3 ms·

The beauty of the article is in exposing the fundamentally emotional, illogical reaction of the SSC's author and associated community. For a group that seems to

The beauty of the article is in exposing the fundamentally emotional, illogical reaction of the SSC's author and associated community. For a group that seems to value dispassionate rationality and intelligence as inherently morally good, their overreaction to this unpublished article is deliciously ironic. Instead of allowing the "marketplace of ideas" to play out, Scott Alexander decided to take his ball and go home. Ultimately discrediting the "rationalist" ideology was as easy as making them angry.

roryokane 6y ago
As I understand your comment, you are arguing that according to Scott Alexander’s principles of free discourse, the New York Times publicizing Scott’s real name should be no different from a random online writer arguing a controversial view, e.g. neoreactionary views. Thus, you say that Scott’s objection to the New York Times publishing its article proves Scott’s hypocrisy, because he allows discussion of neoreactionism but not of his real name. I think that is an unfair comparison. Controversial ideas such as neoreactionism are part of the “marketplace of ideas” in that both arguments for them and arguments against them can be publicized. Someone who encounters a neoreactionary idea can research additional arguments for and against the idea and use those arguments to decide on their own position. Unlike an idea in a marketplace of ideas, publicizing Scott’s real name on nytimes.com, a site highly-ranked in search engines, is irrefutable. No matter how many people subsequently post to their own websites arguing that Scott’s real name shouldn’t be publicized, it wouldn’t change Google’s behavior of showing the New York Times article about Slate Star Codex when a psychiatric patient searches for “Scott Alexander [real name]”. Rather than two sides of a figurative ideological war fighting until the stronger idea proves the victor, publicizing Scott’s name would be one side leading the battle with a nuclear bomb. Additionally, Scott’s real name isn’t an idea that can be argued for or against, not is it relevant to the New York Times reporter’s ideas. Scott suggested in his takedown post that he wouldn’t object so strongly to his name being publicized if it were actually relevant to the article: > If someone thinks I am so egregious that I don’t deserve the mask of anonymity, then I guess they have to name me, the same way they name criminals and terrorists. This wasn’t that. By all indications, this was […] going to be a nice piece […]. Getting punished for my crimes would at least be predictable, but I am not willing to be punished for my virtues. Thus, Scott’s takedown of his blog does not prove hypocrisy or ‘[discredit] the “rationalist” ideology’. I also doubt that the takedown is an “emotional, illogical” action on Scott’s part (no comment on his community). As zucker42 suggested elsewhere in these comments, Scott’s takedown is probably “a game theory influenced attempt to prevent the NYT from printing his name”. Scott saw the upcoming NYT article’s inclusion of his name as a danger to his career and personal safety, and used his blog’s readership to threaten the NYT with bad PR if they followed through with that apparently-dangerous action. Seems reasonable to me. At worst, you could accuse Scott of overestimating the actual danger of the NYT’s action and thus threatening the NYT with a disproportionate amount of bad PR.
- abvdasker 6y ago
  1. The content of the article is still unknown. Scott — and from what I can tell most of the rest of the SSC chud community — made an assumption about the ill intent of the author for which there is no evidence. Again the hypocrisy here is delightful given how much of rationalist ideology relies on giving people the benefit of the doubt. 2. Scott's last name is already out there and is ridiculously easy to find. The idea that he was actually anonymous as the author of SSC is silly. 3. There's an implicit admission of guilt in the way Scott anticipates that his clients and the broader public will react negatively to his views. I wonder, what is it about Scott's views that makes him so certain the reaction will be negative? Why hasn't he allowed for the possibility that his clients and the NYT readership will react positively to the article? Couldn't it raise his profile and that of his blog in a way that is beneficial to both? 4. I recognize that this is heresy to rationalist ideology, but his identity matters in a discussion of his ideas, especially his political ideas. It's easier to assess his sincerity or credibility given the background his real identity provides. Is Scott really the Grand Wizard of the KKK in real life? Is he a saint who spends his days serving the homeless? Is he just some guy? 5. If nothing else Scott is making the tactical mistake of adding fuel to the fire. My guess is that not only will the NYT still publish, this entire kerfuffle will almost certainly now be part of the story. Traditional news media thrives on controversy and sensationalism. Scott has just made this whole thing far more interesting and already drawn more attention to himself via the New Yorker article. As of my writing this comment the Google autocomplete for "Scott Alexander" is his last name. His knee-jerk reaction to the unpublished NYT piece has already ensured the loss of anonymity. Seems kind-of irrational.
  - nkurz 6y ago
    Starting with #1, why do you believe that "Scott — and from what I can tell most of the rest of the SSC chud[1] community — made an assumption about the ill intent of the author for which there is no evidence." From what I've seen, everything Scott has written has claimed exactly the opposite. He claimed several times that his expectation was the article would probably be mostly positive. In his explanation for taking down the blog, his words were "It probably would have been a very nice article." In one of the most discussed postmortems, Scott Aaronson explains why he personally vouched for the NYT reporter and encouraged people to cooperate: "I told Scott Alexander and others that I knew Cade, his intentions were good, he was only trying to understand the community, and everyone should help him by talking to him openly." While there were a few opinions on the blog pre-shutdown that suspected it would be a negative article, these were generally people who had poor earlier experiences with reporters in general, and weren't specific to this case. Countering them were multiple reports from interviewed posters saying that the reporter seemed genuine and well intentioned. But somehow you've reached the exact opposite impression: that led by Scott, practically everyone assumed ill intent. Since it's easier to define the opinion of an individual than a group, let's concentrate on just Scott. Could you explain how Scott demonstrated his belief that the reporter had ill intent? Has he written anything that would back this interpretation, or is it based on the assumption he actually believes the opposite of everything that he has said in public? Conversely, what would he have said differently if in fact he didn't assume ill intent? [1] Chud as in Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller? Or is this a typo I haven't been able to decipher?

