11 ms·

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.

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.
  - hindsightbias 9y ago
    Well, Godwin is Godwin. I think a better example would be Marx's Das Kapital. I probably wouldn't waste any time talking to someone about 20th century political & economic history/theory who dismisses it out of hand. And I can tell you the vast majority of Americans will dismiss it. The standard response to "I've read it" is: "What, you're a commie?"
    - BuckRogers 9y ago
      That's a very interesting anecdote. About 15 years ago I went to my local library and checked out every book by Marx that I could get. One of the librarians said "why would you want to read THAT". She looked actively disgusted. I'm not a Marxist, but I have read Marx and Engels. If I had to be pidgeonholed into any political ideology that would be the vein I'd choose. I probably most appreciate Peter Joseph from the Zeitgeist Movement, which is similar and derided as "Communism with robots". But at least I've read a few treatises on the subject. I also went to Moscow about a decade ago, simply because I didn't want to form a strong opinion about a world power that everyone thinks they know about- without actually at least stepping foot on their soil myself. In sum, people need to put their mind where their mouth is.
- yorwba 9y ago
  > If you really cared about something, you would read at least one if not multiple books on the subject. I'm not sure how true that is anymore. If by "book" you mean "monothematic long-form treatise by a small number of authors" then I have read essentially zero books in the past year, although I have done a great deal of reading otherwise. Research papers, magazines, blog posts, Wikipedia articles, cherry-picked single chapters of books can in aggregate absolutely stand in for a few books. And then there are sources of knowledge that go beyond reading, such as personal experience, original research, attending talks, etc. I think your test would be more accurate if you asked more generally how they learned what they know about the matter.
  - BuckRogers 9y ago
    It probably doesn't apply to you, or a few others in the minority. If you're intelligent enough to be able to identify credible sources vs those which are not, then you're probably better off. I offered that up as a low-bar. That said, usually if you're truly into a given subject you'll eventually find a book by someone that you really want to read. Example for me other than Marx & Engels that I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is my passing interest in European Celts. I enjoy reading about Iron Age Europe, so I've had a hard time resisting books on the subject. Caesar's Druids by Miranda Aldhouse-Green was a recent book that I read and something I couldn't pass up. While I accept your statements and agree, I still think the same will be for you if you're truly serious about a given subject.
- icantdrive55 9y ago
  I don't think it's quantity, it's the quality of just one honest book, or study. (It's 4:53 in the morning and my blood pressure just went up thinking about how they lie with ststiatics, and bad studies. Hacker News is an addiction.) I was taught, and read in multiple text books the Civil War was primarily about Slavery, and how wrong they thought it was. The war was about primarily about slavery, but not because caring northern Americans cared about their wellbeing. Years later, reading the right books, I find out it was way more about differences over tariffs, and internal improvements, blundering politicians, and the huge difference of opinion between the agrarian South, and the industrial north. Hell--Trump was right about Jefferson, and Lincoln owning slaves. (We hate the man so much--we can't agree when he has a point right?). Wall Street was once a place people could trade slaves. And northerners had their slaves too. I probally should even brought up slavery. We should just put it to rest. But, in other areas of history, or theories we should strive for the truth, and nothing but the truth. So many supposed truths are hanging by a thread, and only keep being repeated because it usually benefits some entity financially. Yea, my personal, life long gripe is what certain licensed professional healers have gotten away with. If I was a minority, it would be racism, but I'm a clueless white guy. I have seen what these doctors have gotten away with, and don't like it. I do see racism daily and hate it. I believe the disparity of wealth is more important for all of society at this point, but the percenter's don't like it when we talk about the wealthy? Even here--I've been chastised about it. Some moderator emailed me at home. It wasen't under this name though, but it surprised me. I told the little chit to not do it again. I never was a TOS years ago. Yea, try to block my ip. Child's play at this point. I will always get through on important topics. If you have nothing to hide, let's talk about how family money doesn't help. (Got off topic, and not coming back for a few days. Hacker News is great. I sometimes wonder if people realsize how revolutionary this site is? A person writes an article. Then it's debated into the ground. We still can't be totally honest though? Now, we don't want to offend the rich white guys? That one bothers me.)
- hueving 9y ago
  That's a pretty pathetic litmus test. I would rather engage someone who has read individual research papers, blogs from researchers, etc than books. Nearly all of the best programmers I have met have never read a book on the languages in which they are experts. Books are not conducive to learning about a whole field, they are just a way for authors to lecture you on their world view.
  - BuckRogers 9y ago
    I agree, it is a pathetic litmus test. It still sounds like a very high bar for the majority of people though, right. Good luck finding people who have even read one book on a subject they're so angry about they'd punch you over it. It really demonstrates interest, not expertise, and potentially not even a well rounded opinion as you stated.
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.

