The Four Quadrants of Conformism(paulgraham.com)
paulgraham.com
The Four Quadrants of Conformism
http://paulgraham.com/conformism.html
875 comments
50% of the words in this article could have been replaced with an image
Yikes, would you mind editing that so that it has half as many (ASCII) columns, and about one fifth as many rows? As it is it is taking up my entire screen.
Agreed, that's the natural way of communicating this kind of taxonomy.
As always in discussions of "types of people" it's more nuanced than this.
Someone can be both aggressively conformist over some issues (and towards some groups) and aggressively independent over others.
In fact if you picture a stereotypical conspiracy-minded alt-right individual then the exhibit both behaviours at the same time about the same group. (individualist) "I won't do x because the government tells me I should" and (conformist) "How dare those liberals in my town break the social conventions I feel strongly about!"
It's not hard to come up with an equivalent caricature for the left.
Every time you read a way of dividing the world into types - think of an example of someone who is multiple types. It's very easy in nearly all cases.
Someone can be both aggressively conformist over some issues (and towards some groups) and aggressively independent over others.
In fact if you picture a stereotypical conspiracy-minded alt-right individual then the exhibit both behaviours at the same time about the same group. (individualist) "I won't do x because the government tells me I should" and (conformist) "How dare those liberals in my town break the social conventions I feel strongly about!"
It's not hard to come up with an equivalent caricature for the left.
Every time you read a way of dividing the world into types - think of an example of someone who is multiple types. It's very easy in nearly all cases.
I think this was addressed in the post with the example of school conformists who "rebel" along with the rest of their group doing the same things, with the same clothes, language, fashion, music etc.
In your example, the aggressive alt-right "individualist" would be the equivalent as the high school rebel who is just acting a rebel and conforming to their adopted group.
Conformists are essential for any group cohesion. I imagine a key part of a conformist in any group is to define the out groups.
In your example, the aggressive alt-right "individualist" would be the equivalent as the high school rebel who is just acting a rebel and conforming to their adopted group.
Conformists are essential for any group cohesion. I imagine a key part of a conformist in any group is to define the out groups.
If we follow that argument to its limits, are there any true individualists?
Maybe it's just conformists with progressively smaller groups.
Maybe it's just conformists with progressively smaller groups.
It reminds me of the early episodes of “Silicon Valley” where an endless parade of would be entrepreneurs proudly declares how they want to “change the world!” (to the point where it becomes comically tedious).
“Aggressive independence” for its own sake (at scale) can simply degrade into its own form of ironic groupthink.
“Aggressive independence” for its own sake (at scale) can simply degrade into its own form of ironic groupthink.
"Yes we're all individuals" effect, or this https://www.npr.org/2019/03/10/702063209/man-inadvertently-p...
Classic.
This is true. The most important discovery in human psychology is that our behaviour is extremely context dependent. This is why it's so hard to draw any conclusions or make experiments that discover something universal. People have different roles and behaviours in different context, they can change their behaviour radically in the same context when they get different responses.
Psychology researchers know this, but in the folk psychology there is this assumption that you can observe people in context and that's how they are.
Psychology researchers know this, but in the folk psychology there is this assumption that you can observe people in context and that's how they are.
> Someone can be both aggressively conformist over some issues (and towards some groups) and aggressively independent over others.
Yes and no. In a purely objective context conformity is a personality mode shaped by a person's social reference group and the devotion or conformance to a single idea rests on the reinformance of the local group. For a highly conformant person you can change their opinion on a subject by dropping them into a different social context for a month at which point the devotion to a particular subject will be replaced by devotion in a different subject.
Perhaps the most defining characteristic of somebody extremely non-conforming is the potential and frequency for original and potentially unpopular decisions. From extremely conforming people originality is met with immediate hostility. In that hostility the person may not even realize they are emotional first without any consideration for the validity of that emotion.
Yes and no. In a purely objective context conformity is a personality mode shaped by a person's social reference group and the devotion or conformance to a single idea rests on the reinformance of the local group. For a highly conformant person you can change their opinion on a subject by dropping them into a different social context for a month at which point the devotion to a particular subject will be replaced by devotion in a different subject.
Perhaps the most defining characteristic of somebody extremely non-conforming is the potential and frequency for original and potentially unpopular decisions. From extremely conforming people originality is met with immediate hostility. In that hostility the person may not even realize they are emotional first without any consideration for the validity of that emotion.
> From extremely conforming people originality is met with immediate hostility.
I'd submit a common case of that is someone with a new idea and being confronted with all the reasons it will never work.
And that really does seem like a function of personality. The people saying why it won't work aren't being close-minded; they're gaving the idea a listen and thinking about it critically. They're may not even being outwardly rude. It's simply an unconcious preference to critique and find flaws.
I'd submit a common case of that is someone with a new idea and being confronted with all the reasons it will never work.
And that really does seem like a function of personality. The people saying why it won't work aren't being close-minded; they're gaving the idea a listen and thinking about it critically. They're may not even being outwardly rude. It's simply an unconcious preference to critique and find flaws.
Its not so much about ignorance or close-mindedness but insecurity and fear masked as offense, which is different than rationally forming doubts.
I don't see a contradiction in your example. I think such individuals are consistently being aggressively conformist with their group, but for the hyper-political, their group isn't the nation, but the party.
That seems to fit with PG's claim that "The call of the aggressively conventional-minded is 'Crush <outgroup>!'". Naturally that would extend to disobeying the rules of the outgroup, perhaps solely because the outgroup proposed them.
That seems to fit with PG's claim that "The call of the aggressively conventional-minded is 'Crush <outgroup>!'". Naturally that would extend to disobeying the rules of the outgroup, perhaps solely because the outgroup proposed them.
OK - I didn't spend that much time constructing my caricature but I still feel my point is valid if you want to modify them somewhat.
I myself remember feeling the strong pull of both "types" and I'd struggle to define myself clearly as either. (although I suspect I'm more frequently conformist than my overly flattering self-image depicts)
I myself remember feeling the strong pull of both "types" and I'd struggle to define myself clearly as either. (although I suspect I'm more frequently conformist than my overly flattering self-image depicts)
Isnt PG claiming that the "rules" are to value free expression and not turn people into heretics and that those who "break" this rule are bad and unworthy and never able to have new, original ideas and thus should never be listened to?
Sounds like he is trying to say "Crush <outgroup>!" to me...
Sounds like he is trying to say "Crush <outgroup>!" to me...
Of course he is. Crush the tattletales!
Children think in terms like “tattletales” and “naughty.”
Children think in terms like “tattletales” and “naughty.”
The first part of this essay reminded me of the D&D alignment system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragon...
With the trajectory of this and the previous one, it honestly feels like we're only a handful of steps from praising the Intellectual Dark Web(tm) and saying that Charles Murray was misunderstood.
Outside the far-left, nobody thinks the IDW or Charles Murray are devils.
> ...the latest wave of intolerance began in universities. It began in the mid 1980s, and by 2000 seemed to have died down, but it has recently flared up again with the arrival of social media.
> the decline in the spirit of free inquiry within universities..
Are there some examples of what this might refer to?
> the decline in the spirit of free inquiry within universities..
Are there some examples of what this might refer to?
No-platforming, amongst other things, I'd guess. And firing people for having the wrong views.
Take Peterson for example.
People are intolerant of Peterson because of Peterson's intolerance though.
Many people intentionally mischaracterize Peterson as intolerant. His position is generally extremely open-minded and comes from the position of a psychologist that has seen the failure modes of many different clients' lifestyles. When he tells moral tales that tilt toward a conservative lifestyle, they are told in the sense that straying from a conservative path is morally fine, but subjects you to personal risk of worse outcomes.
One of the main reasons for his rise to fame was the opposition to bill C-16. A bill he claimed to oppose because of its free-speech implications, when all the bill actually did was extend existing legal protections of identifiable groups to also include gender identity and gender expression.
Those exact same protections already existed on the basis of race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, and mental or physical disability.
If Peterson's gripe is with compelled speech then how come he didn't strongly criticize the existing legislation for other identifiable groups, but instead just singled out the new protections for transgender individuals?
> straying from a conservative path is morally fine, but subjects you to personal risk of worse outcomes.
Which is a baseless and very questionable claim to make.
> Many people intentionally mischaracterize Peterson as intolerant.
Peterson is a Christian conservative with some fairly patriarchal ideas [1,2], so I think characterizing him as intolerant is pretty fair.
[1] "[Western feminists avoid criticizing Islam because of] their unconscious wish for brutal male domination." https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1001164042856271874
[2] It is "hypocritical" for a woman to wear makeup in the workplace if she doesn't want to be sexually harassed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blTglME9rvQ&t=7m12s
> straying from a conservative path is morally fine, but subjects you to personal risk of worse outcomes.
Which is a baseless and very questionable claim to make.
> Many people intentionally mischaracterize Peterson as intolerant.
Peterson is a Christian conservative with some fairly patriarchal ideas [1,2], so I think characterizing him as intolerant is pretty fair.
[1] "[Western feminists avoid criticizing Islam because of] their unconscious wish for brutal male domination." https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1001164042856271874
[2] It is "hypocritical" for a woman to wear makeup in the workplace if she doesn't want to be sexually harassed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blTglME9rvQ&t=7m12s
You are explicitly mischaracterizing his arguments. Peterson has spent more time than you or I arguing about the pros and cons of patriarchal hierarchies. The fact that he is willing to admit to their merits and demerits is evidence that he is more open-minded, and arguing at a higher level of abstraction, than most people in the political debate.
Peterson opposed C-16 on genuine and extremely reasonable free-speech grounds. He was speaking as an individual that endorses the value of free speech. Hate speech laws obviously limit free speech, have a chilling effect on genuine debates, and can even hurt our ability to think straight.
Peterson opposed C-16 on genuine and extremely reasonable free-speech grounds. He was speaking as an individual that endorses the value of free speech. Hate speech laws obviously limit free speech, have a chilling effect on genuine debates, and can even hurt our ability to think straight.
Peterson was an academic and decided to fight c16 because it became an an issue in his university and he disagreed with how their policies were going to in fact compel him to speech.
It wasn't as if he was sitting in a room somewhere looking for bills to fight compelled speech..
It wasn't as if he was sitting in a room somewhere looking for bills to fight compelled speech..
As I understand it (and maybe I'm wrong) his objection was that the law would compel his speech (in particular to call a transwoman a woman). Is that claim false? Is there any existing similar compelled speech under the existing legislation? If not then that seems to explain why he hadn't previously criticized the legislation.
It would compel that speech in the same way that you are compelled to call me "Joshua" and not "asshole" when we are engaging in a conversation at work.
One of the things I dislike about celebrity is the idea that because I care what pg thinks about startups, that I should also care what he thinks about almost anything else. His Twitter account is starting to make me think he’s becoming Scott Adams.
You're free to not care what he thinks about some topics, but he's also free to still write about them and has no obligation to write only about the things you care about.
HN has a 'hide' button. You're free to make use of it.
Good grief man, if you can only detect new ideas when they erupt from the mouths of startup CEOs, and you can't credit things like social justice and equality as anything but conformist (despite having been denied millions if not billions of people), then you're not 'independent', you're just incredibly narrow minded.
I think PG's a product of his world. He isn't an expert in personality or psychology, so he looks to other tech leaders as thought leaders and independent saviors, and he is regurgitating commonly held views about Left and Right to fit his construct. He does so with extremely scant evidence, because his task is to make a snappy essay, not a coherent theory with strong evidence.
The regurgitation bit is even more ironic in the context of this piece.
The ideas of social justice and equality spring from the independent quadrant. These ideas have become the rules that conventional quadrant follow and expose.
This doesn't seem to contradict itself.
This doesn't seem to contradict itself.
Social justice and true equality aren't conformist ideas though. We live at a time when wealth inequality is around the highest since our country has kept track and you think equality is a mainstream conformist idea?
Many people have been so misled by education and media consumption that they have no idea what is going on. It is a commonplace that conformists will profess to beliefs that they regularly undermine. E.g., the people who "support the protests" but still whinge about how they're too "confrontational" and "violent".
Or they recognize that people have a right to protest but don’t appreciate the small minority who use it as an opportunity to incite violence.
They're protesting the policing of minorities, and you stand at the ready to police their protesting... by asserting their minority status! In lots of protests this isn't a "small minority". Please think more carefully. The author of TFA would not appreciate your aggressive conformity.
Hey man, I agree completely that the police suck. But what I think is happening is there are two groups here:
* Protestors of police brutality who are in the main completely peaceful and capable of self-policing. These people tend to do normal protest things like blocking the streets, yelling at cars, holding signs, and similar. That's totally fine and should be protected by law. Their leaders are often seen keeping the rest of the group from pushing up against barricades and otherwise inciting violence.
* Small groups of what I can only describe as fringe counterculture people who are hiding in these protest groups waiting for an opportunity to incite violence. These people use the mask laws in many localities to hide their identity, and are doing things like dropping piles of bricks off in protest zones, throwing molotov cocktails into fast food restaurants and running, breaking windows and looting stores, and pushing the peaceful protestors into the riot control police. These are most certainly non-conformists, but we should not tolerate these behaviors if we want to live in a civil society. And the peaceful protestors are getting caught up in the dragnets.
The police make no effort to distinguish between the two groups in most cases. During protests in the 60's there's ample evidence that the police were part of the second group. So it's probable the violence is being incited by certain groups who are interested in silencing the peaceful protestors.
If that makes me an aggressive conformist to hold those views, then I will gladly be one. Non-conformity should not be the goal. And frankly if this is how it's defined, it's a stupid label.
* Protestors of police brutality who are in the main completely peaceful and capable of self-policing. These people tend to do normal protest things like blocking the streets, yelling at cars, holding signs, and similar. That's totally fine and should be protected by law. Their leaders are often seen keeping the rest of the group from pushing up against barricades and otherwise inciting violence.
* Small groups of what I can only describe as fringe counterculture people who are hiding in these protest groups waiting for an opportunity to incite violence. These people use the mask laws in many localities to hide their identity, and are doing things like dropping piles of bricks off in protest zones, throwing molotov cocktails into fast food restaurants and running, breaking windows and looting stores, and pushing the peaceful protestors into the riot control police. These are most certainly non-conformists, but we should not tolerate these behaviors if we want to live in a civil society. And the peaceful protestors are getting caught up in the dragnets.
The police make no effort to distinguish between the two groups in most cases. During protests in the 60's there's ample evidence that the police were part of the second group. So it's probable the violence is being incited by certain groups who are interested in silencing the peaceful protestors.
If that makes me an aggressive conformist to hold those views, then I will gladly be one. Non-conformity should not be the goal. And frankly if this is how it's defined, it's a stupid label.
Eventually there will be "ample evidence" that police are also members of this "second group". A Minneapolis cop vandalizing a business was identified on Facebook already. (Don't link to the police denials; rational observers take those as proof.) City governments have a lot easier access to pallets of bricks and the equipment to transport same than poor kids have. Authoritarians do the same thing over and over again because it works over and over again.
None of that matters. The point of the protests, to combat USA racism in general and also the specific racism of violent USA police, is more important than the form of the protests. If we truly do support these goals, we won't be sidetracked by potential insurance claims of large corporations. Instead we will interrogate myths we've accepted by dint of constant media gaslighting. MLK did not oppose destructive protest in general. Destructive protests are not counterproductive; in many instances they have had far more significant positive effect than any number of candlelit vigils. The police don't work for us (even if "us" means "us white folks"); they work for wealthy property owners. Many black Americans do support effective protests, even if the only black Americans allowed on cable news are very worried about "white anarchists". Much of the destruction you fear is the rational action of black citizens who've had to deal with this shit for a really long time.
None of that matters. The point of the protests, to combat USA racism in general and also the specific racism of violent USA police, is more important than the form of the protests. If we truly do support these goals, we won't be sidetracked by potential insurance claims of large corporations. Instead we will interrogate myths we've accepted by dint of constant media gaslighting. MLK did not oppose destructive protest in general. Destructive protests are not counterproductive; in many instances they have had far more significant positive effect than any number of candlelit vigils. The police don't work for us (even if "us" means "us white folks"); they work for wealthy property owners. Many black Americans do support effective protests, even if the only black Americans allowed on cable news are very worried about "white anarchists". Much of the destruction you fear is the rational action of black citizens who've had to deal with this shit for a really long time.
The problem I have with violence is that there will always be people who are caught in the crossfire. Violence begets violence and you have to be prepared to lay down arms at some point or you will always be at war. My fear is mainly that when people resort to violence, the same people who hide out in the peaceful groups come out of the woodwork, and they take advantage of the situation to their own ends.
Violence is ugly, and it's hard to control, especially when it's group-on-group violence. It's surprisingly easy for the oppressed to become the oppressor when the smoke settles. If you have a way to avoid that, then go right ahead.
Violence is ugly, and it's hard to control, especially when it's group-on-group violence. It's surprisingly easy for the oppressed to become the oppressor when the smoke settles. If you have a way to avoid that, then go right ahead.
This fear is overblown. We've had racist violence from USA police for their entire existence. Nothing that has been tried so far has eliminated it. Now, let's try something else. I would refer you to NFAC, who have performed several armed public actions without causing an escalation in violence.
[deleted]
> If we truly do support these goals, we won't be sidetracked by potential insurance claims of large corporations.
The victims of violence aren't large corporations; they're individual people whose homes and neighborhoods and businesses are not safe. The very people that the protesters claim to be protesting on behalf of.
The valid claim of the protesters that the rule of law is not applied equally to everyone, as it should be, is undermined when people use the protests as a cover to violate the rule of law themselves.
The victims of violence aren't large corporations; they're individual people whose homes and neighborhoods and businesses are not safe. The very people that the protesters claim to be protesting on behalf of.
The valid claim of the protesters that the rule of law is not applied equally to everyone, as it should be, is undermined when people use the protests as a cover to violate the rule of law themselves.
Many effective protests do destroy property, and that's mostly the property of large corporations. Violence against individual humans is a separate issue. There are some indications that such violence has increased by a finite amount since the start of the COVID-19 shutdown. You're free to assume that this has nothing to do with the public health and economic situation (and self-interested voluntary decisions of police) and may be blamed entirely on protests, but you're announcing a deep personal bias by doing so. Wondering aloud about how the message may be undermined is mere concern trolling. We recognize it when racist troglodytes do it, and we also recognize it when "good liberals" do it.
> Many effective protests do destroy property, and that's mostly the property of large corporations.
The property being destroyed by rioters and looters in the current wave largely belongs to individuals and small businesses, although there have been some large corporations affected (e.g., Macy's in NYC was looted).
> Violence against individual humans is a separate issue.
I agree that it is worse to harm or kill a human directly than to harm or destroy their property. However, since many people's property is essential to their livelihood, harming or destroying property is still a very serious matter and should not be condoned.
> You're free to assume that this has nothing to do with the public health and economic situation (and self-interested voluntary decisions of police) and may be blamed entirely on protests
Rioting and looting is not a valid response to the COVID-19 situation any more than it is a valid response to inequality before the law and corruption on the part of the police (and the local governments that are responsible for police corruption).
The property being destroyed by rioters and looters in the current wave largely belongs to individuals and small businesses, although there have been some large corporations affected (e.g., Macy's in NYC was looted).
> Violence against individual humans is a separate issue.
I agree that it is worse to harm or kill a human directly than to harm or destroy their property. However, since many people's property is essential to their livelihood, harming or destroying property is still a very serious matter and should not be condoned.
> You're free to assume that this has nothing to do with the public health and economic situation (and self-interested voluntary decisions of police) and may be blamed entirely on protests
Rioting and looting is not a valid response to the COVID-19 situation any more than it is a valid response to inequality before the law and corruption on the part of the police (and the local governments that are responsible for police corruption).
Apparently your impression is that most property damage from rioting has affected small business and home owners. My impression, from both mainstream and fringe media and personal observation, is definitely not that. I doubt we'll settle the disagreement on this point through discussion. ISTM one has to conjure up a quite particular "white anarchist" bad guy to support the "small business" theory. What branch of anarchism is more opposed to small business than to giant corporations? Anyway, basically the only reason white people speak up at these demonstrations is to encourage less property destruction.
I'm glad we agree that property owned by large corporations and covered by insurance is not something to worry about.
"Rioting and looting" (since we must constantly distract ourselves from the goals of protests that are manifestly mostly not those things) may not be a "valid" response to disease per se. In USA, we have seen multiple giant "bailout" laws passed in response to this disease, in nearly legislatively unanimous fashion, which have mostly given trillions of dollars to rich people while not changing the public health situation at all. At the same time, smaller expenditures in other nations have solved the problem to much greater extents than we've managed here. As a result, people in our families will die who would not have died if they lived in e.g. New Zealand or China or South Korea or Germany or Cuba. In that context, burning down some wealthy store that already received a giant handout from the government seems about right to me. In addition, we always expect crime to increase somewhat during economic downturns.
Destructive protests are the only thing that has ever moved the needle at all on police brutality. Just look at Ferguson: decades of no action and inexorably worse policy, followed by immediate changes once the burning started. It's almost as if the white power structure doesn't care about the lived experiences of black, brown, and indigenous people, and only responds when it is forced to do so.
I'm glad we agree that property owned by large corporations and covered by insurance is not something to worry about.
"Rioting and looting" (since we must constantly distract ourselves from the goals of protests that are manifestly mostly not those things) may not be a "valid" response to disease per se. In USA, we have seen multiple giant "bailout" laws passed in response to this disease, in nearly legislatively unanimous fashion, which have mostly given trillions of dollars to rich people while not changing the public health situation at all. At the same time, smaller expenditures in other nations have solved the problem to much greater extents than we've managed here. As a result, people in our families will die who would not have died if they lived in e.g. New Zealand or China or South Korea or Germany or Cuba. In that context, burning down some wealthy store that already received a giant handout from the government seems about right to me. In addition, we always expect crime to increase somewhat during economic downturns.
Destructive protests are the only thing that has ever moved the needle at all on police brutality. Just look at Ferguson: decades of no action and inexorably worse policy, followed by immediate changes once the burning started. It's almost as if the white power structure doesn't care about the lived experiences of black, brown, and indigenous people, and only responds when it is forced to do so.
They’re just equal opportunity conformists... if you conform to both sides you never have to risk independent thinking!
Following on from the essay, the ideas are adopted by aggressively conventional minded even if they are "non conformist".
Other aggressively conventional minded people believe in the the rules of ever explosive growth, exploitation and free market capitalism.
The ideas do conflict with each other obviously.
The essay gives the example of abolitionism that some aggressively conventional minds back in history would be in support of slavery and other aggressively conventional mind would be opposing slavery.
Within the concept of the essay what does non conformist really mean? Are social justice and true equality ideas that belong only on the independent side of the quadrant?
Other aggressively conventional minded people believe in the the rules of ever explosive growth, exploitation and free market capitalism.
The ideas do conflict with each other obviously.
The essay gives the example of abolitionism that some aggressively conventional minds back in history would be in support of slavery and other aggressively conventional mind would be opposing slavery.
Within the concept of the essay what does non conformist really mean? Are social justice and true equality ideas that belong only on the independent side of the quadrant?
This is a good point. It shows the problem with the whole article. I think many people don't view themselves as "conformist" no matter who they are. PG certainly doesn't view himself as conformist. Everyone likes to think they that are independent thinkers, but most people, by definition, aren't. If a person thinks they're an independent thinker, then they'll simply think that anyone who thinks like them are also independent thinkers. In reality, they're just conforming, but maybe in a way that's different than other conformists.
PG seems to be calling out "cancel culture" with this essay, but I think the people on both sides of that argument are conforming. The independent thinkers are busy with things that actually matter and aren't paying attention.
I can't think of many people that I would label truly independent thinkers. The first that comes to my mind is maybe Richard Stallman, but that's about it.
PG seems to be calling out "cancel culture" with this essay, but I think the people on both sides of that argument are conforming. The independent thinkers are busy with things that actually matter and aren't paying attention.
I can't think of many people that I would label truly independent thinkers. The first that comes to my mind is maybe Richard Stallman, but that's about it.
Agreed. I think the "opposing" aggressively conventional people would be believing in the rule of law, authority of the police and social and cultural conservatism. These, 10 years ago, would be seen as mainstream ideas.
The current practices and thought-processes of social justice advocates are hyper-conformist in my opinion.
Virtually all intelligent people take "equality" to mean equality of opportunity. The type of equality you seem to mean is where individual personalities, talents and desires don't exist. In other words, where everyone is the same person. What a boring world. I just don't think inequality matters as long as the poorest in society are never cold or hungry. That's pretty much where we are today.
> That's pretty much where we are today.
What on earth makes you think that?
What on earth makes you think that?
Oh, well obviously there are hungry and cold people in the world, but I was talking about within a developed country like the UK. People who go on about equality are concerned with making themselves richer because of billionaires. They are not concerned with making themselves poorer because of hungry and cold people in other countries.
> Oh, well obviously there are hungry and cold people in the world, but I was talking about within a developed country like the UK.
I see. Perhaps this will change your mind?:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_Kingdom
I see. Perhaps this will change your mind?:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_Kingdom
Well, I'll wait for the government report in 2021. A lot people who "miss meals" are still overweight, they just make poor decisions with their money. In any case, inequality like that could be solved by everyone in this forum taking a pay cut to something that covers just basic essentials. People who talk about inequality are always, always talking about making themselves richer. Everyone has the power already to make themselves poorer.
Not always. A prominent counterexample would be Bill Gates Sr. In any case, you don't have to wait for the 2021 report to see the evidence that hunger is a real problem even in 1st world countries like the UK. Mothers going hungry so their children do not can't simply be dismissed as the result of poor life choices.
Bill Gates hasn't made himself any poorer.
I think you are right in a subculture sense.
Many great progressive ideas and movements have been taken over by aggressive conformists. The ideas get perverted into something far less useful and overly specific.
Lets move the discussion into something less political!
In tech this happens too. Cargo cult engineering anyone? Agile methodology and OOP are two huge examples: they started as radical, useful ideas too. But often today people argue overly specific rules of implementation rather than asking why these things exist, where they came from and where they fit.
Many great progressive ideas and movements have been taken over by aggressive conformists. The ideas get perverted into something far less useful and overly specific.
Lets move the discussion into something less political!
In tech this happens too. Cargo cult engineering anyone? Agile methodology and OOP are two huge examples: they started as radical, useful ideas too. But often today people argue overly specific rules of implementation rather than asking why these things exist, where they came from and where they fit.
Well what about if the rules of the conventional quadrant become "Anyone who says or implies 'Crush <outgroup>!' is bad and should never be listened to"?
[deleted]
turtles all the way down
Could you unpack this? The only social justice-related example in the piece was a positive one (antebellum abolitionism). It seems like you might be reading into the piece more than was intended.
The recent history of PG's twitter outpourings has been about the danger posed by political correctness and progressives more generally, in the face of criticism of things like AI bias.
I think he argues that progressives are a misnomer, political correctness a compromise with orthodoxy.
Progressives don't necessarily agree with other progressives. At least a subgroup wouldn't self describe as such.
This was tried to communicate very often, for example with reference to diversity of opinion. It was, perhaps with some reason, seen as an argument against diversity of skin colors.
Progressives don't necessarily agree with other progressives. At least a subgroup wouldn't self describe as such.
This was tried to communicate very often, for example with reference to diversity of opinion. It was, perhaps with some reason, seen as an argument against diversity of skin colors.
I can only read the discussion of "aggressive conformism" at the end as a giant subtweet of cancel culture. There's a real, and sudden, movement in the political center against this idea (c.f. the Harpers letter), and pg is clearly picking a side.
Which is fine, I guess. I personally didn't think the letter was so awful. It's hardly the worst problem in a world where we have federal paramilitary units being deployed to pick fights with hippies, but there are excesses (David Shor for sure shouldn't have been fired).
The problem is there's a baby vs. bathwater issue with the reasoning. The same people who spit bile about Shor are the ones who just pushed BLM from a fringe idea that couldn't get purchase into something approaching social consensus. Did anyone see the ballgame last night? What's your position on Kaepernick now?
Which is fine, I guess. I personally didn't think the letter was so awful. It's hardly the worst problem in a world where we have federal paramilitary units being deployed to pick fights with hippies, but there are excesses (David Shor for sure shouldn't have been fired).
The problem is there's a baby vs. bathwater issue with the reasoning. The same people who spit bile about Shor are the ones who just pushed BLM from a fringe idea that couldn't get purchase into something approaching social consensus. Did anyone see the ballgame last night? What's your position on Kaepernick now?
The Harper's letter was hardly from the political center as most people conceive; Noam Chomsky signed that letter.
It's complicated. There's for sure a generational skew here, most of the signers were older established voices[1]. While there was some diversity, there were very few truly progressive voices, and what ones there were tended to come out later expressing that they were mislead about the way the letter would be presented.
The text of the letter is hard to argue against. The context in which it was presented, and especially the way it was leveraged on the right as an "a-ha!" moment to disparage many of the demographics that were supposed to have "signed" it was quite different.
Republicans view that letter as an admission of guilt on the part of the left, when the intent was to call back absolutist rhetoric everywhere. It didn't work.
[1] From the perspective of the activist left: the powerful looking to suppress checks on their power from new voices.
The text of the letter is hard to argue against. The context in which it was presented, and especially the way it was leveraged on the right as an "a-ha!" moment to disparage many of the demographics that were supposed to have "signed" it was quite different.
Republicans view that letter as an admission of guilt on the part of the left, when the intent was to call back absolutist rhetoric everywhere. It didn't work.
[1] From the perspective of the activist left: the powerful looking to suppress checks on their power from new voices.
PaulHoule(3)
> and you can't credit things like social justice and equality as anything but conformist
As I'm sure you know, people like PG, and me, and the many, many other people who share many common beliefs with the progressive left, do not criticize social justice and equality. What we are finding extraordinarily problematic currently is the people on the progressive left who are the most vocal champions of social justice and equality, in particular their intolerance, deplatforming, certainty that their's is the only true view, etc.
As I'm sure you know, people like PG, and me, and the many, many other people who share many common beliefs with the progressive left, do not criticize social justice and equality. What we are finding extraordinarily problematic currently is the people on the progressive left who are the most vocal champions of social justice and equality, in particular their intolerance, deplatforming, certainty that their's is the only true view, etc.
What's ironic about it is that Y Combinator has been accused of becoming yet another badge of being the right kind of person.
There are so many people out there who want to say they were part of "Y Co" but aren't really interested in making or doing anything. Bossing people around and having status has some appeal to them, but taking some actual stand is just too dangerous. Some rich dude like like Paul Graham might reject them, they wouldn't want people to think they were S1W's or anything
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHyCIDu6dSY
I think Mr. Graham needs some diversity in his life. Maybe he should spend a night in a hotel in Marin County or Gilroy would open up his vistas.
(Oh, but you know Y Co wouldn't be effective at all if it was moved across the street from where it is -- if Altman and Graham had any self conciousness or thought where their arguments lead they'd realize they are arguing for 100% local taxation on themselves because the only value behind Y Co is the holy land which is the only place where rich people will let you have an exit... Except for China)
There are so many people out there who want to say they were part of "Y Co" but aren't really interested in making or doing anything. Bossing people around and having status has some appeal to them, but taking some actual stand is just too dangerous. Some rich dude like like Paul Graham might reject them, they wouldn't want people to think they were S1W's or anything
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHyCIDu6dSY
I think Mr. Graham needs some diversity in his life. Maybe he should spend a night in a hotel in Marin County or Gilroy would open up his vistas.
(Oh, but you know Y Co wouldn't be effective at all if it was moved across the street from where it is -- if Altman and Graham had any self conciousness or thought where their arguments lead they'd realize they are arguing for 100% local taxation on themselves because the only value behind Y Co is the holy land which is the only place where rich people will let you have an exit... Except for China)
Looking at Paul's twitter it is clear he only really respects those who are as rich as him or present some viewpoint he agrees with. It almost makes me think that his writing on what type of person not to be is just projection.
[deleted]
Exactly. Conformism in PG's world is praising "merit", "innovation" and inequality.
Very interesting take. This reminds me of Bob Altemeyer's work. He summed up his decades of research on authoritarianism in a free ebook at https://www.theauthoritarians.org/ .
I invite everyone to read this, this is the single most important work of political science / social psychology I've ever read.
Two categories he identifies, "authoritarian" and "social dominant" map to Graham's "passively conventional" and "aggressively conventional." The latter also tends to correspond to what psychiatrists would describe as narcissist, anti-social and possibly psychopathic traits.
For example, he conducted experiments as role playing games, like a model United Nations. When he removed the few "social dominants" from the player pool, the game ran smoothly, there was peace and everyone went to Alpha Centauri or something.
But when he added a few social dominants, things went to hell quick, and nuclear war broke out. Note that social dominants / narcissists are typically at most a few percents of the population.
I'm sure many people have noticed the phenomenon in any organisation: when a narcissist gets a modicum of power, they can destroy an organisation from within.
I invite everyone to read this, this is the single most important work of political science / social psychology I've ever read.
Two categories he identifies, "authoritarian" and "social dominant" map to Graham's "passively conventional" and "aggressively conventional." The latter also tends to correspond to what psychiatrists would describe as narcissist, anti-social and possibly psychopathic traits.
For example, he conducted experiments as role playing games, like a model United Nations. When he removed the few "social dominants" from the player pool, the game ran smoothly, there was peace and everyone went to Alpha Centauri or something.
But when he added a few social dominants, things went to hell quick, and nuclear war broke out. Note that social dominants / narcissists are typically at most a few percents of the population.
I'm sure many people have noticed the phenomenon in any organisation: when a narcissist gets a modicum of power, they can destroy an organisation from within.
I believe Steve Jobs was a narcissist or had some of those traits, but he did just the opposite. It's not necessarily true that narcissists are destructive. I think they are a mixed bag. Sometimes they are constructive and work within the system to improve things, even if it's ultimately to improve their own standing in the world.
> when a narcissist gets a modicum of power, they can destroy an organisation from within
Or, as with Hitler, they can take over a formerly-democratic country and plunge them into war.
Or, as with Hitler, they can take over a formerly-democratic country and plunge them into war.
Altemeyer should be viewed with some suspicion: He thinks left-wing authoritarianism is a "Loch Ness monster", and in talks with David Friedman couldn't comprehend why eg. labor unions could constitute an authority to a person - he viewed union membership purely in transactional terms with little ideological content.
His scale may identify a certain kind of authoritarian, but his work is almost assuredly blind as a bat to others and not a comprehensive take.
His scale may identify a certain kind of authoritarian, but his work is almost assuredly blind as a bat to others and not a comprehensive take.
This is textbook ad hominem. His work stands regardless of ideology.
But you're also wrong on two counts:
First, he wrote this and did most of his work at a time when power structures were clearly right wing. But the mechanisms he describes are universal and independent of the labels used by those in power: authoritarians will strongly conform to the dominant ideology, and social dominants will pretend to adhere to it to gain power. He just used the labels reflecting the situation at the time.
Second, he specifically points out that authoritarians in the Soviet Unions were nominally left wing.
Consider that this kind of shift in dominant ideology is a slow process, on a period longer that one academic's career.
But you're also wrong on two counts:
First, he wrote this and did most of his work at a time when power structures were clearly right wing. But the mechanisms he describes are universal and independent of the labels used by those in power: authoritarians will strongly conform to the dominant ideology, and social dominants will pretend to adhere to it to gain power. He just used the labels reflecting the situation at the time.
Second, he specifically points out that authoritarians in the Soviet Unions were nominally left wing.
Consider that this kind of shift in dominant ideology is a slow process, on a period longer that one academic's career.
PaulHoule(3)
Ah, conventional minded people are those who insist that those who break the rules are bad, worthless in society, and should be punished.
Then Mr. Graham goes on to say that the rules of civilized, successful, wealthy societies are that everyone should be free to debate even the worst of ideas, and the people who prevent this or disagree with this are bad, never become entrepreneurs (a laughable thought), are not worth considering, and are in fact responsible for all bad things in the world (well, they and the leaders who appeal to them, only those two groups of people!)
It's laughably puerile... I mean how does he think this way? Has he any idea that one of the most valuable companies in the entire world is from a wealthy, civilized (in terms of lack of crime and lots of social etiquette only), successful country which has no concept of free expression (ARAMCO in Saudi Arabia)?
How do intelligent people end up reducing the world into such obviously untrue caricatures? How does he think that convention is the enemy of new ideas? Following convention is also the same thing as learning from the past or standing on the shoulders of giants. Without regard for convention at some level, the "geniuses" Mr. Graham praises would have been reinventing the wheel over and over and over again!
Then Mr. Graham goes on to say that the rules of civilized, successful, wealthy societies are that everyone should be free to debate even the worst of ideas, and the people who prevent this or disagree with this are bad, never become entrepreneurs (a laughable thought), are not worth considering, and are in fact responsible for all bad things in the world (well, they and the leaders who appeal to them, only those two groups of people!)
It's laughably puerile... I mean how does he think this way? Has he any idea that one of the most valuable companies in the entire world is from a wealthy, civilized (in terms of lack of crime and lots of social etiquette only), successful country which has no concept of free expression (ARAMCO in Saudi Arabia)?
How do intelligent people end up reducing the world into such obviously untrue caricatures? How does he think that convention is the enemy of new ideas? Following convention is also the same thing as learning from the past or standing on the shoulders of giants. Without regard for convention at some level, the "geniuses" Mr. Graham praises would have been reinventing the wheel over and over and over again!
The only rebuttal to PG in your comment is ARAMCO, which was a state-run org till recently, and is nothing like the companies PG is talking about.
Try again.
Try again.
There are at least 2 others. Reread and see if you can find them.
Also, being state run doesn't mean you aren't innovative. It's a different game but still requires innovation. Companies don't grow and grow and grow without any innovation at all.
Also, being state run doesn't mean you aren't innovative. It's a different game but still requires innovation. Companies don't grow and grow and grow without any innovation at all.
Single-purpose accounts aren't allowed on HN, nor are trollish usernames, so I've banned this account. I realize it's a borderline case, but a username like that is going to forever exert a trollish skew on every thread it posts to (especially on this site, given the particular celebrity you're referencing) and we've learned that it's better to deal with this earlier than later.
Happy to rename and unban it if you want to pick a more neutral username.
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Happy to rename and unban it if you want to pick a more neutral username.
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
ARAMCO is wealthy because they own all the oil in Saudi Arabia.
ARAMCO and Saudi Arabia by extension were not built because of innovation. PG is talking about the importance of discussing idea regardless of how unorthodox they are, because the majority of successful companies are built, believe it or not, using ideas and not oil.
Yes they were built by innovation. Creation of a new country no matter how it happens is an innovation. Creation of a new company, no matter how it happens, is an innovation.
Growing a company also is an innovation. You can only grow by venturing into new areas. If you think ARAMCO has never made any improvements in petroleum engineering, cyber security, logistics, etc, then you are daft. If all they had was oil fields they wouldn't make so much money. It's a combination of having them, knowing how to extract wealth from them, knowing how to identify more, and knowing how to reduce competition (OPEC is an example of constant innovation, there is no precedent to follow in setting the prices for a commodity like oil which humans have never relied on as extensively as they do now).
Growing a company also is an innovation. You can only grow by venturing into new areas. If you think ARAMCO has never made any improvements in petroleum engineering, cyber security, logistics, etc, then you are daft. If all they had was oil fields they wouldn't make so much money. It's a combination of having them, knowing how to extract wealth from them, knowing how to identify more, and knowing how to reduce competition (OPEC is an example of constant innovation, there is no precedent to follow in setting the prices for a commodity like oil which humans have never relied on as extensively as they do now).
> On the other hand, perhaps the decline in the spirit of free inquiry within universities is as much the symptom of the departure of the independent-minded as the cause. People who would have become professors 50 years ago have other options now. Now they can become quants or start startups. You have to be independent-minded to succeed at either of those.
In defence of my chosen place in a university: being a quant or CEO implies a different kind of confirmity, namely, to the strong requirement of generating revenue (or at least investment) in the short term. Though we're all pushed to get academic funding as well, I don't think we have it as bad as either of those two roles, and that itself allows a certain diversity of thought.
In defence of my chosen place in a university: being a quant or CEO implies a different kind of confirmity, namely, to the strong requirement of generating revenue (or at least investment) in the short term. Though we're all pushed to get academic funding as well, I don't think we have it as bad as either of those two roles, and that itself allows a certain diversity of thought.
I would also argue that the intersection of people who become quants / found successful startups and did so despite having a real shot at becoming a professor is pretty small.
My only real data points are my own graduate school experience, but I haven't heard of anyone who was on a path to success in academia who didn't continue on down that path, or at least give it their absolute best shot before moving in. By success I mean maybe a post-doc or two followed by a reasonable shot at a tenure-track position at a decent school. This restriction is made in the same way that (I am assuming) pg is only referring to quants at decent firms, and startup founders who at least have an idea they can get off the ground. I seriously doubt that any kind of conformism at say, an ivy league institution, is because people who would have become profs there chose not to.
My only real data points are my own graduate school experience, but I haven't heard of anyone who was on a path to success in academia who didn't continue on down that path, or at least give it their absolute best shot before moving in. By success I mean maybe a post-doc or two followed by a reasonable shot at a tenure-track position at a decent school. This restriction is made in the same way that (I am assuming) pg is only referring to quants at decent firms, and startup founders who at least have an idea they can get off the ground. I seriously doubt that any kind of conformism at say, an ivy league institution, is because people who would have become profs there chose not to.
No comment about the broader picture but there have been very smart people who have quit academia and gone into industry for whatever reason. Maybe the most famous is Jim Simons (he had an exceptional mathematical career before going into finance) but I know a few more examples.
And financial companies seem to recruit from high scorers on math contests. They often sponsor the contests too, and get their names displayed where possible, such as on free swag given to contestants.
The abilities and skills that win math contests aren't identical with those that would do well in academic research, but I think there's a good amount of overlap.
The abilities and skills that win math contests aren't identical with those that would do well in academic research, but I think there's a good amount of overlap.
You're probably right, however, you could also argue that (my GP comment notwithstanding) diversity of modern academic thought is still somewhat reduced compared to what it was, because the modern academic system pushes out people who would have been successful there in the past (for example see Peter Higgs' comments on the matter https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-... )
If you want to learn about the various types of people and how they relate to the world around them, study the French Revolution (in depth, not just a snippet). You will find every kind of person (in much more complex combinations than presented here), and how they participate/change/destroy/terrorize/etc. People today are no different we just have more technology.
Any books you’d recommend?
Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast, season 3. Probably about 30-40hrs of content (a lot of history happened!) and I find his content is a real good for first-timers.
The French Revolution, A History by Thomas Carlyle. It is a truly massive undertaking, an 'in depth' account if there ever was one; and Carlyle's focus on the 'various types' of people involved is quite clear.
Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France is a great read. I wonder which quadrant Graham would put Burke in?
A New World Begins: The History of the French Revolution by Popkin was very good.
I am mildly interested in history but never really looked into the French Revolution. Can you suggest a starting point?
Absolutely. Really, look at major events in history period. The fall of the Roman republic should be a regular topic of study in every western school. Understanding history is the greatest tool there is to understand people and the patterns we find ourselves in.
I'll strongly second the recommendation to read about the Roman republic for anyone interested in history. The number of parallels to modern America are striking.
As for most attempts to classify people, it should be strongly stated that any single human would fits several quadrants depending on the subject, the phase in their life they are in, or even the mood of the day.
I read this two dimensional presentation only as device to discuss a theoretical point, and not something that could have any practicality.
In particular, I think a lot of people switch from the "sheep" quadrant and the "naughty ones" pretty freely. They'll want to obey rules until they hit one that they feel doesnt' make sense and/or needs to be broken, and ideally will get back to being "Sheep" once it doesn't make sense to be a "naughty one" anymore (i.e. rules have changed, or better, they changed the rule)
That's also a reason why I see places like startup hubs where people consciously behave in unconventional ways (= be jerks, most of the time) to feel like they're "naughty ones" shouldn't be lauded, and being indepdendent minded should be balanced with benefits to the surrounding people or society (if you break big rules, it should have a big payoff for everyone)
PS: I find wording it as "sheep" to be unneedingly pejorative towards people who just don't break the rules and let others live their own life. In other classifications it would be "lawful neutral" for instance.
I read this two dimensional presentation only as device to discuss a theoretical point, and not something that could have any practicality.
In particular, I think a lot of people switch from the "sheep" quadrant and the "naughty ones" pretty freely. They'll want to obey rules until they hit one that they feel doesnt' make sense and/or needs to be broken, and ideally will get back to being "Sheep" once it doesn't make sense to be a "naughty one" anymore (i.e. rules have changed, or better, they changed the rule)
That's also a reason why I see places like startup hubs where people consciously behave in unconventional ways (= be jerks, most of the time) to feel like they're "naughty ones" shouldn't be lauded, and being indepdendent minded should be balanced with benefits to the surrounding people or society (if you break big rules, it should have a big payoff for everyone)
PS: I find wording it as "sheep" to be unneedingly pejorative towards people who just don't break the rules and let others live their own life. In other classifications it would be "lawful neutral" for instance.
Yes, this is a notable problem in all of such conversations. Classifying people based on the opinions they express is a prime example of a logical fallacy.
But it's somewhat understandable why this happens. Those in a position of power want everyone to see a convincing enough reason behind their actions so people won't be opposed to them, be more obedient and just don't dissent. So they resort to elaborate logical fallacies, portraying everyone as never changing simple minded static blobs that can be classified into categories in order to judge, ban, punish and police them. Ironic, given what the article classifies people for.
But it's somewhat understandable why this happens. Those in a position of power want everyone to see a convincing enough reason behind their actions so people won't be opposed to them, be more obedient and just don't dissent. So they resort to elaborate logical fallacies, portraying everyone as never changing simple minded static blobs that can be classified into categories in order to judge, ban, punish and police them. Ironic, given what the article classifies people for.
> They'll want to obey rules until they hit one that they feel doesnt' make sense and/or needs to be broken...
What the rules are is complicated by all the unwritten rules. Many people speed, but never more than 10 over the limit, and they'll even get irritated by people driving at the posted limit.
> PS: I find wording it as "sheep" to be unneedingly pejorative towards people who just don't break the rules and let others live their own life.
The problem is they'll also conform to rules that don't let others live their own life. So if there's a clique of people, the aggressive conformist might mark an outsider for ostracism, and the passive conformist will dutifully uphold that.
But "sheep" is awful. I always think of the cringey post of, "Imma sheepdog protecting the sheep from the wolves." Unspoken: ...so the shepherd can then send the lambs to slaughter.
What the rules are is complicated by all the unwritten rules. Many people speed, but never more than 10 over the limit, and they'll even get irritated by people driving at the posted limit.
> PS: I find wording it as "sheep" to be unneedingly pejorative towards people who just don't break the rules and let others live their own life.
The problem is they'll also conform to rules that don't let others live their own life. So if there's a clique of people, the aggressive conformist might mark an outsider for ostracism, and the passive conformist will dutifully uphold that.
But "sheep" is awful. I always think of the cringey post of, "Imma sheepdog protecting the sheep from the wolves." Unspoken: ...so the shepherd can then send the lambs to slaughter.
> In particular, I think a lot of people switch from the "sheep" quadrant and the "naughty ones" pretty freely. They'll want to obey rules until they hit one that they feel doesnt' make sense and/or needs to be broken, and ideally will get back to being "Sheep" once it doesn't make sense to be a "naughty one" anymore (i.e. rules have changed, or better, they changed the rule)
Unethical life pro tip: If you are breaking the rules, at least make a case for why they don't apply to you.
"I'm only stealing to feed my family."
"This isn't an invasion, we're just annexing our own population on the other side of this border."
Unethical life pro tip: If you are breaking the rules, at least make a case for why they don't apply to you.
"I'm only stealing to feed my family."
"This isn't an invasion, we're just annexing our own population on the other side of this border."
True (political pro tip: don't send your army on "vacations" in bordering countries)
At the extreme, this is the base for civil disobedience: it is a disruptive breaking of the rules, but in a morally conscious and thought through way.
At the extreme, this is the base for civil disobedience: it is a disruptive breaking of the rules, but in a morally conscious and thought through way.
> As for most attempts to classify people, it should be strongly stated that any single human would fits several quadrants depending on the subject
Its not related to such subjectivity as the subjectivity is itself a likely form of conformity.
Its not related to such subjectivity as the subjectivity is itself a likely form of conformity.
I meant that someone could be "sheep"ly following rules and ignoring others when it comes to games, but "naughty" when it's about business or fiscality, and "tattletales" when it comes to religion.
That would be the same person, but behaving differently depending on the field or the context.
That would be the same person, but behaving differently depending on the field or the context.
>PS: I find wording it as "sheep" to be unneedingly pejorative towards people who just don't break the rules and let others live their own life. In other classifications it would be "lawful neutral" for instance.
One can do society more harm being passively conformist than using mildly pejorative terms. In Paul Graham's essay, the object (the "sheep") of the critique is more dangerous than its subject (the author). I would even go on to say that it is an ethical duty to be independent-minded.
One can do society more harm being passively conformist than using mildly pejorative terms. In Paul Graham's essay, the object (the "sheep") of the critique is more dangerous than its subject (the author). I would even go on to say that it is an ethical duty to be independent-minded.
If one did not know who the author is, the essay would be criticized as shallow and sweeping to the point of being a vague excuse to treat others badly by those that only half grasp ideas anyway. Strikes me as personal writing that ought to be kept personal.
Loved this essay. The phrase “aggressively conventional minded” is genius, and may contribute a lot towards the solution.
As someone coming from an ex-soviet state, I’ve felt personal alarm bells ring more and more, as I experience the kind of intolerance and double speak America is heading into. Both the left and the right my opinion are missing the key points on freedom (the left suppressing and labeling, the right militarizing).
Yet, as PG points out, the independent minded are good at figuring out solutions. No matter what, the fundamental ideas that America is built on is focused so heavily on freedom that I trust the aggressively independent to protect, and the passively independent minded to innovate.
As someone coming from an ex-soviet state, I’ve felt personal alarm bells ring more and more, as I experience the kind of intolerance and double speak America is heading into. Both the left and the right my opinion are missing the key points on freedom (the left suppressing and labeling, the right militarizing).
Yet, as PG points out, the independent minded are good at figuring out solutions. No matter what, the fundamental ideas that America is built on is focused so heavily on freedom that I trust the aggressively independent to protect, and the passively independent minded to innovate.
Also from an ex soviet state. Also feel alarm bells going off. I'm legitimately scared. I've seen this before, I know where it goes. It's really hard to convey my feeling of alarm to people here though. Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it, I guess.
Doesn't help that the conformists have been allowed to frame the narrative as 'either you agree with us, or you're literally Hitler/Stalin' depending on political alignment, which is a very powerful weapon to shut down discourse.
This rising culture is freedom and diversity in all things except thought. This is how totalitarian regimes form. This is what my parents dumped their entire life savings into escaping, and here I am watching it rise again.
Doesn't help that the conformists have been allowed to frame the narrative as 'either you agree with us, or you're literally Hitler/Stalin' depending on political alignment, which is a very powerful weapon to shut down discourse.
This rising culture is freedom and diversity in all things except thought. This is how totalitarian regimes form. This is what my parents dumped their entire life savings into escaping, and here I am watching it rise again.
wdwecewc(8)
I find it bizarre that comments like these seem to think the main battle ground for free speech is young people like myself "cancelling" people on twitter, when at the same time protestors are being arrested by secret police in the US.
Like there is an authoritarian government right there for you to criticise, but you choose only to talk endlessly about tweets like "can white people make rice, or is it cultural appropriation? A thread (1/329)".
Like there is an authoritarian government right there for you to criticise, but you choose only to talk endlessly about tweets like "can white people make rice, or is it cultural appropriation? A thread (1/329)".
You're engaging in a straw man of both sides and it makes me want to disregard your argument entirely.
> you choose only to talk endlessly about tweets like...
Do you really think that's what people are complaining about here? Not the professors being fired, the well known economists being forced to resign? There was a professor who lost his status running a residence hall because he was on the legal defense team for someone despicable.
As a society, we've decided that yes, even criminals need lawyers. To cancel someone and permanently affect their career for engaging in the most liberal of virtues and defending even criminals (especially if you believe we live in an authoritarian state) is beyond the pale.
> when at the same time protestors are being arrested by secret police in the US.
I've been working for police reform in what I believe is a flawed system for years. Everything the protestors are doing has probably set us back a decade. Every protestor killed by a fellow protestor (17 is the current count), every major spike in crime due to police being defunded instead of retrained, and every cop sent to the hospital because of folks throwing glass bottles and chunks of brick is not going to magically dry up and go away the next time we want to raise a serious issue.
We have a legal and social framework for affecting longterm change and it works much better than arson.
> you choose only to talk endlessly about tweets like...
Do you really think that's what people are complaining about here? Not the professors being fired, the well known economists being forced to resign? There was a professor who lost his status running a residence hall because he was on the legal defense team for someone despicable.
As a society, we've decided that yes, even criminals need lawyers. To cancel someone and permanently affect their career for engaging in the most liberal of virtues and defending even criminals (especially if you believe we live in an authoritarian state) is beyond the pale.
> when at the same time protestors are being arrested by secret police in the US.
I've been working for police reform in what I believe is a flawed system for years. Everything the protestors are doing has probably set us back a decade. Every protestor killed by a fellow protestor (17 is the current count), every major spike in crime due to police being defunded instead of retrained, and every cop sent to the hospital because of folks throwing glass bottles and chunks of brick is not going to magically dry up and go away the next time we want to raise a serious issue.
We have a legal and social framework for affecting longterm change and it works much better than arson.
It's crazy to say "Everything the protestors are doing has probably set us back a decade." There have been literally millions of American citizens marching peacefully for change, and a very small number of bad actors.
There is no way you are informed or serious about what is going on if you are willing to make such broadly derogatory comments about one of the largest civil right movements in history.
And worse, taking the bad actions of a few, and using it to broadly discredit the valid actions of the many, is a textbook tactic for discrimination and maintaining the status quo. Who do you think you are helping by doing that?
There is no way you are informed or serious about what is going on if you are willing to make such broadly derogatory comments about one of the largest civil right movements in history.
And worse, taking the bad actions of a few, and using it to broadly discredit the valid actions of the many, is a textbook tactic for discrimination and maintaining the status quo. Who do you think you are helping by doing that?
One problem is the inability of media to separate the issues of protesting for change, and the organization Black Lives Matter. As such, the protestors are basically being ignored, and BLM are being lauded. BLM are the "face" of the protest - made this way mainly by left-wing media.
But BLM is a questionable organization. It's aims are not merely supporting black lives - but there is an insidious Marxism to it (and an underlying anti-white racism). So if I disagree with BLM's other aims, I'm obviously not going to join the protests, or take the knee, because they're the face of it. The protestors have effectively become BLM endorsers - not merely people who have the opinion "black lives matter" (which includes the vast majority on the right), but they may as well be out in the streets saying "I agree with BLM on everything."
I've not heard of any protestors denouncing BLM's other aims. I'd like to think that it's because the media's agenda lines up with BLMs, and they chose not to air those opinions, but part of me thinks that the majority protestors are simply unable to make the distinction themselves between the phrase "black lives matter" and the organization "Black Lives Matter", or they're in agreement with the other aims anyway because they are also "woke" opinions. I'd doubt even half of the BLM endorsers have read the BLM website.
The right-wing media obviously focus on the riots, arson, looting and iconoclasm, which gives the protests a terrible image to the larger population, even though these are the actions of a tiny number of troublemakers.
What does one do if they want to express their support for persecuted minorities and denounce racism (in all of it's forms), but does not want to endorse the BLM in any shape or form? I also don't support the pulling down of statues and attempts at woke history revisionism - which let's face it, aren't doing anything to help blacks.
But BLM is a questionable organization. It's aims are not merely supporting black lives - but there is an insidious Marxism to it (and an underlying anti-white racism). So if I disagree with BLM's other aims, I'm obviously not going to join the protests, or take the knee, because they're the face of it. The protestors have effectively become BLM endorsers - not merely people who have the opinion "black lives matter" (which includes the vast majority on the right), but they may as well be out in the streets saying "I agree with BLM on everything."
I've not heard of any protestors denouncing BLM's other aims. I'd like to think that it's because the media's agenda lines up with BLMs, and they chose not to air those opinions, but part of me thinks that the majority protestors are simply unable to make the distinction themselves between the phrase "black lives matter" and the organization "Black Lives Matter", or they're in agreement with the other aims anyway because they are also "woke" opinions. I'd doubt even half of the BLM endorsers have read the BLM website.
The right-wing media obviously focus on the riots, arson, looting and iconoclasm, which gives the protests a terrible image to the larger population, even though these are the actions of a tiny number of troublemakers.
What does one do if they want to express their support for persecuted minorities and denounce racism (in all of it's forms), but does not want to endorse the BLM in any shape or form? I also don't support the pulling down of statues and attempts at woke history revisionism - which let's face it, aren't doing anything to help blacks.
> there is an insidious Marxism to it (and an underlying anti-white racism)
I see this said so much and invariably there is no rational justification provided for these beliefs beyond "A founder made an offhand comment one time in an interview about their educational background"
Maybe I'll get a more thorough explanation on HN.
In what way does Black Lives Matter have an "insidious Marxism to it"? And what is your definition of Marxism?
I see this said so much and invariably there is no rational justification provided for these beliefs beyond "A founder made an offhand comment one time in an interview about their educational background"
Maybe I'll get a more thorough explanation on HN.
In what way does Black Lives Matter have an "insidious Marxism to it"? And what is your definition of Marxism?
The founder stated that her and her co-founder are "trained Marxists". Their trainer was Susan Rosenberg, former member of the communist terror group M19CO, who happens to now be vice chair on the board of Thousand Currents, the non-profit organization which funds BLM. (After her prison sentence was commuted by Bill Clinton).
They describe themselves as a continuation of the "Black liberation movement" (careful wording to not directly link themselves to the terrorist BLA, who were part of M19CO, but there's a striking resemblance in the demands of the BLA and the BLM).
There are plenty of other "offhand" comments these co-founders have made, declaring themselves to be "anti-capitalist", against the nuclear-family, "abolitionist" (referring to abolishing the police and the state).
Oh, and they keep the best company, as you do: https://twitter.com/abogadosvenezu1/status/12700347462618030...
No rational justification? Perhaps you can point me to something suggesting they're not a Marxist organization? Maybe they once made an off-hand comment in support of private property for example?
If it quacks like a duck...
They describe themselves as a continuation of the "Black liberation movement" (careful wording to not directly link themselves to the terrorist BLA, who were part of M19CO, but there's a striking resemblance in the demands of the BLA and the BLM).
There are plenty of other "offhand" comments these co-founders have made, declaring themselves to be "anti-capitalist", against the nuclear-family, "abolitionist" (referring to abolishing the police and the state).
Oh, and they keep the best company, as you do: https://twitter.com/abogadosvenezu1/status/12700347462618030...
No rational justification? Perhaps you can point me to something suggesting they're not a Marxist organization? Maybe they once made an off-hand comment in support of private property for example?
If it quacks like a duck...
“Black lives matter” is not an organization. It’s a simple statement that affirms that black lives should matter as much as white lives do. People say it today because data clearly show that in our society today, they don’t.
Mitt Romney says “black lives matter”... do you think he is an insidious Marxist? (For those not familiar with Romney, he got rich running a hedge fund and ran for president as a Republican.)
Yes there are a few people who are taking the phrase and adding in their own economic politics. Framing the entire movement based on those few people is the sort of bad-faith argument I’m complaining about above.
Mitt Romney says “black lives matter”... do you think he is an insidious Marxist? (For those not familiar with Romney, he got rich running a hedge fund and ran for president as a Republican.)
Yes there are a few people who are taking the phrase and adding in their own economic politics. Framing the entire movement based on those few people is the sort of bad-faith argument I’m complaining about above.
This is precisely what I was saying above: unable to separate the phrase from the organization. BLM is an organization. It was created in 2013, way before the recent protests, on tumblr and later got its own website and funding (via Susan Rosenberg, former ally of the BLA). BLM seized the opportunity from the current protests to put itself into the spotlight - not black lives, but their organization, which they've openly declared as anti-capitalists who want to abolish existing institutions of the state.
The media are at fault for making BLM the "face" of the protests. Not the phrase, but the organization.
