statistically predetermined to vote for whomever was offered up to them by the DNC. How often does CK hear the side of the people who support Trump and how often does he hear the side of people who support Clinton? Just listen to the cheers of the audience members (possibly in response to a subtle "applause" light). Clearly not a lot of conservatives, republicans, Texans, etc. in that audience, but at the same time CK doesn't see the absence of people, he sees unambiguous confirmation of his beliefs. David McRaney, author of the book You Are Not So Smart explained it quite presciently:

Confirmation bias is seeing the world through a filter, thinking selectively. The real trouble begins when confirmation bias distorts your active pursuit of facts. Punditry is a whole industry built on confirmation bias. Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck and Arianna Huffington, Rachel Maddow and Ann Coulter – these people provide fuel for beliefs, they pre-filter the world to match existing world-views. If their filter is like your filter, you love them. If it isn't, you hate them.

I Like Her Because

This filter can be seen clearly when he states, "I think she's great. I really like her. I think she's really talented. I think she's super smart..." Again, most people do not like Hillary Clinton, so CK is in the minority and gives no meaningful explanation as to why he likes her. Obviously I have no way of knowing for sure, but it seems apparent to me that this behavior is a consequence of the fact that the majority of people he knows would have no problem with this statement, so he feels no need to elaborate. To him it seems self-evident because, though a conclusory statement, it is a commonly held belief among his people. This psychological phenomenon is called the false consensus bias (or effect). In short, we don't feel the need to back up claims that everyone we know agrees with and this is a perfectly rational heuristic. It's a waste of time (i.e. resources) to question claims we all agree on. The question is, who is "we?"

The Sharers

This also explains why so many people are willing to share the video despite the fact that there is no seriously insightful commentary within it. One cannot defend CK by claiming, "he's just a comedian, one shouldn't expect rational commentary," and then defend themselves for sharing it by claiming that they appreciate the rational commentary within. The people who share this video are clearly sharing it because he agrees with them, not because he is an expert or because he presents a powerful and rational argument in defense of his claims.

This is further illustrated by what defense CK gives. He thinks she's great. He likes her. He thinks she's talented. These are all extremely vague concepts that cater well to confirmation bias, but offer zero genuine insight. Someone who agrees with CK will come up with ways that she's "great" all on their own. They aren't, for example, likely to think, "She is great at putting national secrets at risk by using a private email server, " or, "She is great at covering her tracks by using BleachBit to erase said server," or. "She is great at getting the FBI not to investigate her for crimes they basically admitted she committed, and then overwhelming them with so much additional evidence of wrongdoing that they are forced to reopen the case."

Am I Biased? Yes

Someone reading this who is ruled by confirmation bias is no doubt screaming at their computer screen that my interpretation is heavily biased as well. Congratulations, your bias has convinced you that my beliefs are the same as those expressed by a fictional person who exists in a hypothetical designed to prove a point, not to disclose my own personal political opinions. My opinion on Clinton's alleged crimes is that I would like to see a fair and unbiased investigation conducted by an uncorrupted law enforcement agency. If that is too much to ask for then I suggest we reconsider what we are focusing our attention on.

Is She Great and Talented?

Since it is rather difficult to even suss out whether a Secretary of State has done a good job because much of their work is classified and many of the policies that are implemented are not solely at their discretion, it is more likely that Clinton supporters would fill in this confirmation bias gap with platitudes that equate to her not directly and irrefutably plunging us into World War III, even though there is a perfectly reasonable argument to be made that her involvement in Syria is doing precisely that. It reminds me of when conservatives defended Bush for allegedly preventing terrorist attacks after 9/11, while ignoring that he was unable to prevent the largest terrorist attack on US soil from occurring in the first place. "He's good at preventing terrorist attacks ... just not the ones that happen."

If You Don't Vote ... You're A Piece of Shit

The icing on the cake of CK's non-argument is his claim that if you don't vote, "You're a piece of shit." Here again, confirmation bias allows the liberal to say simultanesously, "He's just joking ... but he's right." These are the same people who like to drone on about how we should have compassion for everyone and we should recognize the common humanity in all (which we should by the way), but when it comes to their own ideologies, like everyone else they resort to name calling and demonization. He does not say, for example, "That you should vote because your vote matters" because that is absolutely moronic. One vote in a few hundred million is statistically irrelevant. The only reason to vote is if people have convinced you that to not vote makes you a bad person and CK is certainly doing his best to promote that meme.