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.
- hindsightbias 9y ago
  Well, Godwin is Godwin. I think a better example would be Marx's Das Kapital. I probably wouldn't waste any time talking to someone about 20th century political & economic history/theory who dismisses it out of hand. And I can tell you the vast majority of Americans will dismiss it. The standard response to "I've read it" is: "What, you're a commie?"
  - BuckRogers 9y ago
    That's a very interesting anecdote. About 15 years ago I went to my local library and checked out every book by Marx that I could get. One of the librarians said "why would you want to read THAT". She looked actively disgusted. I'm not a Marxist, but I have read Marx and Engels. If I had to be pidgeonholed into any political ideology that would be the vein I'd choose. I probably most appreciate Peter Joseph from the Zeitgeist Movement, which is similar and derided as "Communism with robots". But at least I've read a few treatises on the subject. I also went to Moscow about a decade ago, simply because I didn't want to form a strong opinion about a world power that everyone thinks they know about- without actually at least stepping foot on their soil myself. In sum, people need to put their mind where their mouth is.
yorwba 9y ago
> If you really cared about something, you would read at least one if not multiple books on the subject. I'm not sure how true that is anymore. If by "book" you mean "monothematic long-form treatise by a small number of authors" then I have read essentially zero books in the past year, although I have done a great deal of reading otherwise. Research papers, magazines, blog posts, Wikipedia articles, cherry-picked single chapters of books can in aggregate absolutely stand in for a few books. And then there are sources of knowledge that go beyond reading, such as personal experience, original research, attending talks, etc. I think your test would be more accurate if you asked more generally how they learned what they know about the matter.
- BuckRogers 9y ago
  It probably doesn't apply to you, or a few others in the minority. If you're intelligent enough to be able to identify credible sources vs those which are not, then you're probably better off. I offered that up as a low-bar. That said, usually if you're truly into a given subject you'll eventually find a book by someone that you really want to read. Example for me other than Marx & Engels that I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is my passing interest in European Celts. I enjoy reading about Iron Age Europe, so I've had a hard time resisting books on the subject. Caesar's Druids by Miranda Aldhouse-Green was a recent book that I read and something I couldn't pass up. While I accept your statements and agree, I still think the same will be for you if you're truly serious about a given subject.
icantdrive55 9y ago
I don't think it's quantity, it's the quality of just one honest book, or study. (It's 4:53 in the morning and my blood pressure just went up thinking about how they lie with ststiatics, and bad studies. Hacker News is an addiction.) I was taught, and read in multiple text books the Civil War was primarily about Slavery, and how wrong they thought it was. The war was about primarily about slavery, but not because caring northern Americans cared about their wellbeing. Years later, reading the right books, I find out it was way more about differences over tariffs, and internal improvements, blundering politicians, and the huge difference of opinion between the agrarian South, and the industrial north. Hell--Trump was right about Jefferson, and Lincoln owning slaves. (We hate the man so much--we can't agree when he has a point right?). Wall Street was once a place people could trade slaves. And northerners had their slaves too. I probally should even brought up slavery. We should just put it to rest. But, in other areas of history, or theories we should strive for the truth, and nothing but the truth. So many supposed truths are hanging by a thread, and only keep being repeated because it usually benefits some entity financially. Yea, my personal, life long gripe is what certain licensed professional healers have gotten away with. If I was a minority, it would be racism, but I'm a clueless white guy. I have seen what these doctors have gotten away with, and don't like it. I do see racism daily and hate it. I believe the disparity of wealth is more important for all of society at this point, but the percenter's don't like it when we talk about the wealthy? Even here--I've been chastised about it. Some moderator emailed me at home. It wasen't under this name though, but it surprised me. I told the little chit to not do it again. I never was a TOS years ago. Yea, try to block my ip. Child's play at this point. I will always get through on important topics. If you have nothing to hide, let's talk about how family money doesn't help. (Got off topic, and not coming back for a few days. Hacker News is great. I sometimes wonder if people realsize how revolutionary this site is? A person writes an article. Then it's debated into the ground. We still can't be totally honest though? Now, we don't want to offend the rich white guys? That one bothers me.)
hueving 9y ago
That's a pretty pathetic litmus test. I would rather engage someone who has read individual research papers, blogs from researchers, etc than books. Nearly all of the best programmers I have met have never read a book on the languages in which they are experts. Books are not conducive to learning about a whole field, they are just a way for authors to lecture you on their world view.
- BuckRogers 9y ago
  I agree, it is a pathetic litmus test. It still sounds like a very high bar for the majority of people though, right. Good luck finding people who have even read one book on a subject they're so angry about they'd punch you over it. It really demonstrates interest, not expertise, and potentially not even a well rounded opinion as you stated.

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.