This is no accident. It has been done deliberately so that if you criticize the organization "Black Lives Matter", you are seen to be criticizing the phrase "black lives matter", which suggests you don't care about black lives. BLM are using people's natural sympathy for the black cause to promote another agenda, which has little to do with black lives and a lot more to do with communism.
The vast majority of people, left or right will agree that "black lives matter", almost to the point where even saying it is moot. The tiny fraction of actual racists might disagree, and it might seem like there are many more of them than there really are - with some celebrities having to manufacture hate crimes because the supply of racism isn't meeting the demand that the left-wing media needs.
If I refuse to shout "black lives matter" or take the knee in solidarity with the mob, it isn't because I'm racist or think that black lives don't matter - it is because I don't agree with the BLM and don't want to endorse it in any way. I also don't owe anyone anything - nor do I believe most of these modern day "victims" are owed anything by anyone, and they're certainly not going to end racism by trying to swing the pendulum the other way - they seem to be stoking the flames (Both by increasing anti-white racism and in turn causing a reactionary rise in racism on the far right).
I can understand the historical plight of blacks and how some of that persecution still bleeds into modern day institutions - but I don't agree with the BLM on how this should be solved. Obviously, my opinion doesn't matter because I must "shut up and let black people speak." See where this is going? The BLM make the rules, you must conform or be "cancelled" by getting labelled as racist if you don't agree. No room for debate, no discussion on how we might actually fix the issues - just empty demands to shut down institutions and bring about a communist revolution.
The media are at fault for making BLM the "face" of the protests. Not the phrase, but the organization.
This is no accident. It has been done deliberately so that if you criticize the organization "Black Lives Matter", you are seen to be criticizing the phrase "black lives matter", which suggests you don't care about black lives. BLM are using people's natural sympathy for the black cause to promote another agenda, which has little to do with black lives and a lot more to do with communism.
The vast majority of people, left or right will agree that "black lives matter", almost to the point where even saying it is moot. The tiny fraction of actual racists might disagree, and it might seem like there are many more of them than there really are - with some celebrities having to manufacture hate crimes because the supply of racism isn't meeting the demand that the left-wing media needs.
If I refuse to shout "black lives matter" or take the knee in solidarity with the mob, it isn't because I'm racist or think that black lives don't matter - it is because I don't agree with the BLM and don't want to endorse it in any way. I also don't owe anyone anything - nor do I believe most of these modern day "victims" are owed anything by anyone, and they're certainly not going to end racism by trying to swing the pendulum the other way - they seem to be stoking the flames (Both by increasing anti-white racism and in turn causing a reactionary rise in racism on the far right).
I can understand the historical plight of blacks and how some of that persecution still bleeds into modern day institutions - but I don't agree with the BLM on how this should be solved. Obviously, my opinion doesn't matter because I must "shut up and let black people speak." See where this is going? The BLM make the rules, you must conform or be "cancelled" by getting labelled as racist if you don't agree. No room for debate, no discussion on how we might actually fix the issues - just empty demands to shut down institutions and bring about a communist revolution.
I’m sorry but you are mistaken. Yes, there is an organization called “Black Lives Matter.” No it is not behind all the protests, nor is it in charge of the movement, nor is the press elevating it.
It has the approximate relationship to the protests as the Unitarian Church has to all of Christianity.
From your comments, I think you may have a diet of information that is too narrow. A few media outlets aggressively conflate the movement and the organization in an effort to use discomfort with one (the org) to gin up discomfort with the entire topic of racial equality.
I encourage you to think about a simple question: if Mitt Romney, who is clearly not a Marxist will say “black lives matter,” why won’t you? How can your concern be economics if conservative capitalists are saying it?
EDIT to add an example maybe more familiar it HN readers. There’s an open source movement, and an organization called the Open Source Initiative, which dates from the same time and even claims to have helped invent the term.
When you hear someone talk about “open source,” or read a news article that mentions “open source,” do you think they are talking about the broad social movement, or about the OSI specifically? The movement, right? Well it’s the same with Black Lives Matter, which is a rallying cry that is used widely and not owned by any particular small group of people.
It has the approximate relationship to the protests as the Unitarian Church has to all of Christianity.
From your comments, I think you may have a diet of information that is too narrow. A few media outlets aggressively conflate the movement and the organization in an effort to use discomfort with one (the org) to gin up discomfort with the entire topic of racial equality.
I encourage you to think about a simple question: if Mitt Romney, who is clearly not a Marxist will say “black lives matter,” why won’t you? How can your concern be economics if conservative capitalists are saying it?
EDIT to add an example maybe more familiar it HN readers. There’s an open source movement, and an organization called the Open Source Initiative, which dates from the same time and even claims to have helped invent the term.
When you hear someone talk about “open source,” or read a news article that mentions “open source,” do you think they are talking about the broad social movement, or about the OSI specifically? The movement, right? Well it’s the same with Black Lives Matter, which is a rallying cry that is used widely and not owned by any particular small group of people.
Why do you need to get me to utter the phrase "black lives matter" specifically? Why can you not settle with, "I care about ending all forms of racism," as stated above, or even "I care about black lives"?
The specific phrase "black lives matter" is required because it is the same as the organization - it is designed to conflate.
Are you specifically able to say "I don't necessarily agree with Black Lives Matter?" (Think carefully, because the far-left are experts at taking something you say out of context)
The primary media outlets putting BLM at the helm of the protests have been left-wing media outlets. In the UK, it has been the BBC, Channel 4 and The Guardian.
> When you hear someone talk about “open source,” or read a news article that mentions “open source,” do you think they are talking about the broad social movement, or about the OSI specifically?
This one is interesting because the OSI claims itself the arbiter of the term "open source," and there has been much debate on this issue, for example surrounding MongoDB's attempt to call their SSPI license an "open source" license, despite not being accepted by the OSI or meeting their "open source definition" because it discriminates based on field of endeavour.
The specific phrase "black lives matter" is required because it is the same as the organization - it is designed to conflate.
Are you specifically able to say "I don't necessarily agree with Black Lives Matter?" (Think carefully, because the far-left are experts at taking something you say out of context)
The primary media outlets putting BLM at the helm of the protests have been left-wing media outlets. In the UK, it has been the BBC, Channel 4 and The Guardian.
> When you hear someone talk about “open source,” or read a news article that mentions “open source,” do you think they are talking about the broad social movement, or about the OSI specifically?
This one is interesting because the OSI claims itself the arbiter of the term "open source," and there has been much debate on this issue, for example surrounding MongoDB's attempt to call their SSPI license an "open source" license, despite not being accepted by the OSI or meeting their "open source definition" because it discriminates based on field of endeavour.
There is no way you are informed... Who do you think you are helping by doing that?
This kind of turning on people who agree with you in principle but might have some of the details wrong is exactly the kind of fractally magnifying divisiveness that some of these subthreads are talking about.
We are all largely on the same side w.r.t. wanting positive outcomes for everyone. We will get there through deescalation and cooperation (not that I am perfect at either).
This kind of turning on people who agree with you in principle but might have some of the details wrong is exactly the kind of fractally magnifying divisiveness that some of these subthreads are talking about.
We are all largely on the same side w.r.t. wanting positive outcomes for everyone. We will get there through deescalation and cooperation (not that I am perfect at either).
> This kind of turning on people who agree with you in principle but might have some of the details wrong is exactly the kind of fractally magnifying divisiveness that some of these subthreads are talking about.
> We are all largely on the same side w.r.t. wanting positive outcomes for everyone. We will get there through deescalation and cooperation (not that I am perfect at either).
I'm gonna take this and run with it.
IMO, one of the major things that drives "cancel culture" is concern about "concern trolling". I spend a decent amount of time on Reddit, and I've been downvoted to oblivion in the past for expressing nuanced views on some political topics. It's frustrating; yet, I can understand it. Between brigades and individual trolls, there absolutely are actors who get "some of the details wrong" in bad faith.
It all comes back to Poe's law. IRL there's body language and other clues that someone might not be arguing genuinely. On the internet it's extremely difficult to tell the difference. Without moderation, this can lead to things getting out of hand.
> We are all largely on the same side w.r.t. wanting positive outcomes for everyone. We will get there through deescalation and cooperation (not that I am perfect at either).
I'm gonna take this and run with it.
IMO, one of the major things that drives "cancel culture" is concern about "concern trolling". I spend a decent amount of time on Reddit, and I've been downvoted to oblivion in the past for expressing nuanced views on some political topics. It's frustrating; yet, I can understand it. Between brigades and individual trolls, there absolutely are actors who get "some of the details wrong" in bad faith.
It all comes back to Poe's law. IRL there's body language and other clues that someone might not be arguing genuinely. On the internet it's extremely difficult to tell the difference. Without moderation, this can lead to things getting out of hand.
When you say "Everything the protestors are doing has probably set us back a decade." it really doesn't sound like you agree with the protestors. So maybe if you do agree with them, don't say things that undermine them, or they'll respond in kind.
Saying "Everything the protestors are doing has probably set us back a decade." isn't deescalating or cooperating, and insisting that the protestors need to deescalate and cooperate after you say something uninformed and inflammatory is self-centered, it implies that whatever you were doing is better than what they were doing. That they need to cooperate with you, but you don't need to cooperate with them. That it's their responsibility to deescalate, not yours. And, well, that really doesn't sound like cooperation to me.
Saying "Everything the protestors are doing has probably set us back a decade." isn't deescalating or cooperating, and insisting that the protestors need to deescalate and cooperate after you say something uninformed and inflammatory is self-centered, it implies that whatever you were doing is better than what they were doing. That they need to cooperate with you, but you don't need to cooperate with them. That it's their responsibility to deescalate, not yours. And, well, that really doesn't sound like cooperation to me.
IMO the more charitable reading of that is "everything [I've heard about the] protestors doing", in which case the blame lies on biased information sources, not directly on our fellow commenter.
So, again IMO, a productive reply might be, "Data shows that most of the protestors are peaceful, but I do acknowledge there are some bad actors that are getting the bulk of the attention. Maybe we can brainstorm solutions to this attention bias at the same time we try to solve these other problems."
So, again IMO, a productive reply might be, "Data shows that most of the protestors are peaceful, but I do acknowledge there are some bad actors that are getting the bulk of the attention. Maybe we can brainstorm solutions to this attention bias at the same time we try to solve these other problems."
You've sidestepped the main point, which was that they first escalated and then you've made it the other person's responsibility to de-escalate. I'm asking why it is not the original persons' responsibility to pick their words carefully so as to not escalate in the first place.
I just replied at the bottom of the thread. I'm not trying to single you out. Everyone has their part to play, but someone has to go first.
[As an aside, I just realized this is where a neutral arbiter can be valuable, someone who can say calmly what either side can't. I am thinking specifically about a STTNG episode.]
[As an aside, I just realized this is where a neutral arbiter can be valuable, someone who can say calmly what either side can't. I am thinking specifically about a STTNG episode.]
A lot of these protesters seem to be willingly acting as shields for the brick-throwers.
How many times have we seen a black-clad (thus like the 'secret police' unidentifiable and unaccountable) brick thrower seek shelter in the crowd of "peaceful" protesters?
How many times have we seen a black-clad (thus like the 'secret police' unidentifiable and unaccountable) brick thrower seek shelter in the crowd of "peaceful" protesters?
The protesters are there on their own initiative to express their own opinion. They should not have to stop because a few bad actors show up and try to hide in them.
It would be like saying no one should go to the market because a few pickpockets use the big crowd to hide in.
People don’t go to the market to hide pickpockets. And protesters don’t protest to hide brick-throwers.
It would be like saying no one should go to the market because a few pickpockets use the big crowd to hide in.
People don’t go to the market to hide pickpockets. And protesters don’t protest to hide brick-throwers.
These protests are possibly the single largest protests for civil rights in the country's history. It is estimated that between 15 and 26 million Americans protested. Roughly 6% to 10% of the US adult population. If after almost 1 in 10 Americans protesting for the same thing you're pushing, you think you're less capable of succeeding at your job, I think you may want to question your approach.
And I don't mean that disrespectfully. I mean that in a sincere way. These protests were Americans saying that more of the same won't work. Yet another police sensitivity training class won't work. Yet one more less than lethal weapon won't work. Meeting with community leaders isn't sufficient. Raising the police budget so they can address this concerns isn't the answer. That's all been happening for a quarter of a century at this point and it's still fundamentally broken.
Almost 1 in 10 people are saying, we need a fundamentally different approach w.r.t. to policing. Police don't need to be called in for every mental health case, for every role of a social worker, for patroling schools and "arresting" kids because middle schoolers got into a fight.
The fact that out of ~20 million people, including plenty of outside agitators that disagreed with the protests and participated maliciously trying to discredit them, that the vast overwhelming majority have been peaceful is a testament.
The system is fundamentally broken, and has acquired sufficient power to resist all of the normal checks and balances. That's when protests is most useful - to raise awareness of what is truly happening and advocate for change.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-flo...
And I don't mean that disrespectfully. I mean that in a sincere way. These protests were Americans saying that more of the same won't work. Yet another police sensitivity training class won't work. Yet one more less than lethal weapon won't work. Meeting with community leaders isn't sufficient. Raising the police budget so they can address this concerns isn't the answer. That's all been happening for a quarter of a century at this point and it's still fundamentally broken.
Almost 1 in 10 people are saying, we need a fundamentally different approach w.r.t. to policing. Police don't need to be called in for every mental health case, for every role of a social worker, for patroling schools and "arresting" kids because middle schoolers got into a fight.
The fact that out of ~20 million people, including plenty of outside agitators that disagreed with the protests and participated maliciously trying to discredit them, that the vast overwhelming majority have been peaceful is a testament.
The system is fundamentally broken, and has acquired sufficient power to resist all of the normal checks and balances. That's when protests is most useful - to raise awareness of what is truly happening and advocate for change.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-flo...
I think it's important to step back see the bigger picture. Your comment IMO is exactly what PG is talking about when he defines "aggressively conventional" (down to using the actions of the masses to support your POV). A perfect system cannot exist, and getting there is limited by economics -> diminishing returns.
It seems like you are pushing for a social structure that will consume American freedom to lower rate of failure (which is a drop in the ocean considering our population size) from our social system.
The system is not fundamentally broken, it's just human; comprised and run by humans.
It seems like you are pushing for a social structure that will consume American freedom to lower rate of failure (which is a drop in the ocean considering our population size) from our social system.
The system is not fundamentally broken, it's just human; comprised and run by humans.
Who knows what PG thinks on that issue, his post lacked any specifics, other than slavery is bad.
I have a number of disagreements with your comment.
The first is the following:
1. OP posted that they've been trying something for many years and it hasn't produced the end result people want
2. An unprecedentedly large protest event has happened
3. I'm suggesting that OP should use the awareness of this new event to consider a new approach.
4. You characterize the above as "aggressively conventional".
If saying someone should take new knowledge and do something different in your opinion is "aggressively conventional", then I reach one of two conclusions.
Either
a. You have a very different understanding of "conventional" than PG meant.
b. It illustrates the uselessness of PGs framework for delineating conventionality, conformity and action.
My opinion is it's actually option "b". PG has essentially framed any opinion that someone advocates for, that he (and via implication the reader) strong disagrees with as being conventional, and any opinion that he or the reader advocates for as independent.
PG got a BA in from Cornell, an MS and Phd from Harvard. He went to study fine arts at Rhode Island school of design, and then at an art school in Florence. Following by going into business, and starting a company. I have nothing against any of those, and in fact thing it's a great path and laud him for the hard work and decidation of doing it. But it's true, that it's almost impossible to be in and leverage any more traditional, conventional methods of success in society than that. That is as conventional as it get. And yet he labels himself as independent. Amongst people who went to Ivy Leagues and started a company he advocated for something somewhat different (you can make more money doing X than by doing Y), but honestly it's pretty darn conventional. It's like being the rebel on Wall St., or the punk rocker that dyes their hair orange instead of the typical pink. He calls out teenagers, but doesn't see how exactly he's in that same mold.
Now directly on "conventional". Everything has been done before. Protests have happened before, people in power have used it to suppress ideas, there have been pandemics, there have been new technologies. If your definition of conventional is "has this ever happened", then from knowing even a tiny slice of history - exactly everything ever is conventional.
If you choose your definition of conventional to be more practical than "everything that ever happens", you come to a definition of conventional being supportive of those ideas, structures and systems of the existing groups in power. And independent meaning pushing ideas against them. Leveraging a non-infinite definition of "conventional" your argument above no longer makes sense. It becomes clear that you're arguing for using the conventional methods of trying to reform the system, which is what haven't been working. You are arguing for conventional thinking, while denouncing it.
> It seems like you are pushing for a social structure that will consume American freedom to lower rate of failure ... from our social system.
This is uninterpretable to me. I'm not even certain what social structure you're accusing me of pushing.
> The system is not fundamentally broken, it's just human; comprised and run by humans.
And this again to me seems to be the fallacy/oversimplification you've used. Because a system is comprised of and run by humans it not fundamentally broken? Every system is comprised of humans. That means you're arguing that no system can ever exist that can be broken. Again you're using a label and try to have it encompass the infinite. The fact a system is comprised of humans doesn't mean it can't be broken.
The first is the following:
1. OP posted that they've been trying something for many years and it hasn't produced the end result people want
2. An unprecedentedly large protest event has happened
3. I'm suggesting that OP should use the awareness of this new event to consider a new approach.
4. You characterize the above as "aggressively conventional".
If saying someone should take new knowledge and do something different in your opinion is "aggressively conventional", then I reach one of two conclusions.
Either
a. You have a very different understanding of "conventional" than PG meant.
b. It illustrates the uselessness of PGs framework for delineating conventionality, conformity and action.
My opinion is it's actually option "b". PG has essentially framed any opinion that someone advocates for, that he (and via implication the reader) strong disagrees with as being conventional, and any opinion that he or the reader advocates for as independent.
PG got a BA in from Cornell, an MS and Phd from Harvard. He went to study fine arts at Rhode Island school of design, and then at an art school in Florence. Following by going into business, and starting a company. I have nothing against any of those, and in fact thing it's a great path and laud him for the hard work and decidation of doing it. But it's true, that it's almost impossible to be in and leverage any more traditional, conventional methods of success in society than that. That is as conventional as it get. And yet he labels himself as independent. Amongst people who went to Ivy Leagues and started a company he advocated for something somewhat different (you can make more money doing X than by doing Y), but honestly it's pretty darn conventional. It's like being the rebel on Wall St., or the punk rocker that dyes their hair orange instead of the typical pink. He calls out teenagers, but doesn't see how exactly he's in that same mold.
Now directly on "conventional". Everything has been done before. Protests have happened before, people in power have used it to suppress ideas, there have been pandemics, there have been new technologies. If your definition of conventional is "has this ever happened", then from knowing even a tiny slice of history - exactly everything ever is conventional.
If you choose your definition of conventional to be more practical than "everything that ever happens", you come to a definition of conventional being supportive of those ideas, structures and systems of the existing groups in power. And independent meaning pushing ideas against them. Leveraging a non-infinite definition of "conventional" your argument above no longer makes sense. It becomes clear that you're arguing for using the conventional methods of trying to reform the system, which is what haven't been working. You are arguing for conventional thinking, while denouncing it.
> It seems like you are pushing for a social structure that will consume American freedom to lower rate of failure ... from our social system.
This is uninterpretable to me. I'm not even certain what social structure you're accusing me of pushing.
> The system is not fundamentally broken, it's just human; comprised and run by humans.
And this again to me seems to be the fallacy/oversimplification you've used. Because a system is comprised of and run by humans it not fundamentally broken? Every system is comprised of humans. That means you're arguing that no system can ever exist that can be broken. Again you're using a label and try to have it encompass the infinite. The fact a system is comprised of humans doesn't mean it can't be broken.
If the mayor of Portland joins them, and many of them just chant "fuck Ted Wheeler" at him, maybe they need to come to the table with solutions rather than just problem?
> Do you really think that's what people are complaining about here? Not the professors being fired, the well known economists being forced to resign? There was a professor who lost his status running a residence hall because he was on the legal defense team for someone despicable.
So the only actual example I was able to google here was the last one: and I have to say, is that it? A guy wasn’t asked back as a dorm administrator once he joined Harvey Weinstein’s legal team? That’s the “cancel culture” you’re talking about, in contrast to one of the most brutal and grotesque onslaught of police brutality in the west in recent memory?
Like you realise the protests were sparked off by a murder, right?
This is what I mean when I say it’s ridiculous. The Harvard guy didn’t even lose his job, for goodness’ sake.
> Everything the protestors are doing has probably set us back a decade.
Where did I defend or endorse the actions of protestors? My point is simply that it’s ridiculous to think the main authoritarian crisis in the US right now is “cancel culture” when it is literally in the midst of a brutal police crackdown against protestors.
Also I’m sorry but it’s hard to take you seriously with regards to police violence when you didn’t mention a single thing the police did wrong in your list of grievances, but you’re happy to talk about the protestors.
> every major spike in crime due to police being defunded instead of retrained
This is not a view supported by the evidence.
> We have a legal and social framework for affecting longterm change and it works much better than arson.
The US has more prisoners per capita than any society at any point in history in the world. The police are armed and violent. And those systems which apparently work so well have been in place throughout all this. But maybe you should tell me more about how these systems work so well.
Also I’m continually amazed that Americans forget their proud history of violent protest so quickly. It always seems like protest against injustice was fine in some unspecified “past” but of course all of that Is behind us now and The best we can do is vote (vote for the party at least partly responsible for the state of the police today, by the way).
So the only actual example I was able to google here was the last one: and I have to say, is that it? A guy wasn’t asked back as a dorm administrator once he joined Harvey Weinstein’s legal team? That’s the “cancel culture” you’re talking about, in contrast to one of the most brutal and grotesque onslaught of police brutality in the west in recent memory?
Like you realise the protests were sparked off by a murder, right?
This is what I mean when I say it’s ridiculous. The Harvard guy didn’t even lose his job, for goodness’ sake.
> Everything the protestors are doing has probably set us back a decade.
Where did I defend or endorse the actions of protestors? My point is simply that it’s ridiculous to think the main authoritarian crisis in the US right now is “cancel culture” when it is literally in the midst of a brutal police crackdown against protestors.
Also I’m sorry but it’s hard to take you seriously with regards to police violence when you didn’t mention a single thing the police did wrong in your list of grievances, but you’re happy to talk about the protestors.
> every major spike in crime due to police being defunded instead of retrained
This is not a view supported by the evidence.
> We have a legal and social framework for affecting longterm change and it works much better than arson.
The US has more prisoners per capita than any society at any point in history in the world. The police are armed and violent. And those systems which apparently work so well have been in place throughout all this. But maybe you should tell me more about how these systems work so well.
Also I’m continually amazed that Americans forget their proud history of violent protest so quickly. It always seems like protest against injustice was fine in some unspecified “past” but of course all of that Is behind us now and The best we can do is vote (vote for the party at least partly responsible for the state of the police today, by the way).
>So the only actual example I was able to google here was the last one: and I have to say, is that it?
125 examples (so far) of regular people losing their job or being threatened for thoughtcrime: https://twitter.com/SoOppressed/status/1282404647160942598
125 examples (so far) of regular people losing their job or being threatened for thoughtcrime: https://twitter.com/SoOppressed/status/1282404647160942598
> Like you realise the protests were sparked off by a murder, right?
It wasn't a murder. I suggest you read the transcript from Lane's body camera. Key points:
* Lane approaches George Floyd asks him to show his hands. Floyd is so high, he has difficulty complying.
* They take him out of his car and try to get him in the police car.
* Floyd claims he can't breathe and begs to be allowed to lie on the ground.
* They call the ambulance (unclear if this is before after he is put on the ground).
* He keeps talking for a few minutes, before losing consciousness.
https://www.fox9.com/news/transcript-of-officers-body-camera...
It wasn't a murder. I suggest you read the transcript from Lane's body camera. Key points:
* Lane approaches George Floyd asks him to show his hands. Floyd is so high, he has difficulty complying.
* They take him out of his car and try to get him in the police car.
* Floyd claims he can't breathe and begs to be allowed to lie on the ground.
* They call the ambulance (unclear if this is before after he is put on the ground).
* He keeps talking for a few minutes, before losing consciousness.
https://www.fox9.com/news/transcript-of-officers-body-camera...
Wow, that was so nice of the police to let him lie down when he asked.
Then to thoughtfully apply a knee to his neck to prevent him from flying up into the sky if gravitational attraction were to suddenly reverse, so very helpful and just! And they kept at it for almost 9 minutes, such dedication to helping the public, wow.
Then to thoughtfully apply a knee to his neck to prevent him from flying up into the sky if gravitational attraction were to suddenly reverse, so very helpful and just! And they kept at it for almost 9 minutes, such dedication to helping the public, wow.
Wow, the police were so helpful!
> Like you realise the protests were sparked off by a murder, right?
And since then they've resulted in 17 deaths. Tit for tat? Were those 17 people guilty in that murder? Yes that initial act was wrong and we should address that, vandalizing businesses and setting federal property on fire has nothing to do with that original offense.
> it’s ridiculous to think the main authoritarian crisis in the US right now
You keep asserting this. You don't show evidence for this. What's the authoritarian crisis? That cops have qualified immunity? That's not new. Is it that you think poorly of the president? I think poorly of him too but he's not Mussolini.
You can't vaguely claim there's something wrong with a system and use that as an excuse for violence and destruction - especially when the violence and destruction isn't even targeted at the people you're accusing.
> you didn’t mention a single thing the police did wrong in your list of grievances
No I didn't because it's not relevant. You're creating a strawman when the reality of the situation is complicated. This isn't cops versus protesters and attempts to cast it as a binary problem is partisanship. If you're interested in solving problems instead of stirring up anger then your interest should be in understanding the problem and not polarizing sides.
> This is not a view supported by the evidence.
1. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/effect-higher-educa...
2. https://inpublicsafety.com/2014/07/how-education-impacts-pol...
> The US has more prisoners per capita than any society at any point in history in the world
That has nothing to do with this topic. Like, I agree that's a problem and we should address that by considering how we treat low level drug offenses, but it has nothing to do with police brutality and cancel culture.
> The police are armed and violent.
Police brutality has decreased mindbogglingly since the 1960s. Yes the police have more gear and we can talk about why it makes sense to do things like remove camo from their inventory and the pros/cons of using APCs, but that has nothing to do with canceling people and ruining their careers.
> But maybe you should tell me more about how these systems work so well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinated_American_...
> proud history of violent protest so quickly
Violence is not something to be proud of. A violent victory for one person is a funeral for another. Violence is against justice and it deprives the accused of reasonable and rational defense.
You talk so much against authoritarianism, but violence is the fundamental tool of it. Courts and ballot boxes are the tools of democracy.
And since then they've resulted in 17 deaths. Tit for tat? Were those 17 people guilty in that murder? Yes that initial act was wrong and we should address that, vandalizing businesses and setting federal property on fire has nothing to do with that original offense.
> it’s ridiculous to think the main authoritarian crisis in the US right now
You keep asserting this. You don't show evidence for this. What's the authoritarian crisis? That cops have qualified immunity? That's not new. Is it that you think poorly of the president? I think poorly of him too but he's not Mussolini.
You can't vaguely claim there's something wrong with a system and use that as an excuse for violence and destruction - especially when the violence and destruction isn't even targeted at the people you're accusing.
> you didn’t mention a single thing the police did wrong in your list of grievances
No I didn't because it's not relevant. You're creating a strawman when the reality of the situation is complicated. This isn't cops versus protesters and attempts to cast it as a binary problem is partisanship. If you're interested in solving problems instead of stirring up anger then your interest should be in understanding the problem and not polarizing sides.
> This is not a view supported by the evidence.
1. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/effect-higher-educa...
2. https://inpublicsafety.com/2014/07/how-education-impacts-pol...
> The US has more prisoners per capita than any society at any point in history in the world
That has nothing to do with this topic. Like, I agree that's a problem and we should address that by considering how we treat low level drug offenses, but it has nothing to do with police brutality and cancel culture.
> The police are armed and violent.
Police brutality has decreased mindbogglingly since the 1960s. Yes the police have more gear and we can talk about why it makes sense to do things like remove camo from their inventory and the pros/cons of using APCs, but that has nothing to do with canceling people and ruining their careers.
> But maybe you should tell me more about how these systems work so well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinated_American_...
> proud history of violent protest so quickly
Violence is not something to be proud of. A violent victory for one person is a funeral for another. Violence is against justice and it deprives the accused of reasonable and rational defense.
You talk so much against authoritarianism, but violence is the fundamental tool of it. Courts and ballot boxes are the tools of democracy.
> And since then they've resulted in 17 deaths.
Wait---are you seriously not going to count the people the police have killed? What is wrong with you?
Regardless, my point was not that the protests are justified (although of course they are: for someone who claims to work in "police reform" all you have been doing is defending the police and demonising protestors), but that to not identify the militarised police force brutalising protestors as a more important sign of authoritarianism than "cancel culture" is ridiculous.
That's why I mentioned the protests were started by a murder. Because when you claim cancel culture is this huge problem, and mention a Harvard professor not having one of his duties renewed, I think it's relevant to show how grotesquely out of proportion it is with the George Floyd protests.
> You keep asserting this. You don't show evidence for this.
I'm sorry: in what capacity have you been "working for police reform"? I'm really getting the feeling that that is an extremely inaccurate description of your job.
I haven't shown evidence for the police brutality in the US because I assumed you were aware of it. Are you not? Do you not understand that police officers murdering peaceful protestors is an authoritarian crisis?
> If you're interested in solving problems instead of stirring up anger then your interest should be in understanding the problem and not polarizing sides.
All of the "solutions" for how to stop police violence which come from American police amount to (surprisingly) giving the police more money. Kind of like how all of the "solutions" to gun violence involve giving more people guns (teachers, cops, etc.)
The way to curb police violence is to defund and demilitarise the police. This is what has worked in places outside of the US, and this is the only realistic approach.
> 1. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/effect-higher-educa.... > > 2. https://inpublicsafety.com/2014/07/how-education-impacts-pol....
This is not evidence for the claim that defunding the police causes a spike in crime.
> That has nothing to do with this topic.
Mass imprisonment is absolutely relevant to the question of the authoritarian nature of the police.
> Violence is not something to be proud of.
You can't think of a single instance of violent protest that you'd be proud of?
> You talk so much against authoritarianism, but violence is the fundamental tool of it.
It's difficult to take you seriously on the issue of police violence when you have yet to even acknowledge the horrific and obvious police brutality during the protests.
Wait---are you seriously not going to count the people the police have killed? What is wrong with you?
Regardless, my point was not that the protests are justified (although of course they are: for someone who claims to work in "police reform" all you have been doing is defending the police and demonising protestors), but that to not identify the militarised police force brutalising protestors as a more important sign of authoritarianism than "cancel culture" is ridiculous.
That's why I mentioned the protests were started by a murder. Because when you claim cancel culture is this huge problem, and mention a Harvard professor not having one of his duties renewed, I think it's relevant to show how grotesquely out of proportion it is with the George Floyd protests.
> You keep asserting this. You don't show evidence for this.
I'm sorry: in what capacity have you been "working for police reform"? I'm really getting the feeling that that is an extremely inaccurate description of your job.
I haven't shown evidence for the police brutality in the US because I assumed you were aware of it. Are you not? Do you not understand that police officers murdering peaceful protestors is an authoritarian crisis?
> If you're interested in solving problems instead of stirring up anger then your interest should be in understanding the problem and not polarizing sides.
All of the "solutions" for how to stop police violence which come from American police amount to (surprisingly) giving the police more money. Kind of like how all of the "solutions" to gun violence involve giving more people guns (teachers, cops, etc.)
The way to curb police violence is to defund and demilitarise the police. This is what has worked in places outside of the US, and this is the only realistic approach.
> 1. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/effect-higher-educa.... > > 2. https://inpublicsafety.com/2014/07/how-education-impacts-pol....
This is not evidence for the claim that defunding the police causes a spike in crime.
> That has nothing to do with this topic.
Mass imprisonment is absolutely relevant to the question of the authoritarian nature of the police.
> Violence is not something to be proud of.
You can't think of a single instance of violent protest that you'd be proud of?
> You talk so much against authoritarianism, but violence is the fundamental tool of it.
It's difficult to take you seriously on the issue of police violence when you have yet to even acknowledge the horrific and obvious police brutality during the protests.
Rioters aren't protesters and there is nothing even close to "brutal" happening to the rioters. If anything, the state is showing remarkable restraint. Imagine if this shit was happening in China or Russia.
If you/they get what you want out of all of this, a neo-marxist-anarcho-commune-socialist-green-whatever, no-rules, but lots of rules enforced randomly by the mob, THEN you'll see real brutal-ism like you saw in CHAZ when the 'security' force gunned down two teenagers who were joy riding in a stolen car. The fact that current rioters have no real fear is because they know that the police are extremely restrained in what they do. Getting tear gassed or (rarely) hit with a baton/bean-bag is nothing close to what real brutality is.
Also, the fact that you are not aware of the deep reaches of cancel culture today is because you are aggressively conformist with your peer group so you only get your information from sources that are deeply filtered.
If you/they get what you want out of all of this, a neo-marxist-anarcho-commune-socialist-green-whatever, no-rules, but lots of rules enforced randomly by the mob, THEN you'll see real brutal-ism like you saw in CHAZ when the 'security' force gunned down two teenagers who were joy riding in a stolen car. The fact that current rioters have no real fear is because they know that the police are extremely restrained in what they do. Getting tear gassed or (rarely) hit with a baton/bean-bag is nothing close to what real brutality is.
Also, the fact that you are not aware of the deep reaches of cancel culture today is because you are aggressively conformist with your peer group so you only get your information from sources that are deeply filtered.
We're not yet living in George Orwell's 1984 either, but just because we don't live in the worst possible timeline with a Ministry of Love doesn't mean we can't criticize or ask for improvement of conditions or policies in society today.
To brush off the actions of the police in the US as "not even close to brutal" and "showing remarkable restraint" is beyond callous and demonstrates some pretty bad faith and a lack of empathy on your part. I will remind you that this started over the murder of a man accused of using a fake $20 bill, and __human lives are more important than property__.
To brush off the actions of the police in the US as "not even close to brutal" and "showing remarkable restraint" is beyond callous and demonstrates some pretty bad faith and a lack of empathy on your part. I will remind you that this started over the murder of a man accused of using a fake $20 bill, and __human lives are more important than property__.
I do not condone police escalation and I agree that we have seen examples of indefensible police behavior. But the fact that the "CHAZ security force" -- ostensibly the good guys who hate police violence -- shot two unarmed black boys within a month of being formed makes me skeptical that protestors actually know how to make policing less violent.
> there is nothing even close to "brutal" happening to the rioters.
If you aren't going to believe me, and if you're not going to believe your eyes with regards to the multiple clear videos of police brutality, then maybe you should listen to the multiple international human rights organisations which have called for an end to the police brutality?
I mean what would even convince you that the police are brutalising protestors? What evidence are you missing? Surely there is just as much evidence for the US brutalising its citizens as there is for China or Russia doing so? (I am not saying the level of brutality is the same, mind you)
To be honest with you it's difficult to have a conversation with someone so out of touch with reality in this way: if you can't see that the US police are brutalising protestors you're maybe too far gone.
> The fact that current rioters have no real fear is because they know that the police are extremely restrained in what they do.
How many people have the police killed since the protests began?
> Getting tear gassed or (rarely) hit with a baton/bean-bag is nothing close to what real brutality is.
You know people were killed by tear gas? You know people lost eyes from rubber bullets?
> Also, the fact that you are not aware of the deep reaches of cancel culture today is because you are aggressively conformist with your peer group so you only get your information from sources that are deeply filtered.
In contrast to you, the well-read worldly individual who gets their news from news.ycombinator.com.
Go on, then: tell me about the horrific cases of cancel culture which I was shielded from in my bubble.
If you aren't going to believe me, and if you're not going to believe your eyes with regards to the multiple clear videos of police brutality, then maybe you should listen to the multiple international human rights organisations which have called for an end to the police brutality?
I mean what would even convince you that the police are brutalising protestors? What evidence are you missing? Surely there is just as much evidence for the US brutalising its citizens as there is for China or Russia doing so? (I am not saying the level of brutality is the same, mind you)
To be honest with you it's difficult to have a conversation with someone so out of touch with reality in this way: if you can't see that the US police are brutalising protestors you're maybe too far gone.
> The fact that current rioters have no real fear is because they know that the police are extremely restrained in what they do.
How many people have the police killed since the protests began?
> Getting tear gassed or (rarely) hit with a baton/bean-bag is nothing close to what real brutality is.
You know people were killed by tear gas? You know people lost eyes from rubber bullets?
> Also, the fact that you are not aware of the deep reaches of cancel culture today is because you are aggressively conformist with your peer group so you only get your information from sources that are deeply filtered.
In contrast to you, the well-read worldly individual who gets their news from news.ycombinator.com.
Go on, then: tell me about the horrific cases of cancel culture which I was shielded from in my bubble.
I agree.
I think it's a strong indicator when someone takes the most absurd or niche demand of a movement of millions of people seeking justice for some of the worst oppression and state violence as a way to dismiss the whole of that movement they're probably not operating in 100% good faith or they're consuming sources that aren't particularly balanced. Or they spend too much time on twitter, I'm definitely guilty of this, but twitter isn't the real world.
For example, I don't particularly care about the master/main debate about Github, it literally does not concern me, I do not care, but if people want it renamed, why not? And if someone thinks that demand (by whom, certainly not the protestors primary concern or probably even in the top 1000) is stupid why does that invalidate an entire movement to seek justice for people suffering horrendous violence?
These supposed cases of cancel culture just show how sad the lives of these supposedly cancelled people are.
In the UK there's supposedly a "trans mafia" intimidating journalists and beloved childrens authors. But there simply isn't, these anti trans obsessives think people commercially boycotting or calling them out are some malevolent oppressor. And they complain about it weekly to their audience of millions in the leading papers and magazines (Bari Weiss wasn't fired, she quit). Meanwhile in the real world trans people suffer huge mental health issues and violence, they literally want it to be easier to be who they are. I find the whole concept mystifying and can't begin to understand what it feels like to be trans. But trans people are telling us.
We should call people what they want to be called and make healthcare available to them. It's that simple. Someone is not being oppressed for not using the right pronouns they're being a jackass to vulnerable people and they should literally stop being obsessed with toilets. Life's too short, and if you're a poor African American or a trans person it's a whole lot shorter, on average, and anyone who uses rebranding food packaging to dismiss that truth is telling on themself
I think it's a strong indicator when someone takes the most absurd or niche demand of a movement of millions of people seeking justice for some of the worst oppression and state violence as a way to dismiss the whole of that movement they're probably not operating in 100% good faith or they're consuming sources that aren't particularly balanced. Or they spend too much time on twitter, I'm definitely guilty of this, but twitter isn't the real world.
For example, I don't particularly care about the master/main debate about Github, it literally does not concern me, I do not care, but if people want it renamed, why not? And if someone thinks that demand (by whom, certainly not the protestors primary concern or probably even in the top 1000) is stupid why does that invalidate an entire movement to seek justice for people suffering horrendous violence?
These supposed cases of cancel culture just show how sad the lives of these supposedly cancelled people are.
In the UK there's supposedly a "trans mafia" intimidating journalists and beloved childrens authors. But there simply isn't, these anti trans obsessives think people commercially boycotting or calling them out are some malevolent oppressor. And they complain about it weekly to their audience of millions in the leading papers and magazines (Bari Weiss wasn't fired, she quit). Meanwhile in the real world trans people suffer huge mental health issues and violence, they literally want it to be easier to be who they are. I find the whole concept mystifying and can't begin to understand what it feels like to be trans. But trans people are telling us.
We should call people what they want to be called and make healthcare available to them. It's that simple. Someone is not being oppressed for not using the right pronouns they're being a jackass to vulnerable people and they should literally stop being obsessed with toilets. Life's too short, and if you're a poor African American or a trans person it's a whole lot shorter, on average, and anyone who uses rebranding food packaging to dismiss that truth is telling on themself
So the Rowling example is a good case here. She was defending a woman who was fired for personally, outside of work, saying there should be safe spaces for women off limits to trans people.
You can disagree with the original claim and there's a good debate to be had there.
But firing someone for a private opinion, and not one calling for violence, is not aligned with my values.
Yes, Bari Weiss did resign because she was harassed in her workplace and her employer refused to resolve the situation. It's one thing to disagree with a coworker, it's another to repeatedly harass and demean them. Bullying someone into quitting isn't a definition of Justice that I agree with.
If someone doesn't want to use a "master branch" than more power to them. On the other hand, if you're going to attack and insult me until I follow your request then it's not a request - it's a demand. My response will be to decline following your demand.
Yes, you should address people as they want to be addressed and not be a jerk. Someone not following that behavior.. should still be treated like a human being. You don't get to doxx them and send them death threats because you disagree with their behavior.
You can disagree with the original claim and there's a good debate to be had there.
But firing someone for a private opinion, and not one calling for violence, is not aligned with my values.
Yes, Bari Weiss did resign because she was harassed in her workplace and her employer refused to resolve the situation. It's one thing to disagree with a coworker, it's another to repeatedly harass and demean them. Bullying someone into quitting isn't a definition of Justice that I agree with.
If someone doesn't want to use a "master branch" than more power to them. On the other hand, if you're going to attack and insult me until I follow your request then it's not a request - it's a demand. My response will be to decline following your demand.
Yes, you should address people as they want to be addressed and not be a jerk. Someone not following that behavior.. should still be treated like a human being. You don't get to doxx them and send them death threats because you disagree with their behavior.
I think with the Rowling Forstater case there's a nuance that her contract was not renewed, rather than being drummed out of the office in the middle of the day [0]. When you have a job representing an organisation there are expectations of how you act in your public role in a job and I would fully expect making discriminatory statements to see me not employed at a company if I didn't make an apology for them. I'd also expect making statements that talked down our product, or belittled a colleague, to be a disciplinary matter, we are professionals after all and if you want shoot the breeze with friends and family, twitter probably isn't the forum.
On Bari Weiss I've not really been following it, from a distance it seems like attention seeking. She's a public figure with a huge platform, people used their free speech to call her an idiot (no doubt tipping into abuse as the Internet tends to and that's a moderation issue). But we have a right to call columnists thick as shit. We all have a right of reply, speech is free (though less so in the UK where pretty much anything gets you sued for libel by free speech crusaders like Rowling). Speech isn't free of consequences, it doesn't exist in a vacuum and discriminatory and hostile speech has historically preceded violence against minority groups. As my previous comment getting downvoted shows, being in the outgroup on a forum can suck, but people don't have to uncritically upvote me and give me the warm fuzzies if they disagree.
Edit: typing on a phone so it's hard to do a long form reply. On the master thing, like I say I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, I'm happy for github to change it if only because it's shorter. I don't think it's a particularly valuable cause or hill to die on and I don't know of an instance of the enraged mob tearing down someone for keeping their branches named as master (though again they might use right of reply to call them a prick) but it's symbolic of white Liberal responses to injustice. We're not debating git branch names, except in the navel gazing tech world we inhabit. We're debating there being something like 5 days last year where the US police did not kill one or more people. We've (or rather for US readers, you've) got a president who wants to outlaw bail funds, protest medics, etc. The real cancel culture is the power wielded by states, as pretty much the entire ME for the past however many centuries could attest to or transgender, gay, black soldiers who serve or served the US in uniform, or corporations and lawyers, as blacklisted construction workers or Aaron Schwartz (sp) could tell you.
Discussions about whether we have to give Bari Weiss our eternal gratitude for excreting another column feel deeply unserious when they talk over real problems.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/18/judge-rules-...
On Bari Weiss I've not really been following it, from a distance it seems like attention seeking. She's a public figure with a huge platform, people used their free speech to call her an idiot (no doubt tipping into abuse as the Internet tends to and that's a moderation issue). But we have a right to call columnists thick as shit. We all have a right of reply, speech is free (though less so in the UK where pretty much anything gets you sued for libel by free speech crusaders like Rowling). Speech isn't free of consequences, it doesn't exist in a vacuum and discriminatory and hostile speech has historically preceded violence against minority groups. As my previous comment getting downvoted shows, being in the outgroup on a forum can suck, but people don't have to uncritically upvote me and give me the warm fuzzies if they disagree.
Edit: typing on a phone so it's hard to do a long form reply. On the master thing, like I say I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, I'm happy for github to change it if only because it's shorter. I don't think it's a particularly valuable cause or hill to die on and I don't know of an instance of the enraged mob tearing down someone for keeping their branches named as master (though again they might use right of reply to call them a prick) but it's symbolic of white Liberal responses to injustice. We're not debating git branch names, except in the navel gazing tech world we inhabit. We're debating there being something like 5 days last year where the US police did not kill one or more people. We've (or rather for US readers, you've) got a president who wants to outlaw bail funds, protest medics, etc. The real cancel culture is the power wielded by states, as pretty much the entire ME for the past however many centuries could attest to or transgender, gay, black soldiers who serve or served the US in uniform, or corporations and lawyers, as blacklisted construction workers or Aaron Schwartz (sp) could tell you.
Discussions about whether we have to give Bari Weiss our eternal gratitude for excreting another column feel deeply unserious when they talk over real problems.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/18/judge-rules-...
> We have a legal and social framework for affecting longterm change and it works much better than arson.
This is a non-sequitur. Police violence has (probably) been increasing for years[1]. Over the last 20 years the police have become more militarized and killings by police have increased even as crime rates have decreased sharply. Clearly the legal and social frameworks are not working.
[1] https://fee.org/articles/how-many-people-are-killed-by-polic...
This is a non-sequitur. Police violence has (probably) been increasing for years[1]. Over the last 20 years the police have become more militarized and killings by police have increased even as crime rates have decreased sharply. Clearly the legal and social frameworks are not working.
[1] https://fee.org/articles/how-many-people-are-killed-by-polic...
Police violence has (probably) been increasing for years
From what I've gathered, police violence has likely decreased at least compared to 50 years ago. I would argue fewer incidents, but much more publicity around them.
It wasn't unusual in the least for cops to rough up a suspect. Disrespect the police, well, you'll get a good beating because you're a criminal and no one will believe you.
This video about "Whistling Smith", a Vancouver cop in the 70's was really eye opening for me.[1]. Look at his interactions, you think that would fly today?
Same thing with this quote from a cop investigating biker gangs in Quebec in the 90's.
"Don't forget this before the Charter of Rights. You saw a guy walking up the street in his colors, you kicked the shit out of him, and that was it".[110] Bouchard argued that the "old school" methods of beating up outlaw bikers were far preferable to modern policing methods as outlaw bikers only respect violence.[2]
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ5oYz6uufU [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Boucher
From what I've gathered, police violence has likely decreased at least compared to 50 years ago. I would argue fewer incidents, but much more publicity around them.
It wasn't unusual in the least for cops to rough up a suspect. Disrespect the police, well, you'll get a good beating because you're a criminal and no one will believe you.
This video about "Whistling Smith", a Vancouver cop in the 70's was really eye opening for me.[1]. Look at his interactions, you think that would fly today?
Same thing with this quote from a cop investigating biker gangs in Quebec in the 90's.
"Don't forget this before the Charter of Rights. You saw a guy walking up the street in his colors, you kicked the shit out of him, and that was it".[110] Bouchard argued that the "old school" methods of beating up outlaw bikers were far preferable to modern policing methods as outlaw bikers only respect violence.[2]
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ5oYz6uufU [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Boucher
From [1]:
> There are a few reasons to be skeptical of this trend. Reporting might be a lot better in recent years, and reports in prior years (if they were made at all) may be increasingly difficult to find the further back you go. In addition, FE’s totals for the last three years — the years they consider most complete — are pretty flat.
> Like a puzzle missing most of the pieces, the data so far are interesting, but not illuminating.
> There are a few reasons to be skeptical of this trend. Reporting might be a lot better in recent years, and reports in prior years (if they were made at all) may be increasingly difficult to find the further back you go. In addition, FE’s totals for the last three years — the years they consider most complete — are pretty flat.
> Like a puzzle missing most of the pieces, the data so far are interesting, but not illuminating.
If you don't mind sharing, on what metrics (or other independently verifiable information) are we set back a decade? To make it easy on you and not go all "citation needed", names of the metrics will be sufficient. I'll go look at the numbers myself as close to 2010 as possible and as close to 2020 as possible and provide sources here, if I can.
Then if possible I'll compare last June to this June and see if it looks closer to June 2010.
Then if possible I'll compare last June to this June and see if it looks closer to June 2010.
It seems to me that we don't actually have a legal and social framework for affecting longterm change since its been co-opted by corporations and the ultra-rich. I just don't see any good alternatives.
But the reform way hasn't worked very well, if at all, either. Not saying that means one should revolt or anything, just that America seems like it's stuck between a rock and hard place, currently.
>But the reform way hasn't worked very well, if at all, either.
You don't see a difference between USA, 1960 and USA, 2020?
You don't see a difference between USA, 1960 and USA, 2020?
And you know what was the cause of the largest changes between 1960 and 2020? The civil rights protests.
And those protesters were disapproved of / hated by the majority of the population at the time. For upsetting the status quo - and "pushing for change to quickly". There are surveys that list this - that mirror the exact same responses that a number of people give today about BLM.
And those protesters were disapproved of / hated by the majority of the population at the time. For upsetting the status quo - and "pushing for change to quickly". There are surveys that list this - that mirror the exact same responses that a number of people give today about BLM.
> And you know what was the cause of the largest changes between 1960 and 2020? The civil rights protests.
So there was change that was achieved by non-revolutionary ways, but this time it's different? This time it needs to be riots and proclaiming autonomous zones of a weird mix of war lord justice and lawlessness? I'm not convinced.
So there was change that was achieved by non-revolutionary ways, but this time it's different? This time it needs to be riots and proclaiming autonomous zones of a weird mix of war lord justice and lawlessness? I'm not convinced.
My understanding is that inequality is much worse now than in the 60s. It also seems like back then it was much easier to have a good quality of life with a non-skilled job than it is today. However, I haven't looked into it too much so I could be mistaken.
Census data on percentage of blacks living in poverty.[1]
2018 - 23.3%
1966 - 31.1%
[1]https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...
2018 - 23.3%
1966 - 31.1%
[1]https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...
Not saying that you're making it at all but there is a very common error people make when looking at the poverty stats.
"The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps)." (https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidanc...)
After these programs, the poverty rate is reduced by 53% (https://www.nber.org/papers/w24567.pdf)
"The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps)." (https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidanc...)
After these programs, the poverty rate is reduced by 53% (https://www.nber.org/papers/w24567.pdf)
This is a good point and something I had heard before! You are correct this is before gov't transfers.
I was looking more at the relative change versus arguing the numbers were absolute.
I was looking more at the relative change versus arguing the numbers were absolute.
Thanks for posting this! Good to have numbers to discuss!
I'm having trouble opening the spreadsheets on my Mac. How do the numbers compare for all races? Do numbers like this factor in things like health insurance or renting versus owning a house?
I'm having trouble opening the spreadsheets on my Mac. How do the numbers compare for all races? Do numbers like this factor in things like health insurance or renting versus owning a house?
It goes beyond Twitter. Take a look at what happened at Evergreen State College in 2017 [1] and you will find close parallels with the Red Guards mentioned in this thread. This is just one incident.
Multiple people are telling you they have personally lived through similar things, and they are scared because these things did not end well. These people are aware of the events you believe pose the greater threat, and they disagree with you.
> I find it bizarre that comments like these seem to think the main battle ground for free speech is young people like myself "cancelling" people on twitter
I truly don't mean to be patronizing, but I will say the following because I believe there is a lot at stake and I'm trying to get you to see the other side of this. If you find this view "bizarre", maybe there is something important you are missing. Is there something these people see that you are missing?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_State_College#2017_p...
Multiple people are telling you they have personally lived through similar things, and they are scared because these things did not end well. These people are aware of the events you believe pose the greater threat, and they disagree with you.
> I find it bizarre that comments like these seem to think the main battle ground for free speech is young people like myself "cancelling" people on twitter
I truly don't mean to be patronizing, but I will say the following because I believe there is a lot at stake and I'm trying to get you to see the other side of this. If you find this view "bizarre", maybe there is something important you are missing. Is there something these people see that you are missing?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_State_College#2017_p...
Because there's a mechanism for changing that government: the upcoming presidential election. Whereas changing a cultural movement like the one we're watching unfold is a lot more difficult.
A lot of the people "being cancelled" on twitter are only freaking out because for the first time in forever, they get the direct opinion of people reading their texts unfiltered, and they find out that they are prey to criticism.
For example, Kelly Loeffler, claims to have been "cancelled" while being a sitting US senator.
Cancel culture by popular action is not new (see letter-writing to TV stations, Frank Zappa having to testify in front of congress about censorship for his music albums). The only thing freaking people out is that people who have traditionally been structurally shielded from criticism and direct action (and often behind the cancelling itself) are just now on the receiving end of it.
For example, Kelly Loeffler, claims to have been "cancelled" while being a sitting US senator.
Cancel culture by popular action is not new (see letter-writing to TV stations, Frank Zappa having to testify in front of congress about censorship for his music albums). The only thing freaking people out is that people who have traditionally been structurally shielded from criticism and direct action (and often behind the cancelling itself) are just now on the receiving end of it.
People expressing their opinions about one's ideas is not cancel culture: it's when critics go one step further and try to destroy the person they disagree with.
Many people have lost their livelihoods and even more are afraid to express their opinion at all because of the disproportionate cost they might incur.
People having been structurally shielded from mob justice in the past is a state worth returning to.
Many people have lost their livelihoods and even more are afraid to express their opinion at all because of the disproportionate cost they might incur.
People having been structurally shielded from mob justice in the past is a state worth returning to.
> Many people have lost their livelihoods
What are you referring to, specifically?
What are you referring to, specifically?
Good question! The phrase "many people" covers up the relative paucity of actual instances, as well as the exact nature of those instances.
Every person who loses their job to a misunderstanding is a tragedy to that person, and every person who loses their job claims it's due to a misunderstanding. We live in a polarized nation such that other companies seem to rush to hire those very same people on purpose, so it doesn't seem to be a huge tragedy, but I'm sure it feels tragic.
It also seems to happen very, very rarely, and usually after events that seem indefensible on their face. That is, rarely are people willing to say "they should have faced no consequences," but often people are willing to say "they should not have faced consequences quite that severe."
Every person who loses their job to a misunderstanding is a tragedy to that person, and every person who loses their job claims it's due to a misunderstanding. We live in a polarized nation such that other companies seem to rush to hire those very same people on purpose, so it doesn't seem to be a huge tragedy, but I'm sure it feels tragic.
It also seems to happen very, very rarely, and usually after events that seem indefensible on their face. That is, rarely are people willing to say "they should have faced no consequences," but often people are willing to say "they should not have faced consequences quite that severe."
If you can't be bothered to recognize even a single instance of this happening, then you've shut your eyes and ears.
I mean I was interested in examples. People disagree about what counts as a “cancelling” so I was looking to see what the person I was responding to was referring to, with some examples.
[deleted]
Mob justice hasn't been visible for a while often because regular justice was being used for direct oppression in its stead. Injustice is institutionalized, and so as long as the majority group does not see the mob, it does not see oppression even if it exists.
Tell me that for every person getting yelled at on Twitter you couldn't find countless more groups of minorities who have been denied justice over the years, whether because they are aborigines, black, lgbtqia+, or any other group of the kind. That open criticism and denial of cultures and ways of life wasn't just the default mode of operation. That one's life being valued less than someone else's property, beatings by police, harsher criminal sentences, and lack of equal rights wasn't just the mode of operation.
Getting yelled at on Twitter by people fed up with someone's bullshit is not even close to actual mob justice. It's just angry people shouting. Sometimes people shout enough that it turns to direct action (like letter-writing, which was used at least as far back as the 1800s), boycotts, and stuff like that. Today's cancel culture isn't mob justice any more than it was before, and it's not new.
Again, it's just a bunch of people who usually were never on the short end of the stick seeing its shadow pointed their way and freaking out.
Tell me that for every person getting yelled at on Twitter you couldn't find countless more groups of minorities who have been denied justice over the years, whether because they are aborigines, black, lgbtqia+, or any other group of the kind. That open criticism and denial of cultures and ways of life wasn't just the default mode of operation. That one's life being valued less than someone else's property, beatings by police, harsher criminal sentences, and lack of equal rights wasn't just the mode of operation.
Getting yelled at on Twitter by people fed up with someone's bullshit is not even close to actual mob justice. It's just angry people shouting. Sometimes people shout enough that it turns to direct action (like letter-writing, which was used at least as far back as the 1800s), boycotts, and stuff like that. Today's cancel culture isn't mob justice any more than it was before, and it's not new.
Again, it's just a bunch of people who usually were never on the short end of the stick seeing its shadow pointed their way and freaking out.
This is a complete non-sequitur.
Let's respond to injustice and oppression, by trying to extend a little bit of injustice and oppression to other people who haven't experienced it yet, just because we can.
How about less injustice and oppression all around?
Let's respond to injustice and oppression, by trying to extend a little bit of injustice and oppression to other people who haven't experienced it yet, just because we can.
How about less injustice and oppression all around?
It's an exceedingly common deflection. "Group X has suffered and/or is suffering worse, therefore your complaint can be ignored." It tends to come up sooner or later when someone complains about the negative impact of certain types of policies.
[deleted]
Actually, maybe that's an interesting viewpoint splitter. Would it be better if everyone who hit a zebra crossing button twice were arrested or if only 26-year-old Irish-Americans with less than $500k in their bank account were arrested for hitting the zebra crossing button twice?
The former has less overall state oppression. The latter imposes it on one group. It feels reasonable to me that they could say "If this is going to happen to me, it should also happen to everyone else. If no one else is getting this, then it shouldn't happen to me either." (p->q, ¬q->¬p)
But perhaps you believe that the first part of that is not acceptable and only the second part is.
The former has less overall state oppression. The latter imposes it on one group. It feels reasonable to me that they could say "If this is going to happen to me, it should also happen to everyone else. If no one else is getting this, then it shouldn't happen to me either." (p->q, ¬q->¬p)
But perhaps you believe that the first part of that is not acceptable and only the second part is.
"Many people have lost their livelihoods"
Hmm, sounds intriguing. Do you have any sources for this or concrete examples which can be fact-checked?
Hmm, sounds intriguing. Do you have any sources for this or concrete examples which can be fact-checked?
The ones I can find quickly:
* Nicholas Sandmann (for an image taken out of context)
* Tenured UNC Professor Mike Adams
* Goya Foods' CEO Bob Unanue (attempted)
* Terese Nielsen (allegedly)
* Grant Napear
* Justin Kucera (allegedly)
* Aleksander Katai
* Kathleen Lowry
* JK Rowling (attempted)
* Cornell Professor Dave Collum
* Stephen Hsu
* Leslie Neal-Boylan
* James Bennet
* Melissa Rolfe
* Emmanuel Cafferty
* Nicholas Sandmann (for an image taken out of context)
* Tenured UNC Professor Mike Adams
* Goya Foods' CEO Bob Unanue (attempted)
* Terese Nielsen (allegedly)
* Grant Napear
* Justin Kucera (allegedly)
* Aleksander Katai
* Kathleen Lowry
* JK Rowling (attempted)
* Cornell Professor Dave Collum
* Stephen Hsu
* Leslie Neal-Boylan
* James Bennet
* Melissa Rolfe
* Emmanuel Cafferty
Matt Taibbi's had a few good articles on this recently. Some excerpts:
"Cancelations already are happening too fast to track. In a phenomenon that will be familiar to students of Russian history, accusers are beginning to appear alongside the accused. Three years ago a popular Canadian writer named Hal Niedzviecki was denounced for expressing the opinion that “anyone, anywhere, should be encouraged to imagine other peoples, other cultures, other identities." He reportedly was forced out of the Writer’s Union of Canada for the crime of “cultural appropriation,” and denounced as a racist by many, including a poet named Gwen Benaway. The latter said Niedzviecki “doesn’t see the humanity of indigenous peoples.” Last week, Benaway herself was denounced on Twitter for failing to provide proof that she was Indigenous.
Michael Korenberg, the chair of the board at the University of British Columbia, was forced to resign for liking tweets by Dinesh D’Souza and Donald Trump, which you might think is fine – but what about Latino electrical worker Emmanuel Cafferty, fired after a white activist took a photo of him making an OK symbol (it was described online as a “white power” sign)? How about Sue Schafer, the heretofore unknown graphic designer the Washington Post decided to out in a 3000-word article for attending a Halloween party two years ago in blackface (a failed parody of a different blackface incident involving Megyn Kelly)? She was fired, of course. How was this news? Why was ruining this person’s life necessary?"
