3 ms·

There is a certain style of libertarian writing, and I include the author as well as the mercatus center posse as often using this syle, that I find quite off p

There is a certain style of libertarian writing, and I include the author as well as the mercatus center posse as often using this syle, that I find quite off putting. It often feels like the primary purpose of most of their writing is to show how they are smarter than everyone else. This manifests in a writing style that is extremely confident and declarative which is an effective mask for the hollowness and one sidedness of their ideas. I'll cherry pick just one example from this article. The author in one sentence dismisses the entire field of psychoanalysis. Yet I can't help but notice that his entire blog sure looks like he is unconsciously carrying out his own psychoanalysis in public. You can also see it in the grievances against the medical profession where he has to use his blog to guard against feelings of inadequacy because he didn't get into a top medical school or residency. But he gets to play it both ways because the fact that he writes these outrageously long, fluff filled pieces, that draw a large following he can then use as proof that he is actually in fact smarter than the people who previously rejected him. I have some similar chips on my shoulder so I quickly recognize these patterns of behaviors in others. And perhaps I am misinterpreting him, but every single time I read one of his posts I am left with the main takeaway being that I am supposed to be impressed by his intelligence. Other red flags in this piece include the references to the stupidity of the average person (again in implicit contrast to his penetrating intellect) as well as the lazy generalizations and vacuous statements about amorphous concepts such as wokeness along with the bizarre suggestion that wokeness somehow conquered most priesthoods even though the counterexamples are far, far too long to list. I'll leave it with one though: actual priests in the US can hardly be said to be woke even though their own sacred texts are far more aligned with progressive economics than consumer capitalism.

giraffe_lady 2y ago
You're not merely supposed to be impressed by his intelligence but in his virtue as a purely rational, unbiased mind absolutely free from any corrupting ideology. He's an insecure like you said and a coward. Too afraid to say what he actually believes (or maybe too spiritually weak to actually commit to any), he hides his goals and motivations behind this pseudo-academic prose style.
- esperent 2y ago
  > He's an insecure like you said and a coward Aren't we all, to some degree?
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    Sure but it is the degree that's notable here.
- Viliam1234 2y ago
  > Too afraid to say what he actually believes I think this would sound very unlikely to any regular reader of SSC/ACX. Many articles, including this one, are explanations of what he believes and why. (Is it possible that you just find his explanations difficult to believe?)
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    > (Is it possible that you just find his explanations difficult to believe?) Correct, I don't believe he's honest about his beliefs, their sources, and his motivation.
gwern 2y ago
> I'll cherry pick just one example from this article. The author in one sentence dismisses the entire field of psychoanalysis. Properly. The issues with psychoanalysis are extensive, well known, and he has discussed them in the past, like the dodo bird verdict. If you are somehow still a fan of psychoanalysis after everything, then you are not going to be convinced by two sentences of criticism, or even three, and there is no point in trying when that is not the primary topic; dismissing it in 1 sentence is correct. (And this is your slamdunk criticism you lead with?)
- thefaux 2y ago
  Wow, you seem to have taken my comment personally. Dismissing psychoanalysis in one sentence is a lazy power move that elevates the author by putting down others, much like your comment. I picked that example in part because I find it interesting and personally helpful in a way that things like cbt are not (and believe it or not, I'm not a moron). And also I know that rationalists hate psychoanalysis in part because it refuses to elevate pure rationality above all other forms of knowledge. It is thus threatening to the current order and must be insulted and diminished. If it had no power or validity, there would be no reason to attack it anyway. Your response is exactly in the spirit I was critiquing. You pointed out one thing, which I did not lead with, but provided as an example and added another arrogant and vacuous dismissal of my criticism. But perhaps this is only evident to me because I have actually read a good bit of Jung and wrestled with it instead of relying on some authority to tell me that it is dumb and wrong. Read Answer to Job and come back to me and tell me with a straight face that Scott Alexander is an intellect on par with Carl Jung. Even Freud for all of his problems, had deep insights about the human condition that most people still don't grasp.

giraffe_lady 2y ago

You're not merely supposed to be impressed by his intelligence but in his virtue as a purely rational, unbiased mind absolutely free from any corrupting ideology. He's an insecure like you said and a coward. Too afraid to say what he actually believes (or maybe too spiritually weak to actually commit to any), he hides his goals and motivations behind this pseudo-academic prose style.

esperent 2y ago
> He's an insecure like you said and a coward Aren't we all, to some degree?
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  Sure but it is the degree that's notable here.
Viliam1234 2y ago
> Too afraid to say what he actually believes I think this would sound very unlikely to any regular reader of SSC/ACX. Many articles, including this one, are explanations of what he believes and why. (Is it possible that you just find his explanations difficult to believe?)
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  > (Is it possible that you just find his explanations difficult to believe?) Correct, I don't believe he's honest about his beliefs, their sources, and his motivation.

gwern 2y ago

> I'll cherry pick just one example from this article. The author in one sentence dismisses the entire field of psychoanalysis. Properly. The issues with psychoanalysis are extensive, well known, and he has discussed them in the past, like the dodo bird verdict. If you are somehow still a fan of psychoanalysis after everything, then you are not going to be convinced by two sentences of criticism, or even three, and there is no point in trying when that is not the primary topic; dismissing it in 1 sentence is correct. (And this is your slamdunk criticism you lead with?)

thefaux 2y ago
Wow, you seem to have taken my comment personally. Dismissing psychoanalysis in one sentence is a lazy power move that elevates the author by putting down others, much like your comment. I picked that example in part because I find it interesting and personally helpful in a way that things like cbt are not (and believe it or not, I'm not a moron). And also I know that rationalists hate psychoanalysis in part because it refuses to elevate pure rationality above all other forms of knowledge. It is thus threatening to the current order and must be insulted and diminished. If it had no power or validity, there would be no reason to attack it anyway. Your response is exactly in the spirit I was critiquing. You pointed out one thing, which I did not lead with, but provided as an example and added another arrogant and vacuous dismissal of my criticism. But perhaps this is only evident to me because I have actually read a good bit of Jung and wrestled with it instead of relying on some authority to tell me that it is dumb and wrong. Read Answer to Job and come back to me and tell me with a straight face that Scott Alexander is an intellect on par with Carl Jung. Even Freud for all of his problems, had deep insights about the human condition that most people still don't grasp.