9 ms·

He's 88, still mentally very sharp and probably moved there for the weather(aside from the great department filled with old students). His work ethic is incred

by otalp 9y ago

He's 88, still mentally very sharp and probably moved there for the weather(aside from the great department filled with old students). His work ethic is incredible, he spends 5 hours a day responding to emails from the public- I've received a detailed response every time I've sent one. The amount of time he spends engaging with even terribly misinformed(but well meaning) people is truly astounding, and unparalleled amongst public figures as far as I can tell. Here's an example(https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/6tz1xp/what_do_you_guys_think_about_ncs_argument_here/ https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/6tz1xp/what_do_you...) of some random kid badgering Chomsky with emails, and he still takes the time out to respond to every one of his questions, even though he gets more than a hundred mails a day.

cooper12 9y ago
Holy shit that link you shared was so frustrating to read. To think of all the productive things a great intellectual like Chomsky could be doing with his time. Instead he generously chose to engage someone who had already made their conclusion and just wanted to "debate" without actually ceding to any points (take a shot any time OP says "liberal" or "PC"). He even hints at OP's "intentional ignorance" many times too... What a patient soul to debate someone whose entire education on race issues was some /pol/ infographic and right-wing blogs. OP could have taken some time to read some pre-existing literature, to learn the opposing side's arguments and especially when corresponding with an academic, to read their prior writing. Instead we have this..... the state of public discourse on the web 2.0.
- BuckRogers 9y ago
  That's why whenever I speak to someone and they have a strong opinion I like to ask them how many books they've read on that subject. It's almost always zero. You can pretty much instantly discard anyone like that as it's a decent baseline litmus test. If you really cared about something, you would read at least one if not multiple books on the subject. Anything less is just laziness and someone who wants to get an endorphin rush from anger or other emotions. What you described is a lot better (read some pre-existing literature, to learn the opposing side's arguments and especially when corresponding with an academic, to read their prior writing). But usually even bad books are going to blow a DuckDuckGo search out of the water on quality. Especially for those who aren't astute enough to identify good and bad information.
  - lqdc13 9y ago
    I've found that the book medium invites for a lot of opinions from an author and usually selective references to prove some point. Sort of the same reason that when you read scientific papers, you don't want to just read those written by a single lab. When I want to find out how something works I usually read a meta analysis or a review in a highly rated journal in the field. That way you get to see everyone's opinions and arguments on the subject. They are usually written to be more or less accessible for people not in the field.
    - cardiffspaceman 9y ago
      I think it pays to read long-form book reviews about a book if one is concerned that the book has the sort of flaws you mention. I read "From Bauhaus to Our House," a book by Tom Wolfe on modern architecture, and then I went to the local university library and looked up reviews about it. I found many pointers to follow, of which only a few could be followed up that day. Plus in that case I could have researched the various architects mentioned in the book.
  - nindalf 9y ago
    I've made my mind about Nazism, because it strikes me as an abominable philosophy. I haven't read any books about it though. Would you dismiss anything I said about it until I read Mein Kampf? Most people have only read a handful of books. If they were limited to expressing their views on those topics, there wouldn't be very much said about anything in society. I'm not sure society would benefit from that.
    - serf 9y ago