"Cancelations already are happening too fast to track. In a phenomenon that will be familiar to students of Russian history, accusers are beginning to appear alongside the accused. Three years ago a popular Canadian writer named Hal Niedzviecki was denounced for expressing the opinion that “anyone, anywhere, should be encouraged to imagine other peoples, other cultures, other identities." He reportedly was forced out of the Writer’s Union of Canada for the crime of “cultural appropriation,” and denounced as a racist by many, including a poet named Gwen Benaway. The latter said Niedzviecki “doesn’t see the humanity of indigenous peoples.” Last week, Benaway herself was denounced on Twitter for failing to provide proof that she was Indigenous.
Michael Korenberg, the chair of the board at the University of British Columbia, was forced to resign for liking tweets by Dinesh D’Souza and Donald Trump, which you might think is fine – but what about Latino electrical worker Emmanuel Cafferty, fired after a white activist took a photo of him making an OK symbol (it was described online as a “white power” sign)? How about Sue Schafer, the heretofore unknown graphic designer the Washington Post decided to out in a 3000-word article for attending a Halloween party two years ago in blackface (a failed parody of a different blackface incident involving Megyn Kelly)? She was fired, of course. How was this news? Why was ruining this person’s life necessary?"
Many people arguing against "cancel culture" like to say that it ruins people's lives when they're fired, and it's a statement that is inextricably rooted in privilege. Millions of people are fired or laid off every year - why should one only care when it's because someone said something and got cancelled?
I think there could be a few nuances:
- Since the internet does not forget, someone who is fired due to mob justice is likely to have it affect their ability to hold a job in the future in a way that isn't necessarily true for most firings or layoffs.
- Both losing ones job due to mob justice and due to other factors such as economics can ruin someone's life.
- Since the internet does not forget, someone who is fired due to mob justice is likely to have it affect their ability to hold a job in the future in a way that isn't necessarily true for most firings or layoffs.
- Both losing ones job due to mob justice and due to other factors such as economics can ruin someone's life.
[deleted]
[This is not a direct reply to your comment, but a comment on Hacker News itself.]
It's interesting that a couple of minutes ago, I was unable to even attempt to reply to wrren's comment. It was grayed out, and I guess you can't reply to grayed-out comments. I read the comment and saw an exploration of ideas, not something that would be destructive to the Hacker News community or experience. I reloaded the page, the comment is no longer gray, and I am now able to reply to it. I guess it's been upvoted into acceptability again, and eligible for further discussion.
Did I just imagine that there was no reply link after this comment? (It's an honest question, since this might be the first gray comment that I've tried to reply to.)
Ironically enough (given that Paul Graham founded it) Hacker News itself seems to provide tools for silencing unconventional ideas through downvoting (unconventional for HN.) Apparently, it's not a particularly new problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17612885
Seems like there's some aggressive conventionally-mindedness right here on Hacker News. It happens structurally, in the way downvoting unpopular ideas gets them silenced, and conventionally, in the way discussion about voting on Hacker News is discouraged.
It's interesting that a couple of minutes ago, I was unable to even attempt to reply to wrren's comment. It was grayed out, and I guess you can't reply to grayed-out comments. I read the comment and saw an exploration of ideas, not something that would be destructive to the Hacker News community or experience. I reloaded the page, the comment is no longer gray, and I am now able to reply to it. I guess it's been upvoted into acceptability again, and eligible for further discussion.
Did I just imagine that there was no reply link after this comment? (It's an honest question, since this might be the first gray comment that I've tried to reply to.)
Ironically enough (given that Paul Graham founded it) Hacker News itself seems to provide tools for silencing unconventional ideas through downvoting (unconventional for HN.) Apparently, it's not a particularly new problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17612885
Seems like there's some aggressive conventionally-mindedness right here on Hacker News. It happens structurally, in the way downvoting unpopular ideas gets them silenced, and conventionally, in the way discussion about voting on Hacker News is discouraged.
Deep threads hide the reply button temporarily as an anti-flamewar thing (You can still reply by clicking on the timestamp to go to the comments permalink, it's just intended to be a soft deterrent against too much back-and-forth). Purely downvotes shouldn't disable replies, only if a comment gets killed (by flags or automated filters) it gets disabled.
So, it's not related to whether a comment is grayed out, but to how deep it is and how recently it was posted. That's helpful to know. Thanks!
All communities, including this one, require curation and moderation. The down vote is a way to drive out "non-HN" ideas out of the square, as determined by the broad subset of HN users (and a small number of super users).
It isn't aggressively conventionally minded, it is pro social, as well as likely the only way to maintain a level of discourse that the majority wants.
It isn't aggressively conventionally minded, it is pro social, as well as likely the only way to maintain a level of discourse that the majority wants.
Of course a version of it existed, but the going concern with cancel culture is that it doesn't require much thought or effort to cancel someone now. Social media allows you to easily join a mob without judging a person deeply by yourself.
Because previous mobs were well known for their thoughtfulness and judgement?
Well previously you needed an actual physical mob so you had to get enough people local to the victim outraged enough to be convinced it's worth their time. That's a much higher bar than doxing someone and sending hate mail to everyone around them.
No - that's why it is a mob.
It does not make sense to me that we should say the actions of a government are less important to criticise or examine because we can vote on that government.
I didn't say they were less important, just that they're more easily solved.
They're more easy to take one concrete step to try to change. How much that will actually solve remains to be seen.
> protestors are being arrested by secret police in the US
I genuinely don't have reliable information to determine whether they are peaceful protestors or violent rioters, nor whether the police are secret or not. Where would I go to find out?
I genuinely don't have reliable information to determine whether they are peaceful protestors or violent rioters, nor whether the police are secret or not. Where would I go to find out?
Peaceful protestors being brutalised by police has been documented in almost countless cases by now.
I find it hard to believe that you're asking this is good faith, but if you you are then you can:
* Watch any one of the hundreds of videos documenting what I'm referring to.
* Read pretty much any major news source in the US documenting these cases.
I'm sorry that I don't have a specific source to point you to, but it's genuinely because there is just so much evidence for the statement that it's hard to pick out one thing.
As to the secret police question, that's really down to your definition of secret police.
* Watch any one of the hundreds of videos documenting what I'm referring to.
* Read pretty much any major news source in the US documenting these cases.
I'm sorry that I don't have a specific source to point you to, but it's genuinely because there is just so much evidence for the statement that it's hard to pick out one thing.
As to the secret police question, that's really down to your definition of secret police.
> Peaceful protestors being brutalised by police has been documented in almost countless cases by now
Yes, I've seen plenty of evidence for that[1]. On the other hand you said "protestors are being arrested by secret police in the US". That's quite a different claim and I haven't seen any evidence for that. I've heard a few reports and associated videos whose reliability I haven't been able to verify.
[1] For the avoidance of doubt my belief is that that kind of behaviour does not belong in a civilised society.
Yes, I've seen plenty of evidence for that[1]. On the other hand you said "protestors are being arrested by secret police in the US". That's quite a different claim and I haven't seen any evidence for that. I've heard a few reports and associated videos whose reliability I haven't been able to verify.
[1] For the avoidance of doubt my belief is that that kind of behaviour does not belong in a civilised society.
I assume you're aware of police obscuring their badge numbers, and refusing to identify themselves? That phenomenon is at least as common as the actual police violence.
While I have many problems with the following snopes article, I think the facts it presents are pretty incontrovertible:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/feds-unmarked-vans-portlan...
While I have many problems with the following snopes article, I think the facts it presents are pretty incontrovertible:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/feds-unmarked-vans-portlan...
> I assume you're aware of police obscuring their badge numbers, and refusing to identify themselves?
Er, is this what you would call secret police? The article's facts may be incontrovertible, but they don't agree with your description:
"What's Undetermined
While one person said he was detained without officers identifying themselves — and another viral video was interpreted by viewers as a case of the same thing — we have no verifiable evidence to prove or disprove whether agents in those cases explained for what federal agency they worked during the arrests."
Er, is this what you would call secret police? The article's facts may be incontrovertible, but they don't agree with your description:
"What's Undetermined
While one person said he was detained without officers identifying themselves — and another viral video was interpreted by viewers as a case of the same thing — we have no verifiable evidence to prove or disprove whether agents in those cases explained for what federal agency they worked during the arrests."
So what's undetermined in the snopes article is whether specifically those police that detained people in portland identified themselves or not.
When I spoke about officers not identifying themselves I was talking generally, about the other cases from outside of portland, of officers obscuring their badges and not identifying themselves.
But no, that's not really what I would count as secret police. I mean I think the distinction is a little arbitrary and before long you basically get to arguing definitions which is almost always a waste of time, but I think the actions of the police in the snopes article constitute an overstep that I think qualifies as authoritarian. Especially when those agencies were sent in specifically by the executive.
Also, I should point out that the line you quoted is the one I have a problem with:
> we have no verifiable evidence to prove or disprove whether agents in those cases explained for what federal agency they worked during the arrests.
That's a very strange sentence to me: like how could you even prove such a thing? Have a video of the entirety of the person's interaction with the police?
I think if we're being reasonable here that it's overwhelmingly likely the police didn't identify themselves in this case. But of course it's not feasible to have "evidence" for that kind of thing, so I suppose I can't go ahead and say I'm sure on the point.
When I spoke about officers not identifying themselves I was talking generally, about the other cases from outside of portland, of officers obscuring their badges and not identifying themselves.
But no, that's not really what I would count as secret police. I mean I think the distinction is a little arbitrary and before long you basically get to arguing definitions which is almost always a waste of time, but I think the actions of the police in the snopes article constitute an overstep that I think qualifies as authoritarian. Especially when those agencies were sent in specifically by the executive.
Also, I should point out that the line you quoted is the one I have a problem with:
> we have no verifiable evidence to prove or disprove whether agents in those cases explained for what federal agency they worked during the arrests.
That's a very strange sentence to me: like how could you even prove such a thing? Have a video of the entirety of the person's interaction with the police?
I think if we're being reasonable here that it's overwhelmingly likely the police didn't identify themselves in this case. But of course it's not feasible to have "evidence" for that kind of thing, so I suppose I can't go ahead and say I'm sure on the point.
I think the "secret police" part is a red herring. My opinion is that the federal police were justified defending the courthouse, but were not justified hunting around for suspects in vans, unmarked or not(this is the state police's job!), but I don't think too many would agree that the federal vs state divide is what's important, which is why I didn't bring it up initially. I feel the anger against the federal agents is not rooted in principle, but the principles are used as a rationalization for removing an opposing force to the protests.
Hopefully we can agree that it's well within police prerogative to prevent rioting, serious property damage(like trying set fire to buildings), possible violence. I am definitely willing to concede that Trump is a tactless brute, and sending the federal agents in like this was far from the best strategy. We could even perhaps tentatively agree that his actual goal is to disperse the protests under the guise of preventing rioting, but again, we'd have to agree first that the rioting is there.
Which brings me back to the original post - is there protesting or violent rioting? Both. Is there secret police or not? Not really - there should be police to monitor the protests and prevent the rioting. If the state police is unwilling to do it, then the federal police may have to step in, although I'd have preferred to exhaust B through Y instead of going straight from A-Z.
Hopefully we can agree that it's well within police prerogative to prevent rioting, serious property damage(like trying set fire to buildings), possible violence. I am definitely willing to concede that Trump is a tactless brute, and sending the federal agents in like this was far from the best strategy. We could even perhaps tentatively agree that his actual goal is to disperse the protests under the guise of preventing rioting, but again, we'd have to agree first that the rioting is there.
Which brings me back to the original post - is there protesting or violent rioting? Both. Is there secret police or not? Not really - there should be police to monitor the protests and prevent the rioting. If the state police is unwilling to do it, then the federal police may have to step in, although I'd have preferred to exhaust B through Y instead of going straight from A-Z.
> Hopefully we can agree that it's well within police prerogative to prevent rioting, serious property damage(like trying set fire to buildings), possible violence.
No, as it happens.
I mean I get I'm probably outside the Overton window for hacker news, but I think we could probably find common ground on the principle that whatever else, the police should not use deadly force to prevent vandalism. This should include rubber bullets and batons, and I believe that tear gas also is not justified to prevent vandalism.
I mean you have to understand that there are countries which don't experience the horrific brutality the US is going through right now. The police in these place isn't better because the government paid out millions to consultancy firms run by former cops, but because the role of the police is dramatically different, and almost always much smaller.
> I am definitely willing to concede that Trump is a tactless brute, and sending the federal agents in like this was far from the best strategy.
I don't like talking about Trump much in this context: the problem is far larger than him, and I think people talking about him alone are missing the point.
The problem is overly-powerful police departments and unions which have massive political power in the cities they operate. Violence is used to increase this power, which in turn increases their funding and capacity for violence.
We see this all the time with (for instance) the NYPD: their union directly threatened de Blasio's daughter, for instance. They also stopped patrolling in protest of the prosecution of their officers (famously crime dropped during this time).
The only way to stop the cycle is to cut the power.
No, as it happens.
I mean I get I'm probably outside the Overton window for hacker news, but I think we could probably find common ground on the principle that whatever else, the police should not use deadly force to prevent vandalism. This should include rubber bullets and batons, and I believe that tear gas also is not justified to prevent vandalism.
I mean you have to understand that there are countries which don't experience the horrific brutality the US is going through right now. The police in these place isn't better because the government paid out millions to consultancy firms run by former cops, but because the role of the police is dramatically different, and almost always much smaller.
> I am definitely willing to concede that Trump is a tactless brute, and sending the federal agents in like this was far from the best strategy.
I don't like talking about Trump much in this context: the problem is far larger than him, and I think people talking about him alone are missing the point.
The problem is overly-powerful police departments and unions which have massive political power in the cities they operate. Violence is used to increase this power, which in turn increases their funding and capacity for violence.
We see this all the time with (for instance) the NYPD: their union directly threatened de Blasio's daughter, for instance. They also stopped patrolling in protest of the prosecution of their officers (famously crime dropped during this time).
The only way to stop the cycle is to cut the power.
Something that occurred to me might be referenced by that is the phenomenon of unidentified government personnel arresting protestors in Portland recently. It has been reported that they did not wear anything identifying the agency they work in or the particular individual (i.e. no equivalent of a badge number).
Oregon just had their attempt to remove federal police thrown out.[1]
In a 14-page order, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman ruled that the state lacked legal standing to bring the suit and had “presented no evidence that these allegedly illegal seizures are a widespread practice.”
[1]https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-charges-18-p...
In a 14-page order, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman ruled that the state lacked legal standing to bring the suit and had “presented no evidence that these allegedly illegal seizures are a widespread practice.”
[1]https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-charges-18-p...
Operation Legend
Federal officials stage a major law enforcement operation in a city with zero coordination with the mayor of that city, who instead learns about it from twitter.
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racia...
Operation Diligent Valor
A top U.S. Homeland Security official on Monday defended the federal crackdown on protests in Portland, including the use of unmarked cars and unidentified officers in camouflage gear and said the practice will spread to other cities as needed.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-portland-valo...
Federal officials stage a major law enforcement operation in a city with zero coordination with the mayor of that city, who instead learns about it from twitter.
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racia...
Operation Diligent Valor
A top U.S. Homeland Security official on Monday defended the federal crackdown on protests in Portland, including the use of unmarked cars and unidentified officers in camouflage gear and said the practice will spread to other cities as needed.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-portland-valo...
ACLU lawsuit:
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-federal-agents...
Restraining order issued against attacking journalists:
U.S. District Judge Michael Simon today blocked federal agents in Portland from dispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest, or targeting force against journalists or legal observers at protests. The court’s order, which comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, adds the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Marshals Service to an existing injunction barring Portland police from arresting or attacking journalists and legal observers at Portland protests.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-issues-res...
Restraining order issued against attacking journalists:
U.S. District Judge Michael Simon today blocked federal agents in Portland from dispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest, or targeting force against journalists or legal observers at protests. The court’s order, which comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, adds the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Marshals Service to an existing injunction barring Portland police from arresting or attacking journalists and legal observers at Portland protests.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-issues-res...
[deleted]
No, it hasn't. Because that's a made up narrative.
Please show me video of police purposefully brutalizing non-violent protesters who behave sensibly (maybe you can learn how to spell protester while you're at it).
I've watched pretty much all of them and the cases of protesters being hurt always involves in some way being a part of the violent protest group, being intermixed with the violent protesters, or refusing to follow police orders during the clearing of unlawful gatherings (which only happens after violent rioting).
Even that older man who got his head cracked open from falling, decided to ignore orders to vacate and instead got into the face of a riot cop and reached for the cops belt.
I have seen zero videos of cops just randomly going off on groups of protesters walking down the street peacefully. Although CNN/MSNBC/etc will ALWAYS edit the video to begin with the police jumping on some person, when you look at the full video, it ALWAYS starts with the person doing something violent, illegal, or stupid.
BTW I'm also sure that SOMETIMES police do do unacceptable things (Floyd) and the criminal court system is absolute garbage, but your BS narrative that PEACEFUL protesters are just getting smashed as a matter of course is pure fiction.
Please show me video of police purposefully brutalizing non-violent protesters who behave sensibly (maybe you can learn how to spell protester while you're at it).
I've watched pretty much all of them and the cases of protesters being hurt always involves in some way being a part of the violent protest group, being intermixed with the violent protesters, or refusing to follow police orders during the clearing of unlawful gatherings (which only happens after violent rioting).
Even that older man who got his head cracked open from falling, decided to ignore orders to vacate and instead got into the face of a riot cop and reached for the cops belt.
I have seen zero videos of cops just randomly going off on groups of protesters walking down the street peacefully. Although CNN/MSNBC/etc will ALWAYS edit the video to begin with the police jumping on some person, when you look at the full video, it ALWAYS starts with the person doing something violent, illegal, or stupid.
BTW I'm also sure that SOMETIMES police do do unacceptable things (Floyd) and the criminal court system is absolute garbage, but your BS narrative that PEACEFUL protesters are just getting smashed as a matter of course is pure fiction.
> Please show me video of police purposefully brutalizing non-violent protesters who behave sensibly (maybe you can learn how to spell protester while you're at it).
That's an interesting move you've done there: now protestors have to behave "sensibly" as well as peacefully? I suppose I didn't realise that deadly force was justified against someone behaving "not sensibly".
> I've watched pretty much all of them
Yeah, I mean then you're probably too far gone to have a discussion with. I guess I don't understand how someone can watch all of the same videos I have and come away thinking "yes, the police are justified in their violence". To be honest it suggests a quite shocking lack of basic humanity.
> in some way being a part of the violent protest group,
Being in a "protest group" when others are violent is not a crime, and does not justify the use of deadly force against you.
> being intermixed with the violent protesters
Being intermixed with violent protestors is not a crime, and does not justify the use of deadly force against you.
> refusing to follow police orders during the clearing of unlawful gatherings (which only happens after violent rioting).
So what, you think all of the unlawful gatherings were violent? Seriously what world are you living in?
> Even that older man who got his head cracked open from falling, decided to ignore orders to vacate
Stop a second. Think about what you're writing.
Every person with a basic sense of decency who saw that video was horrified.
An old man had his skull cracked open for refusing to step back. That's what you're justifying now.
I am not going to respond to any more of your comments, but I really hope you get a sense of perspective on some of this stuff. When you see a cop in riot gear beat some poor person to death your first response should not be "but what did the person do?" When you see a cop car drive through a crowd of protestors you should not immediately start looking up the local ordinances for whether or not the protest had a permit to be on the road at that time.
There is a simple, human way to respond to the obvious evil and brutality that you're seeing, and for some reason you are not doing it.
That's an interesting move you've done there: now protestors have to behave "sensibly" as well as peacefully? I suppose I didn't realise that deadly force was justified against someone behaving "not sensibly".
> I've watched pretty much all of them
Yeah, I mean then you're probably too far gone to have a discussion with. I guess I don't understand how someone can watch all of the same videos I have and come away thinking "yes, the police are justified in their violence". To be honest it suggests a quite shocking lack of basic humanity.
> in some way being a part of the violent protest group,
Being in a "protest group" when others are violent is not a crime, and does not justify the use of deadly force against you.
> being intermixed with the violent protesters
Being intermixed with violent protestors is not a crime, and does not justify the use of deadly force against you.
> refusing to follow police orders during the clearing of unlawful gatherings (which only happens after violent rioting).
So what, you think all of the unlawful gatherings were violent? Seriously what world are you living in?
> Even that older man who got his head cracked open from falling, decided to ignore orders to vacate
Stop a second. Think about what you're writing.
Every person with a basic sense of decency who saw that video was horrified.
An old man had his skull cracked open for refusing to step back. That's what you're justifying now.
I am not going to respond to any more of your comments, but I really hope you get a sense of perspective on some of this stuff. When you see a cop in riot gear beat some poor person to death your first response should not be "but what did the person do?" When you see a cop car drive through a crowd of protestors you should not immediately start looking up the local ordinances for whether or not the protest had a permit to be on the road at that time.
There is a simple, human way to respond to the obvious evil and brutality that you're seeing, and for some reason you are not doing it.
This video by YouTube channel Leagle Eagle has a good short summary of reports from Portland by observers (like the ACLU) and then a lengthy debate about the legality of it (consitutionality, federal vs. state law, etc.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uglv-fV1CqI
My cursory research, after sensing something was amiss or forced with the narritive, is that the situation is much the same as border detention centers. These cages were in use during Obama era, but only went viral under Trump. The same thing is happening here: The same not-so-secret police was active during the Ferguson Riots, but only now do we make a big stink out of it.
The police is not secret: They are from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (DoJ), called the Special Operations Response Team, specialized in disturbance/riot control and to assist local police in case of emergency.
Don't play the semantics game: Even rioters are protesters. It makes as much sense for a SORT to arrest innocent protesters than it makes sense for a taxi driver to sweer onto the pavement and hit people.
The police is not secret: They are from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (DoJ), called the Special Operations Response Team, specialized in disturbance/riot control and to assist local police in case of emergency.
Don't play the semantics game: Even rioters are protesters. It makes as much sense for a SORT to arrest innocent protesters than it makes sense for a taxi driver to sweer onto the pavement and hit people.
To partially answer my own question, here is a video of men in camouflage taking someone into an unmarked vehicle. There is no riot or other sort of violence on the part of the protestors in sight. I found this video via a Washington Post article about Constitutional rights around arrest.
https://mobile.twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/128345258594...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/portland-fourth-amend...
https://mobile.twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/128345258594...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/portland-fourth-amend...
I can't real imagine how you can say that you "cancel someone" on Twitter and not shudder inside.
My intention was to be self-deprecating.
(or, rather, I was trying to acknowledge that I know I am part of the demographic commonly held as responsible for "cancelling" people. Personally I find it impossible to use the word without a massive heap of irony)
(or, rather, I was trying to acknowledge that I know I am part of the demographic commonly held as responsible for "cancelling" people. Personally I find it impossible to use the word without a massive heap of irony)
since when are the feds a secret police?
Twitter warriors are absolutely a small piece of the pie, but I think you could say they are the online face of the amorphous force that the authoritarian secret police are attacking.
Each unit of the force is trivial (rioters are a trivial part of the protests, campus activists are a trivial part of the student body, AOC is a trivial part of congress, moral clarity journalists a la Wesley Lowery are a trivial part of news mastheads, online "SJW" people are a trivial part of Twitter, etc). However, in aggregate it freaks out and motivates the authoritarians you are talking about. When they criticize any of the forces, they are simultaneously fearing the larger whole.
Each unit of the force is trivial (rioters are a trivial part of the protests, campus activists are a trivial part of the student body, AOC is a trivial part of congress, moral clarity journalists a la Wesley Lowery are a trivial part of news mastheads, online "SJW" people are a trivial part of Twitter, etc). However, in aggregate it freaks out and motivates the authoritarians you are talking about. When they criticize any of the forces, they are simultaneously fearing the larger whole.
Listen, if people want to say that “cancel culture” is a real phenomenon and it has a chilling effect on speech that’s one thing: I’d even be sympathetic to that point of view (although, as I said, I think it’s vastly overblown by people like Graham who are simply experiencing criticism from a broader range of people due to social media).
What I think is ridiculous is to jump to the authoritarian/soviet comparisons, especially when the US is in the midst of a horrific authoritarian violent crackdown by a militarised police force. I think that emphasis reveals a real lack of perspective.
What I think is ridiculous is to jump to the authoritarian/soviet comparisons, especially when the US is in the midst of a horrific authoritarian violent crackdown by a militarised police force. I think that emphasis reveals a real lack of perspective.
> What I think is ridiculous is to jump to the authoritarian/soviet comparisons, especially when the US is in the midst of a horrific authoritarian violent crackdown by a militarised police force.
I mean, this too warrants authoritarian/Soviet comparisons, does it not?
Besides, what happens when someone who is ideologically aligned with the angry Twitter mobs takes the reins of power and has the full force of the government behind them (including that militarized police force)? Can you not see why people might be concerned about systematic suppression of "bad" thoughts and ideas from the top-down (apropos the Soviet comparisons) in that scenario?
I mean, this too warrants authoritarian/Soviet comparisons, does it not?
Besides, what happens when someone who is ideologically aligned with the angry Twitter mobs takes the reins of power and has the full force of the government behind them (including that militarized police force)? Can you not see why people might be concerned about systematic suppression of "bad" thoughts and ideas from the top-down (apropos the Soviet comparisons) in that scenario?
Sure - I get it. The violent crackdowns are big part of why I'm making authoritarian/soviet comparisons, in addition to the institutional battles in universities and media/tech companies.
Obviously the Trump administration is, by far, the bigger threat.
The trouble is the left are staring to adapt his tactics.
At the beginning of Trump's term, there was a lot of concern about how Trump was trying to silence the press through his rhetoric about "fake news" and threatening spurious libel claims, trying to shut down speech he didn't like.
Now the left is adopting the mirror image policy of trying to shut down speech they don't like.
Very few are left to actually stand up for the principle of granting freedoms, even to people you don't like or disagree with.
The trouble is the left are staring to adapt his tactics.
At the beginning of Trump's term, there was a lot of concern about how Trump was trying to silence the press through his rhetoric about "fake news" and threatening spurious libel claims, trying to shut down speech he didn't like.
Now the left is adopting the mirror image policy of trying to shut down speech they don't like.
Very few are left to actually stand up for the principle of granting freedoms, even to people you don't like or disagree with.
> Trump was trying to silence the press through his rhetoric about "fake news"
Trump wasn't trying to "silence the press" - this was left-wing media rhetoric. He was simply calling them out for their sloppy journalism, and it worked to his favour.
Remember, the term "fake news" was conjured by left-wing media in response to Trump's election victory, referring to up and coming media companies which were eating away at their numbers (there were some obvious fake ones, but not with any significance to sway an election). Those on the left were unable to imagine from their bubbles, how people would vote for Trump, despite all of their efforts to put Hillary in the White House. It was a shock, and "fake news" was their reaction to it.
Trump managed to take their term, aimed at him, and aim it back at them. Now when people hear "fake news", they think of CNN.
> Very few are left to actually stand up for the principle of granting freedoms
Freedoms aren't granted, they exist. They can only be taken away. The State is usually the one taking them away, so anyone arguing for "more state" is really shooting themselves in the foot. We need less state, not more.
Trump wasn't trying to "silence the press" - this was left-wing media rhetoric. He was simply calling them out for their sloppy journalism, and it worked to his favour.
Remember, the term "fake news" was conjured by left-wing media in response to Trump's election victory, referring to up and coming media companies which were eating away at their numbers (there were some obvious fake ones, but not with any significance to sway an election). Those on the left were unable to imagine from their bubbles, how people would vote for Trump, despite all of their efforts to put Hillary in the White House. It was a shock, and "fake news" was their reaction to it.
Trump managed to take their term, aimed at him, and aim it back at them. Now when people hear "fake news", they think of CNN.
> Very few are left to actually stand up for the principle of granting freedoms
Freedoms aren't granted, they exist. They can only be taken away. The State is usually the one taking them away, so anyone arguing for "more state" is really shooting themselves in the foot. We need less state, not more.
> Remember, the term "fake news" was conjured by left-wing media in response to Trump's election victory, referring to up and coming media companies which were eating away at their numbers
This is completely untrue and a deliberate reframing of Donald Trump's actions in the most benevolent possible light.
"Fake news" referred to actual fake news. Like 5G causes coronavirus, Hillary Clinton runs a secret pedophile ring and literally kills people fake news.
Trump repurposed it to refer to any news item that he disagrees with or that casts him in a negative light. (And in fairness, some actual fake news falls under this category as well, but the proportions are small enough to make this useless as a differentiator.)
He labels CNN "fake news" for calling him out on easily verifiable lies. At this point, anyone who doesn't acknowledge that he often conveys falsehoods to his audience is being purposefully obtuse - I have more respect for the people that admit this but believe it is a justified means to what they see as a desirable end.
> We need less state, not more.
I assume this means you are opposed to the untrained and unidentifiable federal troops occupying US cities in direct contradiction of the desires of local officials, right?
This is completely untrue and a deliberate reframing of Donald Trump's actions in the most benevolent possible light.
"Fake news" referred to actual fake news. Like 5G causes coronavirus, Hillary Clinton runs a secret pedophile ring and literally kills people fake news.
Trump repurposed it to refer to any news item that he disagrees with or that casts him in a negative light. (And in fairness, some actual fake news falls under this category as well, but the proportions are small enough to make this useless as a differentiator.)
He labels CNN "fake news" for calling him out on easily verifiable lies. At this point, anyone who doesn't acknowledge that he often conveys falsehoods to his audience is being purposefully obtuse - I have more respect for the people that admit this but believe it is a justified means to what they see as a desirable end.
> We need less state, not more.
I assume this means you are opposed to the untrained and unidentifiable federal troops occupying US cities in direct contradiction of the desires of local officials, right?
> "Fake news" referred to actual fake news. Like 5G causes coronavirus, Hillary Clinton runs a secret pedophile ring and literally kills people fake news.
This is part true, but not the entire story. "Fake news" was a reaction to Trump's rise in popularity. It was an attempt to censor alternative news sites which were taking numbers away from establishment media. The obviously-fake-news/conspiracy websites weren't what the left and social media companies were trying to shut down - it was an attempt to maintain their status quo.
The obvious danger of the "fake news" fiasco was that who decides what is fake and what is true? The left-wing media obviously declared that they were up to the task. They conjured up "fake news" to mean that their own news is true, and the alternatives are obviously not (or that if they had posted "fake news" at some point, then we can assume that everything they post is fake and block them entirely). The problem is all of these left-wing media outlets have themselves, all posted some fake news at some point, and so they should be equally liable to being cancelled, as they were attempting to have others.
They saw themselves as "above" the smaller, less established media, and so they wouldn't get cancelled, but they could rally the social media companies to block their upcoming competition.
Trump's relabelling of fake news to be aimed at left-wing media was popular precisely because people were not fans of the idea that the establishment media was attempting to declare themselves the arbiters of fact, when their journalistic integrity had fallen to terrible lows.
Obviously, Trump is no angel and has told plenty of lies, as has CNN. Proper journalism is in decline and the media has become about getting clicks and reactions - it's all about money. Most actual journalism these days comes from somebody you've never heard of on Twitter.
> I assume this means you are opposed to the untrained and unidentifiable federal troops occupying US cities in direct contradiction of the desires of local officials, right?
Yes, but I'd go much further and say that security should be private, not public. One thing I can agree with the left on is defunding the police, but I think we have very different ideas on what follows. (Have those on the left even considered what they're going to replace the police with, given that they also want to abolish private ownership and guns?)
This is part true, but not the entire story. "Fake news" was a reaction to Trump's rise in popularity. It was an attempt to censor alternative news sites which were taking numbers away from establishment media. The obviously-fake-news/conspiracy websites weren't what the left and social media companies were trying to shut down - it was an attempt to maintain their status quo.
The obvious danger of the "fake news" fiasco was that who decides what is fake and what is true? The left-wing media obviously declared that they were up to the task. They conjured up "fake news" to mean that their own news is true, and the alternatives are obviously not (or that if they had posted "fake news" at some point, then we can assume that everything they post is fake and block them entirely). The problem is all of these left-wing media outlets have themselves, all posted some fake news at some point, and so they should be equally liable to being cancelled, as they were attempting to have others.
They saw themselves as "above" the smaller, less established media, and so they wouldn't get cancelled, but they could rally the social media companies to block their upcoming competition.
Trump's relabelling of fake news to be aimed at left-wing media was popular precisely because people were not fans of the idea that the establishment media was attempting to declare themselves the arbiters of fact, when their journalistic integrity had fallen to terrible lows.
Obviously, Trump is no angel and has told plenty of lies, as has CNN. Proper journalism is in decline and the media has become about getting clicks and reactions - it's all about money. Most actual journalism these days comes from somebody you've never heard of on Twitter.
> I assume this means you are opposed to the untrained and unidentifiable federal troops occupying US cities in direct contradiction of the desires of local officials, right?
Yes, but I'd go much further and say that security should be private, not public. One thing I can agree with the left on is defunding the police, but I think we have very different ideas on what follows. (Have those on the left even considered what they're going to replace the police with, given that they also want to abolish private ownership and guns?)
"Fake News" was originally sites created in foreign countries designed to look like newspaper sites from specific US cities. It did not originally refer to actual US news organizations at all.
Trump very successfully changed the association of the term to refer to any unfavorable coverage of him.
Trump very successfully changed the association of the term to refer to any unfavorable coverage of him.
I agree. I would like for someone to enumerate all the people who have been “cancelled” and then compare it to those that have been violently attacked.
Your "just count the cancelled" does not work.
I have lived in the East Europe pre-Perestroyka and back then, it was "just count political prisoners; see how few there are!". And it was true -- there were not that many by 1980s. But there were few not because thought police was not real, but because any appearance of acting against it would be quickly dealt with. So very few people would dare.
That's the path we are taking today.
I have lived in the East Europe pre-Perestroyka and back then, it was "just count political prisoners; see how few there are!". And it was true -- there were not that many by 1980s. But there were few not because thought police was not real, but because any appearance of acting against it would be quickly dealt with. So very few people would dare.
That's the path we are taking today.
> "just count political prisoners; see how few there are!"
You see how it comes across as a little ridiculous when you equate "being cancelled on twitter" to "being a literal political prisoner"? Especially when there are actual political prisoners, in prison, in the US right now?
You see how it comes across as a little ridiculous when you equate "being cancelled on twitter" to "being a literal political prisoner"? Especially when there are actual political prisoners, in prison, in the US right now?
Losing your livelihood, in a nation famous for it's relative lack of safety net, is in fact a big deal.
Here's the thing, you don't have to pick a side so hard. It's not, either we get this dude fired for citing a study about the 1968 riots or you're in favor of the border patrol arresting citizens without due process. These things are actually highly unrelated, and both can be bad.
Here's the thing, you don't have to pick a side so hard. It's not, either we get this dude fired for citing a study about the 1968 riots or you're in favor of the border patrol arresting citizens without due process. These things are actually highly unrelated, and both can be bad.
I mean I agree with you: broadly I think things like the Yascha Mounk case are bad (I mean there are even better examples on the left: take Matt Bruenig, for instance), but like it's totally insane to say it's the main authoritarian crisis in the US today in the midst of brutal police violence.
Also, I do think that the Mounk or Bruenig case are actually a little different from "cancel culture": they seem much more like political machinations at the places those people worked. Like I think either of those things could have happened just as easily 20 or 30 years ago. When I think "cancel culture" I think more about random people getting twitter mobbed for saying something offensive.
Really I think it's an issue of emphasis. And I think identifying some social pressure to be more "woke" with threat of ridicule on social media as being the first step on the way to totalitarianism, while simultaneously insisting the police brutality is nothing of the sort, reveals quite a lot about people's lack of perspective and warped priorities.
Also, I do think that the Mounk or Bruenig case are actually a little different from "cancel culture": they seem much more like political machinations at the places those people worked. Like I think either of those things could have happened just as easily 20 or 30 years ago. When I think "cancel culture" I think more about random people getting twitter mobbed for saying something offensive.
Really I think it's an issue of emphasis. And I think identifying some social pressure to be more "woke" with threat of ridicule on social media as being the first step on the way to totalitarianism, while simultaneously insisting the police brutality is nothing of the sort, reveals quite a lot about people's lack of perspective and warped priorities.
As oisdk points out, I would consider the very real threat of violence different than a celebrity getting their contract cancelled. But that’s an important point to also make. There’s a vast difference between a celebrity being cancelled and an average person. Cultivating popularity is a part of being a celebrity — so isn’t avoiding being cancelled a natural extension of that profession?
As for regular people getting cancelled, there only seems to be a handful - particularly those that might actually have committed a crime (thinking of the Central Park Karen).
As for regular people getting cancelled, there only seems to be a handful - particularly those that might actually have committed a crime (thinking of the Central Park Karen).
Kindness Yoga shut down after their pro-BLM posts online were criticized as "performative activism" by employees: https://coloradosun.com/2020/06/29/kindness-yoga-closure-dur...
A woman in Kentucky was fired after 20 years from her job as a Hearing Instrument Specialist after she said she didn't support BLM in a facebook video: https://reclaimthenet.org/tabitha-morris-cancel-culture/ (Her GoFundMe was also shut down.)
A high school teacher in British Columbia was fired after mentioned that he thought abortion was wrong, as an example of how personal opinions can differ from the law, in class: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-b-c-tea...
David Shor was fired after retweeting a black scholar's work on riots and election results: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/white-fragility-raci...
A Mexican-American utility worker was fired after someone filmed him making the "OK" hand and accused him of white supremacy: https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-ove...
A graphic designer was fired after the Washington Post published an article about how she wore a blackface-costume (attempting to make fun of Megyn Kelly) two years ago: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/why-did-the-washingt...
The operator of a campus cafe was fired after he posted an ad full of jokes, saying that he needed "a new slave (full time staff member) to boss around": https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/head-of-ontario-univers...
The founder of a charter school was fired after he was accused of "white supremacist language" in a blog post: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/ascend-cha...
An author withdrew her book because she was mobbed for being a white author writing chapters from the perspective of a Gullah Geechee person: http://elainemarias.com/2020/06/26/bethany-c-morrow-gets-ya-...
A Boeing exec resigned because of an article he wrote advocating against women in combat 33 years ago, when he was 29 years old: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-resignation/boeing...
I can post more if you'd like. None of these people are celebrities. None of them committed a crime. Some of them have stupid opinions, some of them made stupid decisions, one of them cracked his knuckles in the wrong way.
But if you don't believe that "regular people" are at risk here, well - I hope your opinions are all non-heretical and that they stay that way for the next 33 years.
A woman in Kentucky was fired after 20 years from her job as a Hearing Instrument Specialist after she said she didn't support BLM in a facebook video: https://reclaimthenet.org/tabitha-morris-cancel-culture/ (Her GoFundMe was also shut down.)
A high school teacher in British Columbia was fired after mentioned that he thought abortion was wrong, as an example of how personal opinions can differ from the law, in class: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-b-c-tea...
David Shor was fired after retweeting a black scholar's work on riots and election results: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/white-fragility-raci...
A Mexican-American utility worker was fired after someone filmed him making the "OK" hand and accused him of white supremacy: https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-ove...
A graphic designer was fired after the Washington Post published an article about how she wore a blackface-costume (attempting to make fun of Megyn Kelly) two years ago: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/why-did-the-washingt...
The operator of a campus cafe was fired after he posted an ad full of jokes, saying that he needed "a new slave (full time staff member) to boss around": https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/head-of-ontario-univers...
The founder of a charter school was fired after he was accused of "white supremacist language" in a blog post: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/ascend-cha...
An author withdrew her book because she was mobbed for being a white author writing chapters from the perspective of a Gullah Geechee person: http://elainemarias.com/2020/06/26/bethany-c-morrow-gets-ya-...
A Boeing exec resigned because of an article he wrote advocating against women in combat 33 years ago, when he was 29 years old: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-resignation/boeing...
I can post more if you'd like. None of these people are celebrities. None of them committed a crime. Some of them have stupid opinions, some of them made stupid decisions, one of them cracked his knuckles in the wrong way.
But if you don't believe that "regular people" are at risk here, well - I hope your opinions are all non-heretical and that they stay that way for the next 33 years.
Whenever I see lists like this, what's interesting to me is what's omitted. In this particular case I don't see mention of workers getting fired for trying to organize or advocate for unions[1]. I don't see the abuse that gets piled on cops who report the misdeeds of their colleagues[2]. And I don't see the NFL effectively blacklisting Colin Kaepernick for his views on police brutality.
It seems like it's only "cancel culture" when it happens to people we identify with.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/05/amazon-pr...
[2] https://www.kcaw.org/2019/12/12/sitka-settles-police-whistle...
It seems like it's only "cancel culture" when it happens to people we identify with.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/05/amazon-pr...
[2] https://www.kcaw.org/2019/12/12/sitka-settles-police-whistle...
I'll add Colin Kaepernick to the list for next time! I should also include things like the woman who lots her internship after she made a bad pro-BLM analogy: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/07/03/ima-stab-you-connectic...
In my mind, "cancel culture" refers to the phenomenon where an outraged group (usually on social media) seeks to retaliate against someone over a (possibly inferred) political opinion. Firing union organizers or harassing whistleblowers is bad, but doesn't fit into my mental model of cancel culture.
In my mind, "cancel culture" refers to the phenomenon where an outraged group (usually on social media) seeks to retaliate against someone over a (possibly inferred) political opinion. Firing union organizers or harassing whistleblowers is bad, but doesn't fit into my mental model of cancel culture.
[deleted]
I'm glad you're expanding the list a little, but I'd also encourage you (and anyone else reading) to reflect on the difference and asymmetry, here.
(Rhetorical questions--no answer needed) What's the bottom-line difference in getting fired for roughly free-speech reasons by an employer of their own accord, or of their own accord but because a single person wrote them to bring your behavior to their attention, or instead because of a Twitter mob or a petition or a letter-writing campaign or a flood of bad news coverage or a boycott started by some group? How do we adjudicate which path is worse?
Part of what I find frustrating about this debate (as someone who takes this risk seriously, and has for a while) is selectiveness of the cases/scope/concerns that get brought up by a certain segment of outlets eager to catalog certain cases to build a narrative about who is censorious and who is censored.
There's a long history of people mobbing decision-makers (at schools, or libraries, businesses, media standards boards, advertisers, etc.) to lobby for action against things they don't like. The Dixie Chicks got caught in this fire. When One Million Moms threatened JCPenney over their deal with Ellen DeGeneres--what obvious outcome were they demanding? (They keep a brag-list of things they've gotten canceled at https://onemillionmoms.com/successes/, and a list of ~20 current campaigns. You can find even more at their parent org, AFA).
There are numerous teachers over the years who claim they were fired for being an atheist, teaching evolution, and a sad graveyard of articles about teachers sacked for exactly how they taught sex ed (of particular irony in this case, those fired for not teaching top-down abstinence-only dogma), or what books they're teaching.
(I realize this list is itself biased; I'm advocating expanding the umbrella, and suspicion of slanted lists, not trying to whatabout.)
(Rhetorical questions--no answer needed) What's the bottom-line difference in getting fired for roughly free-speech reasons by an employer of their own accord, or of their own accord but because a single person wrote them to bring your behavior to their attention, or instead because of a Twitter mob or a petition or a letter-writing campaign or a flood of bad news coverage or a boycott started by some group? How do we adjudicate which path is worse?
Part of what I find frustrating about this debate (as someone who takes this risk seriously, and has for a while) is selectiveness of the cases/scope/concerns that get brought up by a certain segment of outlets eager to catalog certain cases to build a narrative about who is censorious and who is censored.
There's a long history of people mobbing decision-makers (at schools, or libraries, businesses, media standards boards, advertisers, etc.) to lobby for action against things they don't like. The Dixie Chicks got caught in this fire. When One Million Moms threatened JCPenney over their deal with Ellen DeGeneres--what obvious outcome were they demanding? (They keep a brag-list of things they've gotten canceled at https://onemillionmoms.com/successes/, and a list of ~20 current campaigns. You can find even more at their parent org, AFA).
There are numerous teachers over the years who claim they were fired for being an atheist, teaching evolution, and a sad graveyard of articles about teachers sacked for exactly how they taught sex ed (of particular irony in this case, those fired for not teaching top-down abstinence-only dogma), or what books they're teaching.
(I realize this list is itself biased; I'm advocating expanding the umbrella, and suspicion of slanted lists, not trying to whatabout.)
But companies firing organizing workers isn't an example of cancel culture. Why would you be surprised that someone answered the question asked, and not a different question?
Great point.
[deleted](1)
Maybe there's only a handful of "regular people" getting cancelled... but that's enough to create a chilling effect, scaring others into compliance with convention.
A good example might be Walter Palmer, the hunter who killed Cecil the lion. He's rich, but wasn't a celebrity. What he did was legal, as far as he could tell. He didn't ask for his guides to break the law for him. Yet he was doxxed, received death threats, and had his house graffitied. People showed up to protest at his business (which is unrelated to hunting) and lowered its rating on Yelp through bad reviews.
(Incidentally, I disagree with the practice of hunting for sport, but think sport hunters should be stopped with new laws, rather than through mob action.)
A good example might be Walter Palmer, the hunter who killed Cecil the lion. He's rich, but wasn't a celebrity. What he did was legal, as far as he could tell. He didn't ask for his guides to break the law for him. Yet he was doxxed, received death threats, and had his house graffitied. People showed up to protest at his business (which is unrelated to hunting) and lowered its rating on Yelp through bad reviews.
(Incidentally, I disagree with the practice of hunting for sport, but think sport hunters should be stopped with new laws, rather than through mob action.)
I don’t know that we can attribute doxing or death threats to “cancel culture”. It’s certainly unjustified outrage. However, it does beg the question what exactly “being cancelled” means.
I think you're splitting hairs here. The greater issue is unaccountable, internet mob justice, of which "cancel culture" is one part.
The point, to spell it out, is about chilling effects.
If some organization starts killing everyone wearing a blue hat,pretty soone nobody would wear a blue hat.
And then people like you would think that since no blue hat wearers get murdered, this is fine. Even call it "non violent" perhaps.
If some organization starts killing everyone wearing a blue hat,pretty soone nobody would wear a blue hat.
And then people like you would think that since no blue hat wearers get murdered, this is fine. Even call it "non violent" perhaps.
[deleted]
Have we started killing cancelled people? Who has been “cancelled” anyways? What punishments have they endured? A lost job at a very public position?
As someone wisely pointed out, the only person possibly going to be jailed in the #MeToo movement will be Harvey Weinstein. Many comedians and politicians have recovered. Look at Al Franken - polls show he’s electable in his state (by the group that ostracized him no less).
More importantly, if cancel culture had any teeth, this President would have been cancelled.
As someone wisely pointed out, the only person possibly going to be jailed in the #MeToo movement will be Harvey Weinstein. Many comedians and politicians have recovered. Look at Al Franken - polls show he’s electable in his state (by the group that ostracized him no less).
More importantly, if cancel culture had any teeth, this President would have been cancelled.
That's actually a great summary of the beef with cancel culture -- it only punches down.
They can't touch Trump, or Ben Shapiro, or any of the other people that they really hate. Those people's actual jobs are to say things progressives hate.
Who can the cancelers get? Moderate liberals, working in liberal enclaves, who said the wrong thing. Get'em! That'll make me feel better.
They can't touch Trump, or Ben Shapiro, or any of the other people that they really hate. Those people's actual jobs are to say things progressives hate.
Who can the cancelers get? Moderate liberals, working in liberal enclaves, who said the wrong thing. Get'em! That'll make me feel better.
That’s actually my point. Overestimating the reach of cancel culture because you live in a liberal enclave.
Maybe we're very precisely estimating the reach and are appropriately terrified?
If you can't get the people you want, but you really want to get somebody...
If you can't get the people you want, but you really want to get somebody...
And what are the consequences of you getting cancelled? Really? You lose your job? People are fired everyday for silly things or no reason at all. But would you really want to continue working for a company/culture so incapable of enduring free thought? Perhaps companies need to suffer the consequences of losing talent to realize how intellectually bankrupt this process is.
Yes, I lose my job, and for what? Some dysfunctional people get a dopamine hit that lasts 5 seconds before they need to go get someone else?
I've got a family.
I've got a family.
> But would you really want to continue working for a company/culture so incapable of enduring free thought?
In this economy? Hell yes.
In this economy? Hell yes.
Incredible how clueless some people can be to true mob evilness.
Being cancelled can mean that you will never get another job in your field. It depends on the circumstances. A cancelled professor on tenure track will probably never get another tenure track position.
So, to rephrase your words, "What so bad about not being able to feed yourself and your family...is that really so bad?"
Do you really think that the effect of "losing talent" will be accounted for when cancelling people? MAO "cancelled" (murdered) the intellectual class in his cultural revolution. Rational though isn't going to be emphasized in the midst of an irrational political movement.
By the way you write and think, you're probably a Millennial with a very weak grasp of history. Yet, you feel qualified to tell people that LIVED through communism that they should't fear what they are seeing.
Being cancelled can mean that you will never get another job in your field. It depends on the circumstances. A cancelled professor on tenure track will probably never get another tenure track position.
So, to rephrase your words, "What so bad about not being able to feed yourself and your family...is that really so bad?"
Do you really think that the effect of "losing talent" will be accounted for when cancelling people? MAO "cancelled" (murdered) the intellectual class in his cultural revolution. Rational though isn't going to be emphasized in the midst of an irrational political movement.
By the way you write and think, you're probably a Millennial with a very weak grasp of history. Yet, you feel qualified to tell people that LIVED through communism that they should't fear what they are seeing.
It's rare to see someone so purely miss the point.
Please explain how I missed it. Or do we just disagree?
Sure.
I was explaining how "chilling effects" can work using a hypothetical example.
Your answer argued against something entirely different, that I guess I reminded you of. But I didn't even talk about cancel culture.
I was explaining how "chilling effects" can work using a hypothetical example.
Your answer argued against something entirely different, that I guess I reminded you of. But I didn't even talk about cancel culture.
I mean I think there's an argument to be made that discourse has become more rigid (although I do think it's overblown), but like I don't understand how you can write this:
> Also from an ex soviet state. Also feel alarm bells going off. I'm legitimately scared. I've seen this before, I know where it goes.
And not be talking about a massive police crackdown on protest and the army being brought in to police civilians. Like your alarm bells are dead silent for all of that, but some celebrity has to apologise for not saying "latinx" or whatever and suddenly you're all "ah yes, just like in the Soviet Union"?!
> Also from an ex soviet state. Also feel alarm bells going off. I'm legitimately scared. I've seen this before, I know where it goes.
And not be talking about a massive police crackdown on protest and the army being brought in to police civilians. Like your alarm bells are dead silent for all of that, but some celebrity has to apologise for not saying "latinx" or whatever and suddenly you're all "ah yes, just like in the Soviet Union"?!
You don't understand, and that's the problem.
Well, elaborate please.
It's difficult, when we are in thorough disagreement of the facts.
> And not be talking about a massive police crackdown on protest
Is the police crackdown on protest or rioting? I can buy an argument that Trump hates the protests and is secretly hoping that sending the police will also disperse protesters, but on its face, do we disagree that there's rioting in Portland, and that it's the police's job to stop it?
> and the army being brought in to police civilians.
Huh?
> but some celebrity has to apologise for not saying "latinx" or whatever
This is disingenuous strawmanning. There's plenty instances of people losing their jobs for saying the wrong thing, and even a few extreme cases of people ending their lives after intense internet vitriol(although it would be equally disingenuous of me to focus on those cases and claim that cancel culture "kills people"). I don't know why parent jumps on celebrities as go-to examples - a stronger example would be academia, where political censure has been normalized for decades.
> And not be talking about a massive police crackdown on protest
Is the police crackdown on protest or rioting? I can buy an argument that Trump hates the protests and is secretly hoping that sending the police will also disperse protesters, but on its face, do we disagree that there's rioting in Portland, and that it's the police's job to stop it?
> and the army being brought in to police civilians.
Huh?
> but some celebrity has to apologise for not saying "latinx" or whatever
This is disingenuous strawmanning. There's plenty instances of people losing their jobs for saying the wrong thing, and even a few extreme cases of people ending their lives after intense internet vitriol(although it would be equally disingenuous of me to focus on those cases and claim that cancel culture "kills people"). I don't know why parent jumps on celebrities as go-to examples - a stronger example would be academia, where political censure has been normalized for decades.
I think that’s the point. “Cancel cultural” has always been around in some form or another when you challenge the cultural norms of some society or institution. The outrage over it now seems silly, particularly when it’s predominantly liberal people suffering from it. However, unlike other oppressed minorities of the past, the consequences are much less severe.
I feel the same way, but I think this era is much more directly similar to the "red guards" period during the Chinese cultural revolution than Soviet examples. Some of the parallels are just so direct -- students denouncing their professors, forcing them them to recant, the ideologies of the students growing more and more rigid and narrow through the conformity of the mob, until they often ended up even denouncing the professors who encouraged the movement to start.
No one ends up being safe from this kind of thing as it grows. Even Mao almost lost control of the tiger, even though he thought he could steer it. My grandfather fought the Japanese as a preteen and later fought with Mao, and even he was disappeared for three days by the mob during the cultural revolution because someone denounced him as not ideologically pure enough.
No one ends up being safe from this kind of thing as it grows. Even Mao almost lost control of the tiger, even though he thought he could steer it. My grandfather fought the Japanese as a preteen and later fought with Mao, and even he was disappeared for three days by the mob during the cultural revolution because someone denounced him as not ideologically pure enough.
The first best instance of this was during the French Revolution. People were guillotined in droves for being not merely enthusiastic enough.
I think there are some important qualitative differences with the French Revolution, at least in its relationship with the academy (although I'm not an expert). During the French Revolution, most of the aristocratic cadre of scientists did lose their positions, but less than a year into the Terror, the Institut de France was established with more-or-less conventional takes on merit and the scientific method.
In the cultural revolution, it was different. More than three fourths of the members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences were persecuted, most of whose work did have scientific merit and had no direct nexus with politics. But that was the problem -- just doing science wasn't sufficiently political/ideological for the mob.
In the cultural revolution, it was different. More than three fourths of the members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences were persecuted, most of whose work did have scientific merit and had no direct nexus with politics. But that was the problem -- just doing science wasn't sufficiently political/ideological for the mob.
There was a section on this in the sci-fi novel Three Body Problem. The students force a professor of physics to recant his claim that relativity is a legitimate theory, and he refuses, then gets beaten by students.
I remember thinking at the time it was such a bizarre piece of fiction, then I later found out this kind of stuff really happened.
I remember thinking at the time it was such a bizarre piece of fiction, then I later found out this kind of stuff really happened.
I’ve heard the phrase “history is stranger than fiction” before .. and you discovered that!
[deleted]
[deleted]
I see the similarities, but one big difference is that the Red Guards were created by Mao as a way to purge the party of his enemies and reshape society to serve him more fully.
What's happening in the US emerging from below, without anyone orchestrating it.
What's happening in the US emerging from below, without anyone orchestrating it.
>one big difference is that the Red Guards were created by Mao as a way to purge the party of his enemies...
No -- that's not the case, and that's precisely why I think the parallel to what is happening now is so strong.
The Red Guards started in 1966 as a student movement. They later developed a manifesto, which Mao thought he could leverage to his own advantage, so he endorsed its broadcast. This fanned the flames of the movement (being a kind of political endorsement), and from that point Red Guard cells sprung up organically across the country. From that point, things became chaotic and the leadership in Beijing made a series of sometimes opposing moves, some of which tried to restrain the movement to preserve the government and others which fanned the flames.
No -- that's not the case, and that's precisely why I think the parallel to what is happening now is so strong.
The Red Guards started in 1966 as a student movement. They later developed a manifesto, which Mao thought he could leverage to his own advantage, so he endorsed its broadcast. This fanned the flames of the movement (being a kind of political endorsement), and from that point Red Guard cells sprung up organically across the country. From that point, things became chaotic and the leadership in Beijing made a series of sometimes opposing moves, some of which tried to restrain the movement to preserve the government and others which fanned the flames.
This comment is 100% correct and the fact that most people here misunderstand the Red Guards movement is the terrifying proof that they have no idea what we're dealing with in the US right now.
This ideology is not something that strives for or can be steered into a productive outcome, it inherently wants to expand its reach and list of enemies until it takes over the entire world or someone shuts it down. It's the cultural analogue of a cancer, and it masks its initial growth phase by pretending to rally behind a virtuous cause, and then shutting down any criticism of it as anti-virtuous.
People from Cambodia, USSR, China, Vietnam, Germany, etc. have seen this before, but the current generation of westerners has not, so they're giving it the benefit of doubt and allowing it to gain momentum - it seems to be rallying behind a virtuous cause, after all. This is what GP and I are saying: alarm bells are going off in our heads because we have 1st or 2nd hand experience of how this plays out. And just like back then, people now are going 'naaaah, it'll be fine'.
Lord of the Flies should remain mandatory school reading forever. It's a warning tale exactly about this.
This ideology is not something that strives for or can be steered into a productive outcome, it inherently wants to expand its reach and list of enemies until it takes over the entire world or someone shuts it down. It's the cultural analogue of a cancer, and it masks its initial growth phase by pretending to rally behind a virtuous cause, and then shutting down any criticism of it as anti-virtuous.
People from Cambodia, USSR, China, Vietnam, Germany, etc. have seen this before, but the current generation of westerners has not, so they're giving it the benefit of doubt and allowing it to gain momentum - it seems to be rallying behind a virtuous cause, after all. This is what GP and I are saying: alarm bells are going off in our heads because we have 1st or 2nd hand experience of how this plays out. And just like back then, people now are going 'naaaah, it'll be fine'.
Lord of the Flies should remain mandatory school reading forever. It's a warning tale exactly about this.
I mean, Lord of the Flies is fiction.
In real life, the boys stranded on a deserted island made a pact to never quarrel, and kept that pact for a half century.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-...
In real life, the boys stranded on a deserted island made a pact to never quarrel, and kept that pact for a half century.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-...
Lovely story! That said, lord of the flies had at least 20-30 boys involved, whereas this group was six boys who were already friends. More is different.
(Not arguing reality would go the way of lord of the flies, merely that the example above is not definitive. But boy would I like to see the movie they made!)
(Not arguing reality would go the way of lord of the flies, merely that the example above is not definitive. But boy would I like to see the movie they made!)
Keep in mind that the book that is from, Humankind, while a hope filled book (I enjoyed it thoroughly), makes the point that when we get together, the bonds between people can lead them to do horrendous things to others. Our power to cooperate is our superpower and our kryptonite.
My family in China are amazed that we in the US don't recognize the parallels between the marxist revolutionaries and violent Red Guards in China and today's US. The One Party that controls more and more of the institutions, the "news" reporters whose mission is obviously to sell the revolutionary narrative so the few stories that support the narrative are huge and meaningful while the much larger number of parallel examples that contradict the narrative are hidden by various means, all the entertainers gradually speaking with the same voice and same approved opinions as the "news", silencing of debate at the academies and ongoing purge of anyone suspected of harboring counter-revolutionary ideas there and in many other institutions and employers, young people taught that smart, independent thinkers such as themselves will become heroes by denouncing their parents and anyone they suspect of clinging to old ideas....
People who hear almost nothing that doesn't support the revolutionary narrative and are bombarded with stories about how those who "bravely" denounce dissenters are "heroes", and especially young people with little worldly success to be proud of, go on a rampage to feel the thrill of glory and power over others. The Red Guards are born. They burn whatever, destroy whatever, attack whomever, for whatever excuse they can come up, confident they'll be lauded as heroes by the "news" if they can somehow claim they are fighting enemies of the revolution, and if they can make it dramatic enough to compete with all the other aspiring heroes for attention. Because for most Red Guards, it's all about the thrill of feeling powerful and important.
My Chinese relatives frankly feel a bit of schadenfreude about it. "So, you were supposedly the ones with all the freedom to think and say whatever you wanted, criticize whoever you wanted, and freely argue for your own opinions. We were the ones who were forced to keep our mouths shut and not say what we really thought because we were still stuck with a conform-and-submit culture that wasn't yet enlightened."
