7 ms·

who's the right person to do it, with no 'baggage'?

tptacek 6y ago
It really is a lot of baggage. Another person who would strongly agree with the idea that campus culture has become corrupted is Charles Murray. But you can see immediately why Charles Murray couldn't be the figure that reform unified behind! Pinker is, like, 650-750 milliMurrays. He gave a statement that had the intended effect of getting Epstein his sweetheart sentence! Just fatally compromised, for a bunch of reasons. Beyond the Epstein stuff, and to calibrate the Murrayometer, I'd suggest searches like [Pinker Hsu], [Pinker Bell Curve], [Pinker "Groups and Genes"], [Pinker UCSB shooting], [Pinker "Richard Haier"]. You might be fine with all these search results! I'm saying: you're not going to be building a lot of bridges with this resume.
- andyxor 6y ago
  I'm not sure how ad-hominem personal attacks suddenly became the primary way of debate. Attack the speaker and undermine his credibility instead of arguing about what he has to say. I see it time after time in online and offline discussions. Which kind of illustrates his point.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    I'm arguing substantively with you. The argument is about the trustworthiness of someone else. The concept of the ad hominem fallacy does not mean it is impossible to discuss someone else's credibility. Perhaps we've had our wires crossed, and you think I'm arguing "because Pinker says campus culture is corrupted, campus culture must be fine, because Pinker is corrupted". That is not my argument. A good resource on this is the "Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy" post, and I recommend it to you heartily.
  - mushbino 6y ago
    At a certain point the messenger becomes the message. There is a big difference between isolated events and patterns.
- Natsu 6y ago
  It seems to me that these discussions always trend towards something like "why are all the people complaining about witch burning so witchey?" I won't defend this guy, I believe you regarding the baggage, I just think that ignoring voices like that is part of the problem here. I've disagreed with you many times on many things, but I still think it's worth listening to you because you have a point of view that merits serious consideration that should not be dismissed without looking past the speaker to the content of what is said. We often talk about 'filter bubbles' but the most important one has always existed in our own minds. It becomes an issue when we end up marking serious points by serious thinkers as if they were mere spam that we don't want to do any intellectual work to deal with. This isn't to suggest that we can read and consider everything by everyone, attention is always going to be limited, but we need to be aware of our own spam filter that we're avoiding dealing with all the people saying X because we find the idea dislikeable, leaving us with a less-considered position on the subject.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    See, I'm not arguing about whether it's a good idea to rehabilitate people like Pinker. I'm saying that Pinker is going to have a hard time, in effect, rehabilitating himself, and so it's not necessarily newsworthy that he's attempting to do so (who wouldn't?) --- it won't get him anywhere. That's why I gave McWhorter as the counterexample, of someone who has a better chance at cutting through the noise. (Cards on the table, I find Pinker odious. But I'm trying not to let my personal opinion of him color what I think is a pretty non-normative argument, at least not too much).
    - Natsu 6y ago
      I'm not really concerned about the people, I'm concerned about the trend of how much the talk about the person eclipses talk about their ideas... even as I realize that I'm falling into the same trap in this very comment.

It really is a lot of baggage. Another person who would strongly agree with the idea that campus culture has become corrupted is Charles Murray. But you can see immediately why Charles Murray couldn't be the figure that reform unified behind! Pinker is, like, 650-750 milliMurrays. He gave a statement that had the intended effect of getting Epstein his sweetheart sentence! Just fatally compromised, for a bunch of reasons. Beyond the Epstein stuff, and to calibrate the Murrayometer, I'd suggest searches like [Pinker Hsu], [Pinker Bell Curve], [Pinker "Groups and Genes"], [Pinker UCSB shooting], [Pinker "Richard Haier"]. You might be fine with all these search results! I'm saying: you're not going to be building a lot of bridges with this resume.

andyxor 6y ago
I'm not sure how ad-hominem personal attacks suddenly became the primary way of debate. Attack the speaker and undermine his credibility instead of arguing about what he has to say. I see it time after time in online and offline discussions. Which kind of illustrates his point.
- tptacek 6y ago
  I'm arguing substantively with you. The argument is about the trustworthiness of someone else. The concept of the ad hominem fallacy does not mean it is impossible to discuss someone else's credibility. Perhaps we've had our wires crossed, and you think I'm arguing "because Pinker says campus culture is corrupted, campus culture must be fine, because Pinker is corrupted". That is not my argument. A good resource on this is the "Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy" post, and I recommend it to you heartily.
- mushbino 6y ago
  At a certain point the messenger becomes the message. There is a big difference between isolated events and patterns.
Natsu 6y ago
It seems to me that these discussions always trend towards something like "why are all the people complaining about witch burning so witchey?" I won't defend this guy, I believe you regarding the baggage, I just think that ignoring voices like that is part of the problem here. I've disagreed with you many times on many things, but I still think it's worth listening to you because you have a point of view that merits serious consideration that should not be dismissed without looking past the speaker to the content of what is said. We often talk about 'filter bubbles' but the most important one has always existed in our own minds. It becomes an issue when we end up marking serious points by serious thinkers as if they were mere spam that we don't want to do any intellectual work to deal with. This isn't to suggest that we can read and consider everything by everyone, attention is always going to be limited, but we need to be aware of our own spam filter that we're avoiding dealing with all the people saying X because we find the idea dislikeable, leaving us with a less-considered position on the subject.
- tptacek 6y ago
  See, I'm not arguing about whether it's a good idea to rehabilitate people like Pinker. I'm saying that Pinker is going to have a hard time, in effect, rehabilitating himself, and so it's not necessarily newsworthy that he's attempting to do so (who wouldn't?) --- it won't get him anywhere. That's why I gave McWhorter as the counterexample, of someone who has a better chance at cutting through the noise. (Cards on the table, I find Pinker odious. But I'm trying not to let my personal opinion of him color what I think is a pretty non-normative argument, at least not too much).
  - Natsu 6y ago
    I'm not really concerned about the people, I'm concerned about the trend of how much the talk about the person eclipses talk about their ideas... even as I realize that I'm falling into the same trap in this very comment.