Comment by jahaja
6 years ago
I cannot stand the smug "we're objective academics that base our beliefs on nuanced logic and facts" of, to add insult to injury, self-declared "rationalists". That most are seemingly demographically and politically homogeneous are just the weirdest coincidence.
Dogwhistling doesn't stop being so just because you wrap it in an overly verbose academic sounding language. I think it's time for some introspection if this is all it takes for mainly young privileged [white] men to start considering race science and the likes as unfortunate but actually true. Exactly the same thing can be seen with figures like Jordan B Peterson.
Factual and useful observations don't stop being factual and useful just because some people might seek to exploit them as dogwhistling signals. If you've got a problem with malicious dogwhistling, deterring people from exploring these issues is exactly the wrong response. You want to do the opposite, so that honest, careful, nuanced inquiry drowns out any attempt at subverting the discussion.
(For instance, it was historically common to see expressions of concern about e.g. monopolistic industry and large business, damage to the environment, mass poverty etc. being used as dogwhistles obliquely referencing socialist views about the purported inherent evils of capitalism and the market economy, contrasted with bureaucratic central planning and control of the means of production. You don't see this to anything near the same extent nowadays, because most people who talk about these things are factually addressing the issues - often from a broad 'centrist/neoliberal' POV - not dogwhistling about unrelated stuff. So this can actually work.)
> That most are seemingly demographically and politically homogeneous are just the weirdest coincidence.
Demographically homogenous, yes this is a real issue that SSC folks are quite aware of. But it's also an issue about political discourse in general, not merely its awowedly-rationalist subset. Politically homogenous, not really. The whole reason debate was so vigorous within SSC was its lack of that kind of homogeneity.
> You want to do the opposite, so that honest, careful, nuanced inquiry drowns out any attempt at subverting the discussion.
The problem with this crowd's writings is that they are overly verbose and unnecessary lengthy in some sort of war of attrition. And as the saying goes, it takes 10x more time to refute bullshit than to produce it.
> Politically homogenous, not really.
Just a quick very unscientific glance at twitter regarding this "attack" produces 10 right-wing types for every 1 centre-right, 0 remotely left. Even worse if we use the EU left-right spectrum. Being right or hard-right is not politically diverse even though this crowd seems to believe so.
> And as the saying goes, it takes 10x more time to refute bullshit than to produce it.
Have you actually read anything from SSC?
His posts obviously had a lot of effort put into them. Reading them is much easier.
My recommendation: If you want to know how Scott Alexander thinks, read what Scott Alexander wrote, not what people on twitter wrote about him. Especially if they didn't read the piece either. Although I guess you'd have to use internet archive now.
Personally, I'm voting Green this fall and I love his writing.
Hi. EU-leftist generally-pro-SJ type here. I'm a big fan of Slate Star Codex. I just sent an email to the NYT about what a bad idea publishing Scott's real name would be.
I don't think a "quick very unscientific glance at Twitter" is a very effective way of finding out what Scott's readership is like. (I suspect a fair fraction don't use Twitter at all.)
5 replies →
> Just a quick very unscientific glance at twitter regarding this "attack" produces 10 right-wing types for every 1 centre-right
You're surprised that right-wing types have a beef with NYT? The "Fake News Media" NYT?
3 replies →
> I cannot stand the smug "we're objective academics that base our beliefs on nuanced logic and facts" of, to add insult to injury, self-declared "rationalists".
The rationalist community has that tendency, but they also possess a willingness to listen to people no matter how cooky/bigoted/ignorant their opinions are, and that is very humble and empathic. SSC is the prime example of that ethic.
> I think it's time for some introspection if this is all it takes for mainly young privileged [white] men to start considering race science and the likes as unfortunate but actually true.
Calling for introspection among people with whom you share some mutual bond or allegiance is fair. Telling strangers on the Internet that they need to do some "introspection" on account of their wrongthink after judging them on the basis of their race and sex is pretty arrogant and despicable.
> need to do some "introspection" on account of their wrongthink
Did you miss the if statement? If someone is on so shaky ground wrt their ethical boundaries that all it takes is some fancy wording for them to actually consider race science legitimate, they should indeed to take some time for introspection.
Anyway, according to your comment history you definitely fit the introspection mold. Zero surprises there.
> Did you miss the if statement?
No, but it's not clear to me what work that 'if' is doing. Is this just a purely hypothetical, or do you just assume the antecedent is always true? Do you perhaps take a middle path and concede the possibility people might be persuaded by "race science" for reasons other than mere "fancy wording"?
> they should indeed to take some time for introspection.
Or they could engage in dialogue with people who disagree with them but exercise good faith, which is exactly what happens on SSC.
> Anyway, according to your comment history you definitely fit the introspection mold. Zero surprises there.
If I aggravated you enough that you feel the need to dig through my comment history, I apologize. But don't presume to know my inner mental states. My tone is definitely hostile, but I consider it an fair response to your rather dismissive (and largely false) characterization a group of people I (and many others here on HN) have come to greatly respect.
1 reply →