People who hear almost nothing that doesn't support the revolutionary narrative and are bombarded with stories about how those who "bravely" denounce dissenters are "heroes", and especially young people with little worldly success to be proud of, go on a rampage to feel the thrill of glory and power over others. The Red Guards are born. They burn whatever, destroy whatever, attack whomever, for whatever excuse they can come up, confident they'll be lauded as heroes by the "news" if they can somehow claim they are fighting enemies of the revolution, and if they can make it dramatic enough to compete with all the other aspiring heroes for attention. Because for most Red Guards, it's all about the thrill of feeling powerful and important.
My Chinese relatives frankly feel a bit of schadenfreude about it. "So, you were supposedly the ones with all the freedom to think and say whatever you wanted, criticize whoever you wanted, and freely argue for your own opinions. We were the ones who were forced to keep our mouths shut and not say what we really thought because we were still stuck with a conform-and-submit culture that wasn't yet enlightened."
In addition to Lord of the Flies, we had to watch a movie in my high school (long ago) about student movements getting out of hand, I think it was called The Wave.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0083316/ might be it
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0083316/ might be it
As someone who grew up in China, I think this analogy is overblown. PG and others are up in arms about "cancel culture," but I'm not seeing substantial evidence of people's voices being suppressed by the masses. The few anecdotes cited (James Bennet fired by NYT, JK Rowling finally being called out for being anti-trans, random people being unfairly fired) don't seem to point toward a mass movement toward intolerance in the US.
On the other hand, it's clear, especially to young people, that traditional liberalism has failed at actually addressing inequality, racism, and other systemic problems that the US faces. A big part of what people refer to as "cancel culture" is frustration over the ineffectiveness of traditional liberalism, especially when the far right seems to play by a different set of rules.
I'm definitely concerned about far left zealotry, but I don't think that's what I'd happening in the US.
On the other hand, it's clear, especially to young people, that traditional liberalism has failed at actually addressing inequality, racism, and other systemic problems that the US faces. A big part of what people refer to as "cancel culture" is frustration over the ineffectiveness of traditional liberalism, especially when the far right seems to play by a different set of rules.
I'm definitely concerned about far left zealotry, but I don't think that's what I'd happening in the US.
I understand why you would not think it is a problem. Unfortunately the only evidence for something like this is anecdotes, so unless you personally experience cancellation or are a member of a community where someone is cancelled, you won't notice. The lack of concern about the cancellation narrative makes sense in this respect.
Beyond "random people being fired", there are a number of notable examples in the programming community, like James Damore, Stallman, and Donglegate. After CoCs were added to open source projects, there are a handful of accounts of people being removed for their views expressed outside of the open source community.
In the wider world, things like the Harper's Magazine letter criticizing cancel culture (signed by many notable individuals, including Noam Chomsky), Obama's criticism of the "circular firing squad", leading philosophy researchers decrying sanctions for expressing ideas [1], the Joe Rogan discussion between Twitter Exec and Tim Pool on online censorship, the Evergreen College fiasco, and the rioting of Berkeley students into a Ben Shapiro lecture, paint the picture of a worrying trend: some subset of people on the left respond to argument not with argument, but with censorship, boycotts, and sometimes violence.
Hell, one from a few days ago: https://statenews.com/article/2020/06/michigan-state-geu-cal...
[1]: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/07/22/philosophers...
Beyond "random people being fired", there are a number of notable examples in the programming community, like James Damore, Stallman, and Donglegate. After CoCs were added to open source projects, there are a handful of accounts of people being removed for their views expressed outside of the open source community.
In the wider world, things like the Harper's Magazine letter criticizing cancel culture (signed by many notable individuals, including Noam Chomsky), Obama's criticism of the "circular firing squad", leading philosophy researchers decrying sanctions for expressing ideas [1], the Joe Rogan discussion between Twitter Exec and Tim Pool on online censorship, the Evergreen College fiasco, and the rioting of Berkeley students into a Ben Shapiro lecture, paint the picture of a worrying trend: some subset of people on the left respond to argument not with argument, but with censorship, boycotts, and sometimes violence.
Hell, one from a few days ago: https://statenews.com/article/2020/06/michigan-state-geu-cal...
[1]: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/07/22/philosophers...
“ JK Rowling finally being called out for being anti-trans“
And where is the evidence for this assertion?
And where is the evidence for this assertion?
Apologies for the amp link. I would recommend looking at Twitter replies to the Harper's Mag letter about her being a signer, and then other discussions on it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/j-k-ro...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/j-k-ro...
Turns out that we aren't electing a counsel composed of the liberals most active on twitter.
Lets look at the situation clearly.
I don't think JK Rowling is a bigot and yet and the internet hate machine is sure going full steam but her detractors are a smaller group than her fans and the woman is worth almost a billion dollars. She could burn dollar bills for warmth in her house for warmth for the rest of her life if she wanted. A minority of angry people on twitter can't cancel her life.
Cancel culture is a distraction from more relevant issues.
Lets look at the situation clearly.
I don't think JK Rowling is a bigot and yet and the internet hate machine is sure going full steam but her detractors are a smaller group than her fans and the woman is worth almost a billion dollars. She could burn dollar bills for warmth in her house for warmth for the rest of her life if she wanted. A minority of angry people on twitter can't cancel her life.
Cancel culture is a distraction from more relevant issues.
"A minority of angry people on twitter can't cancel her life.
Cancel culture is a distraction from more relevant issues."
Not true at all.
It's not about her money, it's about her ability to speak and to have a public opinion, and therefore a relationship with us - not about her 'personal wealth'.
She has specific views on gender, which she should be allowed to have and which I don't think are objectively 'anti trans'.
The statement above, ie that her views are 'anti trans' is really a problem.
'Shutting down her voice' is significantly worse than 'taking her money' - because it means the rest of us are not allowed to have a debate or to have our own opinions.
I generally agree with her assessment. It's nuanced, informed and not 'anti trans'.
Labelling it 'anti trans' is precisely the kind of 'Red Guards killing the unpure' we need to worry about.
'Cancel culture' has succeeded in banning speakers on most University campuses, and systematically disabled tons of voices from being heard. Speakers aren't even on the slot anymore 'can't afford the security' is now a common statement. This is inexcusable.
The fact that 100 or so of the world's leading thinkers had to take out page to tamp down people in their own midst is crazy, and a sign of a problem.
It's a fairly existential problem right now.
A lot of this actually may be a kind of 'anti Trump' anger exhibiting in an odd kind of way, maybe it dies down a little bit, but the 'winds' are heading in one direction right now, and the press in particular seem to have joined in.
Cancel culture is a distraction from more relevant issues."
Not true at all.
It's not about her money, it's about her ability to speak and to have a public opinion, and therefore a relationship with us - not about her 'personal wealth'.
She has specific views on gender, which she should be allowed to have and which I don't think are objectively 'anti trans'.
The statement above, ie that her views are 'anti trans' is really a problem.
'Shutting down her voice' is significantly worse than 'taking her money' - because it means the rest of us are not allowed to have a debate or to have our own opinions.
I generally agree with her assessment. It's nuanced, informed and not 'anti trans'.
Labelling it 'anti trans' is precisely the kind of 'Red Guards killing the unpure' we need to worry about.
'Cancel culture' has succeeded in banning speakers on most University campuses, and systematically disabled tons of voices from being heard. Speakers aren't even on the slot anymore 'can't afford the security' is now a common statement. This is inexcusable.
The fact that 100 or so of the world's leading thinkers had to take out page to tamp down people in their own midst is crazy, and a sign of a problem.
It's a fairly existential problem right now.
A lot of this actually may be a kind of 'anti Trump' anger exhibiting in an odd kind of way, maybe it dies down a little bit, but the 'winds' are heading in one direction right now, and the press in particular seem to have joined in.
JK Rowling's views on trans people are also nearly the perfect demonstration that pg's "aggressive conformism" analysis is spot on. See, not too long ago those particular views were in fact something that was doing quite a bit of harm to trans people. They were being used to succesfully lobby for laws that did things like effectively deny trans women access to rape counselling and domestic violence services, and justify pretty awful campaigns of online harassment against any openly trans woman - not by JK Rowling, who seemed quite happy to just quietly hold her opinions, but by others. The reason you didn't hear much about this is because when these views actually had power, the loud, aggressive, well-connected warriors for social justice kind of supported them.
Now, it wasn't quite mandatory to hold these views back when I started following things about a decade, decade-and-a-half ago (though I remember Shit Reddit Says, the group trying to force Reddit to police its content based on their ideological demands, got quite close). What was mandatory was covering for them, shutting up about the laws they passed and the harm they did and pressuring everyone else to do so with allegations of misogyny. The arguments used to do this were quite reminiscent of present-day claims that "cancel culture" doesn't matter and people only object to it because they're bigots, now I think about it - supposedly the people pushing this didn't hold any power, and therefore the only reason for trans women to spend effort objecting to them rather than fighting non-feminist men, who by definition were the ones with real power, was because they had a misogynistic hatred of women. It was only when those views actually lost their power and relevance that the loud, aggressive, well-connected online activists switched from covering for them to demanding that everyone support beating up elderly lesbians for merely existing in public whilst holding transphobic views. (I am unfortunately not exaggerating, this actually happened - and yes, it was definitely the same people. pg's remark about "an exclamation point after a variable" is an extreme understatement.) This shift was quite recent too - maybe around 2016 or so?
There were of course actually non-conformist people with moral views that didn't just follow the crowd and various levels of aggressiveness who balked at this at the time. They just ended up being effectively irrelevant - too far from the status quo for its supporters, but so throughly and aggressively labeled as evil supporters of it by its organised, orthodox self-proclaimed challengers that few people seeking to challenge it would listen to the non-conformists.
Now, it wasn't quite mandatory to hold these views back when I started following things about a decade, decade-and-a-half ago (though I remember Shit Reddit Says, the group trying to force Reddit to police its content based on their ideological demands, got quite close). What was mandatory was covering for them, shutting up about the laws they passed and the harm they did and pressuring everyone else to do so with allegations of misogyny. The arguments used to do this were quite reminiscent of present-day claims that "cancel culture" doesn't matter and people only object to it because they're bigots, now I think about it - supposedly the people pushing this didn't hold any power, and therefore the only reason for trans women to spend effort objecting to them rather than fighting non-feminist men, who by definition were the ones with real power, was because they had a misogynistic hatred of women. It was only when those views actually lost their power and relevance that the loud, aggressive, well-connected online activists switched from covering for them to demanding that everyone support beating up elderly lesbians for merely existing in public whilst holding transphobic views. (I am unfortunately not exaggerating, this actually happened - and yes, it was definitely the same people. pg's remark about "an exclamation point after a variable" is an extreme understatement.) This shift was quite recent too - maybe around 2016 or so?
There were of course actually non-conformist people with moral views that didn't just follow the crowd and various levels of aggressiveness who balked at this at the time. They just ended up being effectively irrelevant - too far from the status quo for its supporters, but so throughly and aggressively labeled as evil supporters of it by its organised, orthodox self-proclaimed challengers that few people seeking to challenge it would listen to the non-conformists.
"not too long ago those particular views were in fact something that was doing quite a bit of harm to trans people"
I understand what you are saying, but there's a pretty big concern right there in the conflation of 'intellectual position' vs. 'ammunition supporting specific movements'.
That some systems take another persons nuanced views, possibly out of context, and use them to promote their agenda, should not in any way stop people from being able to have public discourse about them.
The fact of the matter is, JK's views are not anti-trans, even if they could be used by others as such.
However much we can decry other parties for using her words in a manner in which we do not agree, the same thing applies in the other direction: we don't get to shut her down because she doesn't 'toe the line' on the current, 'new' orthodoxy.
JK's views are reasonable.
It doesn't matter that 'some other organisation using those words to do this or that'. It's relavent, but not to the extent of censoring her.
Now - if we're talking about crude, casual bigotry from 'powerful voices' and the public effects of that, i.e. a 'Famous Person' tweeting 'bad things' - then yes, this is just populism.
But anyone willing to make a serious point within the boundaries of civility needs to be able to make it, full stop.
People can debate with JK, they can even ask her to not make her statements public 'because bad people will use it as ammunition' - but there's no way her words cross the thresholds of uncivil, and she should be able to make them without fear of being banned.
I understand what you are saying, but there's a pretty big concern right there in the conflation of 'intellectual position' vs. 'ammunition supporting specific movements'.
That some systems take another persons nuanced views, possibly out of context, and use them to promote their agenda, should not in any way stop people from being able to have public discourse about them.
The fact of the matter is, JK's views are not anti-trans, even if they could be used by others as such.
However much we can decry other parties for using her words in a manner in which we do not agree, the same thing applies in the other direction: we don't get to shut her down because she doesn't 'toe the line' on the current, 'new' orthodoxy.
JK's views are reasonable.
It doesn't matter that 'some other organisation using those words to do this or that'. It's relavent, but not to the extent of censoring her.
Now - if we're talking about crude, casual bigotry from 'powerful voices' and the public effects of that, i.e. a 'Famous Person' tweeting 'bad things' - then yes, this is just populism.
But anyone willing to make a serious point within the boundaries of civility needs to be able to make it, full stop.
People can debate with JK, they can even ask her to not make her statements public 'because bad people will use it as ammunition' - but there's no way her words cross the thresholds of uncivil, and she should be able to make them without fear of being banned.
michaelmrose(3)
I guess we've read different books about it. This is my source: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679746323/
What Mao did in secret may not be possible to know fully.
But are you really telling me that China in 1966 was a free enough society that students could just start an independent political movement that took over the country?
What Mao did in secret may not be possible to know fully.
But are you really telling me that China in 1966 was a free enough society that students could just start an independent political movement that took over the country?
I haven't read that book, but the Wikipedia article gives a reasonable account based on what I've read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards#Origins
>But are you really telling me that China in 1966 was a free enough society that students could just start an independent political movement that took over the country?
It wasn't a free society by any stretch, but the students' radicalism was in line with the prevailing zeitgeist... they denounced university officials as intellectual elites, corrupted by bourgeois notions that threatened the success of the revolution. Meanwhile, Mao faced ongoing struggles to maintain and consolidate power, so he found endorsing their ideas useful. But the movement itself rapidly spun beyond his direct control.
>But are you really telling me that China in 1966 was a free enough society that students could just start an independent political movement that took over the country?
It wasn't a free society by any stretch, but the students' radicalism was in line with the prevailing zeitgeist... they denounced university officials as intellectual elites, corrupted by bourgeois notions that threatened the success of the revolution. Meanwhile, Mao faced ongoing struggles to maintain and consolidate power, so he found endorsing their ideas useful. But the movement itself rapidly spun beyond his direct control.
Mao leveraged the movement to try and get himself back in the driver's seat, after he had been sidelined following the Great Leap Forward. He amplified them greatly for his own selfish reasons, which is also happening in our current moment, in different ways. They wound up being, surprise, unpredictable and destructive.
(A note, I read that book too, it's good but needs discounting for bias. Anybody who writes Beijing as 'Peking', or Zhou Enlai as "Chou En-lai" in the 21st century has clearly got a KMT-flavored axe to grind. But it also has some great original research.)
(A note, I read that book too, it's good but needs discounting for bias. Anybody who writes Beijing as 'Peking', or Zhou Enlai as "Chou En-lai" in the 21st century has clearly got a KMT-flavored axe to grind. But it also has some great original research.)
Yeah, the anti Mao sentiment is very clear.
This is not just a factual historical account. It also takes a lot of opportunities to point out how awful a person Mao was, and makes claims about his motives, which don't always seem knowable.
Of course, when writing about one of the worst rulers in human history, being a bit judgemental is understandable. But it does make me want to check other sources.
On the fact level, there seems to be an enormous amount of work behind the book.
This is not just a factual historical account. It also takes a lot of opportunities to point out how awful a person Mao was, and makes claims about his motives, which don't always seem knowable.
Of course, when writing about one of the worst rulers in human history, being a bit judgemental is understandable. But it does make me want to check other sources.
On the fact level, there seems to be an enormous amount of work behind the book.
>(being a kind of political endorsement), and from that point Red Guard cells sprung up organically across the country.
This is a massive understatement of what Mao's support and endorsement meant, and understating the "organic” nature of what happened after.
This is a massive understatement of what Mao's support and endorsement meant, and understating the "organic” nature of what happened after.
> What's happening in the US emerging from below
Partly, yes. But it is also being co-opted by people whose actual motives are very different from the perfectly justifiable demands for equality before the law.
> without anyone orchestrating it
It may have started without anyone orchestrating it, but I don't think it's that way now. See above.
Partly, yes. But it is also being co-opted by people whose actual motives are very different from the perfectly justifiable demands for equality before the law.
> without anyone orchestrating it
It may have started without anyone orchestrating it, but I don't think it's that way now. See above.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Agreed. Recently read Born Red by Yuan Gao. Harrowing, both in what happened and how plausible it sounds today
Now, what happens to the "conventional" in Paul Graham's independent-minded world?
Can you be independent-minded in the wrong way? What if you're not independent-minded enough, according to someone?
Can you be independent-minded in the wrong way? What if you're not independent-minded enough, according to someone?
michaelmrose(1)
Tiktaalik(1)
ne chital, no osuzhdayu
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/american-so...
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/american-so...
Am I misreading you or are you framing the left as the forces of conformity?
Only one side has badgeless forces snatching people off the streets and is talking about disregarding the results of our election.
My apologies if I misunderstood.
Only one side has badgeless forces snatching people off the streets and is talking about disregarding the results of our election.
My apologies if I misunderstood.
It's possible for the left and the right to both be conformist in nature.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
How old are you that you've seen this before? If you are just seeing similarities to soviet steady state society, they might not mean we are headed towards that state, since its unclear if the process that birthed the social order you experienced was similar to it at all.
Is it inconceivable that someone who experienced Soviet life in the 70s or 80s might be around on HN? I didn't interpret either gp or ggp as talking about the October Revolution or collectivizing the "kulak" farmers. Just the ordinary totalitarianism where people who think for themselves (we might call them "aggressive-independent") have to go mute in order to not step on ever-changing minefields, or be very careful about who they talk to.
The problem that I see is: what's the alternative?
Average people don't really have any political power in America so what alternative do they have?
I agree with you that some of the more extreme parts of the social justice movement (for lack of a better term) worry me, but the alternative seems to be to do nothing.
Average people don't really have any political power in America so what alternative do they have?
I agree with you that some of the more extreme parts of the social justice movement (for lack of a better term) worry me, but the alternative seems to be to do nothing.
So what should we do? Honest question.
michaelmrose(2)
One of my early mentors was ex-Soviet, and he impressed to me the absolute dangers inherent in elevation of elevating collective identity over individual identity.
I see this happening now, and all too many of my colleagues gleefully signing on. Recently one posted content that appeared to be regurgitated Agile materials for dealing with organizational dysfunction. But this material had replaced all mentions of org dysfunction with 'white supremacy'. It basically blamed every workplace antipattern on colonialism and, conveniently, whenever perpetrated by a non white person, stated it was internalized white supremacy. The dev, who is very much on the spectrum, seems to take joy in having the world turned into a D & D game, with different rules depending on whether you are orc, elf, or human.
I see this happening now, and all too many of my colleagues gleefully signing on. Recently one posted content that appeared to be regurgitated Agile materials for dealing with organizational dysfunction. But this material had replaced all mentions of org dysfunction with 'white supremacy'. It basically blamed every workplace antipattern on colonialism and, conveniently, whenever perpetrated by a non white person, stated it was internalized white supremacy. The dev, who is very much on the spectrum, seems to take joy in having the world turned into a D & D game, with different rules depending on whether you are orc, elf, or human.
Did they talk at all about how they felt that should be balanced against the need for society to work together towards common goals?
I'm worried about some of the excesses of "cancel culture" but I'm more worried about the current Republican approach of basically saying that society has no obligation to its members. What worries me the most, is that I'm not sure I see a good way to balance the two extremes.
I'm worried about some of the excesses of "cancel culture" but I'm more worried about the current Republican approach of basically saying that society has no obligation to its members. What worries me the most, is that I'm not sure I see a good way to balance the two extremes.
How do individuals meet their obligations to society (if any)?
Do they do it through voluntary exchange, altruism and compassion.
Or do they do it out of compulsion because they are threatened with violence?
The latter is obviously not what we want, but its the State we have. Reducing the size of the state therefore sounds like a good plan, since it should reduce the amount of threatening with violence that has to be done.
Do they do it through voluntary exchange, altruism and compassion.
Or do they do it out of compulsion because they are threatened with violence?
The latter is obviously not what we want, but its the State we have. Reducing the size of the state therefore sounds like a good plan, since it should reduce the amount of threatening with violence that has to be done.
It seems to me that reasoning is backwards. People agree to come together in society because the believe that doing so will allow their needs to be met. If their needs are not being met but they still go along with society, then it is likely because of the threat of violence if they do not.
For example, I recognize someone else's home as private property because I want my own home to be recognized as private property. However, if a society's economy is such that I cannot afford a house then the only motivation for me to respect someone else's home as private property is because society threatens to throw me in jail if I don't.
For example, I recognize someone else's home as private property because I want my own home to be recognized as private property. However, if a society's economy is such that I cannot afford a house then the only motivation for me to respect someone else's home as private property is because society threatens to throw me in jail if I don't.
As I said, the State we have is violent by its nature. I'm suggesting this is not what we want.
You not trespassing on somebody's home because you don't want your own to be treated that way is a great moral to hold, but not shared by everyone. A society can only function like this if people are on the same page - if they share a collective moral framework. Traditionally this was through religion, but these days "god is dead", and large scale immigration has led to societies with no common traditions or moral backgrounds.
In a nation where people have arms, then the most legitimate reason not to trespass in somebody's house is that you don't want to be shot by its owner. The decision to trespass in somebody's home is a choice between your life or whatever you may gain from trespassing. The choice is obvious.
Burglary is quite high in the UK where people don't have arms (or if they do for sport or hunting, they are not allowed to use them for self-defence). It is lower (per capita) in the US.
And self-defence, even if lethal force is used, is never "violence." (A common misunderstanding)
The way individuals should meet their obligations to society is through the non-aggression principle. One should not support any kind of violence, or threat of violence against others. What follows then, is peaceful, voluntary cooperation.
You not trespassing on somebody's home because you don't want your own to be treated that way is a great moral to hold, but not shared by everyone. A society can only function like this if people are on the same page - if they share a collective moral framework. Traditionally this was through religion, but these days "god is dead", and large scale immigration has led to societies with no common traditions or moral backgrounds.
In a nation where people have arms, then the most legitimate reason not to trespass in somebody's house is that you don't want to be shot by its owner. The decision to trespass in somebody's home is a choice between your life or whatever you may gain from trespassing. The choice is obvious.
Burglary is quite high in the UK where people don't have arms (or if they do for sport or hunting, they are not allowed to use them for self-defence). It is lower (per capita) in the US.
And self-defence, even if lethal force is used, is never "violence." (A common misunderstanding)
The way individuals should meet their obligations to society is through the non-aggression principle. One should not support any kind of violence, or threat of violence against others. What follows then, is peaceful, voluntary cooperation.
If I don't trespass because I don't want to be shot then that sounds like the homeowner is violating the non-aggression principle. They are using the threat of aggression to motivate me to do what they want.
As I stated above, self-defence is never violence. This includes stating your intent to defend yourself, your family and your property even with lethal force. You shouldn't need to state it though, it should be assumed.
A homeowner cannot possibly know the motive of a trespasser, and it is therefore completely rational for them to use lethal self-defence, because they must assume the worst-case, that the trespasser may harm them or their family.
So there is no violation of the NAP here - the trespasser is the only one who may be in violation.
Obviously, the vast majority of people aren't out to kill. They don't want to harm someone for stepping onto their lawn, nor do they want to clean up a dead body. The use of self-defence is a last-resort if they feel in danger, or if they feel their property is under threat and it's worth more than the perpetrators life.
If the trespasser decides that somebody's property is worth more than their own life (which is the case if they assume the owner may use lethal self-defence), then there should be no expectation of the property owner valuing the life of the perpetrator more than their property. Both parties agree that the property is worth more than the aggressor’s life.
A homeowner cannot possibly know the motive of a trespasser, and it is therefore completely rational for them to use lethal self-defence, because they must assume the worst-case, that the trespasser may harm them or their family.
So there is no violation of the NAP here - the trespasser is the only one who may be in violation.
Obviously, the vast majority of people aren't out to kill. They don't want to harm someone for stepping onto their lawn, nor do they want to clean up a dead body. The use of self-defence is a last-resort if they feel in danger, or if they feel their property is under threat and it's worth more than the perpetrators life.
If the trespasser decides that somebody's property is worth more than their own life (which is the case if they assume the owner may use lethal self-defence), then there should be no expectation of the property owner valuing the life of the perpetrator more than their property. Both parties agree that the property is worth more than the aggressor’s life.
One interesting thing I’m seeing is that both our (relative) extremes are culturally different how they try to silence and discredit opposing views, but both think the other’s approach and ideologies are more dangerous and Godwin’s Law is running amok in the real world. My analogy is the meltdown and chaos of many different online communities following similar paths of lack of social cohesion turning into decentralization and radicalization. It’s like watching cellular division happening as a super bacteria or bioweapon mutates.
I grew up in the US but have spent a lot of time watching how other countries have fallen and listened to both survivors that stayed and those that left. I also listened carefully to my elders’ stories both rich and poor about their lives in wars and how totalitarian and fascist regimes work.
Being called both a fascist and commie now by random people depending upon their alignment worries me because we are losing the ability to have nuanced conversations that might actually fix our problems without a full blown war.
It really is a sad sight to see as second generation immigrants when our parents worked so hard to leave oppression or for economic opportunities see these very things repeat.
And yes, I’m going to say that America’s “free speech” experiment has escaped the lab and is a Godzilla monster out of control. I don’t even care who’s at fault frankly as much as I want people to sit down and stop having bad faith arguments against each other as a rule.
I grew up in the US but have spent a lot of time watching how other countries have fallen and listened to both survivors that stayed and those that left. I also listened carefully to my elders’ stories both rich and poor about their lives in wars and how totalitarian and fascist regimes work.
Being called both a fascist and commie now by random people depending upon their alignment worries me because we are losing the ability to have nuanced conversations that might actually fix our problems without a full blown war.
It really is a sad sight to see as second generation immigrants when our parents worked so hard to leave oppression or for economic opportunities see these very things repeat.
And yes, I’m going to say that America’s “free speech” experiment has escaped the lab and is a Godzilla monster out of control. I don’t even care who’s at fault frankly as much as I want people to sit down and stop having bad faith arguments against each other as a rule.
It's his personal problem.
He built the ultimate machine to attract conformists who want to get another badge. First the conformists will push out individualists by their sheer bulk and better ability to navigate the approval process. (It's their core competency in life!)
Y Combinator is a plant that has grown too large for its pot. Someday something is going to go wrong, there are so many people going through it that sooner or later there is going to be a scandal. Graham is not on a growth trajectory, and sooner or later decay is going to catch up with him. I don't know exactly how, but the logic of exponential growth will to discover it.
If he wants to do anything except "richmansplain" about how there's some kind of problem that he can't talk about except in abtruse code (e.g. I am clearly agonized about something, but I have to draw four quadrants to pretend that I'm thinking deeply about it rather than obscure what bothers me) because if he was able to put his ineffable thoughts into words then somebody is going to do something completely indescribable.
He won't listen but here is my advice.
Graham has accomplished as much as he can in the place he is at. If he stays where he is, he can at best tread water, at worst various problems are going to catch up with him, he's going to paint himself into a corner, the amoral conformists attracted to his organization are going to create a scandal, the u.s. becomes unable to support s.v. b ecause capital has waged an investment strike against most of it, etc.
If he leaves Y Co in the hands of people he trusts (does he trust anyone?) and spends a year or two doing something else in a different place I think he'll have something interesting to say and he
It's sad, but reading his essays feels so much like reading Peirs Anthony, it is just the same essay over and over again with very little feeling he's grown. Maybe he needs to hang out with some adults, admit that being a zillionaire doesn't make you immortal, that you're always going to be frustrated because your species is split into two genders, etc.
He built the ultimate machine to attract conformists who want to get another badge. First the conformists will push out individualists by their sheer bulk and better ability to navigate the approval process. (It's their core competency in life!)
Y Combinator is a plant that has grown too large for its pot. Someday something is going to go wrong, there are so many people going through it that sooner or later there is going to be a scandal. Graham is not on a growth trajectory, and sooner or later decay is going to catch up with him. I don't know exactly how, but the logic of exponential growth will to discover it.
If he wants to do anything except "richmansplain" about how there's some kind of problem that he can't talk about except in abtruse code (e.g. I am clearly agonized about something, but I have to draw four quadrants to pretend that I'm thinking deeply about it rather than obscure what bothers me) because if he was able to put his ineffable thoughts into words then somebody is going to do something completely indescribable.
He won't listen but here is my advice.
Graham has accomplished as much as he can in the place he is at. If he stays where he is, he can at best tread water, at worst various problems are going to catch up with him, he's going to paint himself into a corner, the amoral conformists attracted to his organization are going to create a scandal, the u.s. becomes unable to support s.v. b ecause capital has waged an investment strike against most of it, etc.
If he leaves Y Co in the hands of people he trusts (does he trust anyone?) and spends a year or two doing something else in a different place I think he'll have something interesting to say and he
It's sad, but reading his essays feels so much like reading Peirs Anthony, it is just the same essay over and over again with very little feeling he's grown. Maybe he needs to hang out with some adults, admit that being a zillionaire doesn't make you immortal, that you're always going to be frustrated because your species is split into two genders, etc.
Well said.
pg might be interesting again if he said what "unsayable" and "aggressively independent-minded" things he actually wants to say, and I wish he bloody would - we've got no choice but to read it.
"independent-minded" is such a cliche now - it's often a euphemism for something else. Surely more truly "aggressively independent-minded" people are homeless addicts, not rockstar founders. What's the right balance between conformism and independent-mindedness? In what areas of life? This 2-axis system is way too simple. Start there, dude.
By implication pg (and YC) recognise and value independent-mindedness - but as you say, from the outside YC appears to reward conformism to their well-understood creeds (as well as just playing the odds of an enormous number of companies, rather than being clever pickers).
(edit: removed snark, however deserved)
pg might be interesting again if he said what "unsayable" and "aggressively independent-minded" things he actually wants to say, and I wish he bloody would - we've got no choice but to read it.
"independent-minded" is such a cliche now - it's often a euphemism for something else. Surely more truly "aggressively independent-minded" people are homeless addicts, not rockstar founders. What's the right balance between conformism and independent-mindedness? In what areas of life? This 2-axis system is way too simple. Start there, dude.
By implication pg (and YC) recognise and value independent-mindedness - but as you say, from the outside YC appears to reward conformism to their well-understood creeds (as well as just playing the odds of an enormous number of companies, rather than being clever pickers).
(edit: removed snark, however deserved)
It would be interesting if he developed a theory of "unsayable" things based on examples. One really good one is Freud's theory of infantile sexuality:
https://www.bartleby.com/278/2.html
It's completely true that four year old boys get erections and play with themselves (I did), don't think about it all when they are ten, and then tend to think about it a lot when they hit puberty.
It is the basis for understanding how sexual abuse hurts children, but say it and people will report you to the FBI as a pedo.
If Graham were serious he could make a list of 20 diverse examples like this.
https://www.bartleby.com/278/2.html
It's completely true that four year old boys get erections and play with themselves (I did), don't think about it all when they are ten, and then tend to think about it a lot when they hit puberty.
It is the basis for understanding how sexual abuse hurts children, but say it and people will report you to the FBI as a pedo.
If Graham were serious he could make a list of 20 diverse examples like this.
Interesting. Here's what he wrote about that in 2004:
"When you find something you can't say, what do you do with it? My advice is, don't say it. Or at least, pick your battles...The most important thing is to be able to think what you want, not to say what you want. And if you feel you have to say everything you think, it may inhibit you from thinking improper thoughts. I think it's better to follow the opposite policy. Draw a sharp line between your thoughts and your speech. Inside your head, anything is allowed. Within my head I make a point of encouraging the most outrageous thoughts I can imagine. But, as in a secret society, nothing that happens within the building should be told to outsiders."
http://paulgraham.com/say.html
"When you find something you can't say, what do you do with it? My advice is, don't say it. Or at least, pick your battles...The most important thing is to be able to think what you want, not to say what you want. And if you feel you have to say everything you think, it may inhibit you from thinking improper thoughts. I think it's better to follow the opposite policy. Draw a sharp line between your thoughts and your speech. Inside your head, anything is allowed. Within my head I make a point of encouraging the most outrageous thoughts I can imagine. But, as in a secret society, nothing that happens within the building should be told to outsiders."
http://paulgraham.com/say.html
Freudian Psychoanalysis is the basis of nothing. Freud never formulated testable, falsifiable hypotheses, and his "theories" were nothing but speculation and pseudoscience, which is why by 1980, US psychiatrists wanting to make their specialization more respectable and evidence-based purged the DSM of all references to Freud.
If anything, it's criticism of Freud and his theories, outside of strictly science-based objections, that is "unsayable":
kevinmacdonald.net/chap4.pdf
If anything, it's criticism of Freud and his theories, outside of strictly science-based objections, that is "unsayable":
kevinmacdonald.net/chap4.pdf
The fact that you are posting this using your real name is strong evidence that it's not actually "unsayable".
Freudian psychoanalysis was a core component of orthodox leftwing thought up until fairly recently. His influence on the left was massive, perhaps second only to Marx. The idea that you could get cancelled for endorsing his theories today, even the parts that arguably normalize pedophilia by sexualizing infants (eg, their supposed sexual attraction to opposite-sex parents, or their psychological development being based on a progression of erogenous zones) is silly.
Despite the biographical problems, I agree with the comments on the essays. He's fighting the last war still.
Conventional thinkers are the builders of institutions. The people who bring us together. As an aggressively independent minded person, I see a dire need for that.
If socially minded people don't have a nice group to join, they fall back on the old toxic classics. We need someone to give us new unions, churches, universities, bowling teams, a group you aren't born into. The aggressively conventionally minded people are the ones who can do that!
Conventional thinkers are the builders of institutions. The people who bring us together. As an aggressively independent minded person, I see a dire need for that.
If socially minded people don't have a nice group to join, they fall back on the old toxic classics. We need someone to give us new unions, churches, universities, bowling teams, a group you aren't born into. The aggressively conventionally minded people are the ones who can do that!
He hasn't been running YC for years now. He left it to Sam Altman to run for the last couple of years. And even Sam has left the post to Geoff Ralston, which is currently running it. PG's twice removed. We're on Thomas Jefferson now.
He doesn’t run YC anymore. He lives in the Uk at this point
Thanks for the correction!
It might be nice to hear something about his experience in the UK then.
It might be nice to hear something about his experience in the UK then.
Is there more context on this? Why is he in the UK for example?
It's interesting that he doesn't share anything about his life, isn't it? Even if his body is not in the Bay Area he doesn't show any evidence of having been around.
Even Piers Anthony would talk about the random things that happened in his life, but Graham doesn't.
Even Piers Anthony would talk about the random things that happened in his life, but Graham doesn't.
He's raising his kids. It's understandable if someone doesn't want to talk about the comings and goings of their family and personal life.
Occasionally he'll tweet out "darn things my kids say". But no, it's not interesting at all he doesn't share anything about his life.
Occasionally he'll tweet out "darn things my kids say". But no, it's not interesting at all he doesn't share anything about his life.
I think he might have downvoted me even for asking :)
Seriously though, I can't really blame him. I got a few days fame back in the day and it was a scary thing to watch a mob of strangers picking on my past and judging. Even people who I thought are my friends acted extremely strange - as if they don't know me personally and joining the mob of haters or lovers.
Seriously though, I can't really blame him. I got a few days fame back in the day and it was a scary thing to watch a mob of strangers picking on my past and judging. Even people who I thought are my friends acted extremely strange - as if they don't know me personally and joining the mob of haters or lovers.
[deleted]
Some ideas are dangerous, and closely tied to both actions and policies. It is the responsibility of smart, powerful and conscientious people to acknowledge that. I am not saying that dangerous ideas should not be discussed. But we should be careful what we say in public. How should society regulate pedophilia, if at all? Nambla has opinions about that. Does Paul draw the line at legalizing pedophilia? Does he advocate that our most popular platforms embrace and encourage that debate? Race-based eugenics is another idea that has surfaced again and again. Why not optimize the human species through sterilization of its less desired members? That idea seems to march in lockstep with policies of extermination. Does Paul draw the line at that idea? If not, why not?
By removing pedophiles from society through violence, naturally.
> the left and the right my opinion are missing the key points on freedom (the left suppressing and labeling, the right militarizing).
If I had to choose between “cancel culture” versus militarized violence, cancel me any day.
If I had to choose between “cancel culture” versus militarized violence, cancel me any day.
I see you slipped the word "violence" in there. Perhaps you misspelled "defence"?
The State is the primary perpetrator of violence, not "the right".
You shouldn't be thinking in "left vs right", but in "individuals vs the state". The only things sitting between your liberties and the State are: its constitution (if any), and the "militarized right" (gun owners).
There's some historical examples of individuals giving up their guns, perhaps you should read into what happened afterwards?
The State is the primary perpetrator of violence, not "the right".
You shouldn't be thinking in "left vs right", but in "individuals vs the state". The only things sitting between your liberties and the State are: its constitution (if any), and the "militarized right" (gun owners).
There's some historical examples of individuals giving up their guns, perhaps you should read into what happened afterwards?
hello from europe, we got all the versions running for 150 years, none proved armed citizens turned out good I think?
> the fundamental ideas that America is built on is focused so heavily on freedom that I trust the aggressively independent to protect, and the passively independent minded to innovate.
If you saw that essay as a defense of existing social structures, how are you so sure you're not just one of the convention minded too?
If you saw that essay as a defense of existing social structures, how are you so sure you're not just one of the convention minded too?
To clarify how I see it -
I don’t see it as a defense of existing social structures, I see it as a defense of freedom. Some existing social structures promote it, and so would others that don’t exist yet (some ideas: social network that proliferates good debates, tool that shows a politician’s vested interests, laws on transparency and symmetry, a new kind of univ focused on experience in the real world, etc)
To answer the question, how do I know if I’m just one of the convention minded? -
I don’t think you can know with certainty, so you should question yourself, but there are a few signs:
- if your ideas are nuanced and don’t quite fit on an axis, sign of a good thing - if you read original sources, and reflect on your own experience to form theories, good sign - if you have gotten deeper on opposing views, and can articulate them well, good sign - if you notice most people in your social circle wouldn’t agree with some of your ideas, could be a good sign (conventionally minded folks are often conventionally minded to gain support of their immediate peers)
I don’t see it as a defense of existing social structures, I see it as a defense of freedom. Some existing social structures promote it, and so would others that don’t exist yet (some ideas: social network that proliferates good debates, tool that shows a politician’s vested interests, laws on transparency and symmetry, a new kind of univ focused on experience in the real world, etc)
To answer the question, how do I know if I’m just one of the convention minded? -
I don’t think you can know with certainty, so you should question yourself, but there are a few signs:
- if your ideas are nuanced and don’t quite fit on an axis, sign of a good thing - if you read original sources, and reflect on your own experience to form theories, good sign - if you have gotten deeper on opposing views, and can articulate them well, good sign - if you notice most people in your social circle wouldn’t agree with some of your ideas, could be a good sign (conventionally minded folks are often conventionally minded to gain support of their immediate peers)
> I don’t see it as a defense of existing social structures, I see it as a defense of freedom.
Right, in the same sentence in which you identified "freedom", not as an abstract ideal that stands alone, but as one of "the fundamental ideas that America is built on". That tells me you're making a political point (or an identity one, I guess), not a principled one.
As far as your definition, I'd just go with this:
- Do you regularly find your ideas conflict in serious ways with people who hold actual power over your daily life.
- Do you do anything about it?
If you don't answer yes to BOTH of those questions, I think you can rule out the "independent thinker" label. If you do, well maybe I guess.
But I'd suggest toning down the identity stuff unless you're trying to signal to a particular tribe. It's conformist almost by definition.
Right, in the same sentence in which you identified "freedom", not as an abstract ideal that stands alone, but as one of "the fundamental ideas that America is built on". That tells me you're making a political point (or an identity one, I guess), not a principled one.
As far as your definition, I'd just go with this:
- Do you regularly find your ideas conflict in serious ways with people who hold actual power over your daily life.
- Do you do anything about it?
If you don't answer yes to BOTH of those questions, I think you can rule out the "independent thinker" label. If you do, well maybe I guess.
But I'd suggest toning down the identity stuff unless you're trying to signal to a particular tribe. It's conformist almost by definition.
You are mixing thought and values, in both of your questions.
Independent minded people can find themselves agreeing with people in power; the independence of mind is about the “why” not the “what.” If you independently, critically evaluate an issue and settle on the common belief that doesn’t make you conformist.
Likewise, if you settle on the opposite side and don’t act on it, it takes nothing away from your independence of thought, rather it’s a question of values. The answer to “is this worth my time?“ is yes or no independently of whether you agree of disagree with the zeitgeist.
Independent minded people can find themselves agreeing with people in power; the independence of mind is about the “why” not the “what.” If you independently, critically evaluate an issue and settle on the common belief that doesn’t make you conformist.
Likewise, if you settle on the opposite side and don’t act on it, it takes nothing away from your independence of thought, rather it’s a question of values. The answer to “is this worth my time?“ is yes or no independently of whether you agree of disagree with the zeitgeist.
Re: political or identity point
I am not quite sure I understand that view. Why is the statement “America was built on fundamental ideas of freedom” a political or identity point?
From the way our government is structured (checks and balances), to the constitution (free speech), I think they stand on the side of freedom pretty objectively
I am not quite sure I understand that view. Why is the statement “America was built on fundamental ideas of freedom” a political or identity point?
From the way our government is structured (checks and balances), to the constitution (free speech), I think they stand on the side of freedom pretty objectively
> I am not quite sure I understand that view. Why is the statement “America was built on fundamental ideas of freedom” a political or identity point?
Because freedom cannot be untied from politics and society. The initial constitutional congress defined freedom for those who owned land. Obviously with time it expanded to all white men, then all white women, and so on, but not with out a inherently political fight.
A fight which we may not encode into law, but which is effectively encoded into law by uneven enforcement of law.
Because freedom cannot be untied from politics and society. The initial constitutional congress defined freedom for those who owned land. Obviously with time it expanded to all white men, then all white women, and so on, but not with out a inherently political fight.
A fight which we may not encode into law, but which is effectively encoded into law by uneven enforcement of law.
Whether or not you believe America was built on freedom has a strong correlation to your political affiliation.
That has only been true for a few years. In any previous century, that claim was not political.
That's really not true. For the last 60 years or so (basically since the civil rights movement) the conventional understanding of "freedom" on the educated American left has been significantly more nuanced. It is, after all, a nation with the institution of slavery enshrined in its constitution, so people tend to talk carefully about which freedoms they mean.
On the right, that never took hold (we probably don't want to get into why). So when someone says something like "freedom is a foundational ideal of America" they're effectively making a declaration of identity as an American conservative.
And coming back to the upthread point: if I hear that statement as "I'm a conservative!" in the context of "I'm an independent thinker!", then I'm going to be a little dubious about how independent that thought is when it's defined in terms of a political identity. Political orthodoxy is perhaps the SAFEST form of (to use the terminology from the article) conventional-minded thought.
On the right, that never took hold (we probably don't want to get into why). So when someone says something like "freedom is a foundational ideal of America" they're effectively making a declaration of identity as an American conservative.
And coming back to the upthread point: if I hear that statement as "I'm a conservative!" in the context of "I'm an independent thinker!", then I'm going to be a little dubious about how independent that thought is when it's defined in terms of a political identity. Political orthodoxy is perhaps the SAFEST form of (to use the terminology from the article) conventional-minded thought.
"Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners." —Vladimir Lenin
In the case of the early United States, the "slave-owners" part is literal, but even ignoring that, you have to remember that when the constitution was written, only land-owning white men could vote, and the men forming the new government were largely the same ones who had a leading role in British colonial society. The "freedom" in question was pretty much exclusively the freedom of the ruling class here to oppress others without the interference of the ruling class there. For instance, one of the sources of tension leading up to the revolution was the Proclamation of 1763, by which the British government forbade further colonization westward into Indian territory. Consequently, most Indians supported the British during the revolution. Which side do you think was better protecting their freedom?
You can also see this in the design of the original constitution, which has many "checks and balances" to protect against parts of the federal government usurping power, but has effectively nothing protecting freedom or democracy from the existing state governments, except requiring that they have a Republican form of government. Again, the freedom of the rulers here from the power of the rulers there. I'll admit that the first amendment was a genuine step towards freedom, but one which was taken primarily for the protection of the class interests of the type of men who'd participated in the committees of correspondence, which were frequently denied to people with less power, starting with the Alien and Sedition acts of 1798 and continuing in some form or another throughout all American history.
None of this is to say that there's no way that the founding of the US could be seen as representing freedom: just that there's another possible narrative depending on what parts of the story you do and don't tell. I started this comment by quoting Lenin, who in that context could be seen as a freedom-fighter, who indeed overthrew an absolute monarch in the name of freedom and equality. If you read the Soviet constitution, it also purported to guarantee free speech, press, and religion. However, Lenin ensured that the new government was a one-party state, which quickly eroded almost all freedoms that had been achieved in the revolution. Which part of the story you choose to tell and how it reflects on the present day is a matter of ideology and identity.
In the case of the early United States, the "slave-owners" part is literal, but even ignoring that, you have to remember that when the constitution was written, only land-owning white men could vote, and the men forming the new government were largely the same ones who had a leading role in British colonial society. The "freedom" in question was pretty much exclusively the freedom of the ruling class here to oppress others without the interference of the ruling class there. For instance, one of the sources of tension leading up to the revolution was the Proclamation of 1763, by which the British government forbade further colonization westward into Indian territory. Consequently, most Indians supported the British during the revolution. Which side do you think was better protecting their freedom?
You can also see this in the design of the original constitution, which has many "checks and balances" to protect against parts of the federal government usurping power, but has effectively nothing protecting freedom or democracy from the existing state governments, except requiring that they have a Republican form of government. Again, the freedom of the rulers here from the power of the rulers there. I'll admit that the first amendment was a genuine step towards freedom, but one which was taken primarily for the protection of the class interests of the type of men who'd participated in the committees of correspondence, which were frequently denied to people with less power, starting with the Alien and Sedition acts of 1798 and continuing in some form or another throughout all American history.
None of this is to say that there's no way that the founding of the US could be seen as representing freedom: just that there's another possible narrative depending on what parts of the story you do and don't tell. I started this comment by quoting Lenin, who in that context could be seen as a freedom-fighter, who indeed overthrew an absolute monarch in the name of freedom and equality. If you read the Soviet constitution, it also purported to guarantee free speech, press, and religion. However, Lenin ensured that the new government was a one-party state, which quickly eroded almost all freedoms that had been achieved in the revolution. Which part of the story you choose to tell and how it reflects on the present day is a matter of ideology and identity.
Yes to both: I was a staff eng at big co, where the way I wrote the ideas above would have been trouble. I didn’t kow tow during my tenure, and now I’m building a company.
> the independent minded are good at figuring out solutions.
Ideally it wouldn't cost one their life, liberty or means of sustenance in the pursuit of figuring out these solutions
Ideally it wouldn't cost one their life, liberty or means of sustenance in the pursuit of figuring out these solutions
Thinking little more on this. Today's independent become tomorrow's conventional. Not sure if the same person maintains the independence or gets tied to their idea and in a way loosing the independence. In scientific community too new ideas are challenged by conventional great scientist sometime.
[deleted]
>No matter what, the fundamental ideas that America is built on is focused so heavily on freedom
Freedom as long as you aren't threateningly critical of America.
The journalist of the Syrian War who took an anti-American stance and was targetted by American drone strikes would prove otherwise: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-...
Freedom as long as you aren't threateningly critical of America.
The journalist of the Syrian War who took an anti-American stance and was targetted by American drone strikes would prove otherwise: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-...
You don't even have to look that far, there are secret police officers using unmarked rental cars to arrest protesters without telling them who they are and why they are being arrested.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/17/portland-pro...
https://twitter.com/sparrowmedia/status/1283436911307218948
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/17/portland-pro...
https://twitter.com/sparrowmedia/status/1283436911307218948
The guy they’re “arresting” also doesn’t say anything, and is extremely compliant for someone who’s allegedly an anti-police protester. I believe that is a video of an informant extraction.
> I believe that is a video of an informant extraction.
It could very well be but it isn't an isolated thing (as far as I can tell) and it's in line with everything that happened in the last weeks/months in the US.
In absence of any proofs I wouldn't side with the law enforcement by default, but you're right to question it.
It could very well be but it isn't an isolated thing (as far as I can tell) and it's in line with everything that happened in the last weeks/months in the US.
In absence of any proofs I wouldn't side with the law enforcement by default, but you're right to question it.
> it isn't an isolated thing (as far as I can tell) and it's in line with everything that happened in the last weeks/months in the US.
If that’s the case, then why is this very strange and anomalous video the one thing people keep talking about when there are much more clear-cut examples such as Lafayette Park? More importantly, why is that the one data point that people are building the narrative around and saying, “well, it isn’t an isolated incident”.
If that’s the case, then why is this very strange and anomalous video the one thing people keep talking about when there are much more clear-cut examples such as Lafayette Park? More importantly, why is that the one data point that people are building the narrative around and saying, “well, it isn’t an isolated incident”.
How many bad apples makes a police black site?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-poli...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-poli...
And while you are aghast at that, I’d have ask if you’d be aghast at the people who bully and gaslight and threaten individuals who are critical of some aspects of progressivism. I ask because if we ever had an “antifa” government I can be almost certain the abuses would escalate to heights we dare not imagine.
[deleted]
[deleted]
"Yes I understand you're outraged by killing people with drone strikes, but think of the people whose companies didn't want anything to do with them after they said something nasty!"
I also am not a fan of cancel culture or the sort of progressive Victorianism we see these days. Sure an antifa government would suck.
But that's just bad manners, these are people being assassinated because the government disagrees with them.
But that's just bad manners, these are people being assassinated because the government disagrees with them.
I wouldn’t be so optimistic. Level headed people in the French Revolution, the liberals in the Russian revolution, they had some rather horrible things happen. Done by very lucid people. You can’t say that was then. It’s hard to escape that fate.
The fact that an article exists, and it’s possible for him to sue, is a right and luxury afforded to us by this American belief in freedom.
His suit was dismissed by the government because having to defend themselves against the accusation would disclose state secrets. The right to sue only matters if you can meaningfully exercise it...
And your standards are ridiculous. If anyone anywhere was able to show you a story of the US trying to kill someone for committing ideological heresy then the very fact they could tell you the story is proof that Amrrica believes in ideological freedom? You see the contradiction surely...
And your standards are ridiculous. If anyone anywhere was able to show you a story of the US trying to kill someone for committing ideological heresy then the very fact they could tell you the story is proof that Amrrica believes in ideological freedom? You see the contradiction surely...
I don’t quite see it, because at least in the part of the world I was raised, I can tell you that someone talking about this on the news would have sounded ridiculous.
I do agree that America has never been a perfect bastion of freedom, and there are large struggles today. It definitely saddens me to see that.
Yet, this is the whole point of the idea that our ties to freedom are fundamental — that some group in the U.S _will_ disagree with authorities, that even if a suit is dropped, they may continue the fight. It’s not ideal that we have to fight, but the fact that we can is a freedom that is very rare.
I do agree that America has never been a perfect bastion of freedom, and there are large struggles today. It definitely saddens me to see that.
Yet, this is the whole point of the idea that our ties to freedom are fundamental — that some group in the U.S _will_ disagree with authorities, that even if a suit is dropped, they may continue the fight. It’s not ideal that we have to fight, but the fact that we can is a freedom that is very rare.
I was raised in such a world too.
I get what you're saying. But like everything there is a middle ground. US has good press freedom, but they also, like every country, will kill you if you "blaspheme" against them too much. There's a balance between freedom and security. And what the US deems "safe" and "unsafe" is always important to keep in mind
I get what you're saying. But like everything there is a middle ground. US has good press freedom, but they also, like every country, will kill you if you "blaspheme" against them too much. There's a balance between freedom and security. And what the US deems "safe" and "unsafe" is always important to keep in mind
peisistratos(1)
[deleted]
At the notes, there is something that caught my attention:
> Many professors are independent-minded — especially in math, the hard sciences, and engineering, where you have to be to succeed.
And I disagree with it. You don't have to be independent-minded (from the group) to be "average" successful. Quite the opposite.
Follow the lead, follow the procedures, always take the skeptical side and you'll just coast through it. A lot of people succeed doing exactly that.
Research? Take the latest papers in an area, try a similar research (nothing too out of the consensus) and write a grant request for it.
The hard nonconformists, those will have a hard time. And the sad part is that most of them won't be nonconformists "for good reasons" but rather they will be most likely quacks. And I say the percentage is high exactly because academia does not favor anything out of the beaten path and independent thought is shunned.
> Many professors are independent-minded — especially in math, the hard sciences, and engineering, where you have to be to succeed.
And I disagree with it. You don't have to be independent-minded (from the group) to be "average" successful. Quite the opposite.
Follow the lead, follow the procedures, always take the skeptical side and you'll just coast through it. A lot of people succeed doing exactly that.
Research? Take the latest papers in an area, try a similar research (nothing too out of the consensus) and write a grant request for it.
The hard nonconformists, those will have a hard time. And the sad part is that most of them won't be nonconformists "for good reasons" but rather they will be most likely quacks. And I say the percentage is high exactly because academia does not favor anything out of the beaten path and independent thought is shunned.
> You don't have to be independent-minded (from the group) to be "average" successful. Quite the opposite.
If this is true, then what exactly separates successful faculty from unsuccessful faculty? There are lots of graduate students who want to be faculty, but only a small percentage do. What do you think the distinguishing factor is if not some kind of new ideas?
If this is true, then what exactly separates successful faculty from unsuccessful faculty? There are lots of graduate students who want to be faculty, but only a small percentage do. What do you think the distinguishing factor is if not some kind of new ideas?
Conformist or not, resiliency and building relationships still play a part.
Given faculty positions are (very) limited, it seems resiliency might be the most important factor.
Given faculty positions are (very) limited, it seems resiliency might be the most important factor.
Excellent essay. I've been asking similar questions myself in the past couple of months, but in terms of European history.
If I see a conformist activist, the first thing I ask myself: In a real crisis, would this person be the next Oskar Schindler?
The answer is almost always "no".
If I see an aggressive activist, the question is: Would this person still be aggressive during an actual crisis.
In some cases, the answer is "yes". But in the majority of cases I doubt it and think they would just switch sides.
If I see a conformist activist, the first thing I ask myself: In a real crisis, would this person be the next Oskar Schindler?
The answer is almost always "no".
If I see an aggressive activist, the question is: Would this person still be aggressive during an actual crisis.
In some cases, the answer is "yes". But in the majority of cases I doubt it and think they would just switch sides.
Have you been watching what's happening in Portland? Where on the spectrum do you put those folks?
I don't know what @pg means by aggressive or passive. In what respects? Maybe I don't understand what passive or rules-oriented are like because I live in a VW that has disco bar lights, a train horn, and I do basically whatever, wherever I want.
Rules are for fools.
Rules are for fools.
"Here's a taxonomy of people that I just made up. There are four types of people, classified by superficial characteristics. Actually, this classification is an extremely strong indicator for behaviour, certainly stronger than other indicators. How do I know this? I am very smart and I say so.
Based on this fact, I notice that the social-justicy types of today bear some superficial and extremely tenuous resemblance to the pro-slavery types of yesterday. Really makes you think."
I'm sorry but this comes across as total nonsense to me. Any "there are x types of people" stuff always reads as astrology for people with STEM degrees, especially when it's as ill-supported as the types given in this article.
Also the article is pretty ahistorical: being "pro-slavery" was absolutely not the unanimous consensus that we like to pretend it was today. There was widespread opposition to slavery: many viewed it as an obvious moral evil. France banned slavery in 1315, for goodness' sake. People knew it was wrong.
In actual fact, the type of people arguing against abolition were people in a much more similar position to Graham: the Economist famously urged delay with regards to abolition, fearing what freed slaves might get up to. Graham's notion that "actually, I'm much more like the abolitionists than slaveowners because we're both such iconoclasts" is extremely weak and, on its face, a little ridiculous.
(also: does Graham really think he's going against the grain with this stuff? Last I checked, opposition to "cancel culture" and censorship is about as mainstream a position as there is. It would be hard to pick a more "conventionally-minded" opinion than "I think free speech is good")
Based on this fact, I notice that the social-justicy types of today bear some superficial and extremely tenuous resemblance to the pro-slavery types of yesterday. Really makes you think."
I'm sorry but this comes across as total nonsense to me. Any "there are x types of people" stuff always reads as astrology for people with STEM degrees, especially when it's as ill-supported as the types given in this article.
Also the article is pretty ahistorical: being "pro-slavery" was absolutely not the unanimous consensus that we like to pretend it was today. There was widespread opposition to slavery: many viewed it as an obvious moral evil. France banned slavery in 1315, for goodness' sake. People knew it was wrong.
In actual fact, the type of people arguing against abolition were people in a much more similar position to Graham: the Economist famously urged delay with regards to abolition, fearing what freed slaves might get up to. Graham's notion that "actually, I'm much more like the abolitionists than slaveowners because we're both such iconoclasts" is extremely weak and, on its face, a little ridiculous.
(also: does Graham really think he's going against the grain with this stuff? Last I checked, opposition to "cancel culture" and censorship is about as mainstream a position as there is. It would be hard to pick a more "conventionally-minded" opinion than "I think free speech is good")
It certainly comes across a bit like Peterson's "everything is either order or chaos and chaos is bad," but for tech people who claim to be independent thinkers while all reciting the same old anti-regulation ideas.
I especially find PG's claim that "the people who run Silicon Valley are almost all independent-minded" to be questionable.
I especially find PG's claim that "the people who run Silicon Valley are almost all independent-minded" to be questionable.
I think the exercise of considering which historical atrocities you would passively comply with is a good exercise for understanding the banality of evil. PG did little to argue his moral superiority from this perspective, rather highlighted how different people conform to the norm, regardless of the virtue (or lack thereof) of the norm itself. The many anti-slavery individuals of the past still largely did nothing for hundreds of years until popular opinion and material conditions changed tides.
You point out that he did have an axe to grind regarding cancel culture, and highlight that it's not particularly heroic. But in doing so it makes it even more apparent that the anti-cancel-culture crowd is passive and ineffective, making his point clearer.
He could have made the same point regarding conformity by citing the Stanford prison experiment if he wanted to. I'd be willing to bet a dollar that there are personality psychology studies that even correlate 5-factor personality traits to moral conformity. Unfortunately popular culture is bit too much of the opinion that there are no underlying personality traits that predict future behavior nowadays.
You point out that he did have an axe to grind regarding cancel culture, and highlight that it's not particularly heroic. But in doing so it makes it even more apparent that the anti-cancel-culture crowd is passive and ineffective, making his point clearer.
He could have made the same point regarding conformity by citing the Stanford prison experiment if he wanted to. I'd be willing to bet a dollar that there are personality psychology studies that even correlate 5-factor personality traits to moral conformity. Unfortunately popular culture is bit too much of the opinion that there are no underlying personality traits that predict future behavior nowadays.
> different people conform to the norm, regardless of the virtue (or lack thereof) of the norm itself.
But this is exactly what I'm disagreeing with: there was widespread and popular opposition to slavery from its invention. To act like "everyone was doing it, everyone thought it was ok" is absolutely just not true.
The people in favour of slavery were largely the wealthy, powerful minority who benefited from slavery.
> The many anti-slavery individuals of the past still largely did nothing for hundreds of years until popular opinion and material conditions changed tides.
This is such a strange statement. "anti-slavery individuals did nothing"? Who do you think achieved abolition?! You seem to think that abolition was some passive force which happened as a result of "changing tides": I, on the other hand, seem to remember that there was a war fought about it (in the US at least).
Furthermore, slavery didn't begin and end in the united states: abolition was achieved in many other places before it go to the US, in fact the US was something of a holdout for slavery in the west. There were countless slave rebellions, some quite successful, and political action absolutely achieved progress towards abolition in many places around the world.
