Pandemic in History
Introduction
The Sep. 6 speaker session, Pandemics in History, introduced a radical perspective to look at the current pandemic: to look retrospectively and use our history as a guide to provide lessons for the future. As a central theme, Prof. Symes from the History Department pointed to the idea that it is not impossible for us to change our approach in the future by looking at the various similarities among past pandemics. The remedies for the problem that exists in our society today can be found in the history that was readily available for us to read. I support Prof. Symes’s argument.
One thing that particularly caught my attention during this lecture is her mentioning of antisemitism, which aligns with my ongoing class, History of Antisemitism. While I have no intention to use it as my main topic for the open-ed, I do want to point to the central theme of my class: chimerical beliefs. In a nutshell, a chimerical belief is usually generated with two underlying issues: 1) the identity crisis between who a person really is in the real world and who this person thinks he/she is, and 2) a lack of proper knowledge to explain such a gap. With these two factors working together, a person may draw the things that are readily available to them to explain the crisis, no matter how unreasonable it might be. One example I draw from my class is a person laid off from work who is good at his/her work start to believe that the boss hates him/her. The information missing here can be an economic downturn, an end of contracts with a major business partner, etc. Without these knowledges, however, the one who is readily known by this person and can potentially cause unemployment is the boss. As a result, no matter how well this person’s boss treated him/her in day-to-day life, a chimerical belief is generated against the boss. In this sense, a chimerical belief is rather an involuntary reaction to a given situation, and not an active bias.
Reflection
I think this idea can apply to this pandemic. We as well have experienced recursive unstableness in our society this year: the upholding of the Black Lives Matter movement had been joined by violence, the vaccine had been accused as a tool used by Bill Gates to control the world, and the very pandemic is regarded as a governmental conspiracy that will magically disappear at some point. Behind all these events, it is not unreasonable to see the works of chimerical beliefs. A pandemic will surely create a sense of fear among the entire society, and individuals lacking the basic knowledge and information may be inclined to hold chimerical beliefs. These beliefs, regardless of the lack of evidence, may as well be the way with which these individuals cope through this crazy time.
The remedies, then, can be as simple as a better understanding of the event——in Prof. Symes’s words, a retrospective examination of the history. She repeated several times during the lecture to emphasize the importance of knowing that the pandemic “is a feature, not a bug” to human being. Such a feature is then externalized in the five historical patterns of pandemics that Prof. Symes conveniently summarized for us: namely 1) anthropogenic overreach & population, 2) weakened and unequal socioeconomic infrastructures, 3) breakdown of fragile institutions of governance, 4) uneven (or uninformed) public health responses, and 5) long term social, economic, and political effects. She implied that an examination of these five patterns should ring the bell for potential actions and results.
Even though I am not an expert in History, I do fully support Prof. Symes’s underlying emphasis on understanding. While she placed her focus on her area of expertise, I would focus on the idea of understanding in a broader sense. It should be rather straightforward that if the fact that this disease can be transmitted among human, animal and the environment, people would not conclude that Covid-19 is a government conspiracy; if it is widely recognized that millions can be saved with the implementation of proper measures, the willing to reject masks will not be as strong. On another perspective, it should also be recognized that people may suffer from different levels of impact during the pandemic, and that the generation of a chimerical belief is a passive reaction. It is not a good idea to shout back “idiots” to those who hold chimerical beliefs, and we shall not be cold-eyed to the various “craziness” in our society: it is vital for us to be compassionate and feel the sympathy for other people’s difficulties.
As a final thought, I believe that while this pandemic had created a crisis among society members, people shall engage in a more extensive mutual understanding. Either through the lens of history or the lens of science and sympathy, it is necessary for us to keep a clear mind, especially during the time of this pandemic. A mutual understanding shall mitigate the negative effect of the spread of fear in our society, and help to create a sense of mutual support between one another.
Comments & Responses
Comment #1
By Roman Friedman
Hi Doris,
I find your goals really interesting. You talk about not only the personal but the professional need for communication, and it makes me think about the ways in which institutions are or are not fulfilling their role during the pandemic. And, what even are the responsibilities of institutions? You may be working with an institution for your project, so perhaps this is a question worth thinking about. But even if you're not, as a student you are a member of another institution, this university. So it might be worth asking what responsibilities does the university have to you both personally and professionally. College is usually a very social atmosphere, one that ought to teach you the relevant skills for a job like accounting. Do you have any thoughts on those questions?