      >I've made my mind about Nazism, because it strikes me as an abominable philosophy. I haven't read any books about it though. Would you dismiss anything I said about it until I read Mein Kampf? I think that you're using the theme of nazism as a way to make an opinion from a protected standpoint -- it's difficult to refute what you say without sounding sympathetic to nazis. But i'll say it anyway : I think you, and anyone else in the same boat, hold less authority on a topic without being well-versed on said topic. It's really that simple for me. Don't stop speaking to or throw out the opinions of folks uneducated on a topic, just weigh them appropriately along with the expert opinions. "Making up your mind" without educating yourself on the topic is dangerous, no matter which side you start leaning towards. I'm not telling you to go pick up 'Mein Kampf' -- not by a long shot -- but to condemn all books on the topic is frighteningly naive as a societal habit. It propagates a certain kind of sneaky "head-in-the-sand" behavior that may lead to even more strife in our world, and prevents the great historic feedback-loop of the knowledge of our past preventing historical repetitions of our worst atrocities.
- thethirdone 9y ago
  > Instead he generously chose to engage someone who had already made their conclusion and just wanted to "debate" without actually ceding to any points (take a shot any time OP says "liberal" or "PC"). Chomsky was not prepared to cede any points either. In many places, he does not respond to the probing questions asked of him at all (this is assuming the poster didn't add them in afterwards) instead opting to insult the poster. Poster: 1: By what mechanism do white supremacist elements impose American black culture on the American black community today? 2: For example, how is white supremacy responsible for single-parent families in the American black community? Allegedly single-parent rates have skyrocketed since the Civil Rights Movement. Chomsky: Racism is quite extreme today, and by many measures increasing. I don’t know what cocoon you live in. Perhaps you are completely unfamiliar with racism and its impact, in particular, the extreme racism experienced constantly by African-Americans. If so, I would suggest that you learn something about the world, and then you will understand the mechanisms very well. If you don’t want to have direct experience – which is not that hard –then at least look at the literature. Again, try following your own logic. It’s not genes, so it is circumstances. Do you perceive any circumstances beyond the extreme white racism that it takes real effort to be oblivious to? > He even hints at OP's "intentional ignorance" many times too. Hinting at ignorance is not helpful unless you show a path away from ignorance. Saying that something is obvious or trivial (as Mathematicians say) is not helpful. If it is truly obvious, just provide evidence. Now this is not to criticize Chomsky, he is still replying rather than remaining silent. And with his limited time, it doesn't necessarily make sense for him to give a solid argument in that case, but his argument in that link wasn't convincing.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - geezerjay 9y ago
    > Chomsky was not prepared to cede any points either. That was patently clear from the thread. His followers also showed a complete lack of intellectual honesty, by trying to avoid any of the points made in the thread and instead trying to dismiss with paternalistic non-sequiturs such as "Why should Chomsky waste time shoring up your self-imposed ignorance?" When a cult-like following forms, they do behave like a cult.
- jancsika 9y ago
  Most people do stuff like this to sharpen their teeth. There's a great recording on Youtube of a biology grad student debating Kent Hovind on the broad subject of evolution. Even though Hovind is essentially a confidence man, the conversation is enlightening nonetheless because the grad student knows his shit and gives some surprising lucid explanations that I haven't heard in other general audience discussions of evolution. Also, most people rely on a kind of "smell test" to keep from engaging with certain types of arguments. That can quickly create a moral hazard where the person being avoided misrepresents people's reluctance to engage as proof that he/she is a noble dissident with the courage to speak the truth. When someone like Chomsky, Ken Miller, Glenn Greenwald, or another intellectual engages directly with such people it pushes them into a corner where they either have to deliver the goods, change the subject, or commit a fallacy. In a debate, Greenwald forced one of the former NSA directors into such a situation when the response was, "Collect everything doesn't really mean collect everything." Trusting nature of most people being what it is, these forced errors have value.