> But in doing so it makes it even more apparent that the anti-cancel-culture crowd is passive and ineffective, making his point clearer.
The "anti-cancel-culture" crowd, by my estimation, makes up the vast majority of positions of power in the US. For god's sake the president routinely decries cancel culture and a large part of his appeal is the fact that he's "un-PC".
> He could have made the same point regarding conformity by citing the Stanford prison experiment if he wanted to
The Stanford prison experiment was a complete fabrication and research fraud. (honestly: you should look up modern information on it. I had kind of thought it was common knowledge that it was bunk, but I suppose it did have a large cultural impact)
> I'd be willing to bet a dollar that there are personality psychology studies that even correlate 5-factor personality traits to moral conformity.
I don't know, but my point is that Graham has clearly picked superficial personality traits that flatter him by associating his idea of himself with his idea of abolitionists. Regardless of whether the idea of "personality types" is valid or not, it's clear that what Graham is doing here isn't.
> Unfortunately popular culture is bit too much of the opinion that there are no underlying personality traits that predict future behavior nowadays.
Again, I would completely disagree. I don't know what the psychological consensus is, but from laypeople it seems clear that "personality traits are important" is an extremely mainstream view.
But this is exactly what I'm disagreeing with: there was widespread and popular opposition to slavery from its invention. To act like "everyone was doing it, everyone thought it was ok" is absolutely just not true.
The people in favour of slavery were largely the wealthy, powerful minority who benefited from slavery.
> The many anti-slavery individuals of the past still largely did nothing for hundreds of years until popular opinion and material conditions changed tides.
This is such a strange statement. "anti-slavery individuals did nothing"? Who do you think achieved abolition?! You seem to think that abolition was some passive force which happened as a result of "changing tides": I, on the other hand, seem to remember that there was a war fought about it (in the US at least).
Furthermore, slavery didn't begin and end in the united states: abolition was achieved in many other places before it go to the US, in fact the US was something of a holdout for slavery in the west. There were countless slave rebellions, some quite successful, and political action absolutely achieved progress towards abolition in many places around the world.
> But in doing so it makes it even more apparent that the anti-cancel-culture crowd is passive and ineffective, making his point clearer.
The "anti-cancel-culture" crowd, by my estimation, makes up the vast majority of positions of power in the US. For god's sake the president routinely decries cancel culture and a large part of his appeal is the fact that he's "un-PC".
> He could have made the same point regarding conformity by citing the Stanford prison experiment if he wanted to
The Stanford prison experiment was a complete fabrication and research fraud. (honestly: you should look up modern information on it. I had kind of thought it was common knowledge that it was bunk, but I suppose it did have a large cultural impact)
> I'd be willing to bet a dollar that there are personality psychology studies that even correlate 5-factor personality traits to moral conformity.
I don't know, but my point is that Graham has clearly picked superficial personality traits that flatter him by associating his idea of himself with his idea of abolitionists. Regardless of whether the idea of "personality types" is valid or not, it's clear that what Graham is doing here isn't.
> Unfortunately popular culture is bit too much of the opinion that there are no underlying personality traits that predict future behavior nowadays.
Again, I would completely disagree. I don't know what the psychological consensus is, but from laypeople it seems clear that "personality traits are important" is an extremely mainstream view.
To clarify my point on the slavery example-
Slavery was present for hundreds or thousands of years. It was also obviously morally wrong for the entirety of it's existence. It's decline in the western world was relatively quick compared to the duration of it's existence. This decline came about as the western world became rich enough that eliminating the suffering of slaves was worth the inconvenience of replacing their labor. This change of material conditions gave enough cultural leeway for passive conformists to embrace legislative change.
It is not obvious that the Stanford prison experiment is a complete fraud. Even with it's flaws it suggests that people are much much more likely to engage in immoral behavior when an authority figure endorses it. Historical atrocities confirm this.
I don't think there's a productive way to argue about the cancel culture point. Data supporting which side is "winning" the cancel culture war is too cherry-pickable. The only ground I can stand on is that people such as Stephen Pinker getting cancelled is obviously ridiculous.
I do not think that the personality traits discussed are superficial. Other posters have provided more evidence, especially regarding openness and conscientiousness, that I speculated on earlier. I do not think that the purpose of PG's essay is to flatter himself.
Slavery was present for hundreds or thousands of years. It was also obviously morally wrong for the entirety of it's existence. It's decline in the western world was relatively quick compared to the duration of it's existence. This decline came about as the western world became rich enough that eliminating the suffering of slaves was worth the inconvenience of replacing their labor. This change of material conditions gave enough cultural leeway for passive conformists to embrace legislative change.
It is not obvious that the Stanford prison experiment is a complete fraud. Even with it's flaws it suggests that people are much much more likely to engage in immoral behavior when an authority figure endorses it. Historical atrocities confirm this.
I don't think there's a productive way to argue about the cancel culture point. Data supporting which side is "winning" the cancel culture war is too cherry-pickable. The only ground I can stand on is that people such as Stephen Pinker getting cancelled is obviously ridiculous.
I do not think that the personality traits discussed are superficial. Other posters have provided more evidence, especially regarding openness and conscientiousness, that I speculated on earlier. I do not think that the purpose of PG's essay is to flatter himself.
> This decline came about as the western world became rich enough that eliminating the suffering of slaves was worth the inconvenience of replacing their labor.
This is just not true, and certainly not the view of most historians. This is an important claim, and you have not backed it up with evidence.
> It is not obvious that the Stanford prison experiment is a complete fraud.
I'm sorry, but this is quite a strange statement to me. Let me put it this way: if I cited the Stanford prison experiment in a university paper, the paper would be failed. The experiment is widely criticised, outright fraud has been found in a number of cases, and its results have not been replicated.
> The only ground I can stand on is that people such as Stephen Pinker getting cancelled is obviously ridiculous.
Again, Stephen Pinker is an extremely powerful individual. He's a multi-millionaire, a Harvard professor, I don't think I could come up with a better example of someone with a large platform. If he's been "cancelled" then he's an example of how insignificant and ineffectual "cancel culture" really is.
(of course people looking into his association with Jeffrey Epstein is quite another thing, I certainly don't think that's a "cancelling")
This is just not true, and certainly not the view of most historians. This is an important claim, and you have not backed it up with evidence.
> It is not obvious that the Stanford prison experiment is a complete fraud.
I'm sorry, but this is quite a strange statement to me. Let me put it this way: if I cited the Stanford prison experiment in a university paper, the paper would be failed. The experiment is widely criticised, outright fraud has been found in a number of cases, and its results have not been replicated.
> The only ground I can stand on is that people such as Stephen Pinker getting cancelled is obviously ridiculous.
Again, Stephen Pinker is an extremely powerful individual. He's a multi-millionaire, a Harvard professor, I don't think I could come up with a better example of someone with a large platform. If he's been "cancelled" then he's an example of how insignificant and ineffectual "cancel culture" really is.
(of course people looking into his association with Jeffrey Epstein is quite another thing, I certainly don't think that's a "cancelling")
Also, "here is a taxonomy I made up and coincidentally I just happen to be in the category that is the best. "
> It would be hard to pick a more "conventionally-minded" opinion than "I think free speech is good"
It's important to make the distinction between people who feel like they're in favour of freedom of speech, and people who are actually in favour of freedom of speech. It often seems to me that Americans belong to the former group but not the latter. I'll link a funny poll (from a long time ago, but I'd love to see a new one) where 96% of respondents said they were in favour of freedom of speech, but only 40% said they were in favour of radicals being allowed to hold meetings and express their views.
https://news.gallup.com/vault/206465/gallup-vault-tolerance-...
It's important to make the distinction between people who feel like they're in favour of freedom of speech, and people who are actually in favour of freedom of speech. It often seems to me that Americans belong to the former group but not the latter. I'll link a funny poll (from a long time ago, but I'd love to see a new one) where 96% of respondents said they were in favour of freedom of speech, but only 40% said they were in favour of radicals being allowed to hold meetings and express their views.
https://news.gallup.com/vault/206465/gallup-vault-tolerance-...
> It's important to make the distinction between people who feel like they're in favour of freedom of speech, and people who are actually in favour of freedom of speech.
Exactly. I think it's clear which group Graham falls into.
Exactly. I think it's clear which group Graham falls into.
Yes: the former.
All of his recent screeds basically boil down to: I want free speech for the rich like me, and people who don't like that attitude should shut up because that's Cancel Culture and therefore bad.
All of his recent screeds basically boil down to: I want free speech for the rich like me, and people who don't like that attitude should shut up because that's Cancel Culture and therefore bad.
> Last I checked, opposition to "cancel culture" and censorship is about as mainstream a position as there is
Not at all. I am 40. My father and one of my brothers share that position with me, but every single one of my friends and acquaintances from universities and workplaces, in the USA and in the European country in which I grew up, if they make their position clear on social media, it is in line with the progressive left and thus implicitly at least supportive of "cancel culture" and censorship.
Not at all. I am 40. My father and one of my brothers share that position with me, but every single one of my friends and acquaintances from universities and workplaces, in the USA and in the European country in which I grew up, if they make their position clear on social media, it is in line with the progressive left and thus implicitly at least supportive of "cancel culture" and censorship.
> it is in line with the progressive left and thus implicitly at least supportive of "cancel culture" and censorship.
It's very easy to say everyone is in favour of cancel culture if you say that any support of the "progressive left" amounts to support for cancel culture.
It's very easy to say everyone is in favour of cancel culture if you say that any support of the "progressive left" amounts to support for cancel culture.
That's fair, I didn't make my case very well there.
Participation in cancel culture and censorship is becoming mainstream. Part of what makes it work is that participation isn't acknowledged, especially by those federating together to cancel.
I enjoyed this essay, but I think PG missed one aspect of the recent cultural changes: Even though startups are founded by the aggressively independent-minded, they have insane amounts of ideological conformity.
Many people with beliefs that are widespread in the US (pro-life, pro-gun, Republican, etc) are now "in the closet" in the Bay Area. Don't believe me? 10% of San Franciscans voted for Trump in 2016. Yet of all the people I've worked with in the past four years, not a single one of them has publicly admitted to doing so. 14 percent of Californians own guns, but again, nobody I've worked with is "out of the closet" as a gun owner. That is an amazing coincidence. Let's say I've worked closely with 50 people in the past 4 years (the actual number is higher). If each one has a 10% chance of voting for Trump, there is a 99.5% chance that I've worked directly with a Trump voter. It's a 99.95% chance that I've worked with a gun owner. Yet based on everything I hear at work, you'd never suspect that such people exist. They're like dark matter.
If that's what life is like at companies founded by people who are aggressively independent-minded, I shudder to think how bad it is at companies run by the aggressively conventional-minded.
Many people with beliefs that are widespread in the US (pro-life, pro-gun, Republican, etc) are now "in the closet" in the Bay Area. Don't believe me? 10% of San Franciscans voted for Trump in 2016. Yet of all the people I've worked with in the past four years, not a single one of them has publicly admitted to doing so. 14 percent of Californians own guns, but again, nobody I've worked with is "out of the closet" as a gun owner. That is an amazing coincidence. Let's say I've worked closely with 50 people in the past 4 years (the actual number is higher). If each one has a 10% chance of voting for Trump, there is a 99.5% chance that I've worked directly with a Trump voter. It's a 99.95% chance that I've worked with a gun owner. Yet based on everything I hear at work, you'd never suspect that such people exist. They're like dark matter.
If that's what life is like at companies founded by people who are aggressively independent-minded, I shudder to think how bad it is at companies run by the aggressively conventional-minded.
SSC famously made and extended this argument a few years ago [0]. I like that essay's example of creationists even better, because it's a shockingly huge group of people - over 40% of Americans literally believe that the Earth was created in its present form in the last 10,000 years or so - and for all intents and purposes its overlap with the readership of PG, HN, SSC, or whatever is 0.
[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
Coming from where I live, it's surprising to think of any of those (pro-life, pro-gun, or Trump voter) being quiet about it, so my feeling is that they are nonexistent in your circles, not quiet. But perhaps they are indeed closeted there.
FWIW, I also thought that SV (though not SF) was full of firearm enthusiasts and prepper types, but that's probably an uninformed view from the other side of the country.
FWIW, I also thought that SV (though not SF) was full of firearm enthusiasts and prepper types, but that's probably an uninformed view from the other side of the country.
Does a voting and flagging system on a discussion board reward the aggressively conventional or the aggressively independent to a greater extent?
Which group does such a system punish to a greater extent?
Which group does such a system punish to a greater extent?
In HN people often flag submissions to keep the identity and content more coherent and to reduce flame. (e.g. flagging advertisements, political and culture war submissions)
Perhaps it's the passive ones that flag submissions, but downvoting comments occurs by more aggressive conventional ones? I'd love to see statistics.
Perhaps it's the passive ones that flag submissions, but downvoting comments occurs by more aggressive conventional ones? I'd love to see statistics.
I think this board intends to favor passive independents. However, in almost all cases, it is aggressive conventional that dominate the conversation.
A simple graphic of the four quadrants would have improved my experience in reading this article. I was surprised to not find one.
It's certainly an interesting framework for thinking about things, and some of the thoughts seem aligned with my ideas on this issues. The problem is that I think everybody, including and especially people who view themselves as independently-minded, is susceptible to conformism and a lack of ideological independence. It seems to me like a basic fact of our biology, or at least very ingrained in our culture, that we develop ideas based on identification and solidarity with groups we belong to. It's true of politicians, VC firm leaders, tech workers, economists, and even the most earnest scientists. The idea that there is a class of people who are "independently-minded" and therefore somehow more intellectually useful is flawed because people tend to have interesting, unique ideas in some areas and ideas which amount to little more than parroting a group belief in others.
Along these lines, the article argues that conformism is independent of rules (and it implies also independent of context), but I don't think it gives sufficient evidence for this point. It also doesn't agree with my experience; I was a bit of "goody-two-shoes" in K-12 (i.e. a passive conformist), but now my political outlook is niche, I try to think scientifically about the world, and I'd self-judge to be passive independently-minded person.
> Though the people who run Silicon Valley are almost all independent-minded
This reads as extremely overconfident, and in my judgement it is probably false. I think tech as an industry faces the same issues with group-think that any large-enough community is bound to face, and I don't think Silicon Valley is a pinnacle of enlightened, humanist society. The whole article to some extent reads like "if more people were more like Paul Graham, the world would be better". Obviously, that's the not the argument of the article (and to be fair, it's probably true the world would be better with more Paul Grahams), but its interesting I got an impression of that sentiment in an article about the dangers of conformism. And it's also interesting that it's not the first time I've read a very similar argument in recent weeks.
In case I seem overly harsh, I want to clarify it was a thought-provoking article I enjoyed reading.
Along these lines, the article argues that conformism is independent of rules (and it implies also independent of context), but I don't think it gives sufficient evidence for this point. It also doesn't agree with my experience; I was a bit of "goody-two-shoes" in K-12 (i.e. a passive conformist), but now my political outlook is niche, I try to think scientifically about the world, and I'd self-judge to be passive independently-minded person.
> Though the people who run Silicon Valley are almost all independent-minded
This reads as extremely overconfident, and in my judgement it is probably false. I think tech as an industry faces the same issues with group-think that any large-enough community is bound to face, and I don't think Silicon Valley is a pinnacle of enlightened, humanist society. The whole article to some extent reads like "if more people were more like Paul Graham, the world would be better". Obviously, that's the not the argument of the article (and to be fair, it's probably true the world would be better with more Paul Grahams), but its interesting I got an impression of that sentiment in an article about the dangers of conformism. And it's also interesting that it's not the first time I've read a very similar argument in recent weeks.
In case I seem overly harsh, I want to clarify it was a thought-provoking article I enjoyed reading.
I agree that within some groups like humanities departments, twitter and liberal companies the social justice movement is out of control. Just promoting a white male employee, or calling the police in a black person you see commiting a crime would make you fear for your job in some of those circles.
On the other side there was a member of Congress who called a female member of Congress a "fucking bitch" and also the president has said plenty of sexist and racist things recently without either person losing their job.
The fact that both of these can exist in the same country is the troubling thing to me. They not even remotely trying to understand each other.
On the other side there was a member of Congress who called a female member of Congress a "fucking bitch" and also the president has said plenty of sexist and racist things recently without either person losing their job.
The fact that both of these can exist in the same country is the troubling thing to me. They not even remotely trying to understand each other.
Calling the cops has turned out to be a death sentence for Black people too often.
It's overplayed: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WogKi.png
BLM isn't specifically about white people killing black people, its about the systemic disadvantage of black people in the US. The US had segregationist senators until the 2000s [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond], San Leandro California, a bay area suburb where lots of folks in on this board live, had an FBI injunction in the 80's because they still had segregationist housing policy. Our communities now are more segregated today than they were in 1890. Modern medicine has an insane mount of racial bias baked into it today [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2021693]. Everything from illness diagnosis to painkiller prescription, to prenatal care is very much tilted against black people getting equivalent treatment to white people. This is due to the bias of caregivers at point of care. The whole point is that race matters, we need to respect that, and understand that.
I don't think your are well informed here. They are protesting the systemic racism that makes some cops feel like they can get away with leaving their knee on a black man's neck for 8 minutes killing him.
Maybe you don't think that systemic racism is a major problem or maybe you think that people should focus on other issues instead? But your graph is incorrect.
Maybe you don't think that systemic racism is a major problem or maybe you think that people should focus on other issues instead? But your graph is incorrect.
I feel that the "systemic racist" is overplayed, yes. And the graph is sourced.
Neither of those sources prove that BLM is only about white on black murder. Check out this source if you are interested in learning about the goals of BLM https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/
But it's nuanced and more than can be defined on a page with vast sub cultures and groups all lobbying for power.
As is any social movement, I think there are some problems inherent with it, like the inability to criticize aspects of the movement without being considered a racist.
As is any social movement, I think there are some problems inherent with it, like the inability to criticize aspects of the movement without being considered a racist.
[deleted]
Since this is claimed to come down to personality types, it would make sense to look at research on personality types. There is a model of personality types that seems relate-able where people are characterized as upholder, rebel, questioner, or obliger [1]. The aggressive ones line up at least:
upholder = tattletales, rebel = naughty ones
I don't think that equating the passive category to personality types in this model works, but it would be:
questioner = dreamy ones, obliger = sheep
The reason being that obliger is characterized more by relationships with others (aggressive/passive) than by being conventional or independent minded.
[1] https://psychcentral.com/blog/4-personality-types-the-uphold...
upholder = tattletales, rebel = naughty ones
I don't think that equating the passive category to personality types in this model works, but it would be:
questioner = dreamy ones, obliger = sheep
The reason being that obliger is characterized more by relationships with others (aggressive/passive) than by being conventional or independent minded.
[1] https://psychcentral.com/blog/4-personality-types-the-uphold...
This is all so static. Real life is more dynamic. An aggressive rule enforcer is an easygoing independent who got mugged and an easygoing independent is an aggressive rule enforcer who went to college.
Damage done in the world comes more from failing to understand how people get influenced in their choices than from picking the wrong quadrant.
Damage done in the world comes more from failing to understand how people get influenced in their choices than from picking the wrong quadrant.
Any person's coordinates will change over time, that is true.
I don't think that removes any value from the measurement system.
There are many ways to parse this essay, but it is emotionally challenging to give feedback, lest the charge of being conventional minded is levied against you. However, I doubt that is pg's intention. This comment is my good faith attempt at a measured response.
pg mentions universities multiple times, with the implicit and explicit statement that they were centers of revolution and non-conformist thought. While that is partly true, it's not the whole truth. History remembers a different, more complicated reality.
Lise Meitner was the second woman in the world to gain a doctorate in physics. When she started, women weren't allowed to go to college, one of humanity's greatest minds spent her youth as a teacher. It was the only career available to her. When she tried to start doing research, she was refused,
> The only difficulty was that Hahn told me in the course of our conversation that he had been given a place in the institute directed by Emil Fischer, and that Emil Fischer did not allow any women students into his lectures or into his institute. So Hahn had to ask Fischer whether he would agree to our starting work together. And after Hahn had spoken to Fischer, I went to him to hear his decision and he told me his reluctance to accept women students stemmed from an unfortunate experience he had had with a Russian student because he had always been worried lest her rather exotic hairstyle result in her hair catching alight on the Bunsen burner.
- https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi...
Fischer relented with pressure from Hahn, but in some cases, it took nearly half a decade for people to allow her to work with them. She lost years banging her head against the wall. What else could she have discovered had she gotten the right resources from the start?
She prevailed against these barriers, but she was never recognized as an equal. Recognition eluded her. Lise and Otto discovered fission together, Hahn got the Nobel, she didn't.
Decades afterwards, the first Pulsar was detected by Jocelyn Bell Burnell. She helped build the array that made the discovery. She spent her nights looking at the data. She noticed the anomaly. She championed it when her supervisor dismissed it as a glitch. Her persistence paid off, and her supervisor got the Nobel.
Women have never been accepted as equal. Even at universities. How radical and non-conformist could they be when they repeated the same mistakes as the societies around them? They excluded people for being Jewish, for being born with the wrong sex organs, for having the wrong skin color, for being the wrong person. They were radical along some axes, but conformist along others.
Things are better today, but women continue to be overlooked broadly and in academia. Women are discriminated against for "reasonable concerns" when it comes to pregnancies, leaves, healthcare needs... Systemic reviews have shown that doctors take reports of pain from women less seriously than they do from men. By a factor that gets multiplied if you're black or queer. Some people still have to work twice as hard to get half as much. They were just dealt with a shitty card.
It is happening now, against someone as we speak. At prestigious teaching and research hospitals across the country, prejudice and the status quo are dealing out a crap hand to someone not counted as lucky few. Someone who will have to live with this moment for the rest of their life. My favorite anecdote is relayed by a woman who went in after a knitting accident; she was worried about losing dexterity and told her doctor that. The doctor assured her nothing would go wrong and started to patch her up. By happenstance, one of the woman's students happened to wander by and greeted her with the words, "Professor". And the doctor stopped. He asked her if she was a professor at the prestigious local university. She said yes. And before she could ask why she was wheeled into surgery to ensure she wouldn't lose dexterity. What cards would an ordinary black woman would have been dealt had she presented with the same problems?
Young people on campuses see these shitty cards. Why is it a surprise that they seek to rebel? Universities have always been the hallmark of radicals, and these are the new radicals. It is simple to 'both sides' this, but their anger - magnified and disproportionate it may be - comes from a legitimate place. It comes from the rebukes of the past and present. The big and small injustices that make the world. And it is their clumsy attempt to create a better world.
With all due respect to pg, the problem with the essay and this scale is that it is not well calibrated. Conformist along which directions? Aggressive in what ways? To what ends? To what degree? To what measure?
At times it seems pg puts the (admittedly foolish) yale undergrads going on about cultural appropriation in the same bucket as the Kim Davis, anti-women's rights and 'religious rights' crowd. The former is an overreaction by the young and hot-headed. The latter is an enormous, organized effort to take rights away from others and to force everyone else to conform to their rules of society. The former a miasma in civil discourse. The latter an organized attempt to strip women of their right to determine what's right for their bodies.
On what scale are we equating the two? By what means of calibration are these in the same quadrant and to the same degree?
The idea in this essay is valuable. The insight is valid. And I believe that it is a good faith attempt to understand the world. However, it fails to resonate for me. It fails to track as it appears to be made for a world I am not a part of. No one invited me to the party.
pg mentions universities multiple times, with the implicit and explicit statement that they were centers of revolution and non-conformist thought. While that is partly true, it's not the whole truth. History remembers a different, more complicated reality.
Lise Meitner was the second woman in the world to gain a doctorate in physics. When she started, women weren't allowed to go to college, one of humanity's greatest minds spent her youth as a teacher. It was the only career available to her. When she tried to start doing research, she was refused,
> The only difficulty was that Hahn told me in the course of our conversation that he had been given a place in the institute directed by Emil Fischer, and that Emil Fischer did not allow any women students into his lectures or into his institute. So Hahn had to ask Fischer whether he would agree to our starting work together. And after Hahn had spoken to Fischer, I went to him to hear his decision and he told me his reluctance to accept women students stemmed from an unfortunate experience he had had with a Russian student because he had always been worried lest her rather exotic hairstyle result in her hair catching alight on the Bunsen burner.
- https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi...
Fischer relented with pressure from Hahn, but in some cases, it took nearly half a decade for people to allow her to work with them. She lost years banging her head against the wall. What else could she have discovered had she gotten the right resources from the start?
She prevailed against these barriers, but she was never recognized as an equal. Recognition eluded her. Lise and Otto discovered fission together, Hahn got the Nobel, she didn't.
Decades afterwards, the first Pulsar was detected by Jocelyn Bell Burnell. She helped build the array that made the discovery. She spent her nights looking at the data. She noticed the anomaly. She championed it when her supervisor dismissed it as a glitch. Her persistence paid off, and her supervisor got the Nobel.
Women have never been accepted as equal. Even at universities. How radical and non-conformist could they be when they repeated the same mistakes as the societies around them? They excluded people for being Jewish, for being born with the wrong sex organs, for having the wrong skin color, for being the wrong person. They were radical along some axes, but conformist along others.
Things are better today, but women continue to be overlooked broadly and in academia. Women are discriminated against for "reasonable concerns" when it comes to pregnancies, leaves, healthcare needs... Systemic reviews have shown that doctors take reports of pain from women less seriously than they do from men. By a factor that gets multiplied if you're black or queer. Some people still have to work twice as hard to get half as much. They were just dealt with a shitty card.
It is happening now, against someone as we speak. At prestigious teaching and research hospitals across the country, prejudice and the status quo are dealing out a crap hand to someone not counted as lucky few. Someone who will have to live with this moment for the rest of their life. My favorite anecdote is relayed by a woman who went in after a knitting accident; she was worried about losing dexterity and told her doctor that. The doctor assured her nothing would go wrong and started to patch her up. By happenstance, one of the woman's students happened to wander by and greeted her with the words, "Professor". And the doctor stopped. He asked her if she was a professor at the prestigious local university. She said yes. And before she could ask why she was wheeled into surgery to ensure she wouldn't lose dexterity. What cards would an ordinary black woman would have been dealt had she presented with the same problems?
Young people on campuses see these shitty cards. Why is it a surprise that they seek to rebel? Universities have always been the hallmark of radicals, and these are the new radicals. It is simple to 'both sides' this, but their anger - magnified and disproportionate it may be - comes from a legitimate place. It comes from the rebukes of the past and present. The big and small injustices that make the world. And it is their clumsy attempt to create a better world.
With all due respect to pg, the problem with the essay and this scale is that it is not well calibrated. Conformist along which directions? Aggressive in what ways? To what ends? To what degree? To what measure?
At times it seems pg puts the (admittedly foolish) yale undergrads going on about cultural appropriation in the same bucket as the Kim Davis, anti-women's rights and 'religious rights' crowd. The former is an overreaction by the young and hot-headed. The latter is an enormous, organized effort to take rights away from others and to force everyone else to conform to their rules of society. The former a miasma in civil discourse. The latter an organized attempt to strip women of their right to determine what's right for their bodies.
On what scale are we equating the two? By what means of calibration are these in the same quadrant and to the same degree?
The idea in this essay is valuable. The insight is valid. And I believe that it is a good faith attempt to understand the world. However, it fails to resonate for me. It fails to track as it appears to be made for a world I am not a part of. No one invited me to the party.
In one of his previous essays (can't find the specific one, but it talks about Cambridge) pg talks about how he thinks in the future startups might come more and more directly out of university towns because people with ideas already tend to congregate there, and mostly get drawn to hubs like Silicon Valley because of funding. As it gets cheaper to start a startup and need for funding decreases, this might not be so necessary any more.
Towards the end of this essay he talks about the possibility that people with ideas might start to congregate around other institutions than universities in the future. He does explicitly say that he can't predict how this will play out, but it would be really interesting to read his thoughts on what he thinks those institutions could look like, or just what features they might have in broad terms.
pg, if you're reading this, that would be a great future essay I'd love to read!
Towards the end of this essay he talks about the possibility that people with ideas might start to congregate around other institutions than universities in the future. He does explicitly say that he can't predict how this will play out, but it would be really interesting to read his thoughts on what he thinks those institutions could look like, or just what features they might have in broad terms.
pg, if you're reading this, that would be a great future essay I'd love to read!
I mostly agree with this: am pretty much a Free Speech absolutist.
However, I can't help but suspect that the reason we're hearing arguments about this now is because the liberal-Left are aggressively exercising their intolerance instead of the conservative-Right, who have had it all their way for a long time.
Aside: I don't think lumping liberals and leftists in together is useful. There is a strong dislike of the trend towards censorship voiced by those that are economically on the left. The embrace of censorship is coming from the corporate/capitalist/liberal side of things. Most on the left are well aware that censorship will be used against them first.
However, I can't help but suspect that the reason we're hearing arguments about this now is because the liberal-Left are aggressively exercising their intolerance instead of the conservative-Right, who have had it all their way for a long time.
Aside: I don't think lumping liberals and leftists in together is useful. There is a strong dislike of the trend towards censorship voiced by those that are economically on the left. The embrace of censorship is coming from the corporate/capitalist/liberal side of things. Most on the left are well aware that censorship will be used against them first.
Can you define what you mean by free speech? That speech alone should not be punished by the state? Or that speech should have no social consequences?
Because to me "the liberal-Left exercising their intolerance" could also be viewed as exercising their freedom of association.
Because to me "the liberal-Left exercising their intolerance" could also be viewed as exercising their freedom of association.
Punished by the state specifically. I don't see how you could enforce speech _not_ having social consequences, nor what the purpose of such speech would be if that were possible.
If that is the case, then free speech is not in danger. As you say, "the liberal-Left are aggressively exercising their intolerance".
The liberal left is not in power in the government. So are they not just exercising their free speech?
The liberal left is not in power in the government. So are they not just exercising their free speech?
I take your point, and I am slightly on the fence about this and trying to figure it out. I found this¹ a very useful criticism of the Taibbi line-of-though(that I am also very persuaded by)
I will admit:
a) individuals and groups should be able to withdraw their co-operation, money and labor from other individuals or groups with whom they disagree. b) the examples which have happened in the recent flare-up fall squarely into a)
However, where things get complicated is the definition of the state and how practical control is exercised over what can and cannot be said. The state is more than just the government, it is also traditionally the press, the army, the judiciary and the clergy.
We are an 'interesting' situation now where the function of the press is to a large extent assumed by Facebook, Google and (indirectly) CloudFlare and the ISPs. Concretely they can prevent the spreading of information, the publication of ideas for reasons that they deem justified.
The power to suppress and censor ideas has been exercized against what some would characterize as 'right wing' causes such as the publication of anti-semitic 'hate speech'. It has also be exercized against 'left wing' causes such as the publication of footage and reporting showing the massacres of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army.
The only unique, useful thing about the internet is the possibility that it offers in allowing us to circumvent the censors. With that we get access to the Wikileaks material, the details of financial crimes carried out by our politicians and business people. We also get mis-information and pornography.
The calls to boycott Facebook come from disparate places: government functionaries and political parties who wish to discipline the internet and control the narrative (no more upsetting the funding model, no more embarassing leaks showing our boys murdering civilians); activists who wish to protest specific social issues.
In order for their wishes to become concrete there needs to be mechanism/s put in place by Facebook, Google, CloudFlare that enable them to suppress information: for good or bad reasons.
The people who will be in control of these mechanisms are the people who got us here.
The next round of popular protests won't happen because we will not have seen the video of a human being shot in their car or having their neck crushed.
Tools of centralized power are used by those in power. That's not likely to be you and me.
1) https://newrepublic.com/article/158346/willful-blindness-rea...
I will admit:
a) individuals and groups should be able to withdraw their co-operation, money and labor from other individuals or groups with whom they disagree. b) the examples which have happened in the recent flare-up fall squarely into a)
However, where things get complicated is the definition of the state and how practical control is exercised over what can and cannot be said. The state is more than just the government, it is also traditionally the press, the army, the judiciary and the clergy.
We are an 'interesting' situation now where the function of the press is to a large extent assumed by Facebook, Google and (indirectly) CloudFlare and the ISPs. Concretely they can prevent the spreading of information, the publication of ideas for reasons that they deem justified.
The power to suppress and censor ideas has been exercized against what some would characterize as 'right wing' causes such as the publication of anti-semitic 'hate speech'. It has also be exercized against 'left wing' causes such as the publication of footage and reporting showing the massacres of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army.
The only unique, useful thing about the internet is the possibility that it offers in allowing us to circumvent the censors. With that we get access to the Wikileaks material, the details of financial crimes carried out by our politicians and business people. We also get mis-information and pornography.
The calls to boycott Facebook come from disparate places: government functionaries and political parties who wish to discipline the internet and control the narrative (no more upsetting the funding model, no more embarassing leaks showing our boys murdering civilians); activists who wish to protest specific social issues.
In order for their wishes to become concrete there needs to be mechanism/s put in place by Facebook, Google, CloudFlare that enable them to suppress information: for good or bad reasons.
The people who will be in control of these mechanisms are the people who got us here.
The next round of popular protests won't happen because we will not have seen the video of a human being shot in their car or having their neck crushed.
Tools of centralized power are used by those in power. That's not likely to be you and me.
1) https://newrepublic.com/article/158346/willful-blindness-rea...
Freedom of association is not exactly a pillar of modern liberalism.
Not meant to be snarky, but PG seems to have rediscovered the big five personality traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits specifically agreeableness and openness. For people that want to learn more, Jordan Peterson has a great video lecture series about it https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQApSdW8X71I...
I have come to intensely dislike most of PG's essays, for many reasons, but the two main ones are that
1/ he plays fast and loose with the facts, reduces the whole history of (the various peoples of) humanity to a single arrow, and confuses demonstration with affirmation
and, more importantly
2/ he has an unhealthy obsession with "classifying" people, by which he actually means ranking them, from top to bottom. The people on top are the ones that make the world move in the right direction, and the ones at the bottom are dragging us all down. (Of course, he always ends up in the best category himself.)
But innovation isn't good per se. If you invent novel ways of torturing people (or animals, cf. the whole meat industry), that's not progress.
If you come up with clever ways of escaping the law for your own benefit while everyone else suffers (the whole "gig economy"), that's not a net gain for society, and society is legitimate in fighting you.
1/ he plays fast and loose with the facts, reduces the whole history of (the various peoples of) humanity to a single arrow, and confuses demonstration with affirmation
and, more importantly
2/ he has an unhealthy obsession with "classifying" people, by which he actually means ranking them, from top to bottom. The people on top are the ones that make the world move in the right direction, and the ones at the bottom are dragging us all down. (Of course, he always ends up in the best category himself.)
But innovation isn't good per se. If you invent novel ways of torturing people (or animals, cf. the whole meat industry), that's not progress.
If you come up with clever ways of escaping the law for your own benefit while everyone else suffers (the whole "gig economy"), that's not a net gain for society, and society is legitimate in fighting you.
Agreed. This whole article just left me quite cold.
I mean, as far as I can tell, all these people running around claiming that Covid19 is a hoax are (apparently) very aggressively independent! We, the passive conformist sheeple, are bound by the pesky laws of physics and math - but not these aggressively independent thinkers! Nosir. They question all the rules.
> So a pack of teenagers who all flout school rules in the same way are not independent-minded; rather the opposite.
So those CV19 hoaxers are a group and therefore not independent. My bad! But one of them must be the leader, right? One of them must be the aggressive independent CEO-type, right? Because how else did they get these ideas? Someone must have formed them into a band; by definition, they couldn’t have done it on their own. You just need to find that aggressive independent thinker and BAM - we have another CEO of Theranos. Yay!
> all successful startup CEOs are not merely independent-minded, but aggressively so
“There have been no successful conventional [real estate/retail/food/import/trade/bookshop] startups in the last 50 years”. Oh wait, only SV tech startup disrupters are real CEOs.
> the unfortunate fact that the latest wave of intolerance began in universities
Universities? Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I mean, as far as I can tell, all these people running around claiming that Covid19 is a hoax are (apparently) very aggressively independent! We, the passive conformist sheeple, are bound by the pesky laws of physics and math - but not these aggressively independent thinkers! Nosir. They question all the rules.
> So a pack of teenagers who all flout school rules in the same way are not independent-minded; rather the opposite.
So those CV19 hoaxers are a group and therefore not independent. My bad! But one of them must be the leader, right? One of them must be the aggressive independent CEO-type, right? Because how else did they get these ideas? Someone must have formed them into a band; by definition, they couldn’t have done it on their own. You just need to find that aggressive independent thinker and BAM - we have another CEO of Theranos. Yay!
> all successful startup CEOs are not merely independent-minded, but aggressively so
“There have been no successful conventional [real estate/retail/food/import/trade/bookshop] startups in the last 50 years”. Oh wait, only SV tech startup disrupters are real CEOs.
> the unfortunate fact that the latest wave of intolerance began in universities
Universities? Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Let's play this out for mask wearing:
Top Left: Top doctors asking people to wear masks Bottom Left: People who are wearing masks Bottom Right: People who occasionally use masks, or alternatives, bandanas, etc. Top Right: People who don't want to use masks because of freedom.
Top Left: Top doctors asking people to wear masks Bottom Left: People who are wearing masks Bottom Right: People who occasionally use masks, or alternatives, bandanas, etc. Top Right: People who don't want to use masks because of freedom.
[deleted]
> he has an unhealthy obsession with "classifying" people, by which he actually means ranking them, from top to bottom
I remember coming to an event at the YC headquarters a few years ago and that's exactly the way PG acted in person as well. He was surrounded by people wanting to talk to him the whole time, whenever someone would say hi and introduce themselves he would immediately ask for their HN username, then either strike a conversation or just say something along the lines of "doesn't ring a bell" and pass on to the next person.
Many of the people that have gone through YC feel like the program has inherited that same quality. There are a few darlings in each batch that the partners really focus on and put their biggest efforts towards, while the rest feel almost inadequate for not being as awesome as the top ones.
I remember coming to an event at the YC headquarters a few years ago and that's exactly the way PG acted in person as well. He was surrounded by people wanting to talk to him the whole time, whenever someone would say hi and introduce themselves he would immediately ask for their HN username, then either strike a conversation or just say something along the lines of "doesn't ring a bell" and pass on to the next person.
Many of the people that have gone through YC feel like the program has inherited that same quality. There are a few darlings in each batch that the partners really focus on and put their biggest efforts towards, while the rest feel almost inadequate for not being as awesome as the top ones.
There is an arrogant pretense in self-imposed naming and carving up the world into your personalized compartments.
It seems PG has now stooped to the infamous Quadrant Diagram beloved by management consultants and other superficial minds who ought to know better...
The ribbonfarm guy and Eric Weinstein also come to mind, with their look-at-me coining of petty neologisms and vacuous abbreviations. They may be smart and reflective, but their heavy-handed narcissism drowns out any underlying insights.
It seems PG has now stooped to the infamous Quadrant Diagram beloved by management consultants and other superficial minds who ought to know better...
The ribbonfarm guy and Eric Weinstein also come to mind, with their look-at-me coining of petty neologisms and vacuous abbreviations. They may be smart and reflective, but their heavy-handed narcissism drowns out any underlying insights.
I wonder how that behavior is reconciled with the idealistic basis of YC's application process where its open to everyone without needing warm intros and all. Pretty hypocritical to decide the only people worth your time are the people who found and had the time to engage with an internet forum that occasionally seems less like a forum and more like a recruiting and marketing tool for YC startups.
I think if I were asked this question, I would say that I have better things to do with my time than post on HN ... mostly true ;-)
pg: What's your HN username?
ta1234567890: ta1234567890
pg: Hm, doesn't ring a bell... [looks awkwardly into cocktail glass]
ta1234567890: ta1234567890
pg: Hm, doesn't ring a bell... [looks awkwardly into cocktail glass]
You described pretty much exactly what happened to me. And I felt like crap. Nevertheless I still applied to YC afterwards.
It sucks how people in power sometimes are assholes and we put up with them, probably just because of their power.
It sucks how people in power sometimes are assholes and we put up with them, probably just because of their power.
His writing on lisp and the life of his startup were much better reads. He may have some valid points but it is hard to read a really rich person (who got rich really young) handwave away large swaths of society.
Baskets of deplorables.
He had a habit of always making the hero of his narrative the “brave startup founder”.
Unfortunately I actually LOLd when I got to that point in the essay. It was not a surprise.
If being an SV founder or VC requires nonconformism, it's a very mainstream kind of nonconformism which has been part of the culture since the 1940s. (By some accounts, even earlier.)
IMO you cannot seriously claim to be a nonconformist if you unquestioningly accept and promote the framing of a game and a set of rules which have been in place for decades now.
Real nonconformists will be asking why the Internet seems to have been turned into the plaything of a handful of gigantic stagnant bureaucracies, why the VC system seems determined to generate more of these bureaucracies, and whether maybe there are more creative and performant options.
If being an SV founder or VC requires nonconformism, it's a very mainstream kind of nonconformism which has been part of the culture since the 1940s. (By some accounts, even earlier.)
IMO you cannot seriously claim to be a nonconformist if you unquestioningly accept and promote the framing of a game and a set of rules which have been in place for decades now.
Real nonconformists will be asking why the Internet seems to have been turned into the plaything of a handful of gigantic stagnant bureaucracies, why the VC system seems determined to generate more of these bureaucracies, and whether maybe there are more creative and performant options.
> Real nonconformists will be asking why the Internet seems to have been turned into the plaything of a handful of gigantic stagnant bureaucracies, why the VC system seems determined to generate more of these bureaucracies, and whether maybe there are more creative and performant options.
Jaron Lanier comes to mind.
Jaron Lanier comes to mind.
I'm of the opinion that the non-conformists these days are the people that think capitalism shouldn't exist at all and choose to minimize their role in it as far as they can without starving and going homeless.
You have to justify getting all that money for doing something that's ultimately not that important for society somehow.
You mean "getting people to click on ads" isn't deeply meaningful to society? Perish the thought!
It would be interesting to come up with the "tech" archetypes.
The coder with a thousand faces, a modern day adaptation of Joseph Campbell[0]
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces
The coder with a thousand faces, a modern day adaptation of Joseph Campbell[0]
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces
Right. The big error in this one is that it's completely blind to where rules come from, only personal psychological relationship to them.
By the limited model in the essay, you can imagine an "Aggressive Nonconformist" put in a place where they are highly influential on rule creation. The model doesn't really give wiggle room for anything but simply creating rules that bind others and ignoring them oneself.
By the limited model in the essay, you can imagine an "Aggressive Nonconformist" put in a place where they are highly influential on rule creation. The model doesn't really give wiggle room for anything but simply creating rules that bind others and ignoring them oneself.
Haha, take your point about the tendency to "classify". There is good reason for that however: he is a VC. One of the big things that keeps VCs busy is classifying/stereotyping teams and looking for patterns of success.
Yes, he should probably keep some of these "frameworks" to himself. There isn't enough since in there to be taken seriously in a peer reviewed paper. But hey, he is PG! And there are weaklings, probably not members of his favored quadrant, who swear by his views :).
> But innovation isn't good per se.
Innovation isn't anything in moral terms.
All technological change is a trade-off. For every advantage a new technology offers, there is always a corresponding disadvantage.
The advantages and disadvantages of new technologies are never distributed evenly among the population. This means that every new technology benefits some and harms others.
Innovation isn't anything in moral terms.
All technological change is a trade-off. For every advantage a new technology offers, there is always a corresponding disadvantage.
The advantages and disadvantages of new technologies are never distributed evenly among the population. This means that every new technology benefits some and harms others.
This is silly. The world isn't balanced like that. Many improvements have no disadvantage. More efficient photovoltaic cells, not needing hfcfs in pressurized spray cans, discovering that you can add a bit of carbon to iron, ...
If that is your position I would refer you to the myth of thamus[0] and the writings of Neil Postman.
[0]https://bearskindigital.com/2015/01/20/the-myth-of-thamus-an...
[0]https://bearskindigital.com/2015/01/20/the-myth-of-thamus-an...
That was pretty unconvincing. Some people think writing makes your memory lazy? Well even more think it can serve as a tool in learning and as a tool for memorisation. Now what?
> Many improvements have no disadvantage
Every improvement has, at the very least, its Luddite cost. It forces some people to change, and some of those people won’t like that.
Every improvement has, at the very least, its Luddite cost. It forces some people to change, and some of those people won’t like that.
What was the disadvantage introduced by having doctors wash their hands or the invention of antibiotics?
> What was the disadvantage introduced by having doctors wash their hands or the invention of antibiotics?
Not disadvantage, trade-off cost. Someone, no doubt, lost business selling quack cures.
Not disadvantage, trade-off cost. Someone, no doubt, lost business selling quack cures.
I can only speculate. I would say an overall weakened immune system.
Is your point that there are technologies with only benefits?
Is your point that there are technologies with only benefits?
Washing hands for doctors? Probably not much.
Invention of antibiotics, its use and abuse increased bacterial resistance to them.
Invention of antibiotics, its use and abuse increased bacterial resistance to them.
[deleted]
You could argue that automation is one of those improvements with no disadvantage. But it can also result in people losing their jobs and those people might be opposed to it.
I would argue that the same is true with the gig economy. It benefits the people participating in it greatly but it also cost some people their jobs (e.g. taxi drivers).
I would argue that the same is true with the gig economy. It benefits the people participating in it greatly but it also cost some people their jobs (e.g. taxi drivers).
One of the most embattled changes of the last 20 years is not likely to make the list of `improvements with no disadvantage`...
Losing a job isn’t inherently bad. I’d only bad now because we’ve decided to arrange society around zero sum thinking.
It’s pretty inherently bad if losing your job means you can’t feed your kids or yourself.
[deleted]
Exactly. It’s absurd the consequences of losing your job are so fundamental. It’s time civilisation moved forward from this.
I think we probably agree 100% about this, but the reality today is what’s important to people losing their job today.
I don’t think you mean to downplay the impact of someone losing their job today, but that’s how it came across to me.
I don’t think you mean to downplay the impact of someone losing their job today, but that’s how it came across to me.
If there was ever a time we had a direct opportunity to change this dynamic it's today.
I really hope you’re right, but I don’t see it. I really want to be wrong though. It would be amazing.
Of course they have disadvantageS to something or someone. Some are just more abstract, removed or minor.
> All technological change is a trade-off. For every advantage a new technology offers, there is always a corresponding disadvantage.
This, to me, reads as one of those statements that sounds wise and correct but doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Going from digging with your hands to using a shovel doesn't have a negative trade off. Going from carrying things on your back to using a wheeled cart doesn't have a corresponding disadvantage.
You can find very myopic cases where they're not improvements (e.g. digging for fragile objects is better done with hands), but that doesn't disprove the general improvement, and it is far from a corresponding disadvantage equal to the new advantage.
This, to me, reads as one of those statements that sounds wise and correct but doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Going from digging with your hands to using a shovel doesn't have a negative trade off. Going from carrying things on your back to using a wheeled cart doesn't have a corresponding disadvantage.
You can find very myopic cases where they're not improvements (e.g. digging for fragile objects is better done with hands), but that doesn't disprove the general improvement, and it is far from a corresponding disadvantage equal to the new advantage.
> Going from carrying things on your back to using a wheeled cart doesn't have a corresponding disadvantage.
Doesn't it? What if those "things" are weapons that you are carrying to battle?
Doesn't it? What if those "things" are weapons that you are carrying to battle?
> Doesn't it? What if those "things" are weapons that you are carrying to battle?
I'm not sure what your point is.
Are you suggesting that some things are better kept close at hand and not on a cart? The invention of the cart does not remove the ability to carry things.
Do you mean to make an appeal to the evils of war? If so, the morality of a use case doesn't have much to do with the efficacy of a technology, though I think you have a point of discussion there. War is hardly always evil, but maybe you could argue that adding efficiency to the ability to wage unjust war is a disadvantage. But, again, you have to get very abstract to make that argument.
I'm not sure what your point is.
Are you suggesting that some things are better kept close at hand and not on a cart? The invention of the cart does not remove the ability to carry things.
Do you mean to make an appeal to the evils of war? If so, the morality of a use case doesn't have much to do with the efficacy of a technology, though I think you have a point of discussion there. War is hardly always evil, but maybe you could argue that adding efficiency to the ability to wage unjust war is a disadvantage. But, again, you have to get very abstract to make that argument.
> I'm not sure what your point is.
You denied a claim that "every new technology benefits some and harms others" by doubting that invention of a cart could cause harm. I'm suggesting a way that it could.
> the morality of a use case doesn't have much to do with the efficacy of a technology
I agree, but I believe it was morality that was under discussion, not efficacy.
You denied a claim that "every new technology benefits some and harms others" by doubting that invention of a cart could cause harm. I'm suggesting a way that it could.
> the morality of a use case doesn't have much to do with the efficacy of a technology
I agree, but I believe it was morality that was under discussion, not efficacy.
> doubting that invention of a cart could cause harm
I think this is where we missed each other. I was trying to address "there is always a corresponding disadvantage", and I think mentally I was interpreting this as "an approximately proportionate downside or externality".
I don't disagree at all that nearly any technological improvement can cause harm.
I think this is where we missed each other. I was trying to address "there is always a corresponding disadvantage", and I think mentally I was interpreting this as "an approximately proportionate downside or externality".
I don't disagree at all that nearly any technological improvement can cause harm.
I'll admit it does sound like a very abstract statement.
When I think of technology it's not a singular device/product/creation. It's wider in scope, kinda like a whole field. This is probably because like you pointed out you can find one thing that is just good, like a shovel. But a shovel is a mechanical tool and in the broader scheme of things.
An example I can think of is ABS, anti-lock break system. It prevents car wheels from locking under breaking and skidding, giving the driver more control while breaking. How could this be bad? ABS is a fix to a problem that was created by another technology, the car. The car dictated a lot of society as we know it today. Roads had to be built, rules of travel put in place, you could now live far from work. These might sound good to us now, but in reality they are trade-offs.
When I think of technology it's not a singular device/product/creation. It's wider in scope, kinda like a whole field. This is probably because like you pointed out you can find one thing that is just good, like a shovel. But a shovel is a mechanical tool and in the broader scheme of things.
An example I can think of is ABS, anti-lock break system. It prevents car wheels from locking under breaking and skidding, giving the driver more control while breaking. How could this be bad? ABS is a fix to a problem that was created by another technology, the car. The car dictated a lot of society as we know it today. Roads had to be built, rules of travel put in place, you could now live far from work. These might sound good to us now, but in reality they are trade-offs.
We can distinguish between pure and applied innovation, though. Coming up with a new algorithm which can be applied to facial recognition is a pure innovation, deploying that algorithm to monitor political dissidents is applied innovation. I would not agree that the latter example "isn't anything in moral terms", even though the former is.
I would argue that you cannot parse out the "good" technology from the "bad" technology as that would require full knowledge of downstream consequences.
Embedded in every technology there is a powerful idea, sometimes two or three powerful ideas. Every technology has a philosophy which is given expression in how the technology makes people use their minds, in what it makes us do with our bodies, in how it codifies the world, in which of our senses it amplifies, in which of our emotional and intellectual tendencies it disregards.
As soon as we build tiny cameras and software that could interpret pixel values and classify it, there was going to be facial recognition used against people.
P.S. I don't think it should, but I don't see how you can stop that. My personal feeling is that access to knowledge and technology is what prevents power imbalance.
Embedded in every technology there is a powerful idea, sometimes two or three powerful ideas. Every technology has a philosophy which is given expression in how the technology makes people use their minds, in what it makes us do with our bodies, in how it codifies the world, in which of our senses it amplifies, in which of our emotional and intellectual tendencies it disregards.
As soon as we build tiny cameras and software that could interpret pixel values and classify it, there was going to be facial recognition used against people.
P.S. I don't think it should, but I don't see how you can stop that. My personal feeling is that access to knowledge and technology is what prevents power imbalance.
This feels like having it both ways. "Innovation is morally neutral" and "harmful uses are the inevitable consequences of innovation" can't both be true.
I would prefer to say that the act of creating a possibility is different from the act of exercising that possibility in a particular way. But you seem to be saying that merely creating the possibility makes the use inevitable, and so the person who invents the tiny cameras or the image-recognition software is inescapably responsible for the use of that technology to target political dissidents.
I agree that once the invention has been made, it becomes harder to stop someone from using the invention in bad ways. But the moral responsibility is clearly with the person who makes bad use of technology, not with the person who invented it (assuming that the technology was not invented specifically for that purpose).
I would prefer to say that the act of creating a possibility is different from the act of exercising that possibility in a particular way. But you seem to be saying that merely creating the possibility makes the use inevitable, and so the person who invents the tiny cameras or the image-recognition software is inescapably responsible for the use of that technology to target political dissidents.
I agree that once the invention has been made, it becomes harder to stop someone from using the invention in bad ways. But the moral responsibility is clearly with the person who makes bad use of technology, not with the person who invented it (assuming that the technology was not invented specifically for that purpose).
> This feels like having it both ways. "Innovation is morally neutral" and "harmful uses are the inevitable consequences of innovation" can't both be true.
I agree with you and I think I confused myself. What I mean is that technology has no inherent morality. It's not good, bad or neutral. You could judge a certain application in those terms, but you are really judging the morality of the user. Say a knife, it can be used as a cooking tool or a killing too. That is not to say the knife is good or bad, but that the user and his intentions are.
> so the person who invents the tiny cameras or the image-recognition software is inescapably responsible for the use of that technology to target political dissidents
I wouldn't really say that either. Unless the person was actively trying to make spy things to target political dissidents.
> it becomes harder to stop someone from using the invention in bad ways
The bad ways are not always clear. I will quote Freud from Civilization and Its Discontents.
"One would like to ask: is there, then, no positive gain in pleasure, no unequivocal increase in my feeling of happiness, if I can, as often as I please, hear the voice of a child of mine who is living hundreds of miles away or if I can learn in the shortest possible time after a friend has reached his destination that he has come through the long and difficult voyage unharmed? Does it mean nothing that medicine has succeeded in enormously reducing infant mortality and the danger of infection for women in childbirth, and, indeed, in considerably lengthening the average life of a civilized man?"
"If there had been no railway to conquer distances, my child would never have left his native town and I should need no telephone to hear his voice; if travelling across the ocean by ship had not been introduced, my friend would not have embarked on his sea- voyage and I should not need a cable to relieve my anxiety about him. What is the use of reducing infantile mortality when it is precisely that reduction which imposes the greatest restraint on us in the begetting of children, so that, taken all round, we nevertheless rear no more children than in the days before the reign of hygiene, while at the same time we have created difficult conditions for our sexual life in marriage.... And, finally, what good to us is a long life if it is difficult and barren of joys, and if it is so full of misery that we can only welcome death as a deliverer?"
I agree with you and I think I confused myself. What I mean is that technology has no inherent morality. It's not good, bad or neutral. You could judge a certain application in those terms, but you are really judging the morality of the user. Say a knife, it can be used as a cooking tool or a killing too. That is not to say the knife is good or bad, but that the user and his intentions are.
> so the person who invents the tiny cameras or the image-recognition software is inescapably responsible for the use of that technology to target political dissidents
I wouldn't really say that either. Unless the person was actively trying to make spy things to target political dissidents.
> it becomes harder to stop someone from using the invention in bad ways
The bad ways are not always clear. I will quote Freud from Civilization and Its Discontents.
"One would like to ask: is there, then, no positive gain in pleasure, no unequivocal increase in my feeling of happiness, if I can, as often as I please, hear the voice of a child of mine who is living hundreds of miles away or if I can learn in the shortest possible time after a friend has reached his destination that he has come through the long and difficult voyage unharmed? Does it mean nothing that medicine has succeeded in enormously reducing infant mortality and the danger of infection for women in childbirth, and, indeed, in considerably lengthening the average life of a civilized man?"
"If there had been no railway to conquer distances, my child would never have left his native town and I should need no telephone to hear his voice; if travelling across the ocean by ship had not been introduced, my friend would not have embarked on his sea- voyage and I should not need a cable to relieve my anxiety about him. What is the use of reducing infantile mortality when it is precisely that reduction which imposes the greatest restraint on us in the begetting of children, so that, taken all round, we nevertheless rear no more children than in the days before the reign of hygiene, while at the same time we have created difficult conditions for our sexual life in marriage.... And, finally, what good to us is a long life if it is difficult and barren of joys, and if it is so full of misery that we can only welcome death as a deliverer?"
> For every advantage a new technology offers, there is always a corresponding disadvantage.
If that was true, society as a whole would never improve.
But in reality, the last 300 years have seen an unimaginable improvement of human life in every dimension.
If that was true, society as a whole would never improve.
But in reality, the last 300 years have seen an unimaginable improvement of human life in every dimension.
You can push that all the way back to the Middle Ages. Serfdom was quite an improvement over Roman-era slavery, being tied to the land was far more stable and secure than being tied directly to a master. It wasn't quite a middle class, but better nonetheless.
Transportation and naval technology steadily improved, and more and more goods and services became broadly available during this time period.
The downside is that war got really bad from 1800-1950.
Transportation and naval technology steadily improved, and more and more goods and services became broadly available during this time period.
The downside is that war got really bad from 1800-1950.
> If that was true, society as a whole would never improve.
Not sure that's the conclusion to draw. The car made traveling large distances possible. Now things are built on car scale distances, making walking difficult and requiring a car.
> unimaginable improvement of human life in every dimension
I would argue mainly materialistically. And yet we have to spend most of our lives working to pay for these comforts.
Not sure that's the conclusion to draw. The car made traveling large distances possible. Now things are built on car scale distances, making walking difficult and requiring a car.
> unimaginable improvement of human life in every dimension
I would argue mainly materialistically. And yet we have to spend most of our lives working to pay for these comforts.
I’m struggling to see how antibiotics harmed others.
Use of antibiotics bred resistant strains, which are becoming a increasing danger for hospital inpatients.
Yes, infections are a danger for patients....................
You could perhaps argue that antibiotics have allowed farming practises that might not be otherwise be economical that produce more suffering for the animals.
NB I don't know if this is true or not, but it certainly seems possible.
NB I don't know if this is true or not, but it certainly seems possible.
There is an argument that the black plague was one of the driving forced behind the rise of British democracy causing a labour shortage that added fuel to the rise of the middle class.
Now I've got no idea if that is a convincing argument, but it is plausible enough to say that a counterfactual world without antibiotics might have turned out better.
Now I've got no idea if that is a convincing argument, but it is plausible enough to say that a counterfactual world without antibiotics might have turned out better.
Not quite. It was during feudalism, and what it established was the power of the guilds and a large rise in wages. To use the Marxist term, there was no "reserve army of the unemployed" so workers found it much easier to negotiate wages.
British democracy generally came much later, as a divide and rule proposition. The divide was between the feudalism descended aristocrats on one hand, and the merchant capitalists on the other. The franchise was extended to property owners, then poorer property owners, then all men and property owning women, then all women, then they removed multiple votes in the 60s and limited the number of hereditary peers in the 90s. The start of the process was the 19th century, whereas the plague was the 14th and then 15th.
British democracy generally came much later, as a divide and rule proposition. The divide was between the feudalism descended aristocrats on one hand, and the merchant capitalists on the other. The franchise was extended to property owners, then poorer property owners, then all men and property owning women, then all women, then they removed multiple votes in the 60s and limited the number of hereditary peers in the 90s. The start of the process was the 19th century, whereas the plague was the 14th and then 15th.
Well put. There is a huge simplification and again, very North American centric. I beg you, HN readers, apply what he wrote to other societies.
I read on the top comments of people getting worried about the US becoming like former Soviet States in regards about thought control and lack of freedom. That's a whole different issue. PG mixes multiple different problems and oversimplify them.
I read on the top comments of people getting worried about the US becoming like former Soviet States in regards about thought control and lack of freedom. That's a whole different issue. PG mixes multiple different problems and oversimplify them.
> But innovation isn't good per se.
This is a thing that is known to most people since the end of WWII, with it's genocides – in fact what you describe is a very modernist view of the world: societies are continuously progressing into the direction of the light, with technology making things better all the time. In this world view the arrow of time has a clear direction and it is forward, while the roles of the protagonists is equally clear cut.
Many people don't really get what the postmodernists wanted: they were sick of precisely that lie. In their eyes things are not always getting better and more rational while knowledge and wisdom increases. Things get forgotten and vanish, good things get replaced by cheap things, confusion happens, intelligent people make immoral decisions while dumb people become heros etc.
