3 ms·

Regardless of literal truth, it puts the focus in the wrong place. Your emphasis makes it so the only conclusion is that no experts can trusted. With the comple

Regardless of literal truth, it puts the focus in the wrong place. Your emphasis makes it so the only conclusion is that no experts can trusted. With the complexity and interconnectedness of modern society this is essentially untenable, but yet the simplicity appeals to people's gut feelings. Meanwhile compromise and middlegrounds are boring. This is the basic anti-intellectualism powering the cancer that devoured the republican party [0]. So despite your seemingly only trying to criticize the excesses of your closer camp, you've inadvertently added to the polarized environment. If we can no longer assume that people who have spent their careers studying things and developing nuanced opinions are closer to right than wrong, then for every question there is but two possible answers. [0] and one of the main reasons it's no longer appropriate to call them conservative so instead I use Moldbug's own word reactionary. Meanwhile the democratic party is checking most conservative boxes these days. This also trivially explains things like the "hyper liberalization" of college campuses and tone policing in general - it's actually a standard hallmark of conservatism.

hilux 2y ago
> If we can no longer assume that people who have spent their careers studying things and developing nuanced opinions are closer to right than wrong What are you talking about? You really express yourself in a convoluted way - it doesn't help your case. I'm not questioning her science. I'm questioning her decision not to publish a study that she did using public money, because she didn't like how it turned out. At least, that's what the article says. > This is the basic anti-intellectualism powering the cancer I'm quite familiar with the world of R1 universities. And I used to be a huge fanboy of Dan Ariely, amongst other "charlatans," to quote one of his peers. If anti-intellectualism is on the rise, then arrogant, narcissistic, dishonest academics should look in the mirror for the explanation.
- 0xdeadfa65 2y ago
  [dead]
- mindslight 2y ago
  There is no single "the" explanation for a breakdown in societal trust. It's a mutual process. Yes, dishonest academics share the blame. Yes, authorities lying about straightforward things to fit political conclusions (eg covid masks) shares the blame. But also narratives implying that no experts can be trusted, as every expert will inherently have conflicts of interests, share the blame. That is where you majorly stepped over the line in your original comment. It's literally true, but it's true for everyone across the board. By emphasizing it and assuming bad faith you've made it so there can be no such thing as an expert opinion or consensus. That leaves nowhere to go besides non-nuanced pro/anti positions on everything, or "doing your own research" which ends up being mostly being sifting through the politicized tripe to feel which is more convincing.

hilux 2y ago

> If we can no longer assume that people who have spent their careers studying things and developing nuanced opinions are closer to right than wrong What are you talking about? You really express yourself in a convoluted way - it doesn't help your case. I'm not questioning her science. I'm questioning her decision not to publish a study that she did using public money, because she didn't like how it turned out. At least, that's what the article says. > This is the basic anti-intellectualism powering the cancer I'm quite familiar with the world of R1 universities. And I used to be a huge fanboy of Dan Ariely, amongst other "charlatans," to quote one of his peers. If anti-intellectualism is on the rise, then arrogant, narcissistic, dishonest academics should look in the mirror for the explanation.

0xdeadfa65 2y ago
[dead]
mindslight 2y ago
There is no single "the" explanation for a breakdown in societal trust. It's a mutual process. Yes, dishonest academics share the blame. Yes, authorities lying about straightforward things to fit political conclusions (eg covid masks) shares the blame. But also narratives implying that no experts can be trusted, as every expert will inherently have conflicts of interests, share the blame. That is where you majorly stepped over the line in your original comment. It's literally true, but it's true for everyone across the board. By emphasizing it and assuming bad faith you've made it so there can be no such thing as an expert opinion or consensus. That leaves nowhere to go besides non-nuanced pro/anti positions on everything, or "doing your own research" which ends up being mostly being sifting through the politicized tripe to feel which is more convincing.