As for Part 2, I love your discussion of chimerical beliefs and how it might fit into present-day conspiracy theories. It sounds like you are talking of two related concepts here, and you can tell me if I'm reading this correctly: self and social order. 1) The idea that we need to maintain a coherent narrative sense of self. Hence, if I get fired from my job I need to hold on to the idea that I am good at my job, and the only reason that I got fired is because my boss hates me. 2) The idea that a certain set of beliefs fit into the way the world actually is and into a social order. Thus when I am presented with evidence that goes against it (e.g. the world is round) I have to reframe that evidence to conform to the way I believe reality is. The two are not quite the same but are obviously connected, since I exist within reality and within my belief of the social order. Is that a fair summation?
The reason I'm asking is because of this line of yours: "The remedies, then, can be as simple as a better understanding of the event..." If my summary above is correct, then how does a person get a better understanding, or how might we help someone understand better, if they are constantly reshaping everything to conform to already pre-existing beliefs?! What are your thoughts?
-Roman
Response #1
Hello Roman—
Thank you for you comment! You have brought up something that I haven't pay much attention to!
Regarding your question for Part 1, I believe one of the biggest responsibility of institutions is to make their information clear and accessible for the public. I think despite the advancement in technologies and communication channels, it is still challenging for lay people to get clear information from the institutions. One of my personal example is with CDC and FDA, where I tried to read their guidelines for household cleaning. One particular question I tried to look up is “should I get ordinary soap or antibacterial soap.” I spent almost five minutes on this single question trying to detangle their research results and jargons. Yes they are keeping their writings as accurate as possible, but at the same time it may have also caused difficulties for lay people like me to understand their message (btw, ordinary soap is good enough as long as you follow the correct hand-washing method). So making information clear to the general public is definitely one of the responsibilities of institutions. Another thing that I think about is information accessibility, especially with my experience in the university. There is little doubt that our university had made tremendous efforts in improving our education experience during this pandemic, but I only got to know some of them through my friends (like the free PPE and Adobe suit). On the other hand, I think it is also hard for smaller organizations (especially RSOs) within the university to communicate their messages to students (I personally received zero messages from new RSOs this semester).
For Part 2—yes I believe you did provide a fair summation. But one thing I want to point out is that under most cases, there are no direct evidence to prove that a chimerical belief is wrong. With my anti-Semitism class example, it is nearly impossible for one to prove to the Europeans during the middle ages that Jews are not devil——to do so you need to eliminate all possibilities, literally. Similarly, you may never be able to prove to me that my boss doesn't hate me, as to do so you will need to prove that my boss loves me in all perspectives.
On the other hand, the deeper root of a chimerical belief is the first point you mentioned, namely that a person cannot make sense of the gap between their beliefs and the actual world. Take my example again: event A (I got fired) happened to me, but I hold on to B (I’m a good person), so I blamed C (My boss hates me) for causing the event, while D (Bankruptcy of a business partner) is the actual cause. I had logic of C—> A+B because I don’t know the existence of D. So the fundamental flaw of my belief is that I don’t understand what can cause A+B (?—>A+B). Just telling me that C—> A+B is wrong is not the end of my chimerical belief, as I, like you said, will develop another target to explain why A+B (like E, my co-workers framed me). Also, as I mentioned previously, it is hard to prove that C is wrong in the first place. In order to prove me wrong, the better way is to give me D. Now going back to your question, I would say that a chimerical belief is not a “pre-existing belief”, it is more of a “pre-existing question”. And to eradicate a chimerical belief, you don’t provide counter-evidence to the belief itself (C), you provide an answer to the question (D). Since D already caused A+B, in most cases it will be factual and not-changing. That’s why I agree with Prof. Symes that a better understanding of the event itself (D) can be a remedy.
Please let me know if you have further questions!
Comment #2
By Roman Friedman
Thanks Doris!
You've made things much clearer. Great example regarding communication and the CDC. And I think it is actually related to what you say in Part 2. As you say, "there are no direct evidence to prove that a chimerical belief is wrong." So in your description, it can be D (bankruptcy), it can also be C (boss hates me). But what I am most curious about is when it is B (it is me). Because most of us want to avoid believing that the problem is me, and because we can almost always find some evidence (right or wrong) that will lead us to other beliefs like C or D (again, right or wrong), how might we communicate effectively to others that you need to change some belief about yourself or your worldview, rather than finding evidence that pushes the burden on to others? All of us probably do this to some extent, as part of our psychological well-being, but I think these questions you raise become more interesting when speaking of public health messaging. You don't have to respond to this (unless you want to), just a few thoughts of mine on your post. Looking forward to your next one!