It is this "dirt of reality" where things aren't as clear cut as many thinkers like them to be. This is not a problem per se, unless they try to make the reality match their ideas instead of the other way around.
This is a thing that is known to most people since the end of WWII, with it's genocides – in fact what you describe is a very modernist view of the world: societies are continuously progressing into the direction of the light, with technology making things better all the time. In this world view the arrow of time has a clear direction and it is forward, while the roles of the protagonists is equally clear cut.
Many people don't really get what the postmodernists wanted: they were sick of precisely that lie. In their eyes things are not always getting better and more rational while knowledge and wisdom increases. Things get forgotten and vanish, good things get replaced by cheap things, confusion happens, intelligent people make immoral decisions while dumb people become heros etc.
It is this "dirt of reality" where things aren't as clear cut as many thinkers like them to be. This is not a problem per se, unless they try to make the reality match their ideas instead of the other way around.
"Four quadrants" are frequently a bad smell. They often are structurally wrong, such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn%27s_taxonomy
which has three real entities in it (a triangle) and one non-entity. The Nolan chart gets into trouble in a different way:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nolan_chart
That demonstrates a libertarian position that some people like to talk about but does not get traction when you try to implement it in politics. Like the green party you get maybe 2% of the vote if that. There is a very strong force that comes from the axioms of social choice theory that pushes politics into one dimension and you cannot wish it away by drawing a square.
Then there is that Gartner Magic Quadrant where they are just getting high on their own supply.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn%27s_taxonomy
which has three real entities in it (a triangle) and one non-entity. The Nolan chart gets into trouble in a different way:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nolan_chart
That demonstrates a libertarian position that some people like to talk about but does not get traction when you try to implement it in politics. Like the green party you get maybe 2% of the vote if that. There is a very strong force that comes from the axioms of social choice theory that pushes politics into one dimension and you cannot wish it away by drawing a square.
Then there is that Gartner Magic Quadrant where they are just getting high on their own supply.
I tend to be a big fan of pg's posts even his more controversial ones, but I must admit the use of four quadrant categorization turned me off here. It's not a problem with the idea he's trying to convey. It is valid, at least in some contexts. The issue here is more about lazy communication, sloppy emphasis, too coarse thinking.
Shoehorning concepts into quadrants is information theoretically very suboptimal, and usually has bad Bayesian fit from concept to reality. It's a visual trick often used in superficial business presentations that to be frank, is a bit of an insult to readers. It assumes they haven't already thought of the two simplest dimensions of the problem. It's probably a fine tool for early intros on simple subjects to newbies, but it's a bit condescending when used on more complex concepts with more sophisticated audiences. It ignores millennia of knowledge of the subtlety of language, taxonomies and ontologies that go way back at least to Aristotle's Categories.
Yet people jump to it really quickly. I had smart people pitch to me on two separate occasions, startup ideas that were specialized domain search engines where "get this, we would have two sliders that would allow people to get more results from one of these four quadrants". They thought they had found the best dimensions to categorize their domain's data and could beat much more flexible and expressive combinations of natural language keywords to zone in on things relevant to users' inquiries. It's a weird reflex.
Shoehorning concepts into quadrants is information theoretically very suboptimal, and usually has bad Bayesian fit from concept to reality. It's a visual trick often used in superficial business presentations that to be frank, is a bit of an insult to readers. It assumes they haven't already thought of the two simplest dimensions of the problem. It's probably a fine tool for early intros on simple subjects to newbies, but it's a bit condescending when used on more complex concepts with more sophisticated audiences. It ignores millennia of knowledge of the subtlety of language, taxonomies and ontologies that go way back at least to Aristotle's Categories.
Yet people jump to it really quickly. I had smart people pitch to me on two separate occasions, startup ideas that were specialized domain search engines where "get this, we would have two sliders that would allow people to get more results from one of these four quadrants". They thought they had found the best dimensions to categorize their domain's data and could beat much more flexible and expressive combinations of natural language keywords to zone in on things relevant to users' inquiries. It's a weird reflex.
I agree. It was an essay on two of the big 5 personality traits: conscientiousness (conventional) and agreeableness (passivity). His thesis is that disagreeable conscientious people are responsible for "a disproportionate amount of trouble".
There's a couple problems with this though. First, these traits are sort of immutable - humans can't really change their personalities. Second, as you said, independent-mindedness can cause huge problems as well.
There's a couple problems with this though. First, these traits are sort of immutable - humans can't really change their personalities. Second, as you said, independent-mindedness can cause huge problems as well.
Agree. in this case he entirely misses that the aggressively conventional are serving a purpose that’s incredible important. This is classic stuff going back to the Tower of Babel, and theories about conservatives vs liberals functions in society (ie disruptives and preservationists).
After reading The Righteous Mind (best book of the decade, IMO) and generally gaining an appreciation for how blind we are to how good we have it (the aggressively independent types moreso, they are chronically unsatisfied and in a way pessimistic about progress, blind to the incredible luxury we live in now), I find myself really understanding the role and purpose of the conventionistas in society and I’m glad for them! They are the buffer between the woke mobs, they fight to keep the system from moving around too wildly. They are wrong of course (heresy is a good example), but so are the unsatisfied independents as well.
Not that these map perfectly. There are many conservative independents and vice versa, but your main thrust on pg generally:
1. Defining things so they create categories for people, usually framing it for some self-serving purpose
2. Putting himself in the good category and spending very little time thinking over why the “bad” one may not be so bad.
Really hits home.
Side note: I found his last essay on Orthodoxy Privilege to be a real stinker. That he felt the need to write about “privilege” of which he is gluttonous, and use it as a chance to redefine privilege to his ends, was an impressive level of dissonance.
After reading The Righteous Mind (best book of the decade, IMO) and generally gaining an appreciation for how blind we are to how good we have it (the aggressively independent types moreso, they are chronically unsatisfied and in a way pessimistic about progress, blind to the incredible luxury we live in now), I find myself really understanding the role and purpose of the conventionistas in society and I’m glad for them! They are the buffer between the woke mobs, they fight to keep the system from moving around too wildly. They are wrong of course (heresy is a good example), but so are the unsatisfied independents as well.
Not that these map perfectly. There are many conservative independents and vice versa, but your main thrust on pg generally:
1. Defining things so they create categories for people, usually framing it for some self-serving purpose
2. Putting himself in the good category and spending very little time thinking over why the “bad” one may not be so bad.
Really hits home.
Side note: I found his last essay on Orthodoxy Privilege to be a real stinker. That he felt the need to write about “privilege” of which he is gluttonous, and use it as a chance to redefine privilege to his ends, was an impressive level of dissonance.
As a scientist, the idea that "To be a successful scientist, for example, it's not enough just to be right. You have to be right when everyone else is wrong." Struck me as ludicrous, and scientists that I know that think like this usually seem more concerned with self aggrandization than discovery. I wonder if your point #2 is actually really profound. Maybe the important axis is not "conformity", but empathy? Kids that lack aggressively the ability or patience to understand rules break them, scientists that agressively understand other people's ideas are able to build on them or move beyond them, etc...
I think there are obvious cases where passive moral conformists (which you would argue are at the bottom of PG's rankings) are a net good in the world. PG doesn't spend any time highlighting this because it is not the focus of the essay.
Classifying people by their expressed personality is the best way to do it. If you refuse to judge a person by the content of their character you are blinding yourself.
Classifying people by their expressed personality is the best way to do it. If you refuse to judge a person by the content of their character you are blinding yourself.
> If you come up with clever ways of escaping the law for your own benefit...
... then PG will call you "smart".
... then PG will call you "smart".
Why don't we engage with the argument a bit more. How are people who are aggressively conformist valuable in ways that Paul Graham is ignoring?
One answer is, they're valuable in war, where you have large numbers of people who are in a position to weaken the war effort and you want to make sure none of them do or even think about it.
The Trump campaign signalling early on that it was at war with certain large chunks of the U.S. population helped kick a lot of people into this war mentality, I think, which might be in their interest or all of our interests in some ways, and that seems to be one of the trends that provoked this essay.
Passively independent-minded people are really valuable too, because they gum up the works of conformism by refusing to go along with it, without giving the aggressive conformists targets for outrage.
I've also seen a separate axis of how into change and new ideas people are. Some people are into new ideas in an aggressive conformist way. Some people are really resistant to new ideas in the same way.
One answer is, they're valuable in war, where you have large numbers of people who are in a position to weaken the war effort and you want to make sure none of them do or even think about it.
The Trump campaign signalling early on that it was at war with certain large chunks of the U.S. population helped kick a lot of people into this war mentality, I think, which might be in their interest or all of our interests in some ways, and that seems to be one of the trends that provoked this essay.
Passively independent-minded people are really valuable too, because they gum up the works of conformism by refusing to go along with it, without giving the aggressive conformists targets for outrage.
I've also seen a separate axis of how into change and new ideas people are. Some people are into new ideas in an aggressive conformist way. Some people are really resistant to new ideas in the same way.
Sounds like you are conventionally-minded. ;-)
Disagreeing with PG on HN is rather contrarian... ;-)
That said, going against the flow as a matter of habit or policy is just as predictable as being conformist.
Yet he doesn't appear to see that, or at least doesn't address it and places in the 4th quadrant those who are always breaking the rules "because they're there"...
That said, going against the flow as a matter of habit or policy is just as predictable as being conformist.
Yet he doesn't appear to see that, or at least doesn't address it and places in the 4th quadrant those who are always breaking the rules "because they're there"...
I guess it is not about being predictable or not. It is about being conformist or not.
He should really come out of his ivory tower and put a comment section on his blog.
Comment sections on blogs are so bad that there are competing browser extensions to block them. Better to have dedicated sites for comments. Like hn, reddit, etc
What else is this site for?
People can comment on Paul's Twitter or this thread.
He will block you if you argue with him.
>he plays fast and loose with the facts
I don't expect essays to be scientific papers. The term comes from the French verb essayer 'to attempt, to try'. It's a genre widely known for being exactly that: a (mostly) brief rundown of ideas, without an exhaustive empirical demonstration being necessary nor expected.
On top of that, it's a ~1500-word blog post on his own website. Get real.
I don't expect essays to be scientific papers. The term comes from the French verb essayer 'to attempt, to try'. It's a genre widely known for being exactly that: a (mostly) brief rundown of ideas, without an exhaustive empirical demonstration being necessary nor expected.
On top of that, it's a ~1500-word blog post on his own website. Get real.
Who cares? If your argument is that essays aren't concerned with facts, then that's a great argument for ignoring the entire genre of essays. Ideas without basis in reality aren't worth anything.
Luckily, some essayists are concerned with facts, so we don't have to throw out the whole genre. But we should absolutely ignore the essays that don't concern themselves with facts.
Luckily, some essayists are concerned with facts, so we don't have to throw out the whole genre. But we should absolutely ignore the essays that don't concern themselves with facts.
> If your argument is that essays aren't concerned with facts, then that's a great argument for ignoring the entire genre of essays. [...] Luckily, some essayists are concerned with facts, so we don't have to throw out the whole genre. But we should absolutely ignore the essays that don't concern themselves with facts.
>If your argument is <something undesirable or unreasonable>, then <slippery slope>. Luckily, <me and the majority or authority figures disagree with you>, so <positive outcome>.
That's a straw man fallacy if I've ever seen one. It's a textbook example. Congratulations.
My reply to another user regarding that:
>Paul Graham, on the other hand, is just publishing a simple essay on his very own website; of course I don't expect an exhaustive empirical demonstration on his part, though any kind of factual data can be welcome.
Look, it's not a binary decision (facts/no facts), but a qualitative distinction: it's how I expect facts--whatever those are, but that's another discussion--to be dealt with in a short essay on a personal blog, instead of expecting or wanting essays to be deliberately unconcerned with them.
>If your argument is <something undesirable or unreasonable>, then <slippery slope>. Luckily, <me and the majority or authority figures disagree with you>, so <positive outcome>.
That's a straw man fallacy if I've ever seen one. It's a textbook example. Congratulations.
My reply to another user regarding that:
>Paul Graham, on the other hand, is just publishing a simple essay on his very own website; of course I don't expect an exhaustive empirical demonstration on his part, though any kind of factual data can be welcome.
Look, it's not a binary decision (facts/no facts), but a qualitative distinction: it's how I expect facts--whatever those are, but that's another discussion--to be dealt with in a short essay on a personal blog, instead of expecting or wanting essays to be deliberately unconcerned with them.
> That's a straw man fallacy if I've ever seen one. It's a textbook example. Congratulations.
Everyone can read the conversation and see what was said.
> Look, it's not a binary decision (facts/no facts), but a qualitative distinction: it's how I expect facts--whatever those are, but that's another discussion--to be dealt with in a short essay on a personal blog, instead of expecting or wanting essays to be deliberately unconcerned with them.
Okay, if that's what you're saying, I didn't understand that previously, and I'll take some blame for thinking I understood instead of asking clarifying questions.
But, I'll say, the qualitative discussion of "how facts are dealt with" is pretty irrelevant if there aren't any facts to deal with. It's very much not clear that much of PG says in this essay is based in facts at all. Even if you want to argue that quality of evidence is a spectrum, the can still be a 0 value on that spectrum.
Everyone can read the conversation and see what was said.
> Look, it's not a binary decision (facts/no facts), but a qualitative distinction: it's how I expect facts--whatever those are, but that's another discussion--to be dealt with in a short essay on a personal blog, instead of expecting or wanting essays to be deliberately unconcerned with them.
Okay, if that's what you're saying, I didn't understand that previously, and I'll take some blame for thinking I understood instead of asking clarifying questions.
But, I'll say, the qualitative discussion of "how facts are dealt with" is pretty irrelevant if there aren't any facts to deal with. It's very much not clear that much of PG says in this essay is based in facts at all. Even if you want to argue that quality of evidence is a spectrum, the can still be a 0 value on that spectrum.
Is there not a spectrum of levels of accuracy/voracity in essays? Is it not valid to have a preference for authors alignments to parts of that spectrum?
Description of the world seems necessarily a compression of facts. I read this critique as stating more or less, "I find that PG tends to bias the data selected for the compression to support the conclusions he is inclined to promote".
I agree that essays have a wider allowable not-grounded-in-demonstrable-reality-ness compared to scientific papers but if an author seems to one to cherry pick, it seems reasonable for the one to declare that as a criticism of the author.
This is an important thing to know, especially since those compression statements are usually the premises the theses of the essays depend.
Description of the world seems necessarily a compression of facts. I read this critique as stating more or less, "I find that PG tends to bias the data selected for the compression to support the conclusions he is inclined to promote".
I agree that essays have a wider allowable not-grounded-in-demonstrable-reality-ness compared to scientific papers but if an author seems to one to cherry pick, it seems reasonable for the one to declare that as a criticism of the author.
This is an important thing to know, especially since those compression statements are usually the premises the theses of the essays depend.
I don't think scientific papers are the only place that should be expected to, when purporting something as fact, be well... factual.
Funny enough, all throughout my many years in academia I had to provide sources for anything I stated as a fact in an essay (including opinion pieces).
I should of just let my professors know that I wasn't providing them a scientific paper -- I was just attempting/trying to provide a brief rundown of ideas and they were wrong to expect empirical evidence of anything I claimed as fact.
Funny enough, all throughout my many years in academia I had to provide sources for anything I stated as a fact in an essay (including opinion pieces).
I should of just let my professors know that I wasn't providing them a scientific paper -- I was just attempting/trying to provide a brief rundown of ideas and they were wrong to expect empirical evidence of anything I claimed as fact.
Funes-(2)
This is one of PG's weaker essays. He attempts to glide between psychology, history, politics, and philosophy without proper evidence or background in those areas. His construct is somewhat interesting on the surface but is only supported by his own feelings and his own anecdata, he doesn't point to anything relevant or similar written by actual experts.
The essay is very good starting with this paragraph:
You'd think it would be obvious just from that sentence what a dangerous game they're playing. But I'll spell it out. There are two reasons why we need to be able to discuss even "bad" ideas.
Everything above that is just setting up the rest.
You'd think it would be obvious just from that sentence what a dangerous game they're playing. But I'll spell it out. There are two reasons why we need to be able to discuss even "bad" ideas.
Everything above that is just setting up the rest.
Yeah but unless there's someone who is a domain expert, deeply affiliated with experts from other domains, willing to drop into HN to give free advice... gurus are what you get.
As popular as HN is, there are surprisingly few people willing to do this.
As popular as HN is, there are surprisingly few people willing to do this.
Why would they even try on HN, a site that famously looks down on any subject that isn't STEM or closely adjacent?
[deleted]
I think the example with the soccer field is great. People think and speak differently if they know that there are taboos.
[deleted]
> Since one's quadrant depends more on one's personality than the nature of the rules, most people would occupy the same quadrant even if they'd grown up in a quite different society
This contains a strong assumption of nature over nurture. I push back on that. (A point of evidence being salivary cortisol correlations with high-stress childhoods and even prenatal environments.)
Independent-minded cultures produce more independent thinkers. A culture that censors raises children by rewarding convention-seeking behaviour and sharply punishing non-conformance.
(Counterpoint: Did the children of circa 1920s academics become academics at a greater frequency than those of postwar academics? Anecdotally, I think so. A lot of them, as PG hypothesises, became founders. That suggests an innate quality that seeks its environment.)
This might also be content-dependent. When I was young, I oscillated between tattletelling and rampant rulebreaking, with a memorable drive to stand out from my peer group. Notably, an inflection point, to my memory and, surprisingly, to my discovery a few years ago after reading childhood notes, was when my family immigrated to America. To-day, I’m passively conformist with the law, but moderately independent when it comes to personal social, political and broader commercial activities, enjoying standing out even if it means being quirky or disliked. I don’t imagine I’d have been the same in Switzerland or in India.
This contains a strong assumption of nature over nurture. I push back on that. (A point of evidence being salivary cortisol correlations with high-stress childhoods and even prenatal environments.)
Independent-minded cultures produce more independent thinkers. A culture that censors raises children by rewarding convention-seeking behaviour and sharply punishing non-conformance.
(Counterpoint: Did the children of circa 1920s academics become academics at a greater frequency than those of postwar academics? Anecdotally, I think so. A lot of them, as PG hypothesises, became founders. That suggests an innate quality that seeks its environment.)
This might also be content-dependent. When I was young, I oscillated between tattletelling and rampant rulebreaking, with a memorable drive to stand out from my peer group. Notably, an inflection point, to my memory and, surprisingly, to my discovery a few years ago after reading childhood notes, was when my family immigrated to America. To-day, I’m passively conformist with the law, but moderately independent when it comes to personal social, political and broader commercial activities, enjoying standing out even if it means being quirky or disliked. I don’t imagine I’d have been the same in Switzerland or in India.
After seeing how different an adopted child acted compared to the non adopted ones in a close family member's family, I believe a lot more in nature causing big differences in behavior vs. nurture. Even when you have your own kids, children born 1 or 2 years apart in the same family can have very different personalities.
People don't like it, because it's used to justify fatalistic write offs of people. I agree it's wrong to do that because people are often wrong in writing off people, especially the aggressively independent :)
People don't like it, because it's used to justify fatalistic write offs of people. I agree it's wrong to do that because people are often wrong in writing off people, especially the aggressively independent :)
Adopted and second children still represent different environments. If the adopted child wasn't adopted at birth, their formative years would greatly impact what is perceived as nature. Its a meme that parents are generally more cavalier and relaxed with later children than they are with the first, and that is a significant environmental variable.
Nature definitely hardwires in some baseline chemistry, but those first couple of years have a huge impact on how a child will deal with that chemistry.
Nature definitely hardwires in some baseline chemistry, but those first couple of years have a huge impact on how a child will deal with that chemistry.
Yes nurture has an effect, but the current science suggests that our DNA has an even greater determination of who we are than we ever imagined, the degree of which is incredibly surprising and non-intuitive. It would suggest that we become who we are determined to be, no matter the early childhood variables.
https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly93YWtpbmd1cC5saW...
https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly93YWtpbmd1cC5saW...
This is a fair point. To say that personality can be purely characterized in full using a few adjectives is grossly over-generalizing. It seems like a better model of "the four quadrants" would be to add a dimension, the dimension of personality when it comes to dealing with different things in life. For instance, while one can be passively conformist in a particular area, say, following the rules of society, one can be aggressively independent in one's own discipline or expertise.
For instance, you could expect a brilliant academic to be socially conformist, while academically aggressive and independent. Some sort of criminal or outlaw would be aggressively independent when it comes to following the laws of society, and maybe conformist when it comes to following the criminal discipline (this is when you have mobs and gangs --- outlaws find each other and form groups, too).
And it is a combination of these different styles that make up the overall personality profile.
For instance, you could expect a brilliant academic to be socially conformist, while academically aggressive and independent. Some sort of criminal or outlaw would be aggressively independent when it comes to following the laws of society, and maybe conformist when it comes to following the criminal discipline (this is when you have mobs and gangs --- outlaws find each other and form groups, too).
And it is a combination of these different styles that make up the overall personality profile.
The part of the essay that made me the most introspective was:
" Princeton professor Robert George recently wrote:
" Princeton professor Robert George recently wrote:
I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition. Guess what? They all would have been abolitionists! They all would have bravely spoken out against slavery, and worked tirelessly against it. "
It’s a weakly specified / trick question. Do you get to keep your knowledge of the world as it is today ? if not how are you different than people 200 years ago ? So you can just ask what your ancestor’s position would have been. Which we already know the answer to.
It's pretty clear that you don't get to keep your knowledge of the world as it is today - if you did, the question would collapse to "Do you support slavery?" which is much less interesting.
Asking what your ancestors believed is also a bit of a miss. My ancestors in the US were all German-American, and German-Americans overwhelmingly opposed slavery, so my ancestors probably opposed it, and I probably would have opposed it too if I had been part of that population, but that's obviously a total cop-out.
So take the framing of, say you were born into a white slave-owning family in the antebellum American South. Would you have freed your slaves and joined the abolitionist movement? The actual people in that situation weren't entirely a monolith - surely at least a few of them actually did that. But if the actual share who did so was, say, 1% of the population, then you have to think you're in the top 1% in terms of some combination of empathy, racial tolerance, forward-thinkingness, etc. to claim that you would. The question is useful because we're not different than people 200 years ago, no matter how much we like to think we are.
I think the obvious and more explicit follow-up question is even better though - "What beliefs do you hold today that will be viewed as negatively 200 years from now as slavery is today?" If the answer is "none," we must be in such a utopia to have finally reached the end-state of human moral development.
Asking what your ancestors believed is also a bit of a miss. My ancestors in the US were all German-American, and German-Americans overwhelmingly opposed slavery, so my ancestors probably opposed it, and I probably would have opposed it too if I had been part of that population, but that's obviously a total cop-out.
So take the framing of, say you were born into a white slave-owning family in the antebellum American South. Would you have freed your slaves and joined the abolitionist movement? The actual people in that situation weren't entirely a monolith - surely at least a few of them actually did that. But if the actual share who did so was, say, 1% of the population, then you have to think you're in the top 1% in terms of some combination of empathy, racial tolerance, forward-thinkingness, etc. to claim that you would. The question is useful because we're not different than people 200 years ago, no matter how much we like to think we are.
I think the obvious and more explicit follow-up question is even better though - "What beliefs do you hold today that will be viewed as negatively 200 years from now as slavery is today?" If the answer is "none," we must be in such a utopia to have finally reached the end-state of human moral development.
People don't want to admit that evil is done by people like ourselves. Asking what your dead evil ancestors would do is different from asking what you would do.
If you were born back then, with no knowledge of the future, you would be a Good Person no matter the conditions, right?
If you were born back then, with no knowledge of the future, you would be a Good Person no matter the conditions, right?
The question forced to me ask myself if my values and convictions remain strong in the absence of knowledge. Do I know that slavery is terrible or do I believe in equality of humans? In the first case it's memorization, which is very specific to context. If I believe in the equality of humans, I can apply that belief across contexts and still reach unconventional conclusions.
Personally, I know I would not have been much different because I'm not much different today.
Personally, I know I would not have been much different because I'm not much different today.
It's an interesting question for a lot of reasons. I live in the South, so perhaps if I had been living in the South in 1859 I would have supported slavery. But my ancestors were living in the North, in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and fought in the Civil War on the side of the Union, so presumably they opposed slavery. So if I had been reared by those ancestors, I likely would have opposed slavery. But then again, I'm a bit of a contrarian by personality, so I may have had the opposite viewpoint from my surroundings. Perhaps not opposing slavery in the South, but opposing fighting to preserve it. Perhaps not supporting slavery in the North, but opposing a destructive war and supporting the rights of individual states to determine their own fate and secede. Or personal things could be involved. Suppose as a northerner I saw an opportunity to join the family of a wealthy Southern planter. Or as a southerner, I wished that certain slaves who were friends could be free. So it goes down to what your environment is and what person you are in that environment.
Regarding the use of the 'aggressively conventional minded'. When I was younger I would think that these kind of people were mostly just detrimental to society but I have come to see that they sometimes have a use. It is this kind of people who were the first to see that immigration and multiculturalism have their limits. For instance, salafism cannot just be seen as just another opinion that people can have. Of course, the 'agressively conventional minded' would put it in a bit more stark words than 'have their limits' and would also extend their warning messages to far greater groups than actually warranted but the other three types of people might just close their eyes to the whole problem. Generally, the 'aggressively conventional minded' can be helpful when a society is in danger of degrading into lawlessnes. They will be the first to sound the alarm and sometimes they are right.
As a passive independently minded, I can say that we also see natural fluctuation from epochs of independently minded reason to social conformity and back. These are good and necessarily healthy cycles because the independently minded, left unchecked, inevitably will achieve the freedom for certain individuals within that sector to explore avenues of thought and action that doom civilization and degrade reason and safety. The conservatively minded, left unchecked, will inevitably lead to total stagnation and the destruction of personal freedoms. It's a cycle, and the truly reasonable people, the truly intelligent, will see through it.
I see your fear, and I understand it is about the rise of radical social conformity, as I personally think was adequetly heralded by ted krazinski and george lincoln rockwell, two very independently minded, aggressive, and destructive individuals. It is scary to witness, and to experience leading into this wave, but understand all things come to an end.
Conservatism, Feminism, Neoliberalism and the Patriarchy are out. Political correctness and xenomania are on the way out and will be out of vogue within 10 years. The youngest generation to arrive on the world stage is repulsed ad nauseum with what they rightfully view as political posturing for virtual life achievement points by all sides of the now universally static social instrument, whose only purpose, inside and outside of the statehouse, is to carry out token activities that defend the ambitions of entrenched opponents; opponents whose true motives are inerrently selfserving, oblivious to the ground level truth, and dismissive of the long term consequences of their missions.
It is nearly the hour for the true star children to take their place. The first to arrive are even now approaching the zenith of power and influence, and the waves that have come since are growing in intensity. We are actively uninvested in the television and the mock battles being carried out behind it. Our life prospects and probability of reproduction have been seized from us, to serve the needs of those who profit from stasis. We are drones in a steady state, wealth maintaining, species killing industrial grade dystopia. It won't last much longer. The majority of the shifts that will come and precipitate our total revolution across all points of the spectrum that dismisses every single piece of the political machine enslaving us will take place within a decade. They wont be heralded by shifts in thought or reason, because it is the decline of systemic thinking itself which must necessarily decline for to coexist unincorporated as equals and as stakeholders in a commonwealth destiny.
This is not anarchy, in practice it could look like a lot of things. It could, ideally, wind up vaguely resembling some kind of mutualistic, agrarian society with vast quantities of independent small communities consisting of large, interconnected families subsiding on self-sustaining garden estates. These communities could be organized into democratic representational regions that are governed by a futuristic constitution which, to prevent the entrenchment of conventional systemic thinking, requires the government model to be decentralized and assembling on an as needed basis, with temporary, as opposed to permenant, and internally selected, as opposed to independently appointed, individuals nominated to national councils and bodies of state, for the purpose of making nationwide decisions.
There will be war, even in such an era, over resource conflicts. People will, out of necessity, die. Pray you are not among them. But do not pray for the bloodshed to come to an end. Conflict is a necessary part of growth, and growth is requisite for freedom, and freedom is requisite for independent inquiry. The boil must be allowed for the world to return to a peaceful and generously cool condition, otherwise, it will always be in a state of continual repression.
I see your fear, and I understand it is about the rise of radical social conformity, as I personally think was adequetly heralded by ted krazinski and george lincoln rockwell, two very independently minded, aggressive, and destructive individuals. It is scary to witness, and to experience leading into this wave, but understand all things come to an end.
Conservatism, Feminism, Neoliberalism and the Patriarchy are out. Political correctness and xenomania are on the way out and will be out of vogue within 10 years. The youngest generation to arrive on the world stage is repulsed ad nauseum with what they rightfully view as political posturing for virtual life achievement points by all sides of the now universally static social instrument, whose only purpose, inside and outside of the statehouse, is to carry out token activities that defend the ambitions of entrenched opponents; opponents whose true motives are inerrently selfserving, oblivious to the ground level truth, and dismissive of the long term consequences of their missions.
It is nearly the hour for the true star children to take their place. The first to arrive are even now approaching the zenith of power and influence, and the waves that have come since are growing in intensity. We are actively uninvested in the television and the mock battles being carried out behind it. Our life prospects and probability of reproduction have been seized from us, to serve the needs of those who profit from stasis. We are drones in a steady state, wealth maintaining, species killing industrial grade dystopia. It won't last much longer. The majority of the shifts that will come and precipitate our total revolution across all points of the spectrum that dismisses every single piece of the political machine enslaving us will take place within a decade. They wont be heralded by shifts in thought or reason, because it is the decline of systemic thinking itself which must necessarily decline for to coexist unincorporated as equals and as stakeholders in a commonwealth destiny.
This is not anarchy, in practice it could look like a lot of things. It could, ideally, wind up vaguely resembling some kind of mutualistic, agrarian society with vast quantities of independent small communities consisting of large, interconnected families subsiding on self-sustaining garden estates. These communities could be organized into democratic representational regions that are governed by a futuristic constitution which, to prevent the entrenchment of conventional systemic thinking, requires the government model to be decentralized and assembling on an as needed basis, with temporary, as opposed to permenant, and internally selected, as opposed to independently appointed, individuals nominated to national councils and bodies of state, for the purpose of making nationwide decisions.
There will be war, even in such an era, over resource conflicts. People will, out of necessity, die. Pray you are not among them. But do not pray for the bloodshed to come to an end. Conflict is a necessary part of growth, and growth is requisite for freedom, and freedom is requisite for independent inquiry. The boil must be allowed for the world to return to a peaceful and generously cool condition, otherwise, it will always be in a state of continual repression.
I could add so much more to this about the state of affairs which claims the problems in the present era were seeded almost 300 years ago and that the supposed freedoms of today enshrined in that hour were not, as it were, a byproduct of the age of enlightenment, but rather, an insideous plot concocted by masonic and conventionally minded globalists planning a society that would protect the issues they cared about and protecting their assets against outside exploitation. I could say that america needs to die, and in truth, although most of it will survive, it will go through a rebirth, and become a new thing, not like the phoenix, but rather like the butterfly, which shares many pieces of the old but is a design of the new.
[deleted]
Really we need a forum like ycombinator news but instead it's just peoples ideas and thoughts and you get to upvote or downvote comments but it's not so simple as a direct vote, it needs to be engineered in such a way that the age old adages of "Few consider the logic of another to be as sensible as their own." and "To the dim-minded, the sunlight must seem absurd" - in order to promote original and counter-social norms discussion and content.
For it, an innovative voting system would probably be useful. Forums that have tried to promote anti-conventional ideas have failed before. Usually grossly disgusting things make their way to the top of the feed in such cases, and good, original thoughts, meander in that twilight zone between good and bad, or get mildly downvoted, but only enough to be pushed below the threshhold- not enough that the negative point association is itself an expression of dislike for the content. Essentially, people do not so much hate original ideas, as simply dislike hearing them.
What makes this tricky is that people will always think their opinions sensible. For example, lets say you post a not so popular but sensible opinion. If you instituted a mechanism for people to vote on your content on the basis of logic, or reason, or any other qualitative mechanism, they would downvote it on the basis of logic, reason, etc.
Instead, we must attack the fundamental cybernetic arrangement of authority over opinion.
First, we have an up thumb and a down thumb:
I feel that the content presented is good, and i believe it self-sufficiently so/ It makes me feel uncomfortable, and I believe the evidence is self-sufficient.
Secondly, we have an up arrow and a down arrow: I understand what the person is trying to say/ I don't understand their reasoning.
Casting a vote would require selecting both an arrow and a thumb.
Getting a down thumb and a down arrow results in getting one point for originality. Getting a up thumb and an up arrow results in getting a point for popularity. Getting a down thumb and an up arrow results in getting a point for controversiality. Getting a up thumb and a down arrow results in the post getting a point for absurdity.
The score of the post is determined as follows:
The ratio of originality to controversiality is used to assign a value up to 100. a 1:0 ratio is a score of 100, and a 0:1 score is a value of 0. This shall be known as the shittest variable, or SV.
The ratio of popularity to controversiality is used to assign a value up to 100. A 1:0 value is a score of 0, 0:1 score 10, and a 1:1 score is a value of 100. This shall be known as the shiteating variable, or SE.
The ratio of originality to absurdity is used to assign a value up to 100. A 1:0 value is a score of 10, 0:1 score 0, and a 1:1 score is a value of 1. This shall be known as the shittake variable, or ST.
The ratio of popularity to absurdity is used to assign a value up to 100. A 1:0 and a 0:1 is a score of 0. A 1:1 is a score of 10. This shall be known as the shit-brigading variable, or SB.
SV x SE x ST X SB determines the true value of the post.
However, a user can choose to set a variable in their user profile which shows all posts based on popularity alone, and all scores based on popularity alone.
However, if the true value exceeds popularity by more than a factor of 10, the post will be hidden from their view, and the same would go for any replies.
For it, an innovative voting system would probably be useful. Forums that have tried to promote anti-conventional ideas have failed before. Usually grossly disgusting things make their way to the top of the feed in such cases, and good, original thoughts, meander in that twilight zone between good and bad, or get mildly downvoted, but only enough to be pushed below the threshhold- not enough that the negative point association is itself an expression of dislike for the content. Essentially, people do not so much hate original ideas, as simply dislike hearing them.
What makes this tricky is that people will always think their opinions sensible. For example, lets say you post a not so popular but sensible opinion. If you instituted a mechanism for people to vote on your content on the basis of logic, or reason, or any other qualitative mechanism, they would downvote it on the basis of logic, reason, etc.
Instead, we must attack the fundamental cybernetic arrangement of authority over opinion.
First, we have an up thumb and a down thumb:
I feel that the content presented is good, and i believe it self-sufficiently so/ It makes me feel uncomfortable, and I believe the evidence is self-sufficient.
Secondly, we have an up arrow and a down arrow: I understand what the person is trying to say/ I don't understand their reasoning.
Casting a vote would require selecting both an arrow and a thumb.
Getting a down thumb and a down arrow results in getting one point for originality. Getting a up thumb and an up arrow results in getting a point for popularity. Getting a down thumb and an up arrow results in getting a point for controversiality. Getting a up thumb and a down arrow results in the post getting a point for absurdity.
The score of the post is determined as follows:
The ratio of originality to controversiality is used to assign a value up to 100. a 1:0 ratio is a score of 100, and a 0:1 score is a value of 0. This shall be known as the shittest variable, or SV.
The ratio of popularity to controversiality is used to assign a value up to 100. A 1:0 value is a score of 0, 0:1 score 10, and a 1:1 score is a value of 100. This shall be known as the shiteating variable, or SE.
The ratio of originality to absurdity is used to assign a value up to 100. A 1:0 value is a score of 10, 0:1 score 0, and a 1:1 score is a value of 1. This shall be known as the shittake variable, or ST.
The ratio of popularity to absurdity is used to assign a value up to 100. A 1:0 and a 0:1 is a score of 0. A 1:1 is a score of 10. This shall be known as the shit-brigading variable, or SB.
SV x SE x ST X SB determines the true value of the post.
However, a user can choose to set a variable in their user profile which shows all posts based on popularity alone, and all scores based on popularity alone.
However, if the true value exceeds popularity by more than a factor of 10, the post will be hidden from their view, and the same would go for any replies.
A funnier version of the same <more or less> set of ideas is "The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity" by Carlo M. Cipolla. ...And unlike Paul's essay, it comes with illustrations!
http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidit...
http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidit...
ghiculescu(1)
Quick, someone make a political compass meme out of this!
Let's pretend that such a projection exists and we can assign people to points on the cartesian plane. This begs the question, how do the points change over time?
Mathematically speaking, we can add to our model by assuming there is some notion of a flow or a vector field on the quadrant that pulls individual people/points in directions. There are also people moving in their own directions either due to inherit personal characteristics or perhaps life events impacting them.
How do we model this field? We could start by creating a bunch of "attractors" or points on the plane that people are attracted to. Think of an attractor like a very massive body and the gravitational pull it has on other bodies. If these attractors do exist, where are they on the compass?
Some attractors might be "abstract ideals" that naturally draw people to each part of the quadrant but I'd say the biggest attractor is in fact other people. Human beings have tribal tendencies and so if/when a lot of people cluster on the compass it pulls even more people in. With our gravity analogy this is like a massive star absorbing all of the mass surrounding it.
Some people have anti-conformist tendencies and don't like to belong to large groups of like minded people. Eventually large pockets of people become increasingly unstable and people radically disassociate with the big attractor. This is like a supernova radically expelling mass in all directions.
I prefer the gravity analogy because it avoids moralizing specific "locations" on the compass. A gravitational well can occur anywhere and we can discuss them abstractly. I think what PG is saying is that it is not a good idea to let yourself be pulled in to the well. Just look at the wells that have occurred in the past. All of these statements can be made with respect to an abstract political context. Now apply them to the current context.
Does this post make any sense or is it just the ravings of a mad lunatic? Do we believe these things because they are true or do we believe them because we agree with their conclusion? Do we disagree because we disagree with the conclusion?
Is it really possible to introspect and judge the validity of our own conclusions? If anyone can answer this questions (preferably by reference to a third party source) I'd be appreciative.
Mathematically speaking, we can add to our model by assuming there is some notion of a flow or a vector field on the quadrant that pulls individual people/points in directions. There are also people moving in their own directions either due to inherit personal characteristics or perhaps life events impacting them.
How do we model this field? We could start by creating a bunch of "attractors" or points on the plane that people are attracted to. Think of an attractor like a very massive body and the gravitational pull it has on other bodies. If these attractors do exist, where are they on the compass?
Some attractors might be "abstract ideals" that naturally draw people to each part of the quadrant but I'd say the biggest attractor is in fact other people. Human beings have tribal tendencies and so if/when a lot of people cluster on the compass it pulls even more people in. With our gravity analogy this is like a massive star absorbing all of the mass surrounding it.
Some people have anti-conformist tendencies and don't like to belong to large groups of like minded people. Eventually large pockets of people become increasingly unstable and people radically disassociate with the big attractor. This is like a supernova radically expelling mass in all directions.
I prefer the gravity analogy because it avoids moralizing specific "locations" on the compass. A gravitational well can occur anywhere and we can discuss them abstractly. I think what PG is saying is that it is not a good idea to let yourself be pulled in to the well. Just look at the wells that have occurred in the past. All of these statements can be made with respect to an abstract political context. Now apply them to the current context.
Does this post make any sense or is it just the ravings of a mad lunatic? Do we believe these things because they are true or do we believe them because we agree with their conclusion? Do we disagree because we disagree with the conclusion?
Is it really possible to introspect and judge the validity of our own conclusions? If anyone can answer this questions (preferably by reference to a third party source) I'd be appreciative.
While I agree with some of this, there's a hubris in it that I find a bit distasteful. It seems to claim that there's only one type of person needed for society to thrive. Not surprisingly, it's the type that most aligns with who he identifies himself to be.
I think that the article is using caricatured descriptions of two categories that are more broad (people who are oriented toward change and those who are oriented toward stability) and highlighting only the good of the preferred group (his own) and the bad within the "other". The truth is, there are beneficial and destructive individuals in both groups, and there are perspectives from each that we need. I would argue that what society really needs is not the ascendancy of one group above the other but mutual respect and discussion of ideas between groups.
Which is kind of where he was going with the discussion of ideas. He just didn't have a big enough tent.
I think that the article is using caricatured descriptions of two categories that are more broad (people who are oriented toward change and those who are oriented toward stability) and highlighting only the good of the preferred group (his own) and the bad within the "other". The truth is, there are beneficial and destructive individuals in both groups, and there are perspectives from each that we need. I would argue that what society really needs is not the ascendancy of one group above the other but mutual respect and discussion of ideas between groups.
Which is kind of where he was going with the discussion of ideas. He just didn't have a big enough tent.
I didn't think about it until I read your comment, but I really got a eureka moment from reading this, so thank you, and this is what I love about HN's comment sections.
The irony shouldn't be lost that pg is primarily arguing for freer discussion of ideas, while at the same time showing the same traits of "other-ing" (i.e., folks not in your group are somehow defective) that I believe is the most important reason that free discourse seems to be in decline.
The irony shouldn't be lost that pg is primarily arguing for freer discussion of ideas, while at the same time showing the same traits of "other-ing" (i.e., folks not in your group are somehow defective) that I believe is the most important reason that free discourse seems to be in decline.
I did not interpret it as hubris.
Rather, I viewed it as the differences in deliverers of progress versus orthodoxy.
“Classic progressivism” / “Enlightenment” principles have across the globe been under attack from all over the place, including from within the depths of the worlds leading institutions.
Given that so much of the peace, prosperity and progress (both socially and technologically) have been driven by safe environments for the “aggressive independents” - I view this essay as a call out for us to do better.
Those who value stability are an important part to ground the bad new ideas from taking hold in the vein of progress, but traditionalists are by very definition not how progress is actually made.
Rather, I viewed it as the differences in deliverers of progress versus orthodoxy.
“Classic progressivism” / “Enlightenment” principles have across the globe been under attack from all over the place, including from within the depths of the worlds leading institutions.
Given that so much of the peace, prosperity and progress (both socially and technologically) have been driven by safe environments for the “aggressive independents” - I view this essay as a call out for us to do better.
Those who value stability are an important part to ground the bad new ideas from taking hold in the vein of progress, but traditionalists are by very definition not how progress is actually made.
> I did not interpret it as hubris.
I mean, he refers to the "passively conventional minded" as "sheep". Whether or not that's true, it's still dripping with condescension.
I agree with the parent commenter. I largely agree with PG's essay, but it's also telling that he doesn't see (or at least, doesn't comment) on any potential negatives from "aggressive independently minded" folks. If anything, a lot of the current backlash I see in the technology realm is where entrepreneurs and "visionaries" promised us enlightenment and the world, but it didn't quite work out that way. The pitch for social media was that it was supposed to bring the world closer and let people develop more and stronger relationships. Yeah, how'd that turn out...
I mean, he refers to the "passively conventional minded" as "sheep". Whether or not that's true, it's still dripping with condescension.
I agree with the parent commenter. I largely agree with PG's essay, but it's also telling that he doesn't see (or at least, doesn't comment) on any potential negatives from "aggressive independently minded" folks. If anything, a lot of the current backlash I see in the technology realm is where entrepreneurs and "visionaries" promised us enlightenment and the world, but it didn't quite work out that way. The pitch for social media was that it was supposed to bring the world closer and let people develop more and stronger relationships. Yeah, how'd that turn out...
Very good point, missed that.
I suppose re: your social media point (I have long ago soured on most of it personally) that, rather than ridding away and decrying the negatives with tech and social media as a result of progress, really what needs to happen is social media needs its own set of reforms in order to have its “supposed vision” be actualized.
The route of addicting users for increased “engagement” while optimizing for nothing else has successfully poisoned the well of good intentions (and possibilities). But still, and this relates to the heart of the essay itself: I believe the path to solve this is by moving forward, making the systems better (or providing new ones). Rather than rejecting them outright. But maybe that is the raging optimist in me talking.
I suppose re: your social media point (I have long ago soured on most of it personally) that, rather than ridding away and decrying the negatives with tech and social media as a result of progress, really what needs to happen is social media needs its own set of reforms in order to have its “supposed vision” be actualized.
The route of addicting users for increased “engagement” while optimizing for nothing else has successfully poisoned the well of good intentions (and possibilities). But still, and this relates to the heart of the essay itself: I believe the path to solve this is by moving forward, making the systems better (or providing new ones). Rather than rejecting them outright. But maybe that is the raging optimist in me talking.
Also, there are wolves in both of the "aggressive" camps - people who would acquire power by any means necessary, no matter the costs to others. It is very hard to draw the line between "failed visionary" and "power hungry manipulator".
In this article, PG creates a personality test of sorts that, I think, seems intuitively true. Then, absent any real evidence, he assigns political roles and moral value to each of the categories he invented.
It’s so farcical to suggest that independent mindedness always manifests as “intellectual freedom” and conformism manifests as “political correctness.” (He doesn’t use that phrase but that’s clearly what he’s trying to get at.)
We live in a world where people with power over others (even people with pretty small amounts of power like professors) have historically been allowed shielded from the consequences of espousing hate. It is not “conformist” to advocate that people should be held accountable for what they say.
What PG has done is come up with a “good” category and a “bad” category. He then says that the people who agree with him are the good people and the people who don’t are the bad ones. He does so without considering that his support of Silicon Valley tycoons and professors who are upset that their students criticized them could actually put him in the conformist category.
It’s so farcical to suggest that independent mindedness always manifests as “intellectual freedom” and conformism manifests as “political correctness.” (He doesn’t use that phrase but that’s clearly what he’s trying to get at.)
We live in a world where people with power over others (even people with pretty small amounts of power like professors) have historically been allowed shielded from the consequences of espousing hate. It is not “conformist” to advocate that people should be held accountable for what they say.
What PG has done is come up with a “good” category and a “bad” category. He then says that the people who agree with him are the good people and the people who don’t are the bad ones. He does so without considering that his support of Silicon Valley tycoons and professors who are upset that their students criticized them could actually put him in the conformist category.
> We live in a world where people with power over others (even people with pretty small amounts of power like professors) have historically been allowed shielded from the consequences of espousing hate. It is not “conformist” to advocate that people should be held accountable for what they say.
The conformity is in the process which defines what “hate” is.
The conformity is in the process which defines what “hate” is.
I don’t understand - what is the process that decides what hate is? How is it conformist?
[deleted]
Isn't it funny how things like this are never written by the boring types? It's always those wild, maverick, enlightened types seeking to describe themselves and, along the way, describe others, but mostly to describe themselves in flattering terms, with just a light veneer of modesty. (The self-assessed MBTI INTJs are just fantastically entertaining at this.)
"All great ideas come from us," beams the self-described aggressively-independent-minded, "and if we aren't allowed to champion horrible ideas, why, the world just won't be able to get on without us."
There are so many coarse assertions in this argument, without any solid foundations or evidence or even thoughtful observation. Right from the first sentence:
> One of the most revealing ways to classify people is by the degree and aggressiveness of their conformism.
"Arbitrary" ways. It's spelled "arbitrary". There are a plethora of categorical little boxes that people can try to fit other people into, and some of those have value sometimes, but they often also cause people to see other people as only their boxes. [1]
> Imagine a Cartesian coordinate system...
Imagine never having seen /r/PoliticalCompassMemes [2]. As gross as it is, this kind of quadrant-categorization isn't new.
> There are more passive people than aggressive ones, and far more conventional-minded people than independent-minded ones. So the passively conventional-minded are the largest group, and the aggressively independent-minded the smallest.
This is a setup for seeking minority status for free-thinkers. The problem with this is that "free" thought -- or "aggressively independent-minded" in PG parlance -- has no defined, characteristic ideas, by definition. A simple thought experiment here is the current political divide in the US. Are Trump voters the "aggressively independent-minded"? Are Democrats? Progressives? None of the above? If the definition of "aggressively independent-minded" contracts to, "me and a few people I like", then it's meaningless. Everyone with a strongly-held political belief in the US right now sees themselves as belonging to the rebel outgroup.
> Since one's quadrant depends more on one's personality than the nature of the rules, most people would occupy the same quadrant even if they'd grown up in a quite different society.
This had to be the most astoundingly bad line in the whole essay. It rests upon a supernatural notion of some sense of "self" that is somehow independent of time and place; that the powerful formative forces of culture and society, especially throughout early childhood, would somehow not transform each and every one of us into utterly different people. There is no more polite way to say this than that that notion is, as far as I know, entirely unfounded in the field of human development.
> Princeton professor Robert George recently wrote...
Okay, do yourself a favor, and read Joseph Yannielli's really excellent article, hosted on Princeton's site, on Princeton's role in opposing abolition: https://slavery.princeton.edu/stories/princeton-and-abolitio...
It's long, and it's historical, and it's forthright, and it's introspective. It also includes many quotes from educated opponents to abolition that, if you squint just a little bit, sound suspiciously similar to a lot of the "unacceptable" ideas that so many people right now are crying that they're no longer supposed to talk about outside the komfortable konfines of their klans.
Try and keep that Princeton article in mind, full and fresh, and then read this next part from Graham:
> For the last couple centuries at least, when the aggressively conventional-minded were on the rampage for whatever reason, universities were the safest places to be.
Princeton themselves disagrees. At length.
This essay does not add to or resolve today's cultural conflicts in any amount. When the last thing you have left for an idea is that it's special because you're special and it's your idea, then it's time to consider the possibility that other people might have some pretty strong arguments against it.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA&feature=youtu.be..., the whole video is good though.
[2]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Po..., for the fortunately unaware.
"All great ideas come from us," beams the self-described aggressively-independent-minded, "and if we aren't allowed to champion horrible ideas, why, the world just won't be able to get on without us."
There are so many coarse assertions in this argument, without any solid foundations or evidence or even thoughtful observation. Right from the first sentence:
> One of the most revealing ways to classify people is by the degree and aggressiveness of their conformism.
"Arbitrary" ways. It's spelled "arbitrary". There are a plethora of categorical little boxes that people can try to fit other people into, and some of those have value sometimes, but they often also cause people to see other people as only their boxes. [1]
> Imagine a Cartesian coordinate system...
Imagine never having seen /r/PoliticalCompassMemes [2]. As gross as it is, this kind of quadrant-categorization isn't new.
> There are more passive people than aggressive ones, and far more conventional-minded people than independent-minded ones. So the passively conventional-minded are the largest group, and the aggressively independent-minded the smallest.
This is a setup for seeking minority status for free-thinkers. The problem with this is that "free" thought -- or "aggressively independent-minded" in PG parlance -- has no defined, characteristic ideas, by definition. A simple thought experiment here is the current political divide in the US. Are Trump voters the "aggressively independent-minded"? Are Democrats? Progressives? None of the above? If the definition of "aggressively independent-minded" contracts to, "me and a few people I like", then it's meaningless. Everyone with a strongly-held political belief in the US right now sees themselves as belonging to the rebel outgroup.
> Since one's quadrant depends more on one's personality than the nature of the rules, most people would occupy the same quadrant even if they'd grown up in a quite different society.
This had to be the most astoundingly bad line in the whole essay. It rests upon a supernatural notion of some sense of "self" that is somehow independent of time and place; that the powerful formative forces of culture and society, especially throughout early childhood, would somehow not transform each and every one of us into utterly different people. There is no more polite way to say this than that that notion is, as far as I know, entirely unfounded in the field of human development.
> Princeton professor Robert George recently wrote...
Okay, do yourself a favor, and read Joseph Yannielli's really excellent article, hosted on Princeton's site, on Princeton's role in opposing abolition: https://slavery.princeton.edu/stories/princeton-and-abolitio...
It's long, and it's historical, and it's forthright, and it's introspective. It also includes many quotes from educated opponents to abolition that, if you squint just a little bit, sound suspiciously similar to a lot of the "unacceptable" ideas that so many people right now are crying that they're no longer supposed to talk about outside the komfortable konfines of their klans.
Try and keep that Princeton article in mind, full and fresh, and then read this next part from Graham:
> For the last couple centuries at least, when the aggressively conventional-minded were on the rampage for whatever reason, universities were the safest places to be.
Princeton themselves disagrees. At length.
This essay does not add to or resolve today's cultural conflicts in any amount. When the last thing you have left for an idea is that it's special because you're special and it's your idea, then it's time to consider the possibility that other people might have some pretty strong arguments against it.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA&feature=youtu.be..., the whole video is good though.
[2]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Po..., for the fortunately unaware.
One essay written by one graduate on a contentious contemporary issue and the whole place is evil. The tone of the essay indicates it was a rhetorical exercise in dissent from a popular opinion. The modern judgement that such a thing is now abhorrent, is exactly the point.
I think perhaps this criticism suffers from a lack of imagination. People that cannot understand another person’s ideas are quick to label them evil.
I think perhaps this criticism suffers from a lack of imagination. People that cannot understand another person’s ideas are quick to label them evil.
> One essay written by one graduate...
This "one essay" is part of a larger, official project: https://slavery.princeton.edu/about/overview
The author's bio reads:
> Joseph Yannielli received his PhD from Yale and was the Perkins Postdoctoral Fellow in the Princeton Humanities Council. He is an expert on the history of slavery and abolition, with a special focus on America, West Africa, and the wider world during the nineteenth century. His other areas of interest include political and social movements, missionaries and religion, capitalism and globalization, and the United States in the world. At present, he is completing a book about the Mendi Mission and the role of Africa in the American abolition of slavery. He is the founding manager and lead developer of the Princeton & Slavery Project website and several other digital history projects.
There are four other individuals involved at an organizational level for this project, and over 50 other students, advisors, and organizations involved in creating it.
It is absolutely an official statement from the institution of Princeton University.
But, please, continue to offhandedly dismiss things you don't like as lacking imagination and assume that other people simply lack the comprehension to understand the grand ideas in this essay. It's just such a compelling position to put yourself into, not having to defend bad ideas at all, because hey, only stupid people could think they'd be bad.
This "one essay" is part of a larger, official project: https://slavery.princeton.edu/about/overview
The author's bio reads:
> Joseph Yannielli received his PhD from Yale and was the Perkins Postdoctoral Fellow in the Princeton Humanities Council. He is an expert on the history of slavery and abolition, with a special focus on America, West Africa, and the wider world during the nineteenth century. His other areas of interest include political and social movements, missionaries and religion, capitalism and globalization, and the United States in the world. At present, he is completing a book about the Mendi Mission and the role of Africa in the American abolition of slavery. He is the founding manager and lead developer of the Princeton & Slavery Project website and several other digital history projects.
There are four other individuals involved at an organizational level for this project, and over 50 other students, advisors, and organizations involved in creating it.
It is absolutely an official statement from the institution of Princeton University.
But, please, continue to offhandedly dismiss things you don't like as lacking imagination and assume that other people simply lack the comprehension to understand the grand ideas in this essay. It's just such a compelling position to put yourself into, not having to defend bad ideas at all, because hey, only stupid people could think they'd be bad.
Seems to me like you made your mind up before even reading it.
> "Arbitrary" ways. It's spelled "arbitrary". There are a plethora of categorical little boxes that people can try to fit other people into, and some of those have value sometimes, but they often also cause people to see other people as only their boxes.
I'm sure PG would agree with your last sentence. But your point is irrelevant here.
> Imagine never having seen /r/PoliticalCompassMemes [2]. As gross as it is, this kind of quadrant-categorization isn't new.
Imagine assuming someone has never seen something just because they use an appropriate example to introduce a reader to a concept.
Also I don't see what's gross about the political compass.
> This is a setup for seeking minority status for free-thinkers. The problem with this is that "free" thought -- or "aggressively independent-minded" in PG parlance -- has no defined, characteristic ideas, by definition. A simple thought experiment here is the current political divide in the US. Are Trump voters the "aggressively independent-minded"? Are Democrats? Progressives? None of the above? If the definition of "aggressively independent-minded" contracts to, "me and a few people I like", then it's meaningless. Everyone with a strongly-held political belief in the US right now sees themselves as belonging to the rebel outgroup.
Whoever is loudly saying something that is unpopular is part of the "aggressively independent-minded" group. I think that should be pretty easy to understand. Note it does not mean they are right.
> This had to be the most astoundingly bad line in the whole essay. It rests upon a supernatural notion of some sense of "self" that is somehow independent of time and place; that the powerful formative forces of culture and society, especially throughout early childhood, would somehow not transform each and every one of us into utterly different people. There is no more polite way to say this than that that notion is, as far as I know, entirely unfounded in the field of human development.
Fair point, but I think one can assume that the probability of a person changing from one group to the other is symmetric, so in the end you'd get a similar distribution across the population regardless of where the individuals end up. The point he ultimately makes is still valid, most of them would have supported slavery.
> Okay, do yourself a favor, and read Joseph Yannielli's really excellent article, hosted on Princeton's site, on Princeton's role in opposing abolition: https://slavery.princeton.edu/stories/princeton-and-abolitio....
> It's long, and it's historical, and it's forthright, and it's introspective. It also includes many quotes from educated opponents to abolition that, if you squint just a little bit, sound suspiciously similar to a lot of the "unacceptable" ideas that so many people right now are crying that they're no longer supposed to talk about outside the komfortable konfines of their klans.
The main similarity to today I spotted was young students being violent towards people with opposing views.
> Princeton themselves disagrees. At length.
One counterexample does not disprove the point. Do you really disagree with the idea that independent thinkers tend to go to university?
> This essay does not add to or resolve today's cultural conflicts in any amount.
I disagree and think it does add something.
> "Arbitrary" ways. It's spelled "arbitrary". There are a plethora of categorical little boxes that people can try to fit other people into, and some of those have value sometimes, but they often also cause people to see other people as only their boxes.
I'm sure PG would agree with your last sentence. But your point is irrelevant here.
> Imagine never having seen /r/PoliticalCompassMemes [2]. As gross as it is, this kind of quadrant-categorization isn't new.
Imagine assuming someone has never seen something just because they use an appropriate example to introduce a reader to a concept.
Also I don't see what's gross about the political compass.
> This is a setup for seeking minority status for free-thinkers. The problem with this is that "free" thought -- or "aggressively independent-minded" in PG parlance -- has no defined, characteristic ideas, by definition. A simple thought experiment here is the current political divide in the US. Are Trump voters the "aggressively independent-minded"? Are Democrats? Progressives? None of the above? If the definition of "aggressively independent-minded" contracts to, "me and a few people I like", then it's meaningless. Everyone with a strongly-held political belief in the US right now sees themselves as belonging to the rebel outgroup.
Whoever is loudly saying something that is unpopular is part of the "aggressively independent-minded" group. I think that should be pretty easy to understand. Note it does not mean they are right.
> This had to be the most astoundingly bad line in the whole essay. It rests upon a supernatural notion of some sense of "self" that is somehow independent of time and place; that the powerful formative forces of culture and society, especially throughout early childhood, would somehow not transform each and every one of us into utterly different people. There is no more polite way to say this than that that notion is, as far as I know, entirely unfounded in the field of human development.
Fair point, but I think one can assume that the probability of a person changing from one group to the other is symmetric, so in the end you'd get a similar distribution across the population regardless of where the individuals end up. The point he ultimately makes is still valid, most of them would have supported slavery.
> Okay, do yourself a favor, and read Joseph Yannielli's really excellent article, hosted on Princeton's site, on Princeton's role in opposing abolition: https://slavery.princeton.edu/stories/princeton-and-abolitio....
> It's long, and it's historical, and it's forthright, and it's introspective. It also includes many quotes from educated opponents to abolition that, if you squint just a little bit, sound suspiciously similar to a lot of the "unacceptable" ideas that so many people right now are crying that they're no longer supposed to talk about outside the komfortable konfines of their klans.
The main similarity to today I spotted was young students being violent towards people with opposing views.
> Princeton themselves disagrees. At length.
One counterexample does not disprove the point. Do you really disagree with the idea that independent thinkers tend to go to university?
> This essay does not add to or resolve today's cultural conflicts in any amount.
I disagree and think it does add something.
> Whoever is loudly saying something that is unpopular is part of the "aggressively independent-minded" group.
Okay then.
I hereby loudly proclaim that, in the interests of the health and well-being of society at large, we must establish strong governmental oversight of online forums and communications, and immediately ban anything judged to be disinformation.
You are, as you note, free to disagree with me. But you must now respect my idea, and by extension me, because now I too am "aggressively independent-minded", and without people like me, the world would not have any great new ideas.