rhaps0dy 9y ago
>His work ethic is incredible >he spends 5 hours a day responding to emails from the public Since I read Deep Work, I think these phrases contradict each other. You don't do original, interesting work when replying emails.
- chrisbennet 9y ago
  work eth·ic, noun, the principle that hard work is intrinsically virtuous or worthy of reward. (I didn't down vote you)
  - rhaps0dy 9y ago
    I see. That's not quite the definition I was using in my head. According to that, if the emails are very well thought-out and written, it _is_ still hard work... I assumed that, for a work ethic, it had to be as useful as possible too. Oh well, thanks for correcting my mistake.
    - abiox 9y ago
      > I assumed that, for a work ethic, it had to be as useful as possible too. do you mean to suggest that chomsky replying to these sorts of emails isn't all that useful?
- shoo 9y ago
  there can be value in unoriginal boring work
jordigh 9y ago
> he spends 5 hours a day responding to emails from the public rms, another MIT "affiliate", is like this too, although many of his replies are brief. Whenever you see him cracking open his laptop while he's sitting on a panel waiting for his turn to speak, he's almost surely answering email. Here are pictures of him answering email around the world: https://rms.sexy/ https://rms.sexy/ I call this one, "The Birth of Emacs": http://stallman.org/photos/rms-working/pages/13.html http://stallman.org/photos/rms-working/pages/13.html
- aaron_m04 9y ago
  His cursor blink is so fast. It's like a console for hummingbirds.
- hossbeast 9y ago
  "Our GNU/Lord and GNU/Savior is 100% sexy!" This is my favorite thing I've found on the internet in a good long while.
Kagerjay 9y ago
I think this reddit comment in here sums up my thoughts on reading that random kid post "Dear mr. chomsky i realize you've been an MIT professor for 60 years. you've made significant contributions to many fields of studies including linguistics, history, computer science, and philosophy and you've debated with towering figures such as Michel Foucault, Hannah Arendt, Jean Piaget, etc... now can you please allow me to condescend to you while i quote Breitbart news about blacks?"
- clumsysmurf 9y ago
  For anyone interested to read on the subject of "misguided intellectual egalitarianism": "The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters" https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MYCDVHH https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MYCDVHH Of course, there are some older well known books touching on this like Hofstadter, etc.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
fatjokes 9y ago
Heh, reading his sharp responses you forget his age. Then you see him use dated terms like 'Orientals' and remember :).
- abalone 9y ago
  You misunderstand. He used the term in the context of referring to 19th century racists. Full quote: "In the 19th century, the US had emigration officials helping drive the native population off their lands, and immigration officials in Europe trying to bring in white settlers to replace them. White. Orientals were entirely excluded."
  - fatjokes 9y ago
    It is in context, but it's not like he's directly quoting something, so I don't think I misunderstood. E.g., I don't refer to African Americans with the N-word when I'm discussing slavery. In any case, I don't think anyone is offended by his use of the term here. In fact, AFAIK, it's not even considered that offensive---just a bit dated. I was just making an observation. Not accusing Chomsky of racism or anything.
    - sn9 9y ago
      It's not unusual to use "Negros" when referring to African-Americans in discussions of the Jim Crow era or slavery. That might be a more fitting analogy than slurs.
microcolonel 9y ago
I don't know how mentally sharp you get to be called after endorsing Hugo Chavez despite a history of similar politicians with similar policies plunging otherwise strong countries into eternal, unhealing chaos. I know he has lots of clout, and tremendous work ethic, but I really wouldn't say he's very sharp. If he is sharp, he doesn't seem all that wise; and if he is wise, he would be very cruel.
- mempko 9y ago
  Ideology much?
marmaduke 9y ago
It'd be interesting to see those emails publishing as a archive to search through though he's probably used them as fodder for his books.

