4 ms·

It sounds like you disagree with their argument, which is fine, but then you go on to harshly criticize an interpretation that you've imposed on it. There are

It sounds like you disagree with their argument, which is fine, but then you go on to harshly criticize an interpretation that you've imposed on it. There are plausible alternative interpretations which are both reasonable and likely, so why not assume best intentions? That's the bedrock of productive debate.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
I’m not sure I’m fully on board with GP’s conclusion, but their first paragraph is spot on. SSC’s whole shtick is thinking deeply from first principles, so it is very… let’s say curious, that his assessment of BLM would be so shallow.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  Scott Alexander has a known blind spot for convenient examples. When he's found something that seems to perfectly make the point he needs, he often doesn't stop to consider “hang on, does that actually fit the point, or am I blatantly distorting the evidence?”. It's something I do a lot, so I can't really blame him; fortunately, he isn't practised at deliberate deception so it's fairly obvious when he's doing it.
- FFRefresh 6y ago
  Trying to follow your train of thought here: do you think his first principles are in favor of the subjugation of humans based on immutable characteristics? And does his support of Malaria prevention based on a utilitarian calculation that it'll help save the most lives (including more black lives) therefore prove he is in favor of subjugating black people based on their race?
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    You’re riding this train a lot farther than I’m willing to go. All I’m saying is that his myopic description of BLM is very obviously a straw man. It may or may not have been intentional, but it’s certainly worth asking why, since setting up straw men is basically antithetical to quote unquote rationalist precepts.
    - wizzwizz4 6y ago
      He sorted BLM into the “trying to save lives”, then observed that it was inefficient at saving lives. I don't think he thought about it hard enough to realise that BLM is not just about saving lives; it's also about improving them, nor that the death toll of the things BLM fights against is higher than just direct police murders. Judging others' goals by your own heuristics isn't a hard mistake to make, though it creates very flimsy straw arguments.
      - FFRefresh 6y ago
        As someone who wants to maximize their time/money for impact: How should we value the impact of BLM's 'improvement' efforts, compared to the 'improvement' of black lives that stems from Malaria prevention? Then how should we balance improvement and saving lives?
    - FFRefresh 6y ago
      Thanks for clarifying. So it was myopic of him to assume that the core focus of BLM was to _save_ black lives (particularly from police violence)? And that understanding of BLM is a straw man? As a minority myself, that was my mental model of BLM as well, as this movement was given fuel by deaths of African-Americans after interactions with police officers. And much of the rhetoric/protests/media coverage was around how the police are racists, and if only we could defund the police, it would save black lives. It seems like you are poking at the idea that BLM isn't just about _saving_ black lives, but also _improving_ black lives. To be fair to Scott, he doesn't also factor in how Malaria prevention _improves_ black lives either. So it's not like he's not doing an apples-to-apples comparison along a very key factor. I would personally argue that the incremental value of being alive compared to being dead is much greater than any marginal increase in quality of life. How would you improve and help Scott with his calculation, accounting for the value of BLM's 'improving' black lives efforts? And how would you then weight the improvement of black lives stemming from Malaria prevention?
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        He’s right that one core goal is saving Black lives. But there’s also a more primal aspect, whereby many people in the US simply won’t acknowledge that Black lives matter. Which plays out in a lot of ways, but it also defies the sort of utilitarian calculus Scott seems to want to do here. The reason I’m saying it’s myopic is that yes, it’s also about systemic racism and the prison-industrial complex and a ton of other things that probably even vary person-to-person. And even if Scott doesn’t realize that from the jump, surely he realizes that it deserves more than a single paragraph comparing it to fighting malaria… right? Anyway, if you’re committed to looking at this through this strictly utilitarian lens, let me save us both some time and say we probably won’t be able to agree.

jakelazaroff 6y ago

I’m not sure I’m fully on board with GP’s conclusion, but their first paragraph is spot on. SSC’s whole shtick is thinking deeply from first principles, so it is very… let’s say curious, that his assessment of BLM would be so shallow.

wizzwizz4 6y ago
Scott Alexander has a known blind spot for convenient examples. When he's found something that seems to perfectly make the point he needs, he often doesn't stop to consider “hang on, does that actually fit the point, or am I blatantly distorting the evidence?”. It's something I do a lot, so I can't really blame him; fortunately, he isn't practised at deliberate deception so it's fairly obvious when he's doing it.
FFRefresh 6y ago
Trying to follow your train of thought here: do you think his first principles are in favor of the subjugation of humans based on immutable characteristics? And does his support of Malaria prevention based on a utilitarian calculation that it'll help save the most lives (including more black lives) therefore prove he is in favor of subjugating black people based on their race?
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  You’re riding this train a lot farther than I’m willing to go. All I’m saying is that his myopic description of BLM is very obviously a straw man. It may or may not have been intentional, but it’s certainly worth asking why, since setting up straw men is basically antithetical to quote unquote rationalist precepts.
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    He sorted BLM into the “trying to save lives”, then observed that it was inefficient at saving lives. I don't think he thought about it hard enough to realise that BLM is not just about saving lives; it's also about improving them, nor that the death toll of the things BLM fights against is higher than just direct police murders. Judging others' goals by your own heuristics isn't a hard mistake to make, though it creates very flimsy straw arguments.
    - FFRefresh 6y ago
      As someone who wants to maximize their time/money for impact: How should we value the impact of BLM's 'improvement' efforts, compared to the 'improvement' of black lives that stems from Malaria prevention? Then how should we balance improvement and saving lives?
  - FFRefresh 6y ago
    Thanks for clarifying. So it was myopic of him to assume that the core focus of BLM was to _save_ black lives (particularly from police violence)? And that understanding of BLM is a straw man? As a minority myself, that was my mental model of BLM as well, as this movement was given fuel by deaths of African-Americans after interactions with police officers. And much of the rhetoric/protests/media coverage was around how the police are racists, and if only we could defund the police, it would save black lives. It seems like you are poking at the idea that BLM isn't just about _saving_ black lives, but also _improving_ black lives. To be fair to Scott, he doesn't also factor in how Malaria prevention _improves_ black lives either. So it's not like he's not doing an apples-to-apples comparison along a very key factor. I would personally argue that the incremental value of being alive compared to being dead is much greater than any marginal increase in quality of life. How would you improve and help Scott with his calculation, accounting for the value of BLM's 'improving' black lives efforts? And how would you then weight the improvement of black lives stemming from Malaria prevention?
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      He’s right that one core goal is saving Black lives. But there’s also a more primal aspect, whereby many people in the US simply won’t acknowledge that Black lives matter. Which plays out in a lot of ways, but it also defies the sort of utilitarian calculus Scott seems to want to do here. The reason I’m saying it’s myopic is that yes, it’s also about systemic racism and the prison-industrial complex and a ton of other things that probably even vary person-to-person. And even if Scott doesn’t realize that from the jump, surely he realizes that it deserves more than a single paragraph comparing it to fighting malaria… right? Anyway, if you’re committed to looking at this through this strictly utilitarian lens, let me save us both some time and say we probably won’t be able to agree.