5 ms·

I think you may be confusing the intellectual right-wing with the, e.g. evolution/climate change-denying right wing. There is a lot to be said for the need for

by mrkgnao 10y ago

I think you may be confusing the intellectual right-wing with the, e.g. evolution/climate change-denying right wing. There is a lot to be said for the need for differing opinions on, say, social mores, finance, healthcare, government, and philosophies of life in general. That is to say, I agree that the intellectual/philosophical right-wing is indeed not at all similar to the caricatures we see. I have a hunch, though, that highly religious and closeted people (of the "Do not be educated lest you lose your humility" kind) are almost tautologically biased against evidential "scientific method" models of the world, as opposed to one where all truth flows from $HOLY_BOOK. And if you'll look closely, it is this part that is ridiculed, largely for the unquestioning nature of its beliefs and worldviews. Aside: I have a feeling I'm stepping on the wrong side of the Slate Star Codex "outgroup" essay with this. If there are any logical fallacies in this, or anything similar, I would appreciate comments. I'm not a seasoned observer of politics or society :)

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
I think it comes down to "What? You mean I'm not the authority around here?" Authoritarians are going to have a problem with that. Where there's a $HOLY_BOOK or $HOLY_RELIGION, their schtick is always that truth flows through them. To be fair, science has some of the same issues. But science has a feedback loop which tries to reality test ideas. So shouting about how right you are and verbally abusing your enemies only ever gets you so far. Ideologies don't have that. They only have persuasion and rhetoric - which are far more effective as political tools, but far less effective if you'd like to keep your beliefs reasonably close to reality.
internaut 10y ago
Hello Mr Kgnao > I think you may be confusing the intellectual right-wing with the, e.g. evolution/climate change-denying right wing. Not at all Mr Kgnao. Formerly I came from a Christian cult, with double emphasis on the word 'cult'. So as a right wing person (probably an evil mutant: http://lesswrong.com/lw/i0/are_your_enemies_innately_evil/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/i0/are_your_enemies_innately_evil/) I am familiar with both the Right that has thrown out rationality altogether, and the secular, more intellectual Right. I must hasten to add that there are good scientists who are Christians and belong to a scientific tradition in the second camp, but that they are a rare breed when compared to the past three centuries. > There is a lot to be said for the need for differing opinions on, say, social mores, finance, healthcare, government, and philosophies of life in general. That is to say, I agree that the intellectual/philosophical right-wing is indeed not at all similar to the caricatures we see. Yes, and it is most unfortunate because when I have broached right wing positions to left wing partisans in the past, they have often been quite interested in the oppositional view even if they didn't agree with it. Steelmanning arguments leads to more interesting places and new ideas. (Ctrl-F for 'steel man' http://lesswrong.com/lw/85h/better_disagreement/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/85h/better_disagreement/) I would hate to live in a world where everything I believed to be true, was actually so, because then there would be nothing new to discover. > I have a hunch, though, that highly religious and closeted people (of the "Do not be educated lest you lose your humility" kind) are almost tautologically biased against evidential "scientific method" models of the world, as opposed to one where all truth flows from $HOLY_BOOK. And if you'll look closely, it is this part that is ridiculed, largely for the unquestioning nature of its beliefs and worldviews. Agreed. There's always a danger of this on the Left too, I'm sure you remember the Little Red Book. Different thing, same insanity. > Aside: I have a feeling I'm stepping on the wrong side of the Slate Star Codex "outgroup" essay with this. If there are any logical fallacies in this, or anything similar, I would appreciate comments. I'm not a seasoned observer of politics or society :) Not to worry, I'm from SSC too so really we're in the same in-group ;-) Best Tribe Forever!
- mrkgnao 10y ago
  Your reply is interesting, especially the idea of steelmanning. Also, "Mr Kgnao" is a cute spin on my username :) I originally intended it as a reference to Ulysses, where James Joyce captures a cat's sound as being similar to "mrkgnao".
MaysonL 10y ago
Name a few outstanding members of the intellectual right wing.
- internaut 10y ago
  Historically; people like Edmund Burke and Issac Newton. In more recent history people like William Buckley and Milton Friedman. I would also say that somebody like Stephen Pinker is strongly approved of in right wing intellectual circles although I doubt he'd characterize himself as such. There exists a large 'grey tribe' that doesn't classify itself as a purist left wing or right wing, but has strong elements of both under it's banner. I think of somebody like Eliezer Yudkowsky or Scott Alexander as continuing the Enlightenment tradition which has strong right wing influences. There was always a strong link between classical liberal thinking and the Enlightenment scholars. In HN's own backyard we have Curtis Yarvin and Peter Thiel. Our history is of course very recent but there are still people who stand out with their ideas and are mostly on the right. In the more public sphere we have people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden who are more easily claimed by the modern right wing intelligentsia than the left. Obviously there is some noise with the signal but you've got to anticipate it is not often that a human being is a ideological purist to the degree of say: William Buckley or Noam Chomsky.

