Factigamy – The Exploitation of Non-analytical Thinking

I’m an intellectual.

There. I said it. Worse, I’m an intellectual who has, from time to time, “gamed” the system. How? Simple–by acting like a carnival barker spewing forth out-of-context assemblages of “facts” in a cynical display to prove any damn thing I want. It’s an ancient art form known as “factigamy”. It’s fun. You should try it.

I got my training, as many do, in school. It wasn’t intentional on the educational system’s part (I don’t think), but was mostly due to me being bored and not a little bit lazy. It was aided by some of the analytical BS that some teachers put forth. The analysis of literature always struck me as a particularly slippery slope. Too often, in my view, the attempts at perceiving meaning in every innocuous turn of phrase made a mockery of  critical thinking–substituting in its place a sort of egotistical cleverness of the investigator over having discovered some hidden “truth”.

I consciously started exploiting this. In 11th grade, I was supposed to do a book report on Melville’s Moby Dick. I didn’t want to read Moby Dick. A friend of mine suggested that I treat Moby Dick as an allegory to events in the U.S. Civil War. Thinking this a nifty idea, I gave it a shot. I got a B+ on that paper. It was solely due to the creativity of the idea, but I was admonished not to try to do it again. (No, I didn’t read the book at that point.) The admonition didn’t take.

In 12th grade, we got an assignment to research and analyze the works of a favorite poet. Cripes. I really didn’t want to do this. Taking a cue from that earlier piece of claptrap, I chose to try something a little more playful than some dry old research. I selected the works of Robert Frost. I noted when select poems were written (I think I picked seven). I then looked back a few years from a poem’s publishing date, found a random event in history, and by taking lines out of context, I paired the poems to the events. A+ on content, B on research (I didn’t cite sufficient sources).

So, I got an early introduction to the ease in which cleverness can be substituted for actual pertinent facts or rigorous research. This method was hit-or-miss in college–but especially “miss” in the philosophy department (don’t try to BS a BSer, I guess). The thing that I learned was to be skeptical of the “facts”. All people have biases that color their thinking, me just as much as anyone else. I know that most interpretations of data can be tainted by the point someone wants to prove. I’m often curious: what data aren’t you telling me; you know, the stuff that refutes, or at least weakens, the conclusion you want me to agree with?

Which leads us to this bit of silliness:

What Jon Stewart is doing is simply what I’ve been saying above: showing that you can “prove” any damn thing if you remove any relevant context and substitute your own, instead. Like I said: it isn’t hard to do, and it can be a whole lot of fun.

One of the most astute practitioners of the art of verbal huckstering was none other that the great B.T. Barnum:

At one point, Barnum noticed that people were lingering too long at his exhibits. He posted signs indicating “This Way to the Egress”. Not knowing that “Egress” was another word for “Exit”, people followed the signs to what they assumed was a fascinating exhibit…and ended up outside. (Wikipedia)

What this says is that people who use “factigamy” (the folding of “facts” to shape a specific, deliberate conclusion and/or to sow Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt), are calling their victims little more than marks in a carnival. Rubes just off the farm. Whether it’s Beck, or Stewart, or a religious proselytizer, or a lawyer, or me, or a politician, or–well, you get the idea–if we are spewing forth “facts” that have even the hint of BS, please go forth, do your own research (not just looking for what you want to find, as you’d just be performing factigamy on yourself), and make up your own mind.

That’s all I ever ask. Make up your own mind. Don’t just take the words of someone because ey can fold a perfectly simple and obvious statement and factigamy it into something that was never intended to be true. Factigamy only leads to “truthiness“, not reality.

Factigamy is insideously practiced in so many facets of our lives that you might not even see it anymore. It’s that ubiquitous. You need only look at: news (any American outlet will do), advertising, religion, economics, court cases, politics, documentaries, and on and on. It’s not just from those you disagree with–which seem to be the easiest forms of factigamy to spot. It’s everywhere. Just be wary. Be aware. Please.