Furthermore, according to the larger point of PG's essay and your defense of it, you must not in any way interfere with my attempts to spread this message far and wide and enshrine it legislatively. If you do, you'll be showing yourself to be one of the conventional-minded people, standing in the way of my great idea and true progress for society, and the world certainly does not need more of those.
Okay then.
I hereby loudly proclaim that, in the interests of the health and well-being of society at large, we must establish strong governmental oversight of online forums and communications, and immediately ban anything judged to be disinformation.
You are, as you note, free to disagree with me. But you must now respect my idea, and by extension me, because now I too am "aggressively independent-minded", and without people like me, the world would not have any great new ideas.
Furthermore, according to the larger point of PG's essay and your defense of it, you must not in any way interfere with my attempts to spread this message far and wide and enshrine it legislatively. If you do, you'll be showing yourself to be one of the conventional-minded people, standing in the way of my great idea and true progress for society, and the world certainly does not need more of those.
[deleted]
This does somewhat come off as cod philosophy. There have been ample studies in group psychology and minority influence dating back to the mid 20th century, and the fact is that independent thinkers have massive influence wherever they go. See here for a reasonable primer, key thinkers are Asch and Moscovici:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/minority-influence.html
So, the whole "rules to restrain the conformist sheeple" thing doesn't really apply. The author has created a category, put himself in it, then heaped praise on it. Neither edifying nor tasteful. Sorry.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/minority-influence.html
So, the whole "rules to restrain the conformist sheeple" thing doesn't really apply. The author has created a category, put himself in it, then heaped praise on it. Neither edifying nor tasteful. Sorry.
As a (mildly) aggressive non-conformist, I prefer the motto "non serviam"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_serviam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_serviam
I don't like his analysis. I don't think it models what's going on currently. And because of that, it doesn't allow us to think about the problem correctly.
IMO, the key thing that's happened since 2010 is that there has been a coup on "the progressive side" of politics, with "Classical Social Justice" (MLK-like) being replaced with "Critical Social Justice". It has been a mostly silent coup, until recently.
There's been a dramatic change, and most people on the left don't even realise it has happened, much less what it means. The shift is from empiricism, universalism, justice, equality of opportunity, and liberalism to ... frankly, pretty much the opposite of those values: lived experience, identity groups competing with winners and losers, maoist group-think, purity spirals, etc. The profoundness of the change can't be overstated.
IMO, the good people of the Left (classic liberals) have to take it back from those that have stolen it (the Critical Social Justic people). But, I'm not even sure that's even possible now. It has gone too far—what a disaster.
And because "classic liberals" want the left to go back to how it was ... they have almost become "the conservatives of the left" and they have been forced weirdly towards the centre - except those to the left of them are now more facist than those to their right. So weird.
Bottom line: the illiberal, Clitical Methods Left now holds sway (Newspapers, Hollywood, Universities) and it isn't going anywhere in a hurry.
The worst part about this is: the current sensemaking apparatus (newspapers, etc) has been hollowed out by the Internet. And they aren't even capable of analysis any more ... just activism (as a business model ... a way of generating clicks). How can a democracy function when the population is not informed? I really like Eric Wienstien's analogy for this: the Media has now become like Iago in Othello, whispering madness into the ear of those that will listen (on both sides).
All very broken. Suddenly.
IMO, the key thing that's happened since 2010 is that there has been a coup on "the progressive side" of politics, with "Classical Social Justice" (MLK-like) being replaced with "Critical Social Justice". It has been a mostly silent coup, until recently.
There's been a dramatic change, and most people on the left don't even realise it has happened, much less what it means. The shift is from empiricism, universalism, justice, equality of opportunity, and liberalism to ... frankly, pretty much the opposite of those values: lived experience, identity groups competing with winners and losers, maoist group-think, purity spirals, etc. The profoundness of the change can't be overstated.
IMO, the good people of the Left (classic liberals) have to take it back from those that have stolen it (the Critical Social Justic people). But, I'm not even sure that's even possible now. It has gone too far—what a disaster.
And because "classic liberals" want the left to go back to how it was ... they have almost become "the conservatives of the left" and they have been forced weirdly towards the centre - except those to the left of them are now more facist than those to their right. So weird.
Bottom line: the illiberal, Clitical Methods Left now holds sway (Newspapers, Hollywood, Universities) and it isn't going anywhere in a hurry.
The worst part about this is: the current sensemaking apparatus (newspapers, etc) has been hollowed out by the Internet. And they aren't even capable of analysis any more ... just activism (as a business model ... a way of generating clicks). How can a democracy function when the population is not informed? I really like Eric Wienstien's analogy for this: the Media has now become like Iago in Othello, whispering madness into the ear of those that will listen (on both sides).
All very broken. Suddenly.
did paul graham really just imply that himself and his fellow silicon valley millionaires would have been abolitionists if they were alive during slavery
The missing dimension in PG's analysis is power, particularly power imbalance.
PG writes that his "aggressively conventional" category are "responsible for a disproportionate amount of the trouble in the world" and "have been handed a tool" via social media with the result that "customs protecting free inquiry have been weakened."
This is bollocks.
Prior to social media, there have been hierarchies- in terms of people organization at workplaces and in the political arena, and in terms of information distribution- that prevented those with power from being subjected to the inquiries from those without.
The notion of "free inquiry" was limited to those topics that were considered to be of interest to those in power, which often explicitly excluded topics around justice and power imbalance.
Populists were those organizers who were able to formulate a message and leverage those powerless voices into a voice that succeeded in demanding answers from power.
Now, social media have created platforms where voices from groups/individuals who otherwise are powerless can amplify their individual voices.
But it also is a platform that enables augmentation of the voices that are speaking from places of power, perhaps even to a greater degree, because power has access to automation and the levers of the amplification algorithm.
In the US we are facing an unprecedented (for the US) physically aggressive and dangerous assertion of federal power, under the leadership of a cognitively diminished, corrupt, and according to some dimensions of national interest, traitorous, sociopath. This leadership is also by any measure failing, to a criminal degree, in its most important role- to act in the interest of those for whom it was elected to serve- in the pandemic.
To complain that "free inquiry"-say, of the sort that Tom Cotton wished to engage in- is being limited- because his OpEd in the NYT led to a backlash and to the OpEd leader resigning- is to completely miss the fundamental power dynamic.
Cotton spoke in service of the same forces that are engaging in state-sanctioned violence, while also failing at leadership. When that happened in other countries, we would call Cotton a propagandist and would see it as the responsibility of journalists to not engage with his arguments, because of the violence that accompanies them.
As AOC heroically pointed out- violent acts are not separate and apart from violent speech. When a party in power engages in violent acts, their violent speech should be considered one and the same.
To say it out loud is banal but necessary- those without power are dying and having their lives destroyed by the forces holding the reins of legal, policing, and military power in the US. For there to be "free inquiry" this assertion of actual violence on the part of the state must stop.
The "aggressively conventional" group that has completely slipped PG's mind in his analysis is the state, which is in literal terms aggressively and violently engaging, both in speech and act. This is fundamentally unacceptable in a nation under rule of law.
Social media is the only vehicle the weak have to organize and amplify, and, yes, while there are a few casualties from an intellectual perspective- the OpEd head at the NYT lost his job- these pale in any moral sense in comparison to the actual casualties at the hands of those in power.
So- PG, some advice: why don't you give away your wealth, get a job as an uber driver or an "essential" food delivery worker, and see what you think about social media and cancel culture then. I'll wait.
More directly- PG has blocked me on twitter, because I dared to criticize some earlier comments he made there. Forgive me for offending, dear leader. I was only intending to engage in free inquiry.
PG writes that his "aggressively conventional" category are "responsible for a disproportionate amount of the trouble in the world" and "have been handed a tool" via social media with the result that "customs protecting free inquiry have been weakened."
This is bollocks.
Prior to social media, there have been hierarchies- in terms of people organization at workplaces and in the political arena, and in terms of information distribution- that prevented those with power from being subjected to the inquiries from those without.
The notion of "free inquiry" was limited to those topics that were considered to be of interest to those in power, which often explicitly excluded topics around justice and power imbalance.
Populists were those organizers who were able to formulate a message and leverage those powerless voices into a voice that succeeded in demanding answers from power.
Now, social media have created platforms where voices from groups/individuals who otherwise are powerless can amplify their individual voices.
But it also is a platform that enables augmentation of the voices that are speaking from places of power, perhaps even to a greater degree, because power has access to automation and the levers of the amplification algorithm.
In the US we are facing an unprecedented (for the US) physically aggressive and dangerous assertion of federal power, under the leadership of a cognitively diminished, corrupt, and according to some dimensions of national interest, traitorous, sociopath. This leadership is also by any measure failing, to a criminal degree, in its most important role- to act in the interest of those for whom it was elected to serve- in the pandemic.
To complain that "free inquiry"-say, of the sort that Tom Cotton wished to engage in- is being limited- because his OpEd in the NYT led to a backlash and to the OpEd leader resigning- is to completely miss the fundamental power dynamic.
Cotton spoke in service of the same forces that are engaging in state-sanctioned violence, while also failing at leadership. When that happened in other countries, we would call Cotton a propagandist and would see it as the responsibility of journalists to not engage with his arguments, because of the violence that accompanies them.
As AOC heroically pointed out- violent acts are not separate and apart from violent speech. When a party in power engages in violent acts, their violent speech should be considered one and the same.
To say it out loud is banal but necessary- those without power are dying and having their lives destroyed by the forces holding the reins of legal, policing, and military power in the US. For there to be "free inquiry" this assertion of actual violence on the part of the state must stop.
The "aggressively conventional" group that has completely slipped PG's mind in his analysis is the state, which is in literal terms aggressively and violently engaging, both in speech and act. This is fundamentally unacceptable in a nation under rule of law.
Social media is the only vehicle the weak have to organize and amplify, and, yes, while there are a few casualties from an intellectual perspective- the OpEd head at the NYT lost his job- these pale in any moral sense in comparison to the actual casualties at the hands of those in power.
So- PG, some advice: why don't you give away your wealth, get a job as an uber driver or an "essential" food delivery worker, and see what you think about social media and cancel culture then. I'll wait.
More directly- PG has blocked me on twitter, because I dared to criticize some earlier comments he made there. Forgive me for offending, dear leader. I was only intending to engage in free inquiry.
Paul Graham has done it again -- vastly oversimplified things and cast himself and his peers as intellectually superior/nobler/braver.
that's VC as a whole
I love PGs essays, but his take on Robert George is the opposite of what Robert George was saying.
PG: "He's too polite to say so, but of course they wouldn't."
Robert George from the quoted tweet: "Of course, this is nonsense. Only the tiniest fraction of them, or of any of us, would have spoken up against slavery or lifted a finger to free the slaves. Most of them—and us—would have gone along. Many would have supported the slave system and happily benefited from it."
https://twitter.com/McCormickProf/status/1278529694355292161
It doesn't change PG's point, but its just odd he used the quote in this way.
PG: "He's too polite to say so, but of course they wouldn't."
Robert George from the quoted tweet: "Of course, this is nonsense. Only the tiniest fraction of them, or of any of us, would have spoken up against slavery or lifted a finger to free the slaves. Most of them—and us—would have gone along. Many would have supported the slave system and happily benefited from it."
https://twitter.com/McCormickProf/status/1278529694355292161
It doesn't change PG's point, but its just odd he used the quote in this way.
Quoting:
Princeton professor Robert George recently wrote:
Princeton professor Robert George recently wrote:
"I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition. Guess what? They all would have been abolitionists! They all would have bravely spoken out against slavery, and worked tirelessly against it."
They're saying the same thing, but PG added the "He's too polite..." bit as though he didn't read past /1 in the thread.
So one quadrant upvotes the posts they like, and downvotes the ones they don't like, another quadrant simply upvotes the posts they like, another tries to find a middle ground and mend rifts, another has no account, lurks and laughs inside.
[deleted]
I honestly don't understand this perspective which seems central to a lot of pgs writing lately: "the customs protecting free inquiry have been weakened"
Can anyone explain it?
We are, right now, posting on the most expansive and weakly moderated communications platform humanity has ever had. You can find almost anyone opinion imaginable out there with a brief Google search and forums on which to argue every side of it with.
In what way is free inquiry meaningfully weakened? By any absolute measure it seems like it can only be the strongest it has ever been.
Can anyone explain it?
We are, right now, posting on the most expansive and weakly moderated communications platform humanity has ever had. You can find almost anyone opinion imaginable out there with a brief Google search and forums on which to argue every side of it with.
In what way is free inquiry meaningfully weakened? By any absolute measure it seems like it can only be the strongest it has ever been.
It's because the pendulum has taken a noticeable swing in the reverse direction, with online mobs getting people fired because of opinions they've expressed. Extreme labels like "white supremacist" and "Nazi" are being put on people for views that deviate from approved ideology. This is creating a climate of fear in which each case of someone getting fired is enough to cow thousands if not millions of observers, who fear to lose their own jobs if they speak out or even slip up. Bogus arguments like "it doesn't count unless the government does it" are being used to dismiss free speech concerns about this. To me it seems obvious that from a free speech point of view it's fine for people to respond to each other with criticism, even if they're mean and mischaracterize each other, but getting people fired crosses an obvious line into non-speech and physical harm. It's not as harmful as physical violence or putting someone in prison for what they say, but it's on the same spectrum, and the psychology of the zealots who want to see people punished in this way is unmistakeable. That's where the comparisons to the Soviet Union, China, and so on, come in. Anyone who is familiar with the history knows the type, even if so far they are unable to do more than exert power over employment.
There's also deplatforming, which falls in between pure speech (such as criticism/debate) and physical harm (such as firing).
There's also deplatforming, which falls in between pure speech (such as criticism/debate) and physical harm (such as firing).
'Firing' is not a physical harm unless you mean it literally.
It directly impacts livelihood. It's physical in the sense that it's a real world, tangible harm. This is not at all the same thing as somebody merely saying something critical on Twitter. There's a clear distinction here.
There is a distinction but it's not the one you were originally making. Which seems important in a discussion about kinds of harms. Firing someone is not assault.
It's exactly the distinction I was making. That's why I said "it's not as harmful as physical violence" etc. I guess that wasn't enough to be clear.
These hypothetical people are getting fired because their words cause real harm to people. They encourage others to act in ways that result in (not at all hypothetical) physical, emotional and economic harm, usually to underrepresented groups who are least able to weather it.
You'd get fired if you punched a coworker, getting fired for speech that encourages others to do the punching seems like fair game. If you're in a position of influence you must measure your words carefully if you care at all about not harming people.
If you want to explore radical, potentially harmful ideas, find a safe space of like minded people to do it in rather than forcing it on random people on the internet unconsensually.
You'd get fired if you punched a coworker, getting fired for speech that encourages others to do the punching seems like fair game. If you're in a position of influence you must measure your words carefully if you care at all about not harming people.
If you want to explore radical, potentially harmful ideas, find a safe space of like minded people to do it in rather than forcing it on random people on the internet unconsensually.
> These hypothetical people are getting fired because their words cause real harm to people.
These people are not hypothetical and the statement is dehumanization. If you punch a coworker they will have a damage that could be measured and reported. On the other side you won't be able to measure how offended someone is (unless it goes against the law). Cancelling people for having their own ideas even if they are different from what is conventional transforms into a witch hunt for a "greater good".
These people are not hypothetical and the statement is dehumanization. If you punch a coworker they will have a damage that could be measured and reported. On the other side you won't be able to measure how offended someone is (unless it goes against the law). Cancelling people for having their own ideas even if they are different from what is conventional transforms into a witch hunt for a "greater good".
Yes, this narrative about not being free to talk about "dangerous" ideas is always left intentionally vague.
We have so much free inquiry going on right now that I can't even keep track of it. If free inquiry is being eroded, one of the central claims in this essay, then that means we are coming down from a greater high. When was that high and would you prefer to go back to that time?
We have so much free inquiry going on right now that I can't even keep track of it. If free inquiry is being eroded, one of the central claims in this essay, then that means we are coming down from a greater high. When was that high and would you prefer to go back to that time?
I'll hazard a guess: PG went out on a limb a few years ago, and actually published a long essay on one of the ideas that are very controversial in the sense implied in this essay. Namely, how tech tools as a primary driver for increasing wealth inequality will likely grow in importance, leading to increased wealth inequality, and that this is in itself not a problem.
This was after years of pointing out that it's not necessarily a good idea to specifically discuss controversial topics, if you want to spend your time thinking and learning instead of arguing (and, implied, deleting hate mail and death threats, etc).
This essay was met with an incredible amount of backlash that missed its point entirely, and if I was in PG's shoes, I'd probably have soured on taking that sort of discussion outside my closest circle. A big but very understandable loss.
I believe that discussing the phenomenon, rather than specific instances of it, still has great value. This points out tools that can be used to discover and handle the censorship of valuable heresy.
I'd love it even more if I had intimate access to a group of very intelligent and open-minded folks to actually discuss the heresies of today, as this is both super fascinating and a great mental stretching exercise. Sadly, doesn't look like public forums on the Internet are the most fertile arena for that kind of thing. It happens rarely, when I happen to stumble across a community that hits something like this by chance, or where one of my real-life acquaintances happens to stray outside the box in exactly the right way.
This was after years of pointing out that it's not necessarily a good idea to specifically discuss controversial topics, if you want to spend your time thinking and learning instead of arguing (and, implied, deleting hate mail and death threats, etc).
This essay was met with an incredible amount of backlash that missed its point entirely, and if I was in PG's shoes, I'd probably have soured on taking that sort of discussion outside my closest circle. A big but very understandable loss.
I believe that discussing the phenomenon, rather than specific instances of it, still has great value. This points out tools that can be used to discover and handle the censorship of valuable heresy.
I'd love it even more if I had intimate access to a group of very intelligent and open-minded folks to actually discuss the heresies of today, as this is both super fascinating and a great mental stretching exercise. Sadly, doesn't look like public forums on the Internet are the most fertile arena for that kind of thing. It happens rarely, when I happen to stumble across a community that hits something like this by chance, or where one of my real-life acquaintances happens to stray outside the box in exactly the right way.
I appreciate the response. I'm not certain which essay you are referring to so I can't comment on it or the backlash it received specifically.
In this "Quadrants" essay PG clearly aligns himself with the entrepreneurial free-thinkers, who bravely face down the mob. The problem with this though is he doesn't seem to be able to handle the criticism part. He acknowledges it is going to happen but when he gets dunked on for an essay, he takes his ball, goes home, and then complains that he can't have a real discussion.
But that's the entire point. He wrote something, people disagreed, that's the discussion. Did he take people's disagreements seriously? Did he change his mind? Was he unconvinced and pointed out why the people who disagreed were wrong? He seems to want to take on the mantle of beleaguered free-thinker while only willing to receive praise.
In this "Quadrants" essay PG clearly aligns himself with the entrepreneurial free-thinkers, who bravely face down the mob. The problem with this though is he doesn't seem to be able to handle the criticism part. He acknowledges it is going to happen but when he gets dunked on for an essay, he takes his ball, goes home, and then complains that he can't have a real discussion.
But that's the entire point. He wrote something, people disagreed, that's the discussion. Did he take people's disagreements seriously? Did he change his mind? Was he unconvinced and pointed out why the people who disagreed were wrong? He seems to want to take on the mantle of beleaguered free-thinker while only willing to receive praise.
Sounds like this essay, "Economic Inequality":
http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html
And here's the HN thread from when it was first written:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10826838
http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html
And here's the HN thread from when it was first written:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10826838
I've read many of his essays on inequality and generally he over simplifies the economics and social issues involved so much it's almost impossible to critcise it. His style is so vague on these matters I'm not surprised he gets so much backlash. It's not good writing to be purposefully ambiguous.
Do you have examples of the backlash to this essay? Were there any actual consequences to expressing his opinion, or did people just express their own opinions about his?
I'll give it a try. At your company's next diversity seminar, why not suggest merit should be prioritized over diversity? Or that affirmative action is regressive in its effects, or that the talk of reparations is so silly as to be dismissed, or that women's unequal pay is due to factors unrelated to sexism, or that Asians are unfairly penalized in universities and the workplace, or that biological sex exists, or that trans women are not real women, or that trans women should not share a bathroom with biological women, or that white men are not oppressors, or that you don't support BLM. Whether or not these ideas are right, you clearly cannot express them. Not in the workplace and if you live in a large city, not to strangers, and sometimes not even to your friends. There's an implicit belief that if you deviate from some of these positions you must be a racist, misogynist, transphobic, alt-right, or a radical.
There are ideas you can safely express if they fall on one side of the political spectrum and there are other ideas you have to be hush about even if they are completely reasonable.
There are ideas you can safely express if they fall on one side of the political spectrum and there are other ideas you have to be hush about even if they are completely reasonable.
I think the larger point is that it doesn't matter how easy it is to make works public if the consequences prevent you from doing so: if you can easily get fired, pushed out of a tenured position at a university, or otherwise lose your voice for making unpopular opinions public.
I don't buy this. There are millions of anonymous Twitter accounts and forum posters. Literal children have figured out opsec well enough to save themselves them embarrassment of having to share their love of anime with the wrong friends.
I'm sure a tenured professor is smart enough to use a different email address and profile picture when signing up to radical life extension forums if what they want to discuss is really that edgy.
We have more tools and venues to test out and refine new ideas today than we have ever before. Use them.
I'm sure a tenured professor is smart enough to use a different email address and profile picture when signing up to radical life extension forums if what they want to discuss is really that edgy.
We have more tools and venues to test out and refine new ideas today than we have ever before. Use them.
[deleted]
> You can find almost anyone opinion imaginable out there with a brief Google search and forums on which to argue every side of it with.
And you can quickly get someone fired or their business boycotted or doxxed or swatted if they express an opinion you don't like.
And you can quickly get someone fired or their business boycotted or doxxed or swatted if they express an opinion you don't like.
Yes the world is scary, people speaking up have always put themselves at risk but we have better tools to protect ourselves and find like minded people now.
This isn't new and at worst doesn't seem that much different to how people have always acted. The argument is that things have got worse, but they just seem to be the same.
This isn't new and at worst doesn't seem that much different to how people have always acted. The argument is that things have got worse, but they just seem to be the same.
It means people like him are being scrutinised like never before (absent an actual revolution) and he doesn't like it.
> Can anyone explain it?
One clue is that almost everyone here posts anonymously.
Under people's own names, many would be much more careful and conformist.
One clue is that almost everyone here posts anonymously.
Under people's own names, many would be much more careful and conformist.
This article is distasteful with tiny number of facts and a lot of opinions. After all, there is a fact, that he ranked human beings into levels, some higher than the others, some are trouble makers and others are the angles with no fault to be found in them, some are "sheep" and others just "naughty". I do strongly believe that societies are in need for all types of people, some are conventional and some are unorthodox.
Almost all access to the media, access to the Internet and so forth in the US has been consolidated into the control of six corporations: AT&T/Warner, Comcast, Disney, Newscorp, Sony, and ViacomCBS. As control of almost all communication is centralized under the control of entities ultimately controlled by billionaire heirs, the natural reaction of people will be to struggle over what communications comes out of these channels.
The average inflation adjusted hourly wage is below what it was in the early 1970s in the US. All the wealth has gone to the heirs and a handful of people mostly born into the white upper middle class. Channels of communication are shut down. The monopolies I mentioned shut down Usenet and communication became centralized by them and companies like Facebook.
Everyone I have heard whining about the end of the Enlightenment recently is part of this to the manor born type, as well as their bought off stalking horses in relevant communities.
What is happening is a very natural result of what has been happening for decades. As anti-trust laws are not enforced, as the Fairness Doctrine goes away and our media channels consistently advocate oppression of nationalities alongside a newly militarized police, we don't hear of the monopolization of communication or proletarianization and impoverishment of the population or militarization of the police, the end of the Fairness doctrine - we hear the newly centralized lines of communication can't spew out their propaganda without complaint.
The average inflation adjusted hourly wage is below what it was in the early 1970s in the US. All the wealth has gone to the heirs and a handful of people mostly born into the white upper middle class. Channels of communication are shut down. The monopolies I mentioned shut down Usenet and communication became centralized by them and companies like Facebook.
Everyone I have heard whining about the end of the Enlightenment recently is part of this to the manor born type, as well as their bought off stalking horses in relevant communities.
What is happening is a very natural result of what has been happening for decades. As anti-trust laws are not enforced, as the Fairness Doctrine goes away and our media channels consistently advocate oppression of nationalities alongside a newly militarized police, we don't hear of the monopolization of communication or proletarianization and impoverishment of the population or militarization of the police, the end of the Fairness doctrine - we hear the newly centralized lines of communication can't spew out their propaganda without complaint.
I suggest not putting people into quadrants and making an us-vs-them argument. Everyone is exactly the same and also completely unique. At times, some people appear to catalyze change, but it's everyone else that actually makes the change.
There has always been an "immune" reaction to new ideas. That is not going to change for the foreseeable future. Don't worry about it, just keep innovating.
There has always been an "immune" reaction to new ideas. That is not going to change for the foreseeable future. Don't worry about it, just keep innovating.
[deleted]
"This seems, unfortunately, to have been an own goal by Silicon Valley.
Though the people who run Silicon Valley are almost all independent-minded,
they've handed the aggressively conventional-minded a tool such as they could
only have dreamed of."
"On the other hand, perhaps the decline in the spirit of free inquiry within universities
is as much the symptom of the departure of the independent-minded as the cause.
People who would have become professors 50 years ago have other options now. Now
they can become quants or start startups. You have to be independent-minded to
succeed at either of those."
I feel like PG has neglected the literature with this one. The two axis are probably aligned with exisiting traits from the field of psychology (agreeableness seems relevant for starters). It's nice that he considered all this, but I think he did so in his own bubble.
There can be benefits from reinventing things in your own way, but to completely overlook the existing work can be a mistake too. There is so much more out there on this stuff than analogies from junior high.
There can be benefits from reinventing things in your own way, but to completely overlook the existing work can be a mistake too. There is so much more out there on this stuff than analogies from junior high.
Conventional/independent mind axis is literally Openness of Big Five model. People really should study Big Five. I agree PG is reinventing the wheel.
Worth noting that the "aggressively non-conformist" quadrant includes not just inventors and leaders but also criminals and trolls. For some reason the essay downplays that.
Also, is it just me, or does it seem like most of pg's recent essays are attempts to "poison the well" against anyone who might try to hold him and his peers accountable for their contributions to the sorry state of our society? He doesn't directly attack them, but he seems to be coming at a general "social pressure is bad" theme from multiple directions lately.
Also, is it just me, or does it seem like most of pg's recent essays are attempts to "poison the well" against anyone who might try to hold him and his peers accountable for their contributions to the sorry state of our society? He doesn't directly attack them, but he seems to be coming at a general "social pressure is bad" theme from multiple directions lately.
> does it seem like most of pg's recent essays are attempts to "poison the well" against anyone who might try to hold him and his peers accountable for their contributions to the sorry state of our society?
I'm wondering what kind of wack opinion he has that he doesn't want to talk about, and these essays are providing cover for.
I'm extremely loathe to blame specific individuals for the state of systems.
I do think that there is a broad limiting of discourse in the intelligensia in any particular circle. The metaidea is that certain approaches are the local way, don't question them; questioning bounces you to a different circle with its norms. Maybe this is just what happens, and people are noticing it more, but I'm skeptical.
I'm wondering what kind of wack opinion he has that he doesn't want to talk about, and these essays are providing cover for.
I'm extremely loathe to blame specific individuals for the state of systems.
I do think that there is a broad limiting of discourse in the intelligensia in any particular circle. The metaidea is that certain approaches are the local way, don't question them; questioning bounces you to a different circle with its norms. Maybe this is just what happens, and people are noticing it more, but I'm skeptical.
> I'm wondering what kind of wack opinion he has that he doesn't want to talk about, and these essays are providing cover for.
This is the exact thing the essays are about, though! To use a question from a previous pg essay - I'm not even asking you to share it, just asking if it exists - do you hold any opinions that you believe to be true, yet you dare not share with anyone for fear that you would lose your job and all social connections if you were to reveal that you held that opinion?
This is the exact thing the essays are about, though! To use a question from a previous pg essay - I'm not even asking you to share it, just asking if it exists - do you hold any opinions that you believe to be true, yet you dare not share with anyone for fear that you would lose your job and all social connections if you were to reveal that you held that opinion?
> I'm not even asking you to share it, just asking if it exists - do you hold any opinions that you believe to be true, yet you dare not share with anyone for fear that you would lose your job and all social connections if you were to reveal that you held that opinion?
This just seems like a trick question to me. If you say yes, then you agree with him; if you say no, you admit you're just a sheep with no independent thoughts.
The idea of a lone free thinker who's come up with a forbidden truth also seems silly. The stuff people are getting "cancelled" for are not independent unique thoughts; they're stuff a huge group agrees with, including the current US president and ruling party. You also won't get shunned by all of your social connections for expressing it, you'll retreat back to the same group of people that reinforced those opinions to the status of "truth" in the first place, to reassure each other about how persecuted you all are.
This just seems like a trick question to me. If you say yes, then you agree with him; if you say no, you admit you're just a sheep with no independent thoughts.
The idea of a lone free thinker who's come up with a forbidden truth also seems silly. The stuff people are getting "cancelled" for are not independent unique thoughts; they're stuff a huge group agrees with, including the current US president and ruling party. You also won't get shunned by all of your social connections for expressing it, you'll retreat back to the same group of people that reinforced those opinions to the status of "truth" in the first place, to reassure each other about how persecuted you all are.
It's not meant to be a trick question - more of a prompt that attempts to trigger someone to have one of the following thoughts "maybe I should be more charitable towards people who have unorthodox ideas, and should encourage other people to be charitable" OR "maybe I'm living in Plato's cave". I'm not trying to get anyone to agree to any particular heresy. Just to acknowledge the fact that every single thing that is taken for granted today (by goodthinkers) was a heresy at some point in the past. It doesn't mean we can't enforce social norms about what is acceptable; but rather that maybe we shouldn't necessarily be so enthusiastic about persecuting badthinkers. Note also that I'm talking about speech here and not criminal behavior.
> The stuff people are getting "cancelled" for are not independent unique thoughts; they're stuff a huge group agrees with, including the current US president and ruling party.
First of all I don't care about "cancel culture", and I don't think I'm persecuted, but also if you think the President and the GOP are the "ruling party" of America then I suspect there might be an unbridgeable gap in understanding. That's only true if you completely ignore the role of schools and universities, elite/prestige media, NGOs, the intelligence services, the judiciary...
> The stuff people are getting "cancelled" for are not independent unique thoughts; they're stuff a huge group agrees with, including the current US president and ruling party.
First of all I don't care about "cancel culture", and I don't think I'm persecuted, but also if you think the President and the GOP are the "ruling party" of America then I suspect there might be an unbridgeable gap in understanding. That's only true if you completely ignore the role of schools and universities, elite/prestige media, NGOs, the intelligence services, the judiciary...
> Just to acknowledge the fact that every single thing that is taken for granted today (by goodthinkers) was a heresy at some point in the past.
I should have responded to this when I saw it, but this is obviously not true
I should have responded to this when I saw it, but this is obviously not true
I don't _think_ so.
I think there are certain research areas which are interesting, but research outcomes are so potentially misused or politically incendiary that there are no research done by people of good will.
If you're curious what those are, that would be any root of an arbitrary topic that is contentious in the US culture wars.
I think there are certain research areas which are interesting, but research outcomes are so potentially misused or politically incendiary that there are no research done by people of good will.
If you're curious what those are, that would be any root of an arbitrary topic that is contentious in the US culture wars.
So going back to the Robert George quote from the essay - imagine you had been born a white male into a southern slave-holding family in 1750. What basis do you have for believing you would have been against chattel slavery? It seems like your only two options are "I just wouldn't have had an opinion on it" or "My opinions TODAY are uniquely correct for all time going forward". Unless you like to imagine future-you persecuting current-you.
I think you can apply his quadrant to usage of mask during Covid and the result speaks for themselves:
Let's play this out for mask wearing:
Top Left: Top doctors asking people to wear masks
Bottom Left: People who are wearing masks
Bottom Right: People who occasionally use masks, or alternatives, bandanas, etc.
Top Right: People who don't want to use masks because of freedom.
Let's play this out for mask wearing:
Top Left: Top doctors asking people to wear masks
Bottom Left: People who are wearing masks
Bottom Right: People who occasionally use masks, or alternatives, bandanas, etc.
Top Right: People who don't want to use masks because of freedom.
Go into a conservative areas the the top quadrants flip. Where the Top Left are the People who don't wear masks accost others for doing so and the top right are those wearing the mask in spite of the harassment.
Being an enforcer or a rule breaker is very much dependent upon what the rules are.
Being an enforcer or a rule breaker is very much dependent upon what the rules are.
> Being an enforcer or a rule breaker is very much dependent upon what the rules are.
This gets left out of so many conversations, and is a very important point.
The essay touches on it a little with the slavery bit, but I feel like the rest of the essay downplays it.
This gets left out of so many conversations, and is a very important point.
The essay touches on it a little with the slavery bit, but I feel like the rest of the essay downplays it.
That seemed like the whole point of the essay to me and not a side note. His claim is that rule-orientation and assertiveness are present already in childhood (which I think is true), and that those are what determine people's behavior toward rules, not the specifics of the rules themselves.
> and that those are what determine people's behavior toward rules, not the specifics of the rules themselves.
Maybe abstract, theoretical sense. But adults already hold pretty concrete opinions on most rules and an aggressive person's obedience or defiance is dictated by the person's agreement. Also, humans can be opportunists and see enforcement or defiance as a means of grabbing or welding power & influence.
There's ample evidence of this in action. The police selectively enforce laws all the time. Or the neighbor that calls the city to complain that you're violating zoning by having too many cars while they, themselves have an illegal fence and refuse to deal with it. Authoritarians by nature do not like it when the rules apply to them, but love enforcing them on others.
Maybe abstract, theoretical sense. But adults already hold pretty concrete opinions on most rules and an aggressive person's obedience or defiance is dictated by the person's agreement. Also, humans can be opportunists and see enforcement or defiance as a means of grabbing or welding power & influence.
There's ample evidence of this in action. The police selectively enforce laws all the time. Or the neighbor that calls the city to complain that you're violating zoning by having too many cars while they, themselves have an illegal fence and refuse to deal with it. Authoritarians by nature do not like it when the rules apply to them, but love enforcing them on others.
I would describe mask wearing somewhat differently:
Top Left: People who want to throw anyone who isn't wearing a mask in jail.
Bottom Left: People who are wearing masks everywhere, including situations where it doesn't make sense to, because that's what the rules say.
Bottom Right: People who wear masks when it makes sense to wear them, and don't wear masks when it makes sense not to, even if that isn't what the rules say (for example, not wearing a mask when taking a walk outdoors where you can easily social distance, even if the letter of the rules in your area say to wear a mask whenever you leave your house).
Top Right: People who insist on pointing out that the rules on mask wearing are arbitrary and don't allow for common sense, even as they wear masks when common sense says you ought to.
Top Left: People who want to throw anyone who isn't wearing a mask in jail.
Bottom Left: People who are wearing masks everywhere, including situations where it doesn't make sense to, because that's what the rules say.
Bottom Right: People who wear masks when it makes sense to wear them, and don't wear masks when it makes sense not to, even if that isn't what the rules say (for example, not wearing a mask when taking a walk outdoors where you can easily social distance, even if the letter of the rules in your area say to wear a mask whenever you leave your house).
Top Right: People who insist on pointing out that the rules on mask wearing are arbitrary and don't allow for common sense, even as they wear masks when common sense says you ought to.
> Top Right: People who insist on pointing out that the rules on mask wearing are arbitrary and don't allow for common sense, even as they wear masks when common sense says you ought to.
You mean "... as they don't wear masks ..." , correct? Otherwise I think you are leaving out the people who reject masks at every opportunity.
You mean "... as they don't wear masks ..." , correct? Otherwise I think you are leaving out the people who reject masks at every opportunity.
> You mean "... as they don't wear masks ..." , correct?
No. Wearing masks when common sense says you ought to, in the current situation, is independent-minded, not conformist. (For example, consider: the same person would have been wearing a mask before any guidance or rules were issued about it at all, since it took quite a while for such guidance and rules to catch up with the actual situation. A Bottom Left person would have been waiting for some guidance or rules to be issued. A Top Left person would have been calling out the mask wearer for overreacting, after all, things can't possibly be that bad if no guidance or rules have been issued requiring people to wear masks, right?)
> I think you are leaving out the people who reject masks at every opportunity.
Strictly speaking, yes, those could also count as Top Right, but I wanted to emphasize the fact that Top Right does not require stupidity.
No. Wearing masks when common sense says you ought to, in the current situation, is independent-minded, not conformist. (For example, consider: the same person would have been wearing a mask before any guidance or rules were issued about it at all, since it took quite a while for such guidance and rules to catch up with the actual situation. A Bottom Left person would have been waiting for some guidance or rules to be issued. A Top Left person would have been calling out the mask wearer for overreacting, after all, things can't possibly be that bad if no guidance or rules have been issued requiring people to wear masks, right?)
> I think you are leaving out the people who reject masks at every opportunity.
Strictly speaking, yes, those could also count as Top Right, but I wanted to emphasize the fact that Top Right does not require stupidity.
I know it's taboo to discuss votes here, so please interpret this generally and not as a cute attempt at recursive self-reference. I think it's actually germane and intellectually interesting in this specific limited context.
Aggressively non-comformist comments are the most reliable way to get downvotes on HN, but sometimes they result in massive upvotes.
Passively conformist comments are the most reliable way to get little to no votes whatsoever on HN.
Aggressively conformist comments are the most reliable way to get moderate upvotes on HN.
Passively non-conformist comments virtually don't exist on HN.
Supposing these observations are accurate, it's interesting to consider why they might be so.
Aggressively non-comformist comments are the most reliable way to get downvotes on HN, but sometimes they result in massive upvotes.
Passively conformist comments are the most reliable way to get little to no votes whatsoever on HN.
Aggressively conformist comments are the most reliable way to get moderate upvotes on HN.
Passively non-conformist comments virtually don't exist on HN.
Supposing these observations are accurate, it's interesting to consider why they might be so.
> Aggressively non-comformist comments are the most reliable way to get downvotes on HN, but sometimes they result in massive upvotes.
Thinking on this further, I presume down votes are capped at 5 and up votes are uncapped because of this dynamic. The cost of saying aggressively non-conformist or even outright unpopular things here that don't run afoul of the guidelines is extremely low. I imagine that this good design is part of why the discourse here can be so delightful.
Thinking on this further, I presume down votes are capped at 5 and up votes are uncapped because of this dynamic. The cost of saying aggressively non-conformist or even outright unpopular things here that don't run afoul of the guidelines is extremely low. I imagine that this good design is part of why the discourse here can be so delightful.
Aggressively non-comformist comments also potentially result in a ban, especially when it comes to sensitive topics. The negatives outweigh the positives in many cases. Discussions here on scientific topics like human group differences border on outright delusional because there is no polite way of questioning the dogma.
Have you considered the case that you find the discussion delightful because it is just reinforcing your biases?
Have you considered the case that you find the discussion delightful because it is just reinforcing your biases?
> Have you considered the case that you find the discussion delightful because it is just reinforcing your biases?
Funny you should say that, because I recently wrote a comment on the subject of cognitive biases: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23917259. As you can see the far left reply to it was not viewed favorably. And while I try not to be obnoxious about it, it's pretty obvious that my ideological leanings are probably not shared with the majority of the HN commenting population.
It's my observation that the moderation here tends to discourage discussion of issues like average race and sex differences not out of a desire to censor, but because they are inevitably a waste of time and no intellectually interesting discussion occurs. I suppose one could consider this a heckler's veto, but them's the breaks. Besides, there's no consensus on which side is heckling. In my experience discussion of such fraught topics that challenge deeply held beliefs is best started with persons that you know well and who are willing to approach the subject in a spirit of intellectual honesty and curiosity. That's hard to do on a pseudonymous Internet board with thousands of users.
Edit: From your username I surmise that you are at the 'zon. I've heard from people on the inside that the climate has become rather oppressive for anyone who doesn't publicly embrace the Seattle/Portland school of politics. You're certainly not alone.
Funny you should say that, because I recently wrote a comment on the subject of cognitive biases: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23917259. As you can see the far left reply to it was not viewed favorably. And while I try not to be obnoxious about it, it's pretty obvious that my ideological leanings are probably not shared with the majority of the HN commenting population.
It's my observation that the moderation here tends to discourage discussion of issues like average race and sex differences not out of a desire to censor, but because they are inevitably a waste of time and no intellectually interesting discussion occurs. I suppose one could consider this a heckler's veto, but them's the breaks. Besides, there's no consensus on which side is heckling. In my experience discussion of such fraught topics that challenge deeply held beliefs is best started with persons that you know well and who are willing to approach the subject in a spirit of intellectual honesty and curiosity. That's hard to do on a pseudonymous Internet board with thousands of users.
Edit: From your username I surmise that you are at the 'zon. I've heard from people on the inside that the climate has become rather oppressive for anyone who doesn't publicly embrace the Seattle/Portland school of politics. You're certainly not alone.
Banning discussion of fraught topics doesn't just affect the discussion about the fraught topics themselves, it also leads to biased and often meaningless discussion of every single other topic where the fraught stuff is an important factor. To have a meaningful discussion you need to be able to challenge base assumptions, you cannot do that here.
That's because social pressure is bad? I think it is generally agreed that court of public opinion is bad court.
Do you realize that you just used an appeal to popularity in your argument against popularity?
When (or whether) social pressure is good is a very highly debatable point, and in that debate it's important not to conflate kinds/levels of social pressure. Calling someone out for using the N-word is one thing. Throwing someone in jail for having the wrong political views is quite another. If you, or pg, or anyone else wants to discuss good and bad forms of social pressure, the intellectually honest thing to do would be to make a direct case, not engage in these pigeonholing and semantic exercises to cast others' views in a bad light.
When (or whether) social pressure is good is a very highly debatable point, and in that debate it's important not to conflate kinds/levels of social pressure. Calling someone out for using the N-word is one thing. Throwing someone in jail for having the wrong political views is quite another. If you, or pg, or anyone else wants to discuss good and bad forms of social pressure, the intellectually honest thing to do would be to make a direct case, not engage in these pigeonholing and semantic exercises to cast others' views in a bad light.
"I'm not a psychopath/sociopath, I'm aggressively non-conformist!"
The amount of negativity in the comments is astonishing (and has been with regards to all of his recent essays). Which is perverse on a couple of levels:
1. PG's essay outlines a theory that the majority of the world is conventionally-minded and doesn't like to discuss new ideas. The comments here perfectly resemble that theory. PG wins. (Edit: at the time of writing, the comments were exclusively negative. This has changed since.)
2. If you don't like his writing and his world view (the brave startup founder is the hero), then why come to HN? Why support someone's website and accelerator/fund if you think they are so wrong?
3. While recognizing the limitations of this framework (see below), let's recognize that PG became very wealthy by employing the brave founder thesis. There's got to be a lot of truth there.
If there's anything wrong with PG's writing, it's that he doesn't spell out the truth for you - which is that in 99% of the cases, you're not the target audience. This essay is the perfect example. The quadrant he's romanticizing about is the smallest one, and of course most people are not going to see themselves resembling those characteristics. Many other essays have this quality - it's easy to walk away realizing that you're either not young enough, or not hard-working enough, or not smart enough, or not in a position to take the required risks to be the target audience. And that hurts, because it's true. Just don't shoot the messenger.
For clarification, all you get from being a part of PG's target audience is having a certain set of traits which are good for one thing, but would also disqualify you from being an astronaut and pursuing many other desirable careers.
1. PG's essay outlines a theory that the majority of the world is conventionally-minded and doesn't like to discuss new ideas. The comments here perfectly resemble that theory. PG wins. (Edit: at the time of writing, the comments were exclusively negative. This has changed since.)
2. If you don't like his writing and his world view (the brave startup founder is the hero), then why come to HN? Why support someone's website and accelerator/fund if you think they are so wrong?
3. While recognizing the limitations of this framework (see below), let's recognize that PG became very wealthy by employing the brave founder thesis. There's got to be a lot of truth there.
If there's anything wrong with PG's writing, it's that he doesn't spell out the truth for you - which is that in 99% of the cases, you're not the target audience. This essay is the perfect example. The quadrant he's romanticizing about is the smallest one, and of course most people are not going to see themselves resembling those characteristics. Many other essays have this quality - it's easy to walk away realizing that you're either not young enough, or not hard-working enough, or not smart enough, or not in a position to take the required risks to be the target audience. And that hurts, because it's true. Just don't shoot the messenger.
For clarification, all you get from being a part of PG's target audience is having a certain set of traits which are good for one thing, but would also disqualify you from being an astronaut and pursuing many other desirable careers.
> If you don't like his writing and his world view (the brave startup founder is the hero), then why come to HN? Why support someone's website and accelerator/fund if you think they are so wrong?
Simple. I'm trying to do exactly what Paul Graham encourages (and what I believe in), and engage fruitfully with people with different ideologies and ways of thinking than me. Plus, there are sometimes interesting technical articles posted here.
> The comments here perfectly resemble that theory
Really? I don't see this, so maybe some examples would help. Mostly I see people disagreeing with Graham in unique ways. That doesn't seem like conformism. Would it be better if only people who accepted his premise commented. Isn't that exactly the opposite of what Graham wants (respect for his ideas among people who disagree with him)?
Your third point begs the question.
Simple. I'm trying to do exactly what Paul Graham encourages (and what I believe in), and engage fruitfully with people with different ideologies and ways of thinking than me. Plus, there are sometimes interesting technical articles posted here.
> The comments here perfectly resemble that theory
Really? I don't see this, so maybe some examples would help. Mostly I see people disagreeing with Graham in unique ways. That doesn't seem like conformism. Would it be better if only people who accepted his premise commented. Isn't that exactly the opposite of what Graham wants (respect for his ideas among people who disagree with him)?
Your third point begs the question.
> 3. It's futile to fight a war of words over who is right or wrong - let's instead use the economic success as a proxy for truth. With few exceptions, you're definitionally going to be less economically successful than PG. Do you think he would have pulled it off if the brave startup founder thesis was fundamentally wrong?
This is so...weird.
All this says is his model draws no conclusions which (1) he acts on and (2) make it impossible for him to generate sufficient economic returns.
What does his model have to say about becoming an expert chess player? A world-class author? An amazing athlete? A successful therapist? If there are people who are successful along those dimensions whose models contradict pg's, then what?
Your statement is almost a tautology.
This is so...weird.
All this says is his model draws no conclusions which (1) he acts on and (2) make it impossible for him to generate sufficient economic returns.
What does his model have to say about becoming an expert chess player? A world-class author? An amazing athlete? A successful therapist? If there are people who are successful along those dimensions whose models contradict pg's, then what?
Your statement is almost a tautology.
I don't think the sort of ad hominem you are engaging in here is very useful, or convincing. Ad hominem is exactly what it is: you aren't arguing that the negative comments are wrong, just that the sort of people who make them are dumb conformists in (1), hypocrites in (2), and losers in (3).
"let's instead use the economic success as a proxy for truth."
This is why I think Mark Zuckerberg is always right.
This is why I think Mark Zuckerberg is always right.
"It's futile to fight a war of words over who is right or wrong - let's instead use the economic success as a proxy for truth."
Even though, that's the one of the core tenets of capitalism, I could show you that is not always the way it seems. Think about big corporations located in developing world like Brazil (where I came from), where corruption and bribes run amok. Saying that people and companies that are successful financially and economically is equal to truth and the right path to go, it's dismissing a lot of other context based on "other truth".
The world is much bigger than North America and the PG's text may not apply for different countries and culture. Imagine the same ideal applying to North Korean and Russia, what conclusions do you get from it?
Even though, that's the one of the core tenets of capitalism, I could show you that is not always the way it seems. Think about big corporations located in developing world like Brazil (where I came from), where corruption and bribes run amok. Saying that people and companies that are successful financially and economically is equal to truth and the right path to go, it's dismissing a lot of other context based on "other truth".
The world is much bigger than North America and the PG's text may not apply for different countries and culture. Imagine the same ideal applying to North Korean and Russia, what conclusions do you get from it?
The most economically successful company in the world is Saudi ARAMCO so what does that say about PG's startup founder thesis?
It proves divine right of kings in general, and House of Saud in particular. Sounds right to me.
Sounds like you need an invite to Galt's Gulch
The first paragraph would me much easier to comprehend if it was a picture.
What he really after US vs them tendency of tribalism, he is upset at the overreach of the left and their lacking self criticism. Then ironically lacking self criticism presents an us vs them argument.
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."
F. Scott
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."
F. Scott
> In the past, the way the independent-minded protected themselves was to congregate in a handful of places
> That may not work this time though,
Ah yes, the classic, "things used to be so much better" argument. Which yeah, if you ignore things like McCarthyism then it probably seems that way. I'm curious how many black, female professor feel that they would have faced less intolerance in American universities before the intolerance wave of the 1980s.
I personally see tolerance as a trade-off in a lot of scenarios. Tolerating discrimination necessarily infringes on the freedoms and well-being of the victims. And tolerating anti-discrimination infringes on the freedoms of the aggressors. Both groups cannot be equally free in such a matter, because the freedom of one is at the expense of another.
> That may not work this time though,
Ah yes, the classic, "things used to be so much better" argument. Which yeah, if you ignore things like McCarthyism then it probably seems that way. I'm curious how many black, female professor feel that they would have faced less intolerance in American universities before the intolerance wave of the 1980s.
I personally see tolerance as a trade-off in a lot of scenarios. Tolerating discrimination necessarily infringes on the freedoms and well-being of the victims. And tolerating anti-discrimination infringes on the freedoms of the aggressors. Both groups cannot be equally free in such a matter, because the freedom of one is at the expense of another.
The idea that you can be independently minded as a quant or at a startup is absurd.
If you don't parrot the same bullshit as everyone else as a startup employee, you get fired without feedback because you aren't a "good culture fit." You have two choices: conform, or work somewhere else.
If you don't parrot the same bullshit as everyone else as a startup employee, you get fired without feedback because you aren't a "good culture fit." You have two choices: conform, or work somewhere else.
His point is that the founders and underlying ideas for startups and quantitative trading companies need to be unconventional in order to succeed. Otherwise the returns will already have been captured by the market (in the case of trading) or the product will already have been built (in the case of a startup)
"worked at a startup" and "founded a (non-trivial) startup" can be quite different.
Never thought I'd see the day that a pg essay crosses over with /r/politicalcompassmemes
The problem with "discussing ideas" as a framing is that it exists in opposition to something. What is that something?
Those whose position favours the status quo would read it in opposition to "not discussing ideas", which is obviously bad. However, to those who find the status quo untenable, the opposite position is "acting on ideas".
Following pg's example, let us consider the following classic debate topic: "is slavery good?" A plantation owner might find themselves tickled by a lively discussion on the subject, replete with a cornucopia of Enlightenment principles and classical liberalism and such. A slave might find this discussion less interesting, because no outcome would lead to their freedom.
It is perhaps telling that slavery was not abolished through free inquiry or the discussion of ideas. It was abolished through acts of state power and, ultimately, violence. Are we to believe in an alternate history where the South was debated out of its peculiar institution? The discussion of ideas gave way to acting on those ideas. The alternative would be a society of endless, meaningless rambling.
Today, if you were still debating "is slavery good?", you would not be a brave free-thinking iconoclast, you would be either an idiot or a very devoted racist. You would get uninvited from lectures and yelled at on Twitter, not because your ideas are too advanced, but because they're too far behind. The debate is over, and the actual free-thinkers have moved on.
It's sad to say, but I think the real lesson of this essay is that political ideas are just like music taste. Whatever your parents were listening to is outdated and embarrassing, whatever the kids are listening to is just angry noise, and miraculously your generation was the only one to stumble upon that which is profoundly, timelessly good.
The problem with "discussing ideas" as a framing is that it exists in opposition to something. What is that something?
Those whose position favours the status quo would read it in opposition to "not discussing ideas", which is obviously bad. However, to those who find the status quo untenable, the opposite position is "acting on ideas".
Following pg's example, let us consider the following classic debate topic: "is slavery good?" A plantation owner might find themselves tickled by a lively discussion on the subject, replete with a cornucopia of Enlightenment principles and classical liberalism and such. A slave might find this discussion less interesting, because no outcome would lead to their freedom.
It is perhaps telling that slavery was not abolished through free inquiry or the discussion of ideas. It was abolished through acts of state power and, ultimately, violence. Are we to believe in an alternate history where the South was debated out of its peculiar institution? The discussion of ideas gave way to acting on those ideas. The alternative would be a society of endless, meaningless rambling.
Today, if you were still debating "is slavery good?", you would not be a brave free-thinking iconoclast, you would be either an idiot or a very devoted racist. You would get uninvited from lectures and yelled at on Twitter, not because your ideas are too advanced, but because they're too far behind. The debate is over, and the actual free-thinkers have moved on.
It's sad to say, but I think the real lesson of this essay is that political ideas are just like music taste. Whatever your parents were listening to is outdated and embarrassing, whatever the kids are listening to is just angry noise, and miraculously your generation was the only one to stumble upon that which is profoundly, timelessly good.
I think you are wrong about the abolition of slavery.
Slavery had existed in almost every society throughout history (and beyond, no doubt). The word slave comes from the Slavs of eastern Europe, who were captured and enslaved by the Turks and Barbary pirates.
Then there was a unique event: Protestant (many non-conformist) groups in the wealthiest democratic country (Britain), decided to campaign on a fundamental principle of Enlightenment and Christian human rights. It was a vivid debate of ideals and economic practicalities, conducted in the Mother of Parliaments, and on the streets outside.
Britain was a major beneficiary of slavery in the American colonies and the Caribbean. It would have renounced the trade, and the practice, in the late 18th century, but the military and economic imperatives of the French Revolution, American Revolution and Napoleonic Wars intervened. So the British slave trade was not abolished until 1807, and the practice of slavery itself in 1833.
Britain also had the largest navy in the world at that time. It not just passed laws for its empire, but also actively blockaded Atlantic ports and intercepted the slave trade from Africa to Spanish and Portuguese colonies (both Catholic, not a coincidence). It was later joined by the northern Yankee navy in the Atlantic and on the Barbary coast of N.Africa. Slavery was abolished in the US and Russia (serfdom) about the same time in the 1860s, but it lingered in Cuba and Brazil toward the end of the 19th century.
T.E.Lawrence commented on the slavery he found in Saudi Arabia during World War 1 (1916) [Seven Pillars of Wisdom]. The practice of legal slavery continued into the 1970s in the Gulf States, and the indentured servitude practiced there today is little different (long working hours in difficult conditions, physical isolation, confiscation of passports, non-payment of wages, no rights in the legal system, sexual abuse of women, etc.). The fact that these countries are undemocratic unenlightened Arabs is also not a coincidence (Arabs seem to have an extra cultural level of racist arrogance, over and above the intolerance of other Muslims in non-Arab countries, such as, say, Iran or Indonesia).
Slavery had existed in almost every society throughout history (and beyond, no doubt). The word slave comes from the Slavs of eastern Europe, who were captured and enslaved by the Turks and Barbary pirates.
Then there was a unique event: Protestant (many non-conformist) groups in the wealthiest democratic country (Britain), decided to campaign on a fundamental principle of Enlightenment and Christian human rights. It was a vivid debate of ideals and economic practicalities, conducted in the Mother of Parliaments, and on the streets outside.
Britain was a major beneficiary of slavery in the American colonies and the Caribbean. It would have renounced the trade, and the practice, in the late 18th century, but the military and economic imperatives of the French Revolution, American Revolution and Napoleonic Wars intervened. So the British slave trade was not abolished until 1807, and the practice of slavery itself in 1833.
Britain also had the largest navy in the world at that time. It not just passed laws for its empire, but also actively blockaded Atlantic ports and intercepted the slave trade from Africa to Spanish and Portuguese colonies (both Catholic, not a coincidence). It was later joined by the northern Yankee navy in the Atlantic and on the Barbary coast of N.Africa. Slavery was abolished in the US and Russia (serfdom) about the same time in the 1860s, but it lingered in Cuba and Brazil toward the end of the 19th century.
T.E.Lawrence commented on the slavery he found in Saudi Arabia during World War 1 (1916) [Seven Pillars of Wisdom]. The practice of legal slavery continued into the 1970s in the Gulf States, and the indentured servitude practiced there today is little different (long working hours in difficult conditions, physical isolation, confiscation of passports, non-payment of wages, no rights in the legal system, sexual abuse of women, etc.). The fact that these countries are undemocratic unenlightened Arabs is also not a coincidence (Arabs seem to have an extra cultural level of racist arrogance, over and above the intolerance of other Muslims in non-Arab countries, such as, say, Iran or Indonesia).
France outlawed slavery in 1315 (later leaders undid this, but it was illegal for a time). Spain did as well in the 1500s. The Catholic Church condemned the slave trade in the 1600s.
So by the time the "non-conformists" were openly discussing whether or not slavery should be banned, the Conformists (the catholic church) had already stated it was bad.
> The fact that these countries are undemocratic unenlightened Arabs is also not a coincidence (Arabs seem to have an extra cultural level of racist arrogance, over and above the intolerance of other Muslims in non-Arab countries, such as, say, Iran or Indonesia).
Yiiiiiiiiiikes.
So by the time the "non-conformists" were openly discussing whether or not slavery should be banned, the Conformists (the catholic church) had already stated it was bad.
> The fact that these countries are undemocratic unenlightened Arabs is also not a coincidence (Arabs seem to have an extra cultural level of racist arrogance, over and above the intolerance of other Muslims in non-Arab countries, such as, say, Iran or Indonesia).
Yiiiiiiiiiikes.
> Following pg's example, let us consider the following classic debate topic: "is slavery good?" A plantation owner might find themselves tickled by a lively discussion on the subject, replete with a cornucopia of Enlightenment principles and classical liberalism and such.
Historically, the Southern states (which were politically dominated by slaveholders) outlawed all abolitionist literature because they feared that free discussion of ideas would undermine the system.
> It is perhaps telling that slavery was not abolished through free inquiry or the discussion of ideas.
90% of the work was done through free inquiry and discourse, ranging from the Lincoln-Douglas debates to the publishing of books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The attempts to solve the problem violently (e.g. John Brown at Harper’s Ferry) failed.
It was only when the slave states refused to accept the outcome of a free election and started the civil war that violence became necessary.
> The debate is over, and the actual free-thinkers have moved on.
You’ve cherry-picked a specific example that fits that narrative.
Historically, the Southern states (which were politically dominated by slaveholders) outlawed all abolitionist literature because they feared that free discussion of ideas would undermine the system.
> It is perhaps telling that slavery was not abolished through free inquiry or the discussion of ideas.
90% of the work was done through free inquiry and discourse, ranging from the Lincoln-Douglas debates to the publishing of books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The attempts to solve the problem violently (e.g. John Brown at Harper’s Ferry) failed.
It was only when the slave states refused to accept the outcome of a free election and started the civil war that violence became necessary.
> The debate is over, and the actual free-thinkers have moved on.
You’ve cherry-picked a specific example that fits that narrative.
Lots of great ideas here -- but in keeping with all top-vintage Paul Graham essays, he takes his best points to about 130% of their validity.
So I'd like to weigh in on this assertion: "To be a successful scientist, for example, it's not enough just to be right. You have to be right when everyone else is wrong."
Not so. To be a successful scientist, you need to be orderly, fast and well-connected in finding all the rest of the Next Rights, once a few of your peers (or you) have opened up a whole new river of truth by finding the first right. (See James Watson, Ernest Lawrence, etc.)
You can see this in the evolution of practically every exciting field, whether it's subatomic physics, molecular biology, paleontology, etc.
This dynamic requires a fifth state in Graham's admirably simple 2x2 grid. We need to recognize people that can be defiant non-conformists when the moment presents itself -- and then work within the system to make the most of their second and third-order insights as the world embraces their big idea.
The concept of the brilliant, isolated, irritable genius is a mainstay of a certain kind of movie or novel. But in real life, the most effective disrupters are just as good at forming large teams that lead the charge toward the next right (once they've found their breakthrough idea) as in coming up with that breathtakingly strange new idea in the first place.
So I'd like to weigh in on this assertion: "To be a successful scientist, for example, it's not enough just to be right. You have to be right when everyone else is wrong."