Roman
Response #2
Hi Roman—
Sorry for the delay, I just survived my midterm week :( But I would love to write a response!
Before I start, I just want to clarify that by "there are no direct evidence to prove that a chimerical belief is wrong”, I was referring specifically to the belief itself, or C (My boss hates me). And I said this because to disprove C you need to provide evidence that my boss loves me in all respects——that he loves me as a female, as an Asian, as a college student, as a religion & accounting major, etc…A person’s identity is complicated, and it will be extremely hard, if not impossible, to prove that another person doesn't hate me at least in some perspectives. Same thing with my example on antisemitism, where to disprove the belief that “Jews are evil” you need to prove that they have zero connection with evil whatsoever.
On the other hand, C can stand as long as I have something to support it (for example, I wore a white shirt and my boss hates that). However, remember that the generation of C is due to a discrepancy between A (I’m fired) and B (I’m a good person) that I cannot explain. If the discrepancy is eliminated, C will not exist from the beginning. So the better way to disprove C is to give me the actual cause (D) for A+B. It is a viable solution because D by its very nature is factual. It is a preexisting condition (and not a belief) that have already happened in order to cause A+B. And due to its factual nature, D is provable. Now, I don’t think it will make a difference between if D is generated in the inside or the outside. It can be D1 (bankruptcy) or it can be D2 (I didn't meet my KPI target). The factual nature means that evidences can be gathered to prove both, either a news report on the bankruptcy or my KPI metrics from last year.
Now, going a step further, even if B is wrong in this case, given that D is factual, I don’t think it will be altogether impossible to prove. I think I’m a good person, but in reality I might just be a bad employee who cannot meet my performance target. My KPI metrics can be a direct evidence against such a belief of mine. The tendency to blame the problem to others, however, is much harder to avoid. I fully agree with you that this tendency is part of our psychological well-being. An intense engagement in self-reflection (i.e. finding D) can be a solution to disprove the belief, but the tendency to generate this belief is very hard to avoid.
Hopefully that can help to clarify things!
Doris
Comment #3
By Kate Abney
Dear Doris- Thanks for this contribution- I really enjoyed reading your thoughts here! I also think that I am in agreement with chimerical beliefs from your Antisemitism in America course. This is an excellent use of a theoretical tool to help describe some phenomena we are experiencing now. I also agree that the pandemic is not a bug, but a feature- I think the same with chimerical beliefs!
What are some of the characteristics of humanity (here I mean human persons) that set us apart from other organisms, and certainly, other mammals? It is a basic question perhaps, but it warrants investigation. One of these characteristics is that we are meaning-making. Humans search for meaning, often. We interpret, analyze, conclude, and make opinions or arguments based on the information we make available to ourselves. That said, misinformation can thrive when people are grasping for an explanation and yes, meaning. This is something that is exacerbated or amplified during times of social upheaval- and as you pointed out- we are deeply ensconced within upheaval right now, all over the world- but particularly in the USA. It is very scary indeed!
I look forward to your submissions in the future Doris, thank you!
Response #3
Hi Prof. Abney—
Thank you for your comments!
I really appreciate your point on humanity being meaning-making. I happen to have learned about it with another class of mine (getting all kinds of interesting things with my religion classes). The example I got is how humans and dogs interpret the meaning of shaking hands (paws). While a human may interpret it as a sign of welcome, gratitude, excitement, etc. based on the context, a dog mostly interpret shaking paws as treats, regardless of the context. This ability of sympathy (with others and with the environment), in turn, played a big role in human evolution, as well as the first development of religions.
With that being said, I also completely agree with your point that misinformation can lead our meaning-making abilities side-ways, especially during this time where our emotions seems to be amplified. When I was learning about this I mainly think about the positive sides of such a unique ability, and I really appreciate that you point to how the ability can also be abused. It is something that I have never though about, but we indeed need to be more careful these days in keeping a clear mind and use our logic (and not mere intuitive) to make sense of the events.
Comment #4
By Erin Sahm
I was also impressed by Dr. Symes emphasis on pandemics as a feature of society. I had no idea that many pandemics shared a racial scapegoating component. Relating this idea to Dr. Brinkworth's lecture, I believe that this is one aspect of pandemics that we can improve. We cannot repair the racial disparities that occur during pandemics if we are not aware of them. I hope that by educating ourselves on the complex impacts of COVID-19, we can begin to implement solutions for them.