by mrkgnao 10y ago

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

I think it comes down to "What? You mean I'm not the authority around here?" Authoritarians are going to have a problem with that. Where there's a $HOLY_BOOK or $HOLY_RELIGION, their schtick is always that truth flows through them. To be fair, science has some of the same issues. But science has a feedback loop which tries to reality test ideas. So shouting about how right you are and verbally abusing your enemies only ever gets you so far. Ideologies don't have that. They only have persuasion and rhetoric - which are far more effective as political tools, but far less effective if you'd like to keep your beliefs reasonably close to reality.

internaut 10y ago

Hello Mr Kgnao > I think you may be confusing the intellectual right-wing with the, e.g. evolution/climate change-denying right wing. Not at all Mr Kgnao. Formerly I came from a Christian cult, with double emphasis on the word 'cult'. So as a right wing person (probably an evil mutant: http://lesswrong.com/lw/i0/are_your_enemies_innately_evil/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/i0/are_your_enemies_innately_evil/) I am familiar with both the Right that has thrown out rationality altogether, and the secular, more intellectual Right. I must hasten to add that there are good scientists who are Christians and belong to a scientific tradition in the second camp, but that they are a rare breed when compared to the past three centuries. > There is a lot to be said for the need for differing opinions on, say, social mores, finance, healthcare, government, and philosophies of life in general. That is to say, I agree that the intellectual/philosophical right-wing is indeed not at all similar to the caricatures we see. Yes, and it is most unfortunate because when I have broached right wing positions to left wing partisans in the past, they have often been quite interested in the oppositional view even if they didn't agree with it. Steelmanning arguments leads to more interesting places and new ideas. (Ctrl-F for 'steel man' http://lesswrong.com/lw/85h/better_disagreement/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/85h/better_disagreement/) I would hate to live in a world where everything I believed to be true, was actually so, because then there would be nothing new to discover. > I have a hunch, though, that highly religious and closeted people (of the "Do not be educated lest you lose your humility" kind) are almost tautologically biased against evidential "scientific method" models of the world, as opposed to one where all truth flows from $HOLY_BOOK. And if you'll look closely, it is this part that is ridiculed, largely for the unquestioning nature of its beliefs and worldviews. Agreed. There's always a danger of this on the Left too, I'm sure you remember the Little Red Book. Different thing, same insanity. > Aside: I have a feeling I'm stepping on the wrong side of the Slate Star Codex "outgroup" essay with this. If there are any logical fallacies in this, or anything similar, I would appreciate comments. I'm not a seasoned observer of politics or society :) Not to worry, I'm from SSC too so really we're in the same in-group ;-) Best Tribe Forever!

mrkgnao 10y ago
Your reply is interesting, especially the idea of steelmanning. Also, "Mr Kgnao" is a cute spin on my username :) I originally intended it as a reference to Ulysses, where James Joyce captures a cat's sound as being similar to "mrkgnao".

MaysonL 10y ago

Name a few outstanding members of the intellectual right wing.

internaut 10y ago
Historically; people like Edmund Burke and Issac Newton. In more recent history people like William Buckley and Milton Friedman. I would also say that somebody like Stephen Pinker is strongly approved of in right wing intellectual circles although I doubt he'd characterize himself as such. There exists a large 'grey tribe' that doesn't classify itself as a purist left wing or right wing, but has strong elements of both under it's banner. I think of somebody like Eliezer Yudkowsky or Scott Alexander as continuing the Enlightenment tradition which has strong right wing influences. There was always a strong link between classical liberal thinking and the Enlightenment scholars. In HN's own backyard we have Curtis Yarvin and Peter Thiel. Our history is of course very recent but there are still people who stand out with their ideas and are mostly on the right. In the more public sphere we have people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden who are more easily claimed by the modern right wing intelligentsia than the left. Obviously there is some noise with the signal but you've got to anticipate it is not often that a human being is a ideological purist to the degree of say: William Buckley or Noam Chomsky.