7 ms·

>the hunter, logger, and geologist will walk through the same patch of wilderness and see an entirely different forest, for each eye is trained to notice someth

>the hunter, logger, and geologist will walk through the same patch of wilderness and see an entirely different forest, for each eye is trained to notice something different. The more abstract the things observed the greater individual variance there will be. For intangible social processes like market exchange, mass movements, and elections, our understanding is all model, no matter. I really like this snippet. Captures an idea I hadn't ever been able to put into words before.

slibhb 6y ago
By using that analogy, the author puts himself above his subjects. He understands various perspectives (reporters, editors, rationalists, SV "decentralization" fanatics), and that they are mere perspectives, while also acknowledging their relative validity. This entails a meta-perspective, a perspective-of-perspectives. This kind of consciousness is why people like Scott Alexander: he makes an attempt to understand other people's perspectives and rarely dismisses anything out of hand. The questions is...why is this sort of consciousness, that understands the relative validity of virtually everyone's perspective, so uncommon outside of various internet blogs? Is it too much to ask for editors and reporters with this kind of open-mindedness?
- fallingknife 6y ago
  This perspective is what high end journalism like the NYT should be, but clearly isn't. I think that part of why the NYT has it in for Scott Alexander is because they know he is light years better than them.
- tux3 6y ago
  It's possible that too much openness has a failure mode in indecisiveness, and acceptance of any and everything. Not dismissing people's perspectives is one thing, but if you cannot actually understand them, will that really help you make better decisions, or are you getting lost by adding more complex dimensions to a problem you already barely understand? Open-mindedness is beneficial in general, but it cannot be blind. Some perspectives are just wrong. How do you cut through the noise?
  - slibhb 6y ago
    You do have to pick a side. But you should be able to choose while keeping in mind that your choice is contingent. That is, if circumstances change, so might your choice. And even when picking a side, there's no need to purge from your mind the recognition of the relative validity of other perspectives.
- Bakary 6y ago
  Editors and reporters have to reflect their audience and given them something at least somewhat relatable. I would be careful though: we could also describe a meta-meta-perspective, where you recognize the dangerous seductiveness of thinking yourself one level of abstraction higher than others. But then that leads to an infinite recursion...
- theonemind 6y ago
  I think this book, "The Master and his Emissary" https://www.amazon.com/The-Master-and-His-Emissary-audiobook/dp/B07ZJQ4QG7 https://www.amazon.com/The-Master-and-His-Emissary-audiobook... would argue that the right hemisphere of our brain acknowledges multiple perspectives and contextualizes them, and that our culture suffers from a severe left hemisphere bias. Brain lateralization probably isn't what you think it is since pop culture gets almost everything about it wrong and it has become a career-ender for academic study so that no one synthesizes the research into coherent theses. Sadly, the topic has gotten such a bad reputation that I have to take a brief moment to defend the validity of bringing it up.
- webnrrd2k 6y ago
  The issue of accounting for other people's opinions and experiences is a good one to bring up - it is a broad way of framing this whole SSC controversy. Part of the reason why it's rare is, I think, because of our schools. A lot of education pushes people to see things as having only one correct answer. That it's more important to win the debate than to explore ideas. There is not much emphasis on how one develops solid and correct ideas. There is a tendency towards justifying ideas, coming up with good-sounding reasons, whether or not they are actually true. Also, writing that explores other perspectives in a fact-based manner can easily come across as an if-by-whiskey fallacy [1]. As far as a real answer goes - I think that it's a genuinly difficult problem. Religious figures have been talking about perspectives and empathy and compassion for thousands of years. It's clearly a big thing. As far as the specifics of the SSC controversy, my attempt to understand both sides is this: Scott made ethical commitments as a psychiatrist, both to his clients in particular and his profession in general. The NYT made ethical commitments both to their readers in particular and to journalistic standards in general. In the SSC controversy these commitments conflict. Whose commitments should win? Whose commitments are the most important? Scott found a way to make his ethical commitments work for him. Maybe it was a compromise, but I think it worked well enough so that his patients couldn't easily find out who he was. I think that the NYT could have easily made it work with their commitments, and everyone would have been better off. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey#:~:text=If%20when%20you%20say%20whiskey,Christian%20man%20and%20woman%20from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey#:~:text=If%20w...
  - covidthrow 6y ago
    > Scott made ethical commitments as a psychiatrist, both to his clients in particular and his profession in general. The NYT made ethical commitments both to their readers in particular and to journalistic standards in general. In the SSC controversy these commitments conflict. I'm sorry, what "ethical commitments" did the NYT have that required them to reveal Scott's identity? They have—over the last few years—systematically abused the privilege of anonymous sources. If this was some sort of manifest reversal of said abuse, I could maybe understand. But that's not what this was. It was a partisan choice to "out" him in a direct or incidental attempt to cancel/silence him. They hold absolute secrecy for other sources that seek anonymity. (Or, in some cases, when revelation of that source wouldn't be a good look for their paper.) I cannot fathom any sort of ethical purpose—to their readers or to journalism—that necessitates his reveal. Maybe you can help me understand the gymnastics of contorting ethics in such a way that this makes any logical sense, I would appreciate it. Because—from my vantage point and from innumerable other examples—the NYT has tossed every ethical framework out the window for the sake of their ego, id, wallets, power, and agenda. They try to maintain the aire of integrity in their rapidly crumbling empire, but the emperor has no clothes. So please help me see what I'm missing.
Nzen 6y ago
You might enjoy the 'Two ways of seeing a river' passage [0] from Mark Twain's _Life on the Mississippi_ which treats the same idea. [0] I could not find the passage in Project Gutenberg's copy, though I found it reproduced here https://www.thoughtco.com/two-ways-of-seeing-a-river-by-mark-twain-1688773 https://www.thoughtco.com/two-ways-of-seeing-a-river-by-mark...