roryokane 6y ago

As I understand your comment, you are arguing that according to Scott Alexander’s principles of free discourse, the New York Times publicizing Scott’s real name should be no different from a random online writer arguing a controversial view, e.g. neoreactionary views. Thus, you say that Scott’s objection to the New York Times publishing its article proves Scott’s hypocrisy, because he allows discussion of neoreactionism but not of his real name. I think that is an unfair comparison. Controversial ideas such as neoreactionism are part of the “marketplace of ideas” in that both arguments for them and arguments against them can be publicized. Someone who encounters a neoreactionary idea can research additional arguments for and against the idea and use those arguments to decide on their own position. Unlike an idea in a marketplace of ideas, publicizing Scott’s real name on nytimes.com, a site highly-ranked in search engines, is irrefutable. No matter how many people subsequently post to their own websites arguing that Scott’s real name shouldn’t be publicized, it wouldn’t change Google’s behavior of showing the New York Times article about Slate Star Codex when a psychiatric patient searches for “Scott Alexander [real name]”. Rather than two sides of a figurative ideological war fighting until the stronger idea proves the victor, publicizing Scott’s name would be one side leading the battle with a nuclear bomb. Additionally, Scott’s real name isn’t an idea that can be argued for or against, not is it relevant to the New York Times reporter’s ideas. Scott suggested in his takedown post that he wouldn’t object so strongly to his name being publicized if it were actually relevant to the article: > If someone thinks I am so egregious that I don’t deserve the mask of anonymity, then I guess they have to name me, the same way they name criminals and terrorists. This wasn’t that. By all indications, this was […] going to be a nice piece […]. Getting punished for my crimes would at least be predictable, but I am not willing to be punished for my virtues. Thus, Scott’s takedown of his blog does not prove hypocrisy or ‘[discredit] the “rationalist” ideology’. I also doubt that the takedown is an “emotional, illogical” action on Scott’s part (no comment on his community). As zucker42 suggested elsewhere in these comments, Scott’s takedown is probably “a game theory influenced attempt to prevent the NYT from printing his name”. Scott saw the upcoming NYT article’s inclusion of his name as a danger to his career and personal safety, and used his blog’s readership to threaten the NYT with bad PR if they followed through with that apparently-dangerous action. Seems reasonable to me. At worst, you could accuse Scott of overestimating the actual danger of the NYT’s action and thus threatening the NYT with a disproportionate amount of bad PR.

abvdasker 6y ago
1. The content of the article is still unknown. Scott — and from what I can tell most of the rest of the SSC chud community — made an assumption about the ill intent of the author for which there is no evidence. Again the hypocrisy here is delightful given how much of rationalist ideology relies on giving people the benefit of the doubt. 2. Scott's last name is already out there and is ridiculously easy to find. The idea that he was actually anonymous as the author of SSC is silly. 3. There's an implicit admission of guilt in the way Scott anticipates that his clients and the broader public will react negatively to his views. I wonder, what is it about Scott's views that makes him so certain the reaction will be negative? Why hasn't he allowed for the possibility that his clients and the NYT readership will react positively to the article? Couldn't it raise his profile and that of his blog in a way that is beneficial to both? 4. I recognize that this is heresy to rationalist ideology, but his identity matters in a discussion of his ideas, especially his political ideas. It's easier to assess his sincerity or credibility given the background his real identity provides. Is Scott really the Grand Wizard of the KKK in real life? Is he a saint who spends his days serving the homeless? Is he just some guy? 5. If nothing else Scott is making the tactical mistake of adding fuel to the fire. My guess is that not only will the NYT still publish, this entire kerfuffle will almost certainly now be part of the story. Traditional news media thrives on controversy and sensationalism. Scott has just made this whole thing far more interesting and already drawn more attention to himself via the New Yorker article. As of my writing this comment the Google autocomplete for "Scott Alexander" is his last name. His knee-jerk reaction to the unpublished NYT piece has already ensured the loss of anonymity. Seems kind-of irrational.
- nkurz 6y ago
  Starting with #1, why do you believe that "Scott — and from what I can tell most of the rest of the SSC chud[1] community — made an assumption about the ill intent of the author for which there is no evidence." From what I've seen, everything Scott has written has claimed exactly the opposite. He claimed several times that his expectation was the article would probably be mostly positive. In his explanation for taking down the blog, his words were "It probably would have been a very nice article." In one of the most discussed postmortems, Scott Aaronson explains why he personally vouched for the NYT reporter and encouraged people to cooperate: "I told Scott Alexander and others that I knew Cade, his intentions were good, he was only trying to understand the community, and everyone should help him by talking to him openly." While there were a few opinions on the blog pre-shutdown that suspected it would be a negative article, these were generally people who had poor earlier experiences with reporters in general, and weren't specific to this case. Countering them were multiple reports from interviewed posters saying that the reporter seemed genuine and well intentioned. But somehow you've reached the exact opposite impression: that led by Scott, practically everyone assumed ill intent. Since it's easier to define the opinion of an individual than a group, let's concentrate on just Scott. Could you explain how Scott demonstrated his belief that the reporter had ill intent? Has he written anything that would back this interpretation, or is it based on the assumption he actually believes the opposite of everything that he has said in public? Conversely, what would he have said differently if in fact he didn't assume ill intent? [1] Chud as in Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller? Or is this a typo I haven't been able to decipher?