15 ms·
Such a badly-written, mean-spirited article. A typical paragraph has a few ominous claims, which, when you read the links, aren't supported at all, nor connecte
by yesenadam 6y ago
Such a badly-written, mean-spirited article. A typical paragraph has a few ominous claims, which, when you read the links, aren't supported at all, nor connected in the way they're suggested to. Such as :
> In one post, he aligned himself with Charles Murray, who proposed a link between race and I.Q. in “The Bell Curve.” In another, he pointed out that Mr. Murray believes Black people “are genetically less intelligent than white people.”
And when you read the linked page[0], what Scott writes concerning Murrary seems perfectly inoffensive. He divides political views into quadrants, Competitive/Collective vs Optimistic/Pessimistic, then says "The only public figure I can think of in the [Collective + Pessimistic quadrant] with me is Charles Murray." This is what is described as aligning himself with Murray. The paragraph makes Scott sound like a flaming racist. It's just totally dishonest writing. It's hard to believe they're arguing in good faith there, but who knows.
The anonymity thing seems to have been well and truly discarded – flung in his face, more like. What did he do to them to deserve such treatment, such contempt?
I did get one laugh, out of:
> “[Rationalists] are basically just hippies who talk a lot more about Bayes’ theorem than the original hippies,” said Scott Aaronson
[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/23/three-great-articles-on-poverty-and-why-i-disagree-with-all-of-them/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/23/three-great-articles-o...
- toiletfuneral 6y agoUh Scott also says he believes poverty is not a result of exploitation but culture or genetics soooooo
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- karaterobot 6y agoHis arguments are always interesting to read, even when I disagree with them -- in that spirit, could you link to the essay where he says this?
- coldtea 6y agoUh, he can believe whatever he wants on the matter, that doesn't make him a racist, sooooo.... When was it a "solved" finding that poverty is a result of exploitation? Or that culture and/or genetics don't also play a role, perhaps a big one? That's how science works, by making hypothesis, examining things, and coming to conclusions, popular or not. And a scientist/thinker is allowed to have different conclusions than others, if they can point to specific theories and numbers that support their thesis.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago> Uh Scott also says he believes poverty is not a result of exploitation but culture or genetics soooooo Regardless of whether he said this, what gives you the impression that it isn't true? There are several studies showing a link between genetics and intelligence. This absolutely does not imply that all black people are less intelligent than all white people. It tends to imply that Ashkenazi Jews have some statistical genetic advantage over other "white people" and that if you then average them into the group "white people" the correlation persists against other arbitrarily defined groups. This is obviously about as far from the argument that Nazis want to make as you can imagine. Meanwhile, how could culture not affect outcomes in the aggregate? Would you really expect that all of the same outcomes would obtain for people who make different choices?
- simondw 6y ago> This is obviously about as far from the argument that Nazis want to make as you can imagine Without wading in too far here, I want to point out that picking a slightly different "master race" is no better.
- tuesdayrain 6y agoScience shouldn't be politicized like that. It bothers me how no one has an issue accepting the fact that different ethnic groups have different average heights, blood types, propensity for diseases, etc. But if someone dares suggest that not every group in the world has exactly equal average IQ scores, their career is over.(https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-genetics-race.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-geneti...). It's not about picking a master race. It's about objectively observing the world as it is, not how you might want it to be.
- yesenadam 6y agoWatson in that article seems to be doing more than merely suggesting "that not every group in the world has exactly equal average IQ scores": > In 2007, Dr. Watson, who shared a 1962 Nobel Prize for describing the double-helix structure of DNA, told a British journalist that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says, not really.” > Moreover, he added, although he wished everyone were equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Tenoke 6y ago>Uh Scott also says he believes poverty is not a result of exploitation but culture or genetics soooooo You sure he didn't say that poverty is part-hereditary rather than what you are saying? First, most if not all of the left believe it is hereditary - rich people's kids staying richer and vice versa. Second, he definitely never says exploitation or culture do not come into it.
- jeofken 6y agoAccording to far right pro-white publication Wikipedia, intelligence is highly heritable - now it says “above 80%” but a recent version of this article said 80-84%. A so called hate fact
- vasilipupkin 6y agoExactly, the whole piece seems designed to allege nebulous, nefarious indirect ties that somehow lead magically from Silicon Valley to bad things
- prezjordan 6y agoI certainly wouldn’t describe regular email correspondence (including messages about strategy) as a nebulous, indirect tie
- vasilipupkin 6y agoI’m not sure what you a referring to. I’ve been reading the blog for years, I have never seen anything “bad” on it, I’ve seen ideas that can be debated.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThe source article describes an incident where Balaji Srinivasan was emailing Curtis Yarvin about how to stop the media from reporting on the links between Yarvin's ideology and prominent tech figures such as Srinivasan. I'm unhappy about the guilt by association, because that really doesn't have much to do with Scott Alexander, but a prominent VC trying to kill news stories which might embarrass him is pretty noteworthy.
- refenestrator 6y agoIf a guy named Balaji Srinivasan has to defend himself against accusations of white supremacy.. maybe he has a point and is right to push back?