Not so. To be a successful scientist, you need to be orderly, fast and well-connected in finding all the rest of the Next Rights, once a few of your peers (or you) have opened up a whole new river of truth by finding the first right. (See James Watson, Ernest Lawrence, etc.)
You can see this in the evolution of practically every exciting field, whether it's subatomic physics, molecular biology, paleontology, etc.
This dynamic requires a fifth state in Graham's admirably simple 2x2 grid. We need to recognize people that can be defiant non-conformists when the moment presents itself -- and then work within the system to make the most of their second and third-order insights as the world embraces their big idea.
The concept of the brilliant, isolated, irritable genius is a mainstay of a certain kind of movie or novel. But in real life, the most effective disrupters are just as good at forming large teams that lead the charge toward the next right (once they've found their breakthrough idea) as in coming up with that breathtakingly strange new idea in the first place.
I'm unsure about your example of James Watson as a successful scientist. He was successful, yes, and was a scientist. But I don't think he was successful as a scientist. Rosalind Franklin made the key scientific insights crucial to figuring out DNA's structure. She wasn't even actually the person that took Photo 51, that was her student. She was, however, the one who presented her insights that the phosphate backbone is on the outside of the molecule, one of the most crucial insights to figuring out how DNA works since prior to that watson crick et al thought the backbone was on the inside. That goes beyond just "contributing" the photo, that's actually generating the scientific insights that unlocked the structure of the molecule before being derided as an assistant incapable of understanding her own data by watson and then dying without a nobel. In light of that, I don't see how watson can get credit as a successful scientist. Crick went on to make other contributions such as codifying the central dogma, watson not so much.
I also stopped on the assertion about the successful scientist, but instead of outright disagreeing, I took it to mean that the definition of successful scientists for pg includes mostly the starters of new paradigms, regardless of the ideas being accepted during their lifetimes or not.
By successful scientist he means someone who changes a scientific paradigm, creates a new field, or really pushes the field forwards. Incremental discoveries are not under this umbrella
[deleted]
> "This dynamic requires a fifth state in Graham's admirably simple 2x2 grid. We need to recognize people that can be defiant non-conformists when the moment presents itself..."
to be aggressively non-conformist, that's the critical mistake pg makes: we're dynamic, complicated creatures embedded in an infinitely complex system. who we are in a given moment is not who we are at another moment. to define ourselves as "being" one type or the other is a gross error of static categorization. we're each of them at different moments in our lives, frittering among them, and beyond them, constantly.
put succinctly: fuck labels.
that's not to say the conceptual framework isn't useful, but his static application of it is in error.
to be aggressively non-conformist, that's the critical mistake pg makes: we're dynamic, complicated creatures embedded in an infinitely complex system. who we are in a given moment is not who we are at another moment. to define ourselves as "being" one type or the other is a gross error of static categorization. we're each of them at different moments in our lives, frittering among them, and beyond them, constantly.
put succinctly: fuck labels.
that's not to say the conceptual framework isn't useful, but his static application of it is in error.
Abundantly clear from his Twitter that like so many others that are used to having an unassailable platform of privilege to express themselves, PG has recognized that normal people now have a voice to push back and criticize opinions he has, and so he's joined those expressing "concern" about this.
Instead of expressing in concrete terms his views to make them available for criticism, he talks about the dangers of "cancel culture" instead, presumably because he knows his views are now beyond community norms and they'd get him cancelled.
This essay is a scaffolding effort to rebrand people that would seek to express intolerant opinions as "independent minded" and "free inqueryiers" so that they can escape criticism.
Nah sorry not gonna work.
Instead of expressing in concrete terms his views to make them available for criticism, he talks about the dangers of "cancel culture" instead, presumably because he knows his views are now beyond community norms and they'd get him cancelled.
This essay is a scaffolding effort to rebrand people that would seek to express intolerant opinions as "independent minded" and "free inqueryiers" so that they can escape criticism.
Nah sorry not gonna work.
> an unassailable platform of privilege to express themselves
Anyone can start a website and post essays on it. If many more people read PG's essays than other people's, that's because he has done things that attract a wider audience.
Anyone can start a website and post essays on it. If many more people read PG's essays than other people's, that's because he has done things that attract a wider audience.
aggressively conventional-minded │ aggressively independent-minded
─────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────
passively conventional-minded │ passively independent-mindedI'm not sure I find much meaning in this essay because everyone's definition of "conventional" and "independent" depends on their own bias. PG's own definition of independently minded seems to be "they have all the new ideas". If that's the case, then universities are absolutely a place of independently minded people when compared to the baby boomers and older generations.
Speaking out against racism, bigotry, and systemic issues that overwhelmingly impact POC and the LGBTQ+ community is not what I consider "conventionally minded" and definitely counts as a "new idea" when viewing it through the lens of racism and homophobia in America since its inception. As others posted, it's not clear to me what PG is referring to as conventionally minded at universities, but the issues I mentioned are typically at the forefront of political issues at schools these days.
Here's what I find conventionally minded thinking: supporting capitalism and accumulating ridiculous amounts of wealth without guilt. If you're the type of person who sees an abnormally high level of sociopaths in non-profits[1] and honestly believes the "defining quality of nonprofits is to make no profit, not to do good" has any significant basis in reality, perhaps that says more about your bias against non-profits than it does about the people in it. And that bias, to me, reeks of conformity.
1: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1124254508232663040
Speaking out against racism, bigotry, and systemic issues that overwhelmingly impact POC and the LGBTQ+ community is not what I consider "conventionally minded" and definitely counts as a "new idea" when viewing it through the lens of racism and homophobia in America since its inception. As others posted, it's not clear to me what PG is referring to as conventionally minded at universities, but the issues I mentioned are typically at the forefront of political issues at schools these days.
Here's what I find conventionally minded thinking: supporting capitalism and accumulating ridiculous amounts of wealth without guilt. If you're the type of person who sees an abnormally high level of sociopaths in non-profits[1] and honestly believes the "defining quality of nonprofits is to make no profit, not to do good" has any significant basis in reality, perhaps that says more about your bias against non-profits than it does about the people in it. And that bias, to me, reeks of conformity.
1: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1124254508232663040
> Speaking out against racism, bigotry, and systemic issues that overwhelmingly impact POC and the LGBTQ+ community is not what I consider "conventionally minded"
It’s so unconventional that almost every Fortune 500 corporation has done so in unison.
I think there’s a part of pg’s essay that’s doing a lot more work than people realize, because everyone keeps missing it:
“ When measuring conformism, of course, you have to say with respect to what, and this changes as kids get older. For younger kids it's the rules set by adults. But as kids get older, the source of rules becomes their peers. So a pack of teenagers who all flout school rules in the same way are not independent-minded; rather the opposite.”
It’s so unconventional that almost every Fortune 500 corporation has done so in unison.
I think there’s a part of pg’s essay that’s doing a lot more work than people realize, because everyone keeps missing it:
“ When measuring conformism, of course, you have to say with respect to what, and this changes as kids get older. For younger kids it's the rules set by adults. But as kids get older, the source of rules becomes their peers. So a pack of teenagers who all flout school rules in the same way are not independent-minded; rather the opposite.”
>It’s so unconventional that almost every Fortune 500 corporation has done so in unison.
For literally the first time in history, and most of the Fortune 500 "speaking out" is just empty words without any real action. Look how progressive Amazon is, putting the BLM banner on their homepage for a couple weeks. Meanwhile Bezos is still perpetuating awful working conditions that disproportionately impact his POC employees.
I'm in my 30s and rules in my life are not set by my peers. They're set by the older generations who overwhelmingly feel and act like "Fuck you, got mine". My life is overwhelmingly dictated by the rich and powerful and privileged, everywhere from where I live and how I live to where I work and how I work. I have very little say in how my life works, and it's rare that I ever see someone my age having any impact on that.
Also, people (and university students) don't live in a bubble. It is absolutely independently minded to grow up around parents and teachers that all have the same beliefs and then to be able to form your own beliefs that diverge largely from theirs. Just because you have people around you that made the same step doesn't make you conformist.
For literally the first time in history, and most of the Fortune 500 "speaking out" is just empty words without any real action. Look how progressive Amazon is, putting the BLM banner on their homepage for a couple weeks. Meanwhile Bezos is still perpetuating awful working conditions that disproportionately impact his POC employees.
I'm in my 30s and rules in my life are not set by my peers. They're set by the older generations who overwhelmingly feel and act like "Fuck you, got mine". My life is overwhelmingly dictated by the rich and powerful and privileged, everywhere from where I live and how I live to where I work and how I work. I have very little say in how my life works, and it's rare that I ever see someone my age having any impact on that.
Also, people (and university students) don't live in a bubble. It is absolutely independently minded to grow up around parents and teachers that all have the same beliefs and then to be able to form your own beliefs that diverge largely from theirs. Just because you have people around you that made the same step doesn't make you conformist.
So you have an external locus of control, that sounds like a personal problem but let’s roll with it. Maybe you’re right and the rules aren’t set by your peers, but that wasn’t the point of the example. The point was conventional-minded people can often feel rebellious by following a certain garden path of “conventional rebellion” that has been specifically laid out for them. That doesn’t actually make them independent-minded. In fact, you’re even worse off than you think because both the society that you live in and the specific way in which you choose to rebel against it are both completely outside your control and presented to you as closed systems that you have no input or contribution to.
As one example, flouting your skepticism in r/atheism is easy.
Coming out as an atheist in the Bible Belt without living on r/atheism first?
Orders of magnitude more difficult.
Being a pro-social justice liberal in the universities is trivial - the whole social environment supports it.
Be an open, conservative Catholic in one?
We are anti-slavery today because we really believe it, but let's not forget that one huge factor in us being so is that it's laughably easy to be so in the modern West.
Environment matters.
Coming out as an atheist in the Bible Belt without living on r/atheism first?
Orders of magnitude more difficult.
Being a pro-social justice liberal in the universities is trivial - the whole social environment supports it.
Be an open, conservative Catholic in one?
We are anti-slavery today because we really believe it, but let's not forget that one huge factor in us being so is that it's laughably easy to be so in the modern West.
Environment matters.
What is conventional rebellion? I label myself as anti-capitalist which is pretty uncommon in the US, but communism as a concept is not in any way unique or new and there have been millions of supporters of communism throughout history.
If I identify with values that less than 1% of the population identifies with, am I conformist?
If I identify with values that less than 1% of the population identifies with, am I conformist?
While I think there might be a grain of truth here I really disagree with how he states it. He seems to be really placing higher value on the isolated genius who does great things despite society being against him. This seems to be based on a lot of pretension and dismisses people who do not think like him.
With how he defines conformity and nonconformity one could argue that the flatearther surrounded by non flatearthers could be a nonconformist. I would argue it's not conformity or lack there of that leads to effectiveness, but instead an indifference to conforming leading to a pursuit of the truth regardless of if it is mainstream or not. So I would say his quadrant system does not define the independent minded person he talks about later in the article.
I think he is in the right ballpark when it comes to pointing to the clear eyed visionary who is willing to look past the orthodox of those around them. But I think his formulation of such an idea is reductionistic. People I would view as conformist have their own worldviews and often pride themselves as nonconformists. Worldviews are a complicated thing and if we write off the majority of people as "sheep" or just part of the problem we become part of a contempt culture that can be really toxic.
With how he defines conformity and nonconformity one could argue that the flatearther surrounded by non flatearthers could be a nonconformist. I would argue it's not conformity or lack there of that leads to effectiveness, but instead an indifference to conforming leading to a pursuit of the truth regardless of if it is mainstream or not. So I would say his quadrant system does not define the independent minded person he talks about later in the article.
I think he is in the right ballpark when it comes to pointing to the clear eyed visionary who is willing to look past the orthodox of those around them. But I think his formulation of such an idea is reductionistic. People I would view as conformist have their own worldviews and often pride themselves as nonconformists. Worldviews are a complicated thing and if we write off the majority of people as "sheep" or just part of the problem we become part of a contempt culture that can be really toxic.
Yes, flat-earthers would probably count as non-conformist. I think the point is that in order to have Galileo, you have to tolerate flat-earthers as well.
I do agree that calling most people "sheep" is uncharitable, and would add that calling aggressive conformists "stupid" is also not accurate or productive. They might be making stupid decisions, but they're not stupid people.
I do agree that calling most people "sheep" is uncharitable, and would add that calling aggressive conformists "stupid" is also not accurate or productive. They might be making stupid decisions, but they're not stupid people.
I disagree, and would count flat-earthers as highly conformist - it's just that they're conforming to an unconventional view.
To view the majority of human beings as livestock, metaphorically or not, really shows the kind of person he is. Everyone is for the most part unique and will have bouts of aggressive independent mindedness. No one is constantly questioning the system or breaking rules, Paul would like to think that's what he does but in reality he is more of a conformist than he thinks and if he saw himself this way he would probably not use the term 'sheep' to describe it.
> All successful startup CEOs are not merely independent-minded, but aggressively so. So it's no coincidence that societies prosper only to the extent that they have customs for keeping the conventional-minded at bay.
This seems very conventional-minded, to use Graham's terminology. Thinking that technological innovation is the hallmark of a prosperous society is conventional thinking, at least in Western Society. As is espousal of capitalism, democracy, etc.
I don't see aggressive independent-mindedness except in criminals, dissidents, and radicals. He repeatedly asserts that tech CEOs are independent-minded mavericks, but I just don't see any evidence of that.
This seems very conventional-minded, to use Graham's terminology. Thinking that technological innovation is the hallmark of a prosperous society is conventional thinking, at least in Western Society. As is espousal of capitalism, democracy, etc.
I don't see aggressive independent-mindedness except in criminals, dissidents, and radicals. He repeatedly asserts that tech CEOs are independent-minded mavericks, but I just don't see any evidence of that.
If you write several essays about "the way society works" and they consistently resolve to a protagonist who happens to be very much like yourself, you're probably writing about your own mind, not society.
It's ironic that he describes social media as an own goal but there isn't the introspection accompanying it that would lead to the obvious point you've made so well.
Everyone in SV wants to be "up and to the right" in every quadrant map of anything. How comforting to simplify life to those terms, to exceptional winners and conventional deadweight. But if society takes your myopic vision and resulting creation and then eats itself and all its democratic institutions, to paraphrase Prinicpal Skinner:
"Am I so out of touch? No, it's the users who are wrong."
Everyone in SV wants to be "up and to the right" in every quadrant map of anything. How comforting to simplify life to those terms, to exceptional winners and conventional deadweight. But if society takes your myopic vision and resulting creation and then eats itself and all its democratic institutions, to paraphrase Prinicpal Skinner:
"Am I so out of touch? No, it's the users who are wrong."
Absolutely! You can see it in this thread, even. There are folks excited by the prospect of using the phrase "aggressively non-conformist".
pg is providing memetic ammunition for the very "culture wars" he claims he's trying to sit out. No introspection (or at least no _evidence_ of introspection), exactly as you say.
pg is providing memetic ammunition for the very "culture wars" he claims he's trying to sit out. No introspection (or at least no _evidence_ of introspection), exactly as you say.
[deleted]
[deleted]
If many people find agreements with a person's notions of conformity, by the evidence of the popularity of their writings, does that make these people conformists, and therefore engenders conformist attitudes towards the author's point of view on non-conformity?
Genuinely pondering.
Genuinely pondering.
I think the one-dimension "conformist" / "non-comformist" axis isn't useful.
We all participate in orthodoxies that we're blind to (or at least not fully aware of). The only questions are "Which ones?" and "What are the consequences of our participation?"
In that sense, we're all "conformists".
We all participate in orthodoxies that we're blind to (or at least not fully aware of). The only questions are "Which ones?" and "What are the consequences of our participation?"
In that sense, we're all "conformists".
Society's only protagonist is the individual
Society isn't a story and therefore doesn't have a protagonist.
Did you just invalidate your own prior comment? Very meta…or maybe your comment was just about your own insecurities, relative to pg?
[deleted]
> When the conventional-minded get the upper hand, they always say it's in the service of a greater good. It just happens to be a different, incompatible greater good each time
I think its hard to imagine people on the other side of your positions and world view. If your team is winning, you do not stop to think of those on the opposite side of the coin. But circumstances change, you could be on that opposite side of the coin someday.
> Enforcers of orthodoxy can't allow a borderline idea to exist, because that gives other enforcers an opportunity to one-up them in the moral purity department, and perhaps even to turn enforcer upon them. So instead of getting the margin for error we need, we get the opposite: a race to the bottom in which any idea that seems at all bannable ends up being banned.
Free expression of ideas or something else filtered by those that own the platforms. Is that the choice we have?
I think its hard to imagine people on the other side of your positions and world view. If your team is winning, you do not stop to think of those on the opposite side of the coin. But circumstances change, you could be on that opposite side of the coin someday.
> Enforcers of orthodoxy can't allow a borderline idea to exist, because that gives other enforcers an opportunity to one-up them in the moral purity department, and perhaps even to turn enforcer upon them. So instead of getting the margin for error we need, we get the opposite: a race to the bottom in which any idea that seems at all bannable ends up being banned.
Free expression of ideas or something else filtered by those that own the platforms. Is that the choice we have?
I'm a bit uncomfortable with how he romanticizes the "aggressively independent" quadrant as being the quadrant of startup founders, great innovators and Galileo (those with good ideas), even though that quadrant also clearly contains anti-vax leaders, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler (those with bad ideas). I'm sorry I had to go there, but it's true. People in both aggressive quadrants are extremely dangerous.
I'm also uncomfortable with his defence of free will because of how... conventional it is. It's nothing I haven't read a million times before. Like it or not, "free speech is good" is one of the most conventional statements one could make in current society, and it is consequently pushed by a lot of aggressively conventional people. Whether they are right or not is besides the point here. The point is that it is not, as portrayed, a fight between the independent-minded and the conventional-minded. It is perfectly reasonable for independent-minded people to question it, as they would question any other widespread norm, and a lot of its staunchest proponents are conventional-minded.
I'm also uncomfortable with his defence of free will because of how... conventional it is. It's nothing I haven't read a million times before. Like it or not, "free speech is good" is one of the most conventional statements one could make in current society, and it is consequently pushed by a lot of aggressively conventional people. Whether they are right or not is besides the point here. The point is that it is not, as portrayed, a fight between the independent-minded and the conventional-minded. It is perfectly reasonable for independent-minded people to question it, as they would question any other widespread norm, and a lot of its staunchest proponents are conventional-minded.
In my experience, Universities in the US aren't the place to place your bets on.
It's hard to explain in a short HN comment, so my apologies here if it's a bit gripe-y and disjointed.
I've just gotten the feeling that the Universities, very much including the STEM departments, are all about funding. Since the funding is largely controlled by other professors in the field (via Study Sessions), you have to get on the good side of many people. The after-talk drinking sessions at major conferences are a key way to do this.
If you're 'likable' and a 'big' name, then committees send funding your way. After all, at that level, every proposal is pretty much gold anyways. I remember a Nature editor telling a class once that they could shut down the submissions portal at about noon January 1st and see no drop in the quality of what they published for the year. Still, Nature and funding committees have to dole out things. So, when given the choices of people you know and people you don't, you tend to go with people you know (academic pedigree is also super important here).
So 'rocking the boat' is very much discouraged, your mortgage depends on you not doing that. Then the same issues that we see on Twitter occur as well. The louder voices tend to get more 'views', as long as the voice is stating the orthodox opinions. In STEM fields, it's less bad in terms of the research (facts very much matter), but the underlying culture is just the same as with all humans.
If you get into the replication crisis issues, then it's the funding crunch on steroids. Those fields tend to be all about 'name', as the facts have become so difficult to obtain that no one could 'fact check' even if they wanted to (nutrition, bio, psych, fMRI, etc). I'm still surprised that particle physics hasn't fallen down this hole and I think that their 'culture' is one to look into.
Again, apologies on the rant here. Still, heterodox opinions (not facts, to be clear) are not the place for Universities in the US anymore.
I'd look at where all the Burners went after about 2012 to find the better places to deal with the aggressively independent minded. Ephemerisle is a thought, but those guys are a bit wacko in terms of covid-19 safety, though that may just be a side effect. Maybe the Rainbow gatherings?
It's hard to explain in a short HN comment, so my apologies here if it's a bit gripe-y and disjointed.
I've just gotten the feeling that the Universities, very much including the STEM departments, are all about funding. Since the funding is largely controlled by other professors in the field (via Study Sessions), you have to get on the good side of many people. The after-talk drinking sessions at major conferences are a key way to do this.
If you're 'likable' and a 'big' name, then committees send funding your way. After all, at that level, every proposal is pretty much gold anyways. I remember a Nature editor telling a class once that they could shut down the submissions portal at about noon January 1st and see no drop in the quality of what they published for the year. Still, Nature and funding committees have to dole out things. So, when given the choices of people you know and people you don't, you tend to go with people you know (academic pedigree is also super important here).
So 'rocking the boat' is very much discouraged, your mortgage depends on you not doing that. Then the same issues that we see on Twitter occur as well. The louder voices tend to get more 'views', as long as the voice is stating the orthodox opinions. In STEM fields, it's less bad in terms of the research (facts very much matter), but the underlying culture is just the same as with all humans.
If you get into the replication crisis issues, then it's the funding crunch on steroids. Those fields tend to be all about 'name', as the facts have become so difficult to obtain that no one could 'fact check' even if they wanted to (nutrition, bio, psych, fMRI, etc). I'm still surprised that particle physics hasn't fallen down this hole and I think that their 'culture' is one to look into.
Again, apologies on the rant here. Still, heterodox opinions (not facts, to be clear) are not the place for Universities in the US anymore.
I'd look at where all the Burners went after about 2012 to find the better places to deal with the aggressively independent minded. Ephemerisle is a thought, but those guys are a bit wacko in terms of covid-19 safety, though that may just be a side effect. Maybe the Rainbow gatherings?
I read almost all of the essay assuming that the conventional-minded people meant the woke cultural Marxists. They are the conventional wisdom today. He should have used the word conservative:
[1] On (The Future Of) Conservatism
.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu5T3sWAg0w
Most young Western people seem to be conventional in the progressive tradition, because they were indoctrinated at school and university by ex-hippies from the 1960s, who couldn't actually do anything, so they all became teachers. Sixty years is more than enough to become the conventional wisdom.
Marx proposed a keen and mesmerizing analysis of Capitalism, a plausible (but wrong) diagnosis, then a completely ridiculous and laughably naive solution. Real class-based Marxism was proved wrong many times over, so the Frankfurt School and 1960s French philosophers decided to switch the dialectic, from class-based polarization, to group identity politics and the anti-scientific relativism of non-truths. Struggle by any other name would smell as sweet.
America is now in the middle of its Maoist Cultural Revolution. Let's see what happens. The world is watching. Does the Enlightenment survive? It's certainly up for grabs at this point.
The precedent is not good. China was utterly laid waste for decades by Mao. Tens of millions died, leaving a legacy of intellectual, historical and economic impoverishment.
It is hard to imagine anyone more evil than Mao, because his fear-mongering catastrophes and casual genocides were so routinely inflicted against his own people, his supportive party colleagues, his family, his (ex)wives, and even his children:
[2] Mao: The Unknown Story, Jung Chang & Jon Halliday.
[3] Nine Commentaries on the (Chinese) Communist Party
.... https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLED64004A96BE76FA
[4] Evolution Of Evil: Mao Zedong
.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxaWmqgmJxs
Let us see what happens in America ...
[1] On (The Future Of) Conservatism
.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu5T3sWAg0w
Most young Western people seem to be conventional in the progressive tradition, because they were indoctrinated at school and university by ex-hippies from the 1960s, who couldn't actually do anything, so they all became teachers. Sixty years is more than enough to become the conventional wisdom.
Marx proposed a keen and mesmerizing analysis of Capitalism, a plausible (but wrong) diagnosis, then a completely ridiculous and laughably naive solution. Real class-based Marxism was proved wrong many times over, so the Frankfurt School and 1960s French philosophers decided to switch the dialectic, from class-based polarization, to group identity politics and the anti-scientific relativism of non-truths. Struggle by any other name would smell as sweet.
America is now in the middle of its Maoist Cultural Revolution. Let's see what happens. The world is watching. Does the Enlightenment survive? It's certainly up for grabs at this point.
The precedent is not good. China was utterly laid waste for decades by Mao. Tens of millions died, leaving a legacy of intellectual, historical and economic impoverishment.
It is hard to imagine anyone more evil than Mao, because his fear-mongering catastrophes and casual genocides were so routinely inflicted against his own people, his supportive party colleagues, his family, his (ex)wives, and even his children:
[2] Mao: The Unknown Story, Jung Chang & Jon Halliday.
[3] Nine Commentaries on the (Chinese) Communist Party
.... https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLED64004A96BE76FA
[4] Evolution Of Evil: Mao Zedong
.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxaWmqgmJxs
Let us see what happens in America ...
In which pg spills a few hundred words humblebragging about his maverick status.
I think the thing to measure is defiance rather than conformity, by the way. Much more interesting.
I think the thing to measure is defiance rather than conformity, by the way. Much more interesting.
>I'm biased, I admit, but it seems to me that aggressively conventional-minded people are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the trouble in the world
I agree with this statement. But I would also agree with the opposite: Aggressively independent-minded are also responsible for a disproportionate amount of the trouble in the world.
Maybe, they are even more disproportionaterly responsible since they are a really small group?
My 5 cents.
I agree with this statement. But I would also agree with the opposite: Aggressively independent-minded are also responsible for a disproportionate amount of the trouble in the world.
Maybe, they are even more disproportionaterly responsible since they are a really small group?
My 5 cents.
> And the call of the aggressively independent-minded is "Eppur si muove."
I wonder if PG picked that specific phrase ("And yet it moves") because of the recent brouhaha over IQ and genetics….
I wonder if PG picked that specific phrase ("And yet it moves") because of the recent brouhaha over IQ and genetics….
This is so meandering and incoherent that it's hard to comment on, but the idea that silicon valley and finance types are "independent-minded" is downright laughable. It's pretty clear that those types are in lock-step with each other ideologically, maybe broadly split between east-coast and west-coast aesthetically.
This categorization is such nonsense. People in the hard sciences don't neatly fall into a type, and in fact is almost the opposite. In physics and math (maybe especially in math and physics), people are split right down the middle between conventional and independent. pg just doesn't seem to understand the internal politics of the sciences.
This categorization is such nonsense. People in the hard sciences don't neatly fall into a type, and in fact is almost the opposite. In physics and math (maybe especially in math and physics), people are split right down the middle between conventional and independent. pg just doesn't seem to understand the internal politics of the sciences.
Excessive dimension reduction is a scourge in social science, and in societal commentary by just about everyone. So, yes - I agree with your point entirely, and I think it can be made much more concrete honestly by adding another dimension:
The why of independence
Notably, that is the harder one to create a surface level observation of. But take his favored quadrant:
"And the kids in the upper right quadrant, the aggressively independent-minded, are the naughty ones. When they see a rule, their first impulse is to question it. Merely being told what to do makes them inclined to do the opposite."
Is it merely being told what to do causes them to question something? So its the rule demands questioning of it? or is what he is really looking for that they question the reasoning and demand valid reasoning? One is just contrarian, one is self aware. Some people start with contrarianism as a poorly articulated path to demanding valid reasoning...At times Elon Musk sounds like a contrarian, at times he sounds like a reasoned risk taker, I'm not investing in that.
In the end, Paul sounds a bit like he's trying to take a roundabout way to make fun of the high school jocks...
The why of independence
Notably, that is the harder one to create a surface level observation of. But take his favored quadrant:
"And the kids in the upper right quadrant, the aggressively independent-minded, are the naughty ones. When they see a rule, their first impulse is to question it. Merely being told what to do makes them inclined to do the opposite."
Is it merely being told what to do causes them to question something? So its the rule demands questioning of it? or is what he is really looking for that they question the reasoning and demand valid reasoning? One is just contrarian, one is self aware. Some people start with contrarianism as a poorly articulated path to demanding valid reasoning...At times Elon Musk sounds like a contrarian, at times he sounds like a reasoned risk taker, I'm not investing in that.
In the end, Paul sounds a bit like he's trying to take a roundabout way to make fun of the high school jocks...
> I think that you'll find all four types in most societies, and that which quadrant people fall into depends more on their own personality than the beliefs prevalent in their society.
Personality is a real topic of psychology research, the current model is a five-factor model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
But the distributions are not bi-modal, so in reality most people are near the center of this quadrant with (I assume normally distributed) outliers.
Personality is a real topic of psychology research, the current model is a five-factor model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
But the distributions are not bi-modal, so in reality most people are near the center of this quadrant with (I assume normally distributed) outliers.
Do the naughty ones question rules, or do they just break them?
[deleted]
Right - and there’s the tacit assumption flowing throughout is that the ‘independent thinkers’ have only good things to say, and that societal norms have not evolved for any good reason.
The state, particularly the welfare state, is partly a recognition that together we can achieve a level of protection for each other that we cannot achieve independently.
And if the independent thinkers don’t much feel like writing open source software, writing political treatises or contributing to Wikipedia articles and instead feel like spreading anti-vaccine conspiracy theories online, then what?
Like most business quadrants of this type, it gets you to agree to its typology of the world and the rest flows naturally from there. But the typology usually can be called pretty easily into question.
The state, particularly the welfare state, is partly a recognition that together we can achieve a level of protection for each other that we cannot achieve independently.
And if the independent thinkers don’t much feel like writing open source software, writing political treatises or contributing to Wikipedia articles and instead feel like spreading anti-vaccine conspiracy theories online, then what?
Like most business quadrants of this type, it gets you to agree to its typology of the world and the rest flows naturally from there. But the typology usually can be called pretty easily into question.
"people agreed on things in the past that we don't agree with today" - arguably true, but historians get mad sometimes depending on the specifics, they might have a point
"therefore anything we agree on today is 100% arbitrary BS and only my own ideas matter" - ...what? Are you ok?
"therefore anything we agree on today is 100% arbitrary BS and only my own ideas matter" - ...what? Are you ok?
Regarding your first paragraph, consider these two claims:
1. Progress comes from people who are willing to ignore conventional wisdom and social norms.
2. The conventional wisdom is mostly wise, and social norms evolved in ways that are mostly good.
These claims don't conflict. It's entirely possible for independent thinkers to be mostly wrong, much wronger than the mainstream, and to be essential for progress. Most changes may not be improvements, but every improvement is still a change.
1. Progress comes from people who are willing to ignore conventional wisdom and social norms.
2. The conventional wisdom is mostly wise, and social norms evolved in ways that are mostly good.
These claims don't conflict. It's entirely possible for independent thinkers to be mostly wrong, much wronger than the mainstream, and to be essential for progress. Most changes may not be improvements, but every improvement is still a change.
> These claims don't conflict. It's entirely possible for independent thinkers to be mostly wrong, much wronger than the mainstream, and to be essential for progress. Most changes may not be improvements, but every improvement is still a change.
Which is precisely why this framework is too reductive to be of any real explanatory value.
At some point, someone has to make the decision about whether someone’s motivation for wanting to be ‘aggressively conventional’ (PG introduces a new term here - presumably ‘woke’ is too inflammatory) is well-founded, or if they’re holding back necessary progress. PG seems to fancy himself as that arbiter, but I’m not convinced the argument is being made in good faith.
Which is precisely why this framework is too reductive to be of any real explanatory value.
At some point, someone has to make the decision about whether someone’s motivation for wanting to be ‘aggressively conventional’ (PG introduces a new term here - presumably ‘woke’ is too inflammatory) is well-founded, or if they’re holding back necessary progress. PG seems to fancy himself as that arbiter, but I’m not convinced the argument is being made in good faith.
> ‘aggressively conventional’ (PG introduces a new term here - presumably ‘woke’ is too inflammatory)
"Woke" is too limited. It may be the current form of "aggressively conventional", but there were others before it, there will be others after it, and there are others than it right now.
Also, "woke" was once aggressively independent (probably before the term "woke" was used). Now it's aggressively conventional - though it may be a parody of what the independents meant.
"Woke" is too limited. It may be the current form of "aggressively conventional", but there were others before it, there will be others after it, and there are others than it right now.
Also, "woke" was once aggressively independent (probably before the term "woke" was used). Now it's aggressively conventional - though it may be a parody of what the independents meant.
> "Woke" is too limited. It may be the current form of "aggressively conventional", but there were others before it, there will be others after it, and there are others than it right now.
But then where you place ‘woke’ in PG’s quadrant in itself is open to debate. Are trans rights activists ‘aggressively conventional’ for supporting the right to self-identify (in the UK at least a broadly popular position), or are they bold and independent minded for taking on more contentious positions, such as using the bathrooms of their identified gender without having undergone reassignment or take place in the sports of their chosen gender?
And if you can say someone can be both ‘aggressively conventional’ and ‘bold and independent’ where does that leave the tidy classification of the quadrant?
But then where you place ‘woke’ in PG’s quadrant in itself is open to debate. Are trans rights activists ‘aggressively conventional’ for supporting the right to self-identify (in the UK at least a broadly popular position), or are they bold and independent minded for taking on more contentious positions, such as using the bathrooms of their identified gender without having undergone reassignment or take place in the sports of their chosen gender?
And if you can say someone can be both ‘aggressively conventional’ and ‘bold and independent’ where does that leave the tidy classification of the quadrant?
I didn't say that someone can be "aggressively conventional" and "bold and independent". I said that the same position can be both at different times and places.
You seem to be trying to make PG's scheme a classification of positions, and it's not. It's a classification of peoples' behavior. The result is that most of your criticism is directed at something that is not actually PG's position.
You seem to be trying to make PG's scheme a classification of positions, and it's not. It's a classification of peoples' behavior. The result is that most of your criticism is directed at something that is not actually PG's position.
I do not agree that the essay is incoherent, the general line of thought is very clear: Independently of left or right, conformists of the passive, aggressive, or passive aggressive variety can ruin societies and free thinking.
Conformists can also easily switch sides.
Indeed the insertion of Silicon Valley was a bit unnecessary. They are ruthless capitalists that currently pretend to be socialist for profit and hiring motives as well as suppressing weak software developers by confusing them with new ideologies every week.
Conformists can also easily switch sides.
Indeed the insertion of Silicon Valley was a bit unnecessary. They are ruthless capitalists that currently pretend to be socialist for profit and hiring motives as well as suppressing weak software developers by confusing them with new ideologies every week.
i.e., aggressive-conformists masquerading as aggressive independent thinkers
Paul Graham continues to re-invent what others have pointed out in more succinct and clever ways.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/28/clever-lazy/
You can almost guess what Paul is going to write about - just see what cliche is being discussed on Twitter and come up with the laziest thought that an average programmer will find 'insightful' - that's Paul Graham's next 'essay' :)
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/28/clever-lazy/
You can almost guess what Paul is going to write about - just see what cliche is being discussed on Twitter and come up with the laziest thought that an average programmer will find 'insightful' - that's Paul Graham's next 'essay' :)
People spend so much time on the "meta-conversation" about the ecosystem of ideas, and so little time talking about the actual ideas themselves.
What are these repressed debates people are so anxious about? Is it just race stuff?
What are these repressed debates people are so anxious about? Is it just race stuff?
[deleted]
>People spend so much time on the "meta-conversation"
I have wondered about that. What is your guess ? ( other than race)
I have wondered about that. What is your guess ? ( other than race)
As with all human attempts to categorize things, the 4 categories should actually be a spectrum, and the ends of the spectrum should be called into question based on PG's definition here. I mostly agree. I think I probably fall on the more "independent-minded" end of the spectrum (as we all like to think). But there is value in conformism and value in independence of thought. PG should realize the fact that he wrote this essay and is still alive is a good example of where things are today vs. in the era of feudalism or even the era of WW2 :)
I agree with his take on academia though. That whole institution is limping along.
I agree with his take on academia though. That whole institution is limping along.
[deleted]
> For similar reasons, all successful startup CEOs are not merely independent-minded, but aggressively so.
> So a pack of teenagers who all flout school rules in the same way are not independent-minded; rather the opposite
Which is it?
> So a pack of teenagers who all flout school rules in the same way are not independent-minded; rather the opposite
Which is it?
> For similar reasons, all successful startup CEOs are not merely independent-minded, but aggressively so.
Luckily there’s an easy way to verify this - how many of the current YC cohort are B2B SaaS startups?
Today’s collection of startup CEOs are the very opposite of aggressively independent minded - they’re people who 15 years ago would have done an MBA or gone into finance.
Luckily there’s an easy way to verify this - how many of the current YC cohort are B2B SaaS startups?
Today’s collection of startup CEOs are the very opposite of aggressively independent minded - they’re people who 15 years ago would have done an MBA or gone into finance.
Initially I wondered if pg was insinuating that startup hubs could replace universities as the new haven of independent thinking:
> "People who would have become professors 50 years ago have other options now. Now they can become quants or start startups."
> "If existing institutions are compromised, they'll create new ones."
However, after reading through the essay a second time, I'm more pessimistic about the positive conclusion of the essay. If startups succeed by "make stuff people want", and given there are "far more conventional-minded people than independent-minded ones", then perhaps independent-minded CEOs making tools for conventional-minded people is not a rare accident, but rather an inevitability.
> "People who would have become professors 50 years ago have other options now. Now they can become quants or start startups."
> "If existing institutions are compromised, they'll create new ones."
However, after reading through the essay a second time, I'm more pessimistic about the positive conclusion of the essay. If startups succeed by "make stuff people want", and given there are "far more conventional-minded people than independent-minded ones", then perhaps independent-minded CEOs making tools for conventional-minded people is not a rare accident, but rather an inevitability.
Imagine a world where people weren't divided into the "us-es" and the "them-s". Particularly by someone who is wealthy and powerful. And most particularly when the "them-s" are clearly intended to be untermensch.
For one thing, I don't know how many people Graham has interacted with over the years; probably a great deal more than I have given that I'm quite shy as well as a confirmed misanthrope. However, I do know a fair number of people and exactly none of them fit neatly into "aggressively/passively conventional/independent". (For one, I had an uncle that was a staunch Baptist and had been the sheriff of De Baca county, NM, who conspiratorially confided that he liked a glass of red wine of an evening.) Everyone is conventional about somethings and independent about others, and everyone is sometimes aggressive and sometimes passive about those things.
"[T]he aggressively conventional-minded ones, are the tattletales." Yes, of course they are. I note that "whistle-blower" is a synonym of "tattletale".
"[T]he passively conventional-minded, are the sheep." Yes, naturally, sheep. (https://xkcd.com/1013/) And is it just me or is really hard to tell the "passively conventional-minded" from the "passively independent-minded"?
"[T]he passively independent-minded, are the dreamy ones." Those kooky cloud-cuckoo-land dwellers. Just try not to be on the side of the road while they're driving, 'cause they're probably not paying attention.
"[T]he aggressively independent-minded, are the naughty ones." Yes, of course. "Eppur si muove." Or possibly "Give me all of the cash in the drawer or I'll shoot you in the face." (Remember, there are all kinds of rules.)
"And indeed, our default assumption should not merely be that his students would, on average, have behaved the same way people did at the time, but that the ones who are aggressively conventional-minded today would have been aggressively conventional-minded then too. In other words, that they'd not only not have fought against slavery, but that they'd have been among its staunchest defenders."
Indeed. Remember, "conventional" is bad, "independent" is good, and bad is conventional while good is independent. There were never, ever, any independent minded defenders of slavery. (Louis Agassiz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Agassiz) - well, technically he opposed slavery, because it led to mixing the races; Nikola Tesla (https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article/remembering-nikol...) - well, ok, a little late for slavery. Let's just say that you probably shouldn't investigate your heroes too thoroughly.) Anyway, I'm vaguely surprised Graham never worked "muggle" into this essay. Maybe he used another word. Normie? Mundane?
"For similar reasons, all successful startup CEOs are not merely independent-minded, but aggressively so." Yes. Travis Kalanick. Elizabeth Holmes. Adam Neumann. Doug Evans. Jeffrey Skilling. Martin Shkreli. Bernard L. Madoff. Arthur Sackler. All aggressively independent-minded, I assure you. But didn't Peter Thiel found Palantir?
So what are these "bad ideas" whose discussion he's worried about banning? The great heros of the Confederacy? President Trump's genius? The moral and physical weakness of women?
Now, I realize that disagreeing with The Paul Graham goes strongly against the conventional wisdom here on Hacker News. Naturally, one can only be a rebel if one wears the right uniform. Perhaps I'm not being independent-minded in the right way. But here's a prediction for you: "aggressively conventional-minded" is going to replace "virtue signaling" as the favorite dismissal of ideas that the independent-minded don't want to consider. And "independent-minded" will be the new "politically incorrect"; a way to blunt criticism of repugnant words and actions.
(Did he really say that professors of engineering were independent-minded? Does he know any? I mean, real engineers, not 27-year-old senior software engineers. I mean, that's way outside my experience.)
For one thing, I don't know how many people Graham has interacted with over the years; probably a great deal more than I have given that I'm quite shy as well as a confirmed misanthrope. However, I do know a fair number of people and exactly none of them fit neatly into "aggressively/passively conventional/independent". (For one, I had an uncle that was a staunch Baptist and had been the sheriff of De Baca county, NM, who conspiratorially confided that he liked a glass of red wine of an evening.) Everyone is conventional about somethings and independent about others, and everyone is sometimes aggressive and sometimes passive about those things.
"[T]he aggressively conventional-minded ones, are the tattletales." Yes, of course they are. I note that "whistle-blower" is a synonym of "tattletale".
"[T]he passively conventional-minded, are the sheep." Yes, naturally, sheep. (https://xkcd.com/1013/) And is it just me or is really hard to tell the "passively conventional-minded" from the "passively independent-minded"?
"[T]he passively independent-minded, are the dreamy ones." Those kooky cloud-cuckoo-land dwellers. Just try not to be on the side of the road while they're driving, 'cause they're probably not paying attention.
"[T]he aggressively independent-minded, are the naughty ones." Yes, of course. "Eppur si muove." Or possibly "Give me all of the cash in the drawer or I'll shoot you in the face." (Remember, there are all kinds of rules.)
"And indeed, our default assumption should not merely be that his students would, on average, have behaved the same way people did at the time, but that the ones who are aggressively conventional-minded today would have been aggressively conventional-minded then too. In other words, that they'd not only not have fought against slavery, but that they'd have been among its staunchest defenders."
Indeed. Remember, "conventional" is bad, "independent" is good, and bad is conventional while good is independent. There were never, ever, any independent minded defenders of slavery. (Louis Agassiz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Agassiz) - well, technically he opposed slavery, because it led to mixing the races; Nikola Tesla (https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article/remembering-nikol...) - well, ok, a little late for slavery. Let's just say that you probably shouldn't investigate your heroes too thoroughly.) Anyway, I'm vaguely surprised Graham never worked "muggle" into this essay. Maybe he used another word. Normie? Mundane?
"For similar reasons, all successful startup CEOs are not merely independent-minded, but aggressively so." Yes. Travis Kalanick. Elizabeth Holmes. Adam Neumann. Doug Evans. Jeffrey Skilling. Martin Shkreli. Bernard L. Madoff. Arthur Sackler. All aggressively independent-minded, I assure you. But didn't Peter Thiel found Palantir?
So what are these "bad ideas" whose discussion he's worried about banning? The great heros of the Confederacy? President Trump's genius? The moral and physical weakness of women?
Now, I realize that disagreeing with The Paul Graham goes strongly against the conventional wisdom here on Hacker News. Naturally, one can only be a rebel if one wears the right uniform. Perhaps I'm not being independent-minded in the right way. But here's a prediction for you: "aggressively conventional-minded" is going to replace "virtue signaling" as the favorite dismissal of ideas that the independent-minded don't want to consider. And "independent-minded" will be the new "politically incorrect"; a way to blunt criticism of repugnant words and actions.
(Did he really say that professors of engineering were independent-minded? Does he know any? I mean, real engineers, not 27-year-old senior software engineers. I mean, that's way outside my experience.)
You refuse to conform to conventions because you're independent-minded. As a business owner, to what extent would you allow your workers to be nonconformist?
By the way, I belong to the right upper quadrant, and I cannot answer my own question without being hypocritical.
By the way, I belong to the right upper quadrant, and I cannot answer my own question without being hypocritical.
We'd all like to think we belong to Paul's upper right quadrant (which, mind you, isn't even very well defined) but in truth you, me, and even Paul himself are more conformist than we think and recognising that is an important step in being intelligent and not shielding yourself from criticism.
For example, I don't think wanting to go and pursue a business idea is independent minded. The overwhelming majority of people would like to do this, even your employees. Actually putting in the effort isn't very independent minded either since it's mostly a matter of how much capital, free time, and social safety nets you have, not how much of a free radical you are.
For example, I don't think wanting to go and pursue a business idea is independent minded. The overwhelming majority of people would like to do this, even your employees. Actually putting in the effort isn't very independent minded either since it's mostly a matter of how much capital, free time, and social safety nets you have, not how much of a free radical you are.
> The first is that any process for deciding which ideas to ban is bound to make mistakes. All the more so because no one intelligent wants to undertake that kind of work, so it ends up being done by the stupid.
Especially the people who enforce the laws. Law enforcement police officers have to follow orders without question. People who don't question things are inherently stupid.
Especially the people who enforce the laws. Law enforcement police officers have to follow orders without question. People who don't question things are inherently stupid.
This is a good essay, but I don't think he gets it quite right. I agree with the horizontal axis: conventional vs. independent but I don't think the view he presents of aggressiveness is quite accurate.
I do think that a major axis for classifying humans is the extent to which they desire to impose their views on others through coercion. This seems to be partly what Graham is trying to capture but his description doesn't seem to quite fit. In particular I have a hard time thinking of anyone who wants to impose their own independent-mindedness on others through coercion. Typically they just want the conventional minded to leave them alone so they can work on their independent ideas and hopefully prove them right. Of course they may want to convince a few people, such as investors, of the value of their ideas before they have been proven, but that isn't the same kind of coercion that the aggressively conventional-minded employ to silence dissent.
I do think that a major axis for classifying humans is the extent to which they desire to impose their views on others through coercion. This seems to be partly what Graham is trying to capture but his description doesn't seem to quite fit. In particular I have a hard time thinking of anyone who wants to impose their own independent-mindedness on others through coercion. Typically they just want the conventional minded to leave them alone so they can work on their independent ideas and hopefully prove them right. Of course they may want to convince a few people, such as investors, of the value of their ideas before they have been proven, but that isn't the same kind of coercion that the aggressively conventional-minded employ to silence dissent.
[edit]
I had a lengthy more thoughtful post here but it seems I had mistaken a pronouncement for a discussion. The near instant voting response made me realize that absurdity, especially in light of the fact that I am responding to the second of two posts by the site's governance where college professors are singled out as a threat to freedom even as unmarked vans and secretive police round up the "dreaded" diversity proponents in Portland and other cities.
So I shall leave it to persons devoted to maximizing short term profits from new products and the "freethinking" commentary from persons seeking funding from same, to bloviate on how to "protect" society from intellectuals and liberalism.
I had a lengthy more thoughtful post here but it seems I had mistaken a pronouncement for a discussion. The near instant voting response made me realize that absurdity, especially in light of the fact that I am responding to the second of two posts by the site's governance where college professors are singled out as a threat to freedom even as unmarked vans and secretive police round up the "dreaded" diversity proponents in Portland and other cities.
So I shall leave it to persons devoted to maximizing short term profits from new products and the "freethinking" commentary from persons seeking funding from same, to bloviate on how to "protect" society from intellectuals and liberalism.
You could probably measure the extent to which HN users are aggressively-conventional minded by how often they downvote comments without replying to them.
I think the idea that people are the same no matter what the rules are just isn't true. It stated as though it is obvious and I need evidence that that is the case. The rest of the argument falls apart based on that point.
There's a subtype he doesn't mention but I think deserves notice and is especially pertinent to today's environment. That is, the conventionally-minded who is convinced they are die-hard independently-minded.
People like this come across by chance doctrine which appeal to a special part of themself, be it religious, political, or social doctrine. They hardily embrace the newfound doctrine and denounce others as having fundamentally the wrong framework of thinking. They come across like-minded people and make blanket statements against their detractors and constantly reformulate the perception of their ideology to be in the right.
In one sense, they believe themselves to be highly individualistic because they go against what they perceive to be the overall grain of society. This lends them conviction.
But in reality, their beliefs are not actually contrarian or minority beliefs, and these people would never had nurtured these beliefs or had the courage to actually publicly express them without the implicit support of some large chunk of society.
I believe this to be the reality today. So many people are deluded in thinking they are the small, under-represented, minority, oppressed group when they actually function as the oppressors to people who are sincerely independently-minded.
And when one who is independently-minded sees another who is deluded they are independently-minded, but in reality is aggressively-conventional, we cannot help but notice the hypocrisy.
People like this come across by chance doctrine which appeal to a special part of themself, be it religious, political, or social doctrine. They hardily embrace the newfound doctrine and denounce others as having fundamentally the wrong framework of thinking. They come across like-minded people and make blanket statements against their detractors and constantly reformulate the perception of their ideology to be in the right.
In one sense, they believe themselves to be highly individualistic because they go against what they perceive to be the overall grain of society. This lends them conviction.
But in reality, their beliefs are not actually contrarian or minority beliefs, and these people would never had nurtured these beliefs or had the courage to actually publicly express them without the implicit support of some large chunk of society.
I believe this to be the reality today. So many people are deluded in thinking they are the small, under-represented, minority, oppressed group when they actually function as the oppressors to people who are sincerely independently-minded.
And when one who is independently-minded sees another who is deluded they are independently-minded, but in reality is aggressively-conventional, we cannot help but notice the hypocrisy.
I think the example of the students of the Princeton professor is very similar to this subtype:
> I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition. Guess what? They all would have been abolitionists! They all would have bravely spoken out against slavery, and worked tirelessly against it.
Most people, myself included, like to believe that they are independently-minded. Given that most people aren't independently-minded, most people are wrong.
> I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition. Guess what? They all would have been abolitionists! They all would have bravely spoken out against slavery, and worked tirelessly against it.
Most people, myself included, like to believe that they are independently-minded. Given that most people aren't independently-minded, most people are wrong.
[deleted]
I don't share many of the views in Paul's essay, but there was one point he made with which I emphatically agree: like Paul, I too believe anyone who disagrees with me is just too small-minded to understand my argument.
They may just have a different system of axiomatic beliefs and are stuck in their own inconsistent state (per godels incompleteness theorem). I actually think most 'disagreements' fall into this fundamental 'human condition' so to speak.
Invoking Godel to assert that people have inconsistencies in their personal beliefs is like using a DNA test to determine whether an animal is an elephant or not - technically correct, but absurd overkill for the task at hand.
> There is a subtype that is especially pertinent... the conventionally-minded who is convinced they are die-hard independently-minded.
> I believe this to be the reality today. So many people are deluded in thinking they are the small, under-represented, minority, oppressed group when they actually function as the oppressors to people who are sincerely independently-minded.
This right here is the fundamental undercurrent of what's happening is society.
One of the topics that PG mentions is heresy. The topic of discussing things that a group feels shouldn't be discussed. I wish he went into more detail about it, because if you do it flushes out some interesting ideas.
Heresy exists in two important directions. Heresy against people in power, and heresy against people without power. Upwards heresy, and downwards heresy.
Upwards heresy usually is quashed, ignored or mocked. People without power performing heresy are "dealt with" by those with power. Either they are made to pay an immediate cost, or their view/opinion is not allowed to make it into the collective mainstream conversation. It gets labeled as wrong, inappropriate or simply dismissed. Most of the time you don't even hear about it because those without power have little recourse to elevate the visibility of the retaliatory actions. People with power define what heresy is - and it's defined to be the things they object to.
Downward heresy (people in power performing it) is usually entirely invisible. The people without power who are the "targets" of it have no relative power to respond to it. They don't have enough sway in the system to object to it, to call it out. If they did, they would face large repercussions by those in power that committed it. Because people with power usually can dictate what is acceptable discourse, downward heresy is usually deemed acceptable. As well, they use the term heresy to effect more power. To limit what groups can and can't do. Imagine the church using the term heresy to limit what followers can do to avoid competition religions, or to justify wars by accusing other groups of heresy.
Where things become interesting is where people without relative power gain a bit to the point they are able to call a subset of things committed by those in power as heresy. They can call out downard heresy. Here is where things blow up. The group accustomed to defining what is acceptable and not, no longer fully controls that, but they still have enough power, or influence to raise a storm when it happens. They will immediately turn to using any any all methods they have to shout how unfair it is that they can't think these thoughts, or utter these phrases. While they make thing this, of course this isn't truly the case. They enforce heresy rules all the time, but noone questions it when they do it - it just accepted as a normal part of society. The problem is that a group they deem without power, or with lesser power is holding influence over them. And that is what they can't stand. This is the group in power claiming to be oppressed. This is the majority claiming to not be. This is what causes friction in society, as it is a group with power revolting at the idea that a group with less power can affect them.
A Christian in the US is not under-represented (compared to non-Christians). And yet I hear so much of this claim recently. A man in this country, is not oppressed (in comparison to women). A heterosexual isn't oppressed. I'm a member of multiple groups above, and yet know this to be true.
Those groups (and others) can still face extreme difficulties. And live lives waaaay worse than members of other groups - but the idea that they are a under-represented oppressed group is flat out wrong.
The friction you hear is that these are groups with power, don't really don't like the fact that members of other groups in these same dimensions have some amount of power to now call out things that aren't ok. In general these dominant power groups have never had anyone other group have any influence over what they can and can't do, while they have help enormous amounts of power over what the other groups in these dimensions are able to do and the consequences they are subject to. As the saying goes, if you're always used to being over someone, being equal feels unfair.
The most notable part, is that the only type of heresy that PG writes about is the third of these. The least interesting of them all.
> I believe this to be the reality today. So many people are deluded in thinking they are the small, under-represented, minority, oppressed group when they actually function as the oppressors to people who are sincerely independently-minded.
This right here is the fundamental undercurrent of what's happening is society.
One of the topics that PG mentions is heresy. The topic of discussing things that a group feels shouldn't be discussed. I wish he went into more detail about it, because if you do it flushes out some interesting ideas.
Heresy exists in two important directions. Heresy against people in power, and heresy against people without power. Upwards heresy, and downwards heresy.
Upwards heresy usually is quashed, ignored or mocked. People without power performing heresy are "dealt with" by those with power. Either they are made to pay an immediate cost, or their view/opinion is not allowed to make it into the collective mainstream conversation. It gets labeled as wrong, inappropriate or simply dismissed. Most of the time you don't even hear about it because those without power have little recourse to elevate the visibility of the retaliatory actions. People with power define what heresy is - and it's defined to be the things they object to.
Downward heresy (people in power performing it) is usually entirely invisible. The people without power who are the "targets" of it have no relative power to respond to it. They don't have enough sway in the system to object to it, to call it out. If they did, they would face large repercussions by those in power that committed it. Because people with power usually can dictate what is acceptable discourse, downward heresy is usually deemed acceptable. As well, they use the term heresy to effect more power. To limit what groups can and can't do. Imagine the church using the term heresy to limit what followers can do to avoid competition religions, or to justify wars by accusing other groups of heresy.
Where things become interesting is where people without relative power gain a bit to the point they are able to call a subset of things committed by those in power as heresy. They can call out downard heresy. Here is where things blow up. The group accustomed to defining what is acceptable and not, no longer fully controls that, but they still have enough power, or influence to raise a storm when it happens. They will immediately turn to using any any all methods they have to shout how unfair it is that they can't think these thoughts, or utter these phrases. While they make thing this, of course this isn't truly the case. They enforce heresy rules all the time, but noone questions it when they do it - it just accepted as a normal part of society. The problem is that a group they deem without power, or with lesser power is holding influence over them. And that is what they can't stand. This is the group in power claiming to be oppressed. This is the majority claiming to not be. This is what causes friction in society, as it is a group with power revolting at the idea that a group with less power can affect them.
A Christian in the US is not under-represented (compared to non-Christians). And yet I hear so much of this claim recently. A man in this country, is not oppressed (in comparison to women). A heterosexual isn't oppressed. I'm a member of multiple groups above, and yet know this to be true.
Those groups (and others) can still face extreme difficulties. And live lives waaaay worse than members of other groups - but the idea that they are a under-represented oppressed group is flat out wrong.
The friction you hear is that these are groups with power, don't really don't like the fact that members of other groups in these same dimensions have some amount of power to now call out things that aren't ok. In general these dominant power groups have never had anyone other group have any influence over what they can and can't do, while they have help enormous amounts of power over what the other groups in these dimensions are able to do and the consequences they are subject to. As the saying goes, if you're always used to being over someone, being equal feels unfair.
The most notable part, is that the only type of heresy that PG writes about is the third of these. The least interesting of them all.
Yeah, the idea that the American past was some better home to more open public discourse is obviously false on the face of it. The voices of minority groups are barely present in the history books, because they were barely present in the public discussion of the time.
Look at the national anthem (adopted by the government in 1931) or pledge of allegiance (adopted by the government in 1942). The people who get offended by others not standing during them would hardly identify their own reaction as "political correctness," and yet... is it a good thing that the government adopted a "pledge" or proscribes expected behavior during a song?
That's the "free speech" past we think we want to go back to?
We forget about the right-in-your-face "political correctness" and "rightthink" demonstrations of the past, since we didn't live through them, and just accept them as-is.
Look at the national anthem (adopted by the government in 1931) or pledge of allegiance (adopted by the government in 1942). The people who get offended by others not standing during them would hardly identify their own reaction as "political correctness," and yet... is it a good thing that the government adopted a "pledge" or proscribes expected behavior during a song?
That's the "free speech" past we think we want to go back to?
We forget about the right-in-your-face "political correctness" and "rightthink" demonstrations of the past, since we didn't live through them, and just accept them as-is.
The free speech past in US is far more recent than either of those examples. Even when it comes to legal matters, I would point at Brandenburg v. Ohio as the starting point.
> That is, the conventionally-minded who is convinced they are die-hard independently-minded.
I do not see as sub-type. Aggressively-conventionally minded most assuredly think of them as independent minded.
Other than that I agree with you. These type of people make statement equivalent of 'Earth revolve around the sun' in 21st century. And then their circle-jerk jumps in, claiming what a 'brave' and 'stunning' position they have taken.
I do not see as sub-type. Aggressively-conventionally minded most assuredly think of them as independent minded.
Other than that I agree with you. These type of people make statement equivalent of 'Earth revolve around the sun' in 21st century. And then their circle-jerk jumps in, claiming what a 'brave' and 'stunning' position they have taken.
Can you provide an example?
Yes. Both staunch Republicans and Democrats portray themselves as always being on the back foot, being attacked, and on the verge of losing control from the other party due to some contentious and highly important issue. Each side portrays themself as their views originating from reason (independence of thinking) and the other side as excreted out of ideology (convention).
I've seen some people on the left, at least, who are pretty explicit about their denunciation of reason. These types will say things like:
* "rational argument doesn't change minds, only mockery does" (one wonders how they think that they came to believe what they believe!)
* "don't argue with racists"
* "the Democrat Party is too nice and reasonable. We need to fight dirty like the Republicans. Our focus on truth hasn't gotten us anywhere."
* "rational argument doesn't change minds, only mockery does" (one wonders how they think that they came to believe what they believe!)
* "don't argue with racists"
* "the Democrat Party is too nice and reasonable. We need to fight dirty like the Republicans. Our focus on truth hasn't gotten us anywhere."
I've heard this sentiment expressed. The limits of rationality, reason, and scientific process is a whole topic worth exploring even if just for the philosophic value, but right now, discourse, within the framework of rationality and reason is the best tool society has to solve its problems. There's nothing else. Violence clearly isn't the tool. Nor is emotional reflex. Nor is anecdotal thinking. Nothing else scales and has the capability to tackle the sophistication of society-wide problems.
[deleted]
I think your argument makes sense. It fits well with my experiences with "MAGAers" and "SJWs". I also think this style of politics is here to stay, as it is the dominate strategy. America has a fracturing hegemony: there is no longer a single universally shared set of basic beliefs. Because we no longer share the same basic beliefs, disagreements are now less likely to be due to logical validity and more likely due to unshared premises. This means the way of politics I think we'd all prefer, of arguing logically from shared core beliefs, will be less useful, making the alternative, arguing emotionally about premises, more effective. I think people "come[ing] across by chance doctrine which appeal to a special part