That is, at least in the NYT’s view, some topics are off-limits for even the most good-faith debate. The NYT has no interest in good-faith debate on any topic.
“All the News that’s Print to Fit”-the NYT’s own employees coined the phrase.
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
the thrust of the NYT hit-piece was an effort to blacken Alexander’s name by association with viewpoints deemed untouchable. well, yes; that’s how “debate” now works with the left. It’s what drives so-called cancel culture, it’s what drives big tech’s desire to be the keeper of what is legit and what is disinformation, and it’s what drives many campuses.
Michael Dawson
3 years ago
Sorry, Mary, but this is just a ridiculous post. I started reading Slate Star Codex in April, and was impressed by the material on facemasks, so was very disappointed when it was taken down. I’m glad Scott is now blogging again. I think Scott is a very clear and interesting writer and commendably honest. He deserves the support of everyone who values free speech and honest, evidence-based debate, against the NYT, which clearly has a vendetta and sadly seems to be against free speech and evidence-based journalism.
I’m also a fan of SSC (it’s now called Astral Codex Ten). Scott is a very interesting thinker. But I think Mary is right, at least, either Scott is on the same page as the NYT, but with a low church spin. Or, he’s lying when he dumps on Charles Murray in his recent defence on the NYT hit piece. Personally I kind of do think he’s lying, and that he is “conservative” and believes that there are group characteristics that affect life outcomes.
But then, you have to say, well despite that, he wants to remain part of the cool kids church, so he’s arguing with the NYT as if he still wants them to like him, even though they did the hit piece.
Daniel Björkman
3 years ago
To put it crudely, both the Silicon Valley rationalist and New York Times worldviews are progressive in the sense of thinking humanity can be optimised.
“Optimised” just means “be made as good as possible.” Anything can be per definition be “optimised.” That said, Scott is more pessimistic than most that most about the chances of improving people, and more suspicious of the moral right to do so.
Both are committed to individual self-actualisation as a central social good.
As opposed to pious slavery? Sounds good to me.
Both routinely assume consciousness is separable from the body.
It clearly is separable from the body to some extent. Anyone who enjoys thinking knows that cerebral pursuits can provide an escape from a dreary physical reality. It’s true that neither Scott nor the wokerati are bioessentialists who think that the brain is just an appendage to the guts and the gonads, but I’d consider that a major saving grace for both.
And both worldviews have a blind spot where it comes to the fact that not all humans are created alike, and some are more naturally advantaged than others. (I wrote about how this blind spot plays out in the worldview of OnlyFans superstar rationalist darling Aella here.)
If you knew anything at all about Scott, you’d know that he is, if anything, downright tiresome in his handwringing about “but what about the morons?! How are we, the smart people, going to provide good lives for those too stupid to provide for themselves?!” He’s a practising psychiatrist, for crying out loud. He knows precisely how difficult it is for many people to get by in the complicated modern world, and how easy it is for them to become victimised. I believe that you do not in fact know what you’re talking about.
Self-actualisation is a dystopian goal. It cannot form the basis for any social good. It starts with the self and then builds. Therein is the problem. And it is a chilling problem. The note about “how do we help the morons” is precisely the issue: projecting your self-actualization onto the unwitting is abusive, even as you affirm that you want to provide a good life for those who are too stupid to provide for themselves.
Or maybe your comment is intended to be deeply ironic?
There is of course no such thing. The following are all based on human optimisation.
1. Pure self-interest. The only person whose well being I can be sure of is myself. Therefore it is optimal for me to do exactly what is in my own best interests, regardless of other people.
2. The greatest good of the greatest number. It is optimal to dismantle healthy young adults for spare parts. A single individual might lose 50 years of healthy life, but their organs would secure 10 years of healthy life for each of seven people, which is a net gain.
3. Benign dictatorship. I’m a well-meaning person, reasonably equipped to assess well-being objectively. I can deternine the optimum and so everyone should do exactly as I say.
4. The dead cannot suffer. It is clearly better for people not to suffer than to suffer. Therefore it is optimal to kill people with terminal illnesses as soon as they fall ill, regardless of their own (subjective) views on the matter.
5. Argument from futurity. The well-being of humans in the future is as important as the well-being of those in the present, and there are more of them. Therefore it is optimal for those currently alive to suffer unlimited ills in order to secure the well-being of those in the future.
And so on. The point is not to promote any of all of those, but to show that there are two main problems with the word “optimise”. One is that it leads to policies that are clearly not acceptable to the people who use it, or indeed to almost everyone else, making it obnoxious — and the other is that it leads by equally plausible arguments to policies that are inconsistent, making it useless.
av8r75
3 years ago
“And both worldviews have a blind spot where it comes to the fact that not all humans are created alike, and some are more naturally advantaged than others.”
He wrote at great length on this very topic 6 years ago:
Not to mention that one of the NYT author’s “hits” was to explicitly tie him to Charles Murray’s “Bell Curve” ideas about “natural” (genetic) advantages.
Peter Istinetetz
3 years ago
Mary, you write very interestingly, you got a new follower in me.
