3 ms·

If you can remember it, the American media and foreign policy establishment was fully in support of the war in Iraq. That actually is a really good example of w

If you can remember it, the American media and foreign policy establishment was fully in support of the war in Iraq. That actually is a really good example of what the author describes because I'm sure many knew it was a bad idea but went along with it to preserve their careers. I think we should be charitable with the author and not assume a "dumb idea" is something he disagrees with, but rather is something that was proven to be bad by the passage of time.

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
Well - he quotes The Cato Institute. And the graphic is clear enough, I think. The rhetorical sleight of hand is that it's not true that feeling you're being censored - and needing to self-censor - is the same as actually being censored. Self-censorship and self-selection are endemic in the corporate world, and the associated beliefs are mostly taken for granted without dissent. You're not going to get far in fintech, management consulting, or media channels such as Fox if you start questioning why so many people are poor, ill, and homeless. Similarly, if you work for FAANG you're not going to have a job for long if you start suggesting these BigCos should reinvent themselves as worker co-ops. That's a very different kind of argument to the one about pronouns, because most people are not actually threatened in real terms by (say) LGBTQIA+ or unionisation. Of course plenty of people are just fine with how things are and the article is right to the extent that it points out that ideological conformity is a middle class luxury.
ethanbond 3y ago
I mean you can also just read the author’s other content which is mostly whining about woke-ism but with lots of Substack intellectualism piled on top. Edit: Just to specifically point out the effects of this author’s “motivation,” the cited article on myside bias actually doesn’t say this: > Students and graduates of top universities are more prone to myside bias. They are more likely to “evaluate evidence, generate evidence, and test hypotheses in a manner biased toward their own prior beliefs, opinions, and attitudes.” It says everyone is prone to myside bias, and that more intelligent people are less prone to detecting it in themselves. This is important due to what it implies about the inverse. If it’s true that the woke lib professors are more prone to forming their beliefs based on their social surroundings, it’d suggest they’re more liable to be wrong. If, however, everyone is liable to form beliefs in this way (which they are), then there’s no implication whatsoever about truthfulness on either side, at least not stemming from this effect. And in fact, if anything, it’d suggest the exact opposite of what the author implies by virtue of a really simple, obvious fact: an expert’s social circle is more likely to be well-informed on the domain of expertise than the social circle of a complete outsider. Exceptions obviously exist and experts ought to be questioned vigorously, but to suggest that social circles are have spent collectively zero time learning about and thinking about an area are going to have a better grasp on that area than a group of individuals who have spent careers in it is really just dismissing the entire concept of expertise — the concept of learning — altogether.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  > And in fact, if anything, it’d suggest the exact opposite of what the author implies by virtue of a really simple, obvious fact: an expert’s social circle is more likely to be well-informed on the domain of expertise than the social circle of a complete outsider. Which makes it really important to determine the actual boundaries of that domain of expertise.
mistermann 3y ago
> If you can remember it, the American media and foreign policy establishment was fully in support of the war in Iraq. A decent corollary to that: how the pro-Israel media campaign is working out in the latest flare up with Palestine now that TikTok has been added into the mix, a fantastic illustration of the real reason they want to take it down.

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago

Well - he quotes The Cato Institute. And the graphic is clear enough, I think. The rhetorical sleight of hand is that it's not true that feeling you're being censored - and needing to self-censor - is the same as actually being censored. Self-censorship and self-selection are endemic in the corporate world, and the associated beliefs are mostly taken for granted without dissent. You're not going to get far in fintech, management consulting, or media channels such as Fox if you start questioning why so many people are poor, ill, and homeless. Similarly, if you work for FAANG you're not going to have a job for long if you start suggesting these BigCos should reinvent themselves as worker co-ops. That's a very different kind of argument to the one about pronouns, because most people are not actually threatened in real terms by (say) LGBTQIA+ or unionisation. Of course plenty of people are just fine with how things are and the article is right to the extent that it points out that ideological conformity is a middle class luxury.

ethanbond 3y ago

I mean you can also just read the author’s other content which is mostly whining about woke-ism but with lots of Substack intellectualism piled on top. Edit: Just to specifically point out the effects of this author’s “motivation,” the cited article on myside bias actually doesn’t say this: > Students and graduates of top universities are more prone to myside bias. They are more likely to “evaluate evidence, generate evidence, and test hypotheses in a manner biased toward their own prior beliefs, opinions, and attitudes.” It says everyone is prone to myside bias, and that more intelligent people are less prone to detecting it in themselves. This is important due to what it implies about the inverse. If it’s true that the woke lib professors are more prone to forming their beliefs based on their social surroundings, it’d suggest they’re more liable to be wrong. If, however, everyone is liable to form beliefs in this way (which they are), then there’s no implication whatsoever about truthfulness on either side, at least not stemming from this effect. And in fact, if anything, it’d suggest the exact opposite of what the author implies by virtue of a really simple, obvious fact: an expert’s social circle is more likely to be well-informed on the domain of expertise than the social circle of a complete outsider. Exceptions obviously exist and experts ought to be questioned vigorously, but to suggest that social circles are have spent collectively zero time learning about and thinking about an area are going to have a better grasp on that area than a group of individuals who have spent careers in it is really just dismissing the entire concept of expertise — the concept of learning — altogether.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> And in fact, if anything, it’d suggest the exact opposite of what the author implies by virtue of a really simple, obvious fact: an expert’s social circle is more likely to be well-informed on the domain of expertise than the social circle of a complete outsider. Which makes it really important to determine the actual boundaries of that domain of expertise.

mistermann 3y ago

> If you can remember it, the American media and foreign policy establishment was fully in support of the war in Iraq. A decent corollary to that: how the pro-Israel media campaign is working out in the latest flare up with Palestine now that TikTok has been added into the mix, a fantastic illustration of the real reason they want to take it down.