3 ms·

There's a not-so-subtle failure mode where you go from "Some of those against the Establishment are cranks" to "All of those who go against the Establishment ar

There's a not-so-subtle failure mode where you go from "Some of those against the Establishment are cranks" to "All of those who go against the Establishment are cranks", it feels more clever and satisfying than "I really really like the Establishment and can't tolerate it or its opinons being wrong", but it's indistinguishable in input-output behaviour. If you are talking about his statistics opinions, I don't understand enough statistics to know if it's right or wrong or not even wrong. But his other claims gives him a substantial respect-boost regardless of whether he's right or wrong. I simply like contrarians more.

civilized 4y ago
This is all uninteresting to me because contrarian versus Establishment is a pretty poor indicator for truth. Leaning on that is like the famous drunkard leaning on the lamppost, more for support than illumination. The yellow flag in those tweets is the hyperventilating culture warrior attitude. It speaks poorly of ability to humbly and dispassionately analyze topics, regardless of which side it comes from.
- Banana699 4y ago
  >contrarian versus Establishment is a pretty poor indicator for truth False. It's a pretty reliable proxy if the Establishment is known or plausibly suspected to benefit from falsehood and\or misrepresent truth. If you have a reliable predictor of falsehood, then something which always opposes it is a reliable predictor of truth. I don't know if the statistics Establishment is one such example (probably not), but the trans-activism and war-media Establishments certainly Are reliable predictors of falsehood, and have been shown to be on multiple occasions. That's why I like the author's opinions on those topics more than on statistics, even if I'm not necessarily certain of their truth. He's going in the rough general direction of truth. >hyperventilating culture warrior attitude. It speaks poorly of ability to humbly and dispassionately analyze topics, regardless of which side it comes from. False Again. Plenty of smart people have this attitude, the notorious example off the top of my head is Nassim Nicholas Taleb, incredibly arrogant and quick to ungraciously fail into combat under criticism - yes - but do you actually want to take him one-on-one in statistics? For a more distant example, see Newton's hilarious pettiness in dealing with rivals. Your heuristic yellow flag would have lead you to dismiss him faster than you can say "Universal Gravitation", and we both know you would be utterly and irredeemably wrong.

civilized 4y ago

This is all uninteresting to me because contrarian versus Establishment is a pretty poor indicator for truth. Leaning on that is like the famous drunkard leaning on the lamppost, more for support than illumination. The yellow flag in those tweets is the hyperventilating culture warrior attitude. It speaks poorly of ability to humbly and dispassionately analyze topics, regardless of which side it comes from.

Banana699 4y ago
>contrarian versus Establishment is a pretty poor indicator for truth False. It's a pretty reliable proxy if the Establishment is known or plausibly suspected to benefit from falsehood and\or misrepresent truth. If you have a reliable predictor of falsehood, then something which always opposes it is a reliable predictor of truth. I don't know if the statistics Establishment is one such example (probably not), but the trans-activism and war-media Establishments certainly Are reliable predictors of falsehood, and have been shown to be on multiple occasions. That's why I like the author's opinions on those topics more than on statistics, even if I'm not necessarily certain of their truth. He's going in the rough general direction of truth. >hyperventilating culture warrior attitude. It speaks poorly of ability to humbly and dispassionately analyze topics, regardless of which side it comes from. False Again. Plenty of smart people have this attitude, the notorious example off the top of my head is Nassim Nicholas Taleb, incredibly arrogant and quick to ungraciously fail into combat under criticism - yes - but do you actually want to take him one-on-one in statistics? For a more distant example, see Newton's hilarious pettiness in dealing with rivals. Your heuristic yellow flag would have lead you to dismiss him faster than you can say "Universal Gravitation", and we both know you would be utterly and irredeemably wrong.