by otalp 9y ago

cooper12 9y ago

Holy shit that link you shared was so frustrating to read. To think of all the productive things a great intellectual like Chomsky could be doing with his time. Instead he generously chose to engage someone who had already made their conclusion and just wanted to "debate" without actually ceding to any points (take a shot any time OP says "liberal" or "PC"). He even hints at OP's "intentional ignorance" many times too... What a patient soul to debate someone whose entire education on race issues was some /pol/ infographic and right-wing blogs. OP could have taken some time to read some pre-existing literature, to learn the opposing side's arguments and especially when corresponding with an academic, to read their prior writing. Instead we have this..... the state of public discourse on the web 2.0.

BuckRogers 9y ago
That's why whenever I speak to someone and they have a strong opinion I like to ask them how many books they've read on that subject. It's almost always zero. You can pretty much instantly discard anyone like that as it's a decent baseline litmus test. If you really cared about something, you would read at least one if not multiple books on the subject. Anything less is just laziness and someone who wants to get an endorphin rush from anger or other emotions. What you described is a lot better (read some pre-existing literature, to learn the opposing side's arguments and especially when corresponding with an academic, to read their prior writing). But usually even bad books are going to blow a DuckDuckGo search out of the water on quality. Especially for those who aren't astute enough to identify good and bad information.
- lqdc13 9y ago
  I've found that the book medium invites for a lot of opinions from an author and usually selective references to prove some point. Sort of the same reason that when you read scientific papers, you don't want to just read those written by a single lab. When I want to find out how something works I usually read a meta analysis or a review in a highly rated journal in the field. That way you get to see everyone's opinions and arguments on the subject. They are usually written to be more or less accessible for people not in the field.
  - cardiffspaceman 9y ago
    I think it pays to read long-form book reviews about a book if one is concerned that the book has the sort of flaws you mention. I read "From Bauhaus to Our House," a book by Tom Wolfe on modern architecture, and then I went to the local university library and looked up reviews about it. I found many pointers to follow, of which only a few could be followed up that day. Plus in that case I could have researched the various architects mentioned in the book.
- nindalf 9y ago
  I've made my mind about Nazism, because it strikes me as an abominable philosophy. I haven't read any books about it though. Would you dismiss anything I said about it until I read Mein Kampf? Most people have only read a handful of books. If they were limited to expressing their views on those topics, there wouldn't be very much said about anything in society. I'm not sure society would benefit from that.
  - serf 9y ago
    >I've made my mind about Nazism, because it strikes me as an abominable philosophy. I haven't read any books about it though. Would you dismiss anything I said about it until I read Mein Kampf? I think that you're using the theme of nazism as a way to make an opinion from a protected standpoint -- it's difficult to refute what you say without sounding sympathetic to nazis. But i'll say it anyway : I think you, and anyone else in the same boat, hold less authority on a topic without being well-versed on said topic. It's really that simple for me. Don't stop speaking to or throw out the opinions of folks uneducated on a topic, just weigh them appropriately along with the expert opinions. "Making up your mind" without educating yourself on the topic is dangerous, no matter which side you start leaning towards. I'm not telling you to go pick up 'Mein Kampf' -- not by a long shot -- but to condemn all books on the topic is frighteningly naive as a societal habit. It propagates a certain kind of sneaky "head-in-the-sand" behavior that may lead to even more strife in our world, and prevents the great historic feedback-loop of the knowledge of our past preventing historical repetitions of our worst atrocities.
thethirdone 9y ago
> Instead he generously chose to engage someone who had already made their conclusion and just wanted to "debate" without actually ceding to any points (take a shot any time OP says "liberal" or "PC"). Chomsky was not prepared to cede any points either. In many places, he does not respond to the probing questions asked of him at all (this is assuming the poster didn't add them in afterwards) instead opting to insult the poster. Poster: 1: By what mechanism do white supremacist elements impose American black culture on the American black community today? 2: For example, how is white supremacy responsible for single-parent families in the American black community? Allegedly single-parent rates have skyrocketed since the Civil Rights Movement. Chomsky: Racism is quite extreme today, and by many measures increasing. I don’t know what cocoon you live in. Perhaps you are completely unfamiliar with racism and its impact, in particular, the extreme racism experienced constantly by African-Americans. If so, I would suggest that you learn something about the world, and then you will understand the mechanisms very well. If you don’t want to have direct experience – which is not that hard –then at least look at the literature. Again, try following your own logic. It’s not genes, so it is circumstances. Do you perceive any circumstances beyond the extreme white racism that it takes real effort to be oblivious to? > He even hints at OP's "intentional ignorance" many times too. Hinting at ignorance is not helpful unless you show a path away from ignorance. Saying that something is obvious or trivial (as Mathematicians say) is not helpful. If it is truly obvious, just provide evidence. Now this is not to criticize Chomsky, he is still replying rather than remaining silent. And with his limited time, it doesn't necessarily make sense for him to give a solid argument in that case, but his argument in that link wasn't convincing.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- geezerjay 9y ago
  > Chomsky was not prepared to cede any points either. That was patently clear from the thread. His followers also showed a complete lack of intellectual honesty, by trying to avoid any of the points made in the thread and instead trying to dismiss with paternalistic non-sequiturs such as "Why should Chomsky waste time shoring up your self-imposed ignorance?" When a cult-like following forms, they do behave like a cult.
jancsika 9y ago
Most people do stuff like this to sharpen their teeth. There's a great recording on Youtube of a biology grad student debating Kent Hovind on the broad subject of evolution. Even though Hovind is essentially a confidence man, the conversation is enlightening nonetheless because the grad student knows his shit and gives some surprising lucid explanations that I haven't heard in other general audience discussions of evolution. Also, most people rely on a kind of "smell test" to keep from engaging with certain types of arguments. That can quickly create a moral hazard where the person being avoided misrepresents people's reluctance to engage as proof that he/she is a noble dissident with the courage to speak the truth. When someone like Chomsky, Ken Miller, Glenn Greenwald, or another intellectual engages directly with such people it pushes them into a corner where they either have to deliver the goods, change the subject, or commit a fallacy. In a debate, Greenwald forced one of the former NSA directors into such a situation when the response was, "Collect everything doesn't really mean collect everything." Trusting nature of most people being what it is, these forced errors have value.