slibhb 6y ago

By using that analogy, the author puts himself above his subjects. He understands various perspectives (reporters, editors, rationalists, SV "decentralization" fanatics), and that they are mere perspectives, while also acknowledging their relative validity. This entails a meta-perspective, a perspective-of-perspectives. This kind of consciousness is why people like Scott Alexander: he makes an attempt to understand other people's perspectives and rarely dismisses anything out of hand. The questions is...why is this sort of consciousness, that understands the relative validity of virtually everyone's perspective, so uncommon outside of various internet blogs? Is it too much to ask for editors and reporters with this kind of open-mindedness?

fallingknife 6y ago
This perspective is what high end journalism like the NYT should be, but clearly isn't. I think that part of why the NYT has it in for Scott Alexander is because they know he is light years better than them.
tux3 6y ago
It's possible that too much openness has a failure mode in indecisiveness, and acceptance of any and everything. Not dismissing people's perspectives is one thing, but if you cannot actually understand them, will that really help you make better decisions, or are you getting lost by adding more complex dimensions to a problem you already barely understand? Open-mindedness is beneficial in general, but it cannot be blind. Some perspectives are just wrong. How do you cut through the noise?
- slibhb 6y ago
  You do have to pick a side. But you should be able to choose while keeping in mind that your choice is contingent. That is, if circumstances change, so might your choice. And even when picking a side, there's no need to purge from your mind the recognition of the relative validity of other perspectives.
Bakary 6y ago
Editors and reporters have to reflect their audience and given them something at least somewhat relatable. I would be careful though: we could also describe a meta-meta-perspective, where you recognize the dangerous seductiveness of thinking yourself one level of abstraction higher than others. But then that leads to an infinite recursion...
theonemind 6y ago
I think this book, "The Master and his Emissary" https://www.amazon.com/The-Master-and-His-Emissary-audiobook/dp/B07ZJQ4QG7 https://www.amazon.com/The-Master-and-His-Emissary-audiobook... would argue that the right hemisphere of our brain acknowledges multiple perspectives and contextualizes them, and that our culture suffers from a severe left hemisphere bias. Brain lateralization probably isn't what you think it is since pop culture gets almost everything about it wrong and it has become a career-ender for academic study so that no one synthesizes the research into coherent theses. Sadly, the topic has gotten such a bad reputation that I have to take a brief moment to defend the validity of bringing it up.
webnrrd2k 6y ago
The issue of accounting for other people's opinions and experiences is a good one to bring up - it is a broad way of framing this whole SSC controversy. Part of the reason why it's rare is, I think, because of our schools. A lot of education pushes people to see things as having only one correct answer. That it's more important to win the debate than to explore ideas. There is not much emphasis on how one develops solid and correct ideas. There is a tendency towards justifying ideas, coming up with good-sounding reasons, whether or not they are actually true. Also, writing that explores other perspectives in a fact-based manner can easily come across as an if-by-whiskey fallacy [1]. As far as a real answer goes - I think that it's a genuinly difficult problem. Religious figures have been talking about perspectives and empathy and compassion for thousands of years. It's clearly a big thing. As far as the specifics of the SSC controversy, my attempt to understand both sides is this: Scott made ethical commitments as a psychiatrist, both to his clients in particular and his profession in general. The NYT made ethical commitments both to their readers in particular and to journalistic standards in general. In the SSC controversy these commitments conflict. Whose commitments should win? Whose commitments are the most important? Scott found a way to make his ethical commitments work for him. Maybe it was a compromise, but I think it worked well enough so that his patients couldn't easily find out who he was. I think that the NYT could have easily made it work with their commitments, and everyone would have been better off. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey#:~:text=If%20when%20you%20say%20whiskey,Christian%20man%20and%20woman%20from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey#:~:text=If%20w...
- covidthrow 6y ago
  > Scott made ethical commitments as a psychiatrist, both to his clients in particular and his profession in general. The NYT made ethical commitments both to their readers in particular and to journalistic standards in general. In the SSC controversy these commitments conflict. I'm sorry, what "ethical commitments" did the NYT have that required them to reveal Scott's identity? They have—over the last few years—systematically abused the privilege of anonymous sources. If this was some sort of manifest reversal of said abuse, I could maybe understand. But that's not what this was. It was a partisan choice to "out" him in a direct or incidental attempt to cancel/silence him. They hold absolute secrecy for other sources that seek anonymity. (Or, in some cases, when revelation of that source wouldn't be a good look for their paper.) I cannot fathom any sort of ethical purpose—to their readers or to journalism—that necessitates his reveal. Maybe you can help me understand the gymnastics of contorting ethics in such a way that this makes any logical sense, I would appreciate it. Because—from my vantage point and from innumerable other examples—the NYT has tossed every ethical framework out the window for the sake of their ego, id, wallets, power, and agenda. They try to maintain the aire of integrity in their rapidly crumbling empire, but the emperor has no clothes. So please help me see what I'm missing.

Nzen 6y ago

You might enjoy the 'Two ways of seeing a river' passage [0] from Mark Twain's _Life on the Mississippi_ which treats the same idea. [0] I could not find the passage in Project Gutenberg's copy, though I found it reproduced here https://www.thoughtco.com/two-ways-of-seeing-a-river-by-mark-twain-1688773 https://www.thoughtco.com/two-ways-of-seeing-a-river-by-mark...