3 ms·

You seem to have exaggerated the 'stands' you give as examples. The problem with that is that I'm instantly reminded of all those times where I've seen critics

You seem to have exaggerated the 'stands' you give as examples. The problem with that is that I'm instantly reminded of all those times where I've seen critics of some 'Thinkers' accuse them of taking 'stands' like these, and after more or less digging (depending on of unpopular they were) it indeed ended up being either words taken out of context, or just strawmen.

mordymoop 6y ago
I think you have misunderstood my point about the influence of the memetic apparatus on the promulgation of ideas. I'm not taking a particular stance on whether or not the Thinker himself would say X; I'm saying X is the version of the idea that is widely ascribed to the thinker because of memetic selection, and X is usually a version of what the thinker actually thinks. To say that X is a "strawman" implies some degree of disingenuousness, some intentionality, as if you could only possibly believe that Robin Hanson thinks people don't really care about their children if you are actively trying to misrepresent his real stance, which you secretly know deep down. In reality, Robin Hanson actually does think that people don't care about their children nearly as much as they say they do, add six more pages of caveats. This gets rhetorically rounded off to "Robin Hanson thinks people don't care about their children." The result is endless stupid conversations. This may or not be partly Robin Hanson's fault for making his blog post titles intentionally inflammatory and attention-grabby ("Healthcare is not about health", etc.). I am agnostic was to whether Foucalt has intentionally turned into the skid on this; but I do personally suspect that many big thinkers lean into obscurantism because they don't want to be nailed down. Another way of phrasing the above: What you just posted is actually my point. On reflection, I'm not actually sure whether you read beyond the second paragraph.
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  I might have misunderstood/skipped the part 'which is compressed, by the rules of memetic natural selection, into the boldest and shocking-est possible framing' ? How much is the Thinker to blame ? What can Thinkers do to avoid this issue (besides 'obscurantism') ? I guess sometimes a specific critic wouldn't even be to blame, it's just that the critics are over time slowly going to shift the initial meaning until only the hollow strawman husk remains ? But yeah, I guess that we're talking about the same thing...
QuesnayJr 6y ago
"People in the Middle Ages don't care about their children" was a real view argued by Phillip Aries in Centuries of Childhood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centuries_of_Childhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centuries_of_Childhood

mordymoop 6y ago

I think you have misunderstood my point about the influence of the memetic apparatus on the promulgation of ideas. I'm not taking a particular stance on whether or not the Thinker himself would say X; I'm saying X is the version of the idea that is widely ascribed to the thinker because of memetic selection, and X is usually a version of what the thinker actually thinks. To say that X is a "strawman" implies some degree of disingenuousness, some intentionality, as if you could only possibly believe that Robin Hanson thinks people don't really care about their children if you are actively trying to misrepresent his real stance, which you secretly know deep down. In reality, Robin Hanson actually does think that people don't care about their children nearly as much as they say they do, add six more pages of caveats. This gets rhetorically rounded off to "Robin Hanson thinks people don't care about their children." The result is endless stupid conversations. This may or not be partly Robin Hanson's fault for making his blog post titles intentionally inflammatory and attention-grabby ("Healthcare is not about health", etc.). I am agnostic was to whether Foucalt has intentionally turned into the skid on this; but I do personally suspect that many big thinkers lean into obscurantism because they don't want to be nailed down. Another way of phrasing the above: What you just posted is actually my point. On reflection, I'm not actually sure whether you read beyond the second paragraph.

BlueTemplar 6y ago
I might have misunderstood/skipped the part 'which is compressed, by the rules of memetic natural selection, into the boldest and shocking-est possible framing' ? How much is the Thinker to blame ? What can Thinkers do to avoid this issue (besides 'obscurantism') ? I guess sometimes a specific critic wouldn't even be to blame, it's just that the critics are over time slowly going to shift the initial meaning until only the hollow strawman husk remains ? But yeah, I guess that we're talking about the same thing...

QuesnayJr 6y ago

"People in the Middle Ages don't care about their children" was a real view argued by Phillip Aries in Centuries of Childhood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centuries_of_Childhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centuries_of_Childhood