rhaps0dy 9y ago

>His work ethic is incredible >he spends 5 hours a day responding to emails from the public Since I read Deep Work, I think these phrases contradict each other. You don't do original, interesting work when replying emails.

chrisbennet 9y ago
work eth·ic, noun, the principle that hard work is intrinsically virtuous or worthy of reward. (I didn't down vote you)
- rhaps0dy 9y ago
  I see. That's not quite the definition I was using in my head. According to that, if the emails are very well thought-out and written, it _is_ still hard work... I assumed that, for a work ethic, it had to be as useful as possible too. Oh well, thanks for correcting my mistake.
  - abiox 9y ago
    > I assumed that, for a work ethic, it had to be as useful as possible too. do you mean to suggest that chomsky replying to these sorts of emails isn't all that useful?
shoo 9y ago
there can be value in unoriginal boring work

jordigh 9y ago

> he spends 5 hours a day responding to emails from the public rms, another MIT "affiliate", is like this too, although many of his replies are brief. Whenever you see him cracking open his laptop while he's sitting on a panel waiting for his turn to speak, he's almost surely answering email. Here are pictures of him answering email around the world: https://rms.sexy/ https://rms.sexy/ I call this one, "The Birth of Emacs": http://stallman.org/photos/rms-working/pages/13.html http://stallman.org/photos/rms-working/pages/13.html

aaron_m04 9y ago
His cursor blink is so fast. It's like a console for hummingbirds.
hossbeast 9y ago
"Our GNU/Lord and GNU/Savior is 100% sexy!" This is my favorite thing I've found on the internet in a good long while.

Kagerjay 9y ago

I think this reddit comment in here sums up my thoughts on reading that random kid post "Dear mr. chomsky i realize you've been an MIT professor for 60 years. you've made significant contributions to many fields of studies including linguistics, history, computer science, and philosophy and you've debated with towering figures such as Michel Foucault, Hannah Arendt, Jean Piaget, etc... now can you please allow me to condescend to you while i quote Breitbart news about blacks?"

clumsysmurf 9y ago
For anyone interested to read on the subject of "misguided intellectual egalitarianism": "The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters" https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MYCDVHH https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MYCDVHH Of course, there are some older well known books touching on this like Hofstadter, etc.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

fatjokes 9y ago

Heh, reading his sharp responses you forget his age. Then you see him use dated terms like 'Orientals' and remember :).

abalone 9y ago
You misunderstand. He used the term in the context of referring to 19th century racists. Full quote: "In the 19th century, the US had emigration officials helping drive the native population off their lands, and immigration officials in Europe trying to bring in white settlers to replace them. White. Orientals were entirely excluded."
- fatjokes 9y ago
  It is in context, but it's not like he's directly quoting something, so I don't think I misunderstood. E.g., I don't refer to African Americans with the N-word when I'm discussing slavery. In any case, I don't think anyone is offended by his use of the term here. In fact, AFAIK, it's not even considered that offensive---just a bit dated. I was just making an observation. Not accusing Chomsky of racism or anything.
  - sn9 9y ago
    It's not unusual to use "Negros" when referring to African-Americans in discussions of the Jim Crow era or slavery. That might be a more fitting analogy than slurs.

microcolonel 9y ago

I don't know how mentally sharp you get to be called after endorsing Hugo Chavez despite a history of similar politicians with similar policies plunging otherwise strong countries into eternal, unhealing chaos. I know he has lots of clout, and tremendous work ethic, but I really wouldn't say he's very sharp. If he is sharp, he doesn't seem all that wise; and if he is wise, he would be very cruel.

mempko 9y ago
Ideology much?

marmaduke 9y ago

It'd be interesting to see those emails publishing as a archive to search through though he's probably used them as fodder for his books.