4 ms·

I enjoy SSC, thought that unmasking Scott was Not Cool, and agree with many that the NYT article crosses several lines of misrepresentation. But in the "politi

I enjoy SSC, thought that unmasking Scott was Not Cool, and agree with many that the NYT article crosses several lines of misrepresentation. But in the "politics are complex" side, I'm curious to hear what others think of this exchange linked in the article: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/6rv2ib/did_the_ssc_post_on_gender_imbalances_and/dl84whf/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/6rv2ib/did_... On its surface, this reads that Scott supports D'amore's memo but doesn't want to be associated with it. Is there more context? In general, anybody advising others to hide their beliefs in order to be more persuasive should expect to invite speculation about what their own true intents are.

tomp 6y ago
The safest thing is to downvote and not argue.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wizzwizz4 6y ago
I've no clue whether Scott has turned into a misogynist over the past few years. (I think it unlikely, but theoretically possible.) I would assume, though, that he assumes that other people who say things that aren't inconsistent with his views while sounding like they agree with him are in agreement with him. This is usually a reasonable heuristic, but it falls over when one person thinks “childhood malnutrition harms brain development, reducing intelligence, so improving the diet of poor children is urgent”⁰ and somebody else thinks “rich people are rich because they've earned their wealth because they're genetically really intelligent; it's social Darwinism”, but the only things the two are saying to each other are things like “poor people / members of minority ethnic groups score lower on average on IQ tests¹”. --- ⁰: I've seen Scott make basically this argument – though it was probably about intestinal worms rather than nutrition. ¹: Since I brought this up, I'm going to use the opportunity to suggest that Scott has, historically, put too much credence on IQ tests as a proxy for intelligence. I was basically tutored to be able to do well in IQ tests, as a result of my background, and I've never seen him take things like that into account – despite the decades of academic research backing up my anecdote (IQ tests are culturally-specific).
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  They didn't say or ask if he turned into a misogynist. The question is about what he said. Not what he is.[1] [1] https://youtu.be/b0Ti-gkJiXc https://youtu.be/b0Ti-gkJiXc
leetcrew 6y ago
I think the most you can infer from that exchange is that scott generally supports damore's questioning of the orthodoxy, but doesn't necessarily agree with the content of the memo itself.

tomp 6y ago

The safest thing is to downvote and not argue.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

wizzwizz4 6y ago

I've no clue whether Scott has turned into a misogynist over the past few years. (I think it unlikely, but theoretically possible.) I would assume, though, that he assumes that other people who say things that aren't inconsistent with his views while sounding like they agree with him are in agreement with him. This is usually a reasonable heuristic, but it falls over when one person thinks “childhood malnutrition harms brain development, reducing intelligence, so improving the diet of poor children is urgent”⁰ and somebody else thinks “rich people are rich because they've earned their wealth because they're genetically really intelligent; it's social Darwinism”, but the only things the two are saying to each other are things like “poor people / members of minority ethnic groups score lower on average on IQ tests¹”. --- ⁰: I've seen Scott make basically this argument – though it was probably about intestinal worms rather than nutrition. ¹: Since I brought this up, I'm going to use the opportunity to suggest that Scott has, historically, put too much credence on IQ tests as a proxy for intelligence. I was basically tutored to be able to do well in IQ tests, as a result of my background, and I've never seen him take things like that into account – despite the decades of academic research backing up my anecdote (IQ tests are culturally-specific).

pseudalopex 6y ago
They didn't say or ask if he turned into a misogynist. The question is about what he said. Not what he is.[1] [1] https://youtu.be/b0Ti-gkJiXc https://youtu.be/b0Ti-gkJiXc

leetcrew 6y ago

I think the most you can infer from that exchange is that scott generally supports damore's questioning of the orthodoxy, but doesn't necessarily agree with the content of the memo itself.