Louie's Strawman

CK really demonstrates his unfitness for commenting on such matters when he appeals entirely to a strawman argument when defending his claim that any liberal who doesn't vote is a "piece of shit." Despite the plethora of legitimate issues, including at the very least an official FBI investigation, CK decides to say that the reason these liberals won't vote for her is because she "has an annoying voice" and they just don't "like" her and he presents this information in a shrill, mocking voice, so you know he's not being juvenile. He then goes on to tell these people to "grow up," this coming from a man who just personified them as whining morons whose argument is literally a mirror image of his own. When he says he "likes" her that's enough for him, but when other people don't like her (again the majority of Americans) they're "pieces of shit." He then goes on to say, "We need a two-faced, conniving, crazy, someone who's just got a million crazy schemes, and by the way all of her shit is out there, every email she ever wrote is in the newspapers and she's not in jail which is amazing. But we need a tough bitch mother who nobody likes." Presumably this is how he rationalizes ignoring the pleas of liberal Bernie Sanders supporters who have ample evidence to claim that Clinton and the DNC colluded to subvert the Sanders campaign. This just supports his narrative that she is the "good" kind of two-faced, conniving, crazy, scheming, tough bitch who nobody likes.

The cognitive dissonance is absolutely staggering, especially considering this was clearly a bit he thought out beforehand. First he says he likes her, then he admits"nobody" likes her. When presenting the position of those who do not support Clinton he claims that it's because they just don't like her or her voice, but when explaining why she should be President he argues that it's precisely because she is "two-faced, conniving, crazy" with "a million schemes" and by his own admission has miraculously eluded jail. And after all of this he has the gall to criticize anyone who doesn't want to vote for this person who, given his own description of her is obviously heinous.

This highlights what really bothers me about meaningless drivel such as this. Louie CK's vote does matter because he gets to tell millions of people about it. It does, in fact, make sense for elites (people who are rich and powerful) to promote the idea that your vote matters (and again it is a statistical certainty that it does not and anyone who cares to disprove this can feel free to present a mathematical proof to the contrary) because if you listen to them you are more likely to vote the same way as them and so amplify their vote.

Elites Always Support The Status Quo Candidate

It also should come as no surprise that members of the elite support establishment candidates because the status quo has gifted them with their elite status. Of course, CK supports Clinton, he doesn't want anything to change! Things are working out just fine for him. Just don't talk to any member of the working class whose livelihood was decimated by the global trade policies spearheaded by the Clintons.

Morally speaking I believe it is questionable to manipulate people in this way, but it would be relatively defensible if the given member of the elite were leveraging this power to promote a rational argument. He did not. Instead, undoubtedly without knowing, Louie CK is using his platform as a comedian (i.e. not an expert on who should or shouldn't be President) to spread personal propaganda.

What Makes Someone a Member of the Elite?

This is why we see elites acting in consistent ways that are often detrimental to the common good or consensus. CK of course would not consider himself to be a member of the .1% or the elite, despite the fact that his income clearly puts him there. To him the elite are probably "bankers" and "republicans" but not Wall Street enablers like Clinton. But the elite are people who use their massive influence to push their own agenda, and in this video CK is doing just that.

I Still Like CK

While this is not one of CK's finer moments, I still think he's funny, and what he's doing is perfectly human. There are evolutionary reasons for succumbing to our biases and one of the consequences of these influences are that there is always an elite. Hopefully some day CK will look back on this moment with regret and remember that the most valuable service he provides to the public is using comedy to question social norms, not using his influence to promote ideas that are clearly outside his realm of expertise. Hopefully he will glean from this moment in his life the only rational thing worth gleaning: that these are precisely the mechanisms through which powerful people rationalize and legitimize their use of power to subvert the will of the "ignorant masses." That being said another feature of the elite is that their will inevitably crumbles when face-to-face with the will of the people.