- prezjordan 6y agoYou are the first person to use the phrase "white supremacy" in this entire thread.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago> And when you read the linked page[0], what Scott writes concerning Murrary seems perfectly inoffensive. He divides political views into quadrants, Competitive/Collective vs Optimistic/Pessimistic, then says "The only public figure I can think of in the [Collective + Pessimistic quadrant] with me is Charles Murray." This is what is described as aligning himself with Murray. Well there's some more in that paragraph you quote. He then goes on to say "Neither he nor I would dare reduce all class differences to heredity, and [Murray] in particular has some very sophisticated theories about class and culture." (Emphasis kept from the original.) Which I think the NYT writer reads as being at least a partial endorsement of Murray's belief that some class differences reduce to heredity. I do too, since this seems roughly in line with what I understand from Scott's writing. It is also true that Murray takes that idea farther and goes in some directions I find to be both scientifically unsupported and inflammatory. You can agree or disagree with the NYT here, I don't care. But I think you should quote more from that paragraph before you characterize it.
- coldtea 6y agoHe also aligns himself with dozen of other thinkers he agree with and mentions them. Why isolate some particular name, if not to imply "here's a racist"?
- underyx 6y agoBecause if the Proud Boys believe in gravity, evolution, and fascism, only one of these three is newsworthy.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThe source article is pretty explicit about its goal: it's trying to inform readers on how a specific group of people think, which is important because many powerful people are in that group. Describing only the parts of their ideology that are "newsworthy", the parts that are strange or shocking to a typical NYT reader, is going to present a picture so distorted that it ends up being simply false. It would be like a human interest story that studiously refused to mention anything normal about the subject.
- coldtea 6y ago>Such a badly-written, mean-spirited article. The same attributes applies to most of current "hollier than thou" cancel articles. The principle of charity is totally lost, anything that an idiot can misread as offensive is labeled as so, and offensiveness itself is potrtrayed as the biggest crime. The NYT is worse a rag than the National Enquirer, because at least the second is not perceived as some objective and quality source (and doesn't influence politics, or help setup trillion dollar wars and mass carnage).
- whoooooo123 6y agoNot to get too Jordan Peterson-ey but I really think this is the result of postmodern, social-constructionist ideology spreading through the humanities. If there's no such thing as objectivity and all truth claims are just manifestations of who has power then there's no need for journalists to strive for objectivity and everything you publish is just another salvo in the war against dominant power structures. If social constructionism is true then you're no longer a neutral conduit for facts, you're a culture warrior shaping reality with your words. There's no debate, no 'marketplace of ideas', only dominant discourses and power differentials, and your moral duty as a journalist is not to debate bad ideas, expose them, or allow the reader to make up their own minds, for that only gives oxygen to harmful discourses; instead you must destroy bad ideas through any means necessary, no matter how dishonest (and dishonesty isn't a real thing anyway because there's no such thing as true and false, only that which advances the power of a given group and that which weakens it.) This nonsense is now the reigning ideology among humanities departments at our elite schools and outlets like the NYT are increasingly staffed by young graduates who have been indoctrinated into this cult; is it any wonder that the NYT has gone off the fucking deep end?
- zozbot234 6y agoThe ironic and surprising development lately is just how thoroughly this "postmodern, social-constructionist ideology" is being adopted by the socially-conservative right. It's hard to describe the Qanon cult with its surprising and outlandish "claims" about liberal Democrats, Hollywood etc. etc. as anything other than a concious parody of the view that "there's no such thing as objectivity and all truth claims are just manifestations of who has power" in the "war against dominant power structures". The "culture war" does not obviously favor one side!
- dqv 6y agoAs to that second part... >... In another, he pointed out that Mr. Murray believes Black people “are genetically less intelligent than white people.” What article (as of right now, there is no link)? What is up with journalists not bothering to cite claims like these?
- lovecg 6y agoIt’s this one https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/ He’s using him as an example to make another point - he could have just as easily used Hitler there or anyone else. Quite a stretch to call this an endorsement of any kind.
- ahepp 6y agoThe first link is the endorsement, the second suggests he knew what he was endorsing.
- jseliger 6y agoIt's just totally dishonest writing. It's hard to believe they're arguing in good faith there, but who knows. Reminds me of pg's recent tweet: "'The New York Times says...' doesn't have anything like the force it did 20 years ago." https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1359879895736852482?s=20 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1359879895736852482?s=20 A few weeks ago I gave up and cancelled my subscription. They do have some good-seeming original reporting, but I think about Gell-Mann Amnesia for too many articles.
- sflicht 6y agoThe crossword puzzle also remains pretty good, with only a smattering of social justice themed clues once every few days.
- thisiszilff 6y agoThe cooking section, I think, is the biggest winner for them these days.
- jkestner 6y agoBoth of those have subscriptions independent of the paper, and I gladly pay them. (Though if you like spices, at least double the amounts in the Asian recipes.) I also pay for the digital newspaper. Just as I subscribe to certain local papers only for a particular investigative reporter or basketball beat writer, there are parts of the NYT I find valuable and others that make me want to cancel. It'd be nice if I could 'tip' part of my subscription to the writers of the articles that I really liked.
- a1369209993 6y ago> It's hard to believe they're arguing in good faith there, but who knows. Well, Hanlon's Razor suggests they're just incompentent, but that seems like more of a "98% confidence has been refuted at General Relativity" kind of thing.