I would just like to say that the clergy metaphor sort of breaks down when you consider that rationalists are willing to change their minds (in theory). Not so with any other religion, or the NYT for that matter.
That is, at least in the NYT’s view, some topics are off-limits for even the most good-faith debate.
The NYT has no interest in good-faith debate on any topic.
“All the News that’s Print to Fit”-the NYT’s own employees coined the phrase.
the thrust of the NYT hit-piece was an effort to blacken Alexander’s name by association with viewpoints deemed untouchable.
well, yes; that’s how “debate” now works with the left. It’s what drives so-called cancel culture, it’s what drives big tech’s desire to be the keeper of what is legit and what is disinformation, and it’s what drives many campuses.
Sorry, Mary, but this is just a ridiculous post. I started reading Slate Star Codex in April, and was impressed by the material on facemasks, so was very disappointed when it was taken down. I’m glad Scott is now blogging again. I think Scott is a very clear and interesting writer and commendably honest. He deserves the support of everyone who values free speech and honest, evidence-based debate, against the NYT, which clearly has a vendetta and sadly seems to be against free speech and evidence-based journalism.
I’m also a fan of SSC (it’s now called Astral Codex Ten). Scott is a very interesting thinker. But I think Mary is right, at least, either Scott is on the same page as the NYT, but with a low church spin. Or, he’s lying when he dumps on Charles Murray in his recent defence on the NYT hit piece. Personally I kind of do think he’s lying, and that he is “conservative” and believes that there are group characteristics that affect life outcomes.
But then, you have to say, well despite that, he wants to remain part of the cool kids church, so he’s arguing with the NYT as if he still wants them to like him, even though they did the hit piece.
“Optimised” just means “be made as good as possible.” Anything can be per definition be “optimised.” That said, Scott is more pessimistic than most that most about the chances of improving people, and more suspicious of the moral right to do so.
As opposed to pious slavery? Sounds good to me.
It clearly is separable from the body to some extent. Anyone who enjoys thinking knows that cerebral pursuits can provide an escape from a dreary physical reality. It’s true that neither Scott nor the wokerati are bioessentialists who think that the brain is just an appendage to the guts and the gonads, but I’d consider that a major saving grace for both.
If you knew anything at all about Scott, you’d know that he is, if anything, downright tiresome in his handwringing about “but what about the morons?! How are we, the smart people, going to provide good lives for those too stupid to provide for themselves?!” He’s a practising psychiatrist, for crying out loud. He knows precisely how difficult it is for many people to get by in the complicated modern world, and how easy it is for them to become victimised.
I believe that you do not in fact know what you’re talking about.
Self-actualisation is a dystopian goal. It cannot form the basis for any social good. It starts with the self and then builds. Therein is the problem. And it is a chilling problem. The note about “how do we help the morons” is precisely the issue: projecting your self-actualization onto the unwitting is abusive, even as you affirm that you want to provide a good life for those who are too stupid to provide for themselves.
Or maybe your comment is intended to be deeply ironic?
Big difference between “optimized” and “perfected.” Optimization is classical liberalism. Perfectionism is left wing radical ideology.
“As opposed to pious slavery? Sounds good to me.”
-1 for the false dichotomy.
There is of course no such thing. The following are all based on human optimisation.
1. Pure self-interest. The only person whose well being I can be sure of is myself. Therefore it is optimal for me to do exactly what is in my own best interests, regardless of other people.
2. The greatest good of the greatest number. It is optimal to dismantle healthy young adults for spare parts. A single individual might lose 50 years of healthy life, but their organs would secure 10 years of healthy life for each of seven people, which is a net gain.
3. Benign dictatorship. I’m a well-meaning person, reasonably equipped to assess well-being objectively. I can deternine the optimum and so everyone should do exactly as I say.
4. The dead cannot suffer. It is clearly better for people not to suffer than to suffer. Therefore it is optimal to kill people with terminal illnesses as soon as they fall ill, regardless of their own (subjective) views on the matter.
5. Argument from futurity. The well-being of humans in the future is as important as the well-being of those in the present, and there are more of them. Therefore it is optimal for those currently alive to suffer unlimited ills in order to secure the well-being of those in the future.
And so on. The point is not to promote any of all of those, but to show that there are two main problems with the word “optimise”. One is that it leads to policies that are clearly not acceptable to the people who use it, or indeed to almost everyone else, making it obnoxious — and the other is that it leads by equally plausible arguments to policies that are inconsistent, making it useless.
“And both worldviews have a blind spot where it comes to the fact that not all humans are created alike, and some are more naturally advantaged than others.”
He wrote at great length on this very topic 6 years ago:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/31/the-parable-of-the-talents/
Not to mention that one of the NYT author’s “hits” was to explicitly tie him to Charles Murray’s “Bell Curve” ideas about “natural” (genetic) advantages.
Mary, you write very interestingly, you got a new follower in me.
I would just like to say that the clergy metaphor sort of breaks down when you consider that rationalists are willing to change their minds (in theory). Not so with any other religion, or the NYT for that matter.