5 ms·
It's like libertarianism. There is a massive gulf between the written goals and the actual actions of the proponents. It might be more accurately thought of a
by jandrese 11mo ago
It's like libertarianism. There is a massive gulf between the written goals and the actual actions of the proponents. It might be more accurately thought of as a vehicle for plausible deniability than an actual ethos.
- glenstein 11mo agoThe problem is that creates a kind of epistemic closure around yourself where you can't encounter such a thing as a sincere expression of it. I actually think your charge against Libertarians is basically accurate. And I think it deserves a (limited) amount of time and attention directed at its core contentions for what they are worth. After all, Robert Nozick considered himself a libertarian and contributed some important thinking on things like justice and retribution and equality and any number of subjects, and the world wouldn't be bettered by dismissing him with twitter style ridicule. I do agree that things like EA and Libertarianism have to answer for the in-the-wild proponents they tend to attract but not to the point of epistemic closure in response to its subject matter.
- Eisenstein 11mo agoWhen a term becomes loaded enough then people will stop using it when they don't want to be associated with the loaded aspects of the term. If they don't then they already know what the consequences are, because they will be dealing with them all the time. The first and most impactful consequence isn't 'people who are not X will think I am X' it is actually 'people who are X will think I am one of them'.
- glenstein 11mo agoI think social dynamics are real and must be answered for but I don't think any self-correction or lacktherof has anything to do with subject matter which can be understood independently. I will never take a proponent of The Bell Curve seriously who tries to say they're "just following the data", because I do hold them and the book responsible for their social and cultural entanglements and they would have to be blind to ignore it. But the book is wrong for reasons intrinsic to its analysis and it would be catastrophic to treat that point as moot.
- Eisenstein 11mo agoI am saying that those who actually believe something won't stick around and associate themselves with the original movement if that movement has taken on traits that they don't agree with.
- glenstein 11mo agoYou risk catastrophe if you let social dynamics stand in for truth.
- Eisenstein 11mo agoYou risk catastrophe if you ignore social indicators as a valid heuristic.
- glenstein 11mo agoLiterally every comment of mine explicitly acknowledged social indicators, just not to the exclusion of facts. You're trying to treat your comments like they're the mirror image of mine, but they're not.
- Eisenstein 11mo agoThe problem with your posture is that it cultivates a defensive self-regard which operates as a filter against substantive critique. If I wished to mirror your comment style with its performative weight and implied authority, then I would adopt a tone closer to this.
- glenstein 11mo agoIt is not an unfair filter to (correctly!) note that I specifically accounted for this and agreed with it. I said: "I do agree that things like EA and Libertarianism have to answer for the in-the-wild proponents they tend to attract" "I think social dynamics are real and must be answered for" "I will never take a proponent of The Bell Curve seriously who tries to say they're "just following the data", because I do hold them and the book responsible for their social and cultural entanglements" In the face of that, you're trying to claim that I'm ignoring "social indicators as a valid heuristic." That's not true and no amount of projection or character attacks can make it true. These are verbatim quotes from both of us. You're attempting to present a point I agree with as if it's a new unacknowledged critique. Meanwhile, when I say the subject matter of a belief system matters for its content, you don't engage with it but reply to me by re-asserting the point I agree with as if it does the work of responding to me. No amount of social signalling takes the place of evaluating intellectual content on its merits and saying "intellectual content matters" is not a denial of the importance of social signalling.
- nyeah 11mo agoSorry, the problem isn't "epistemic closure" by folks who are tired of bad behavior. The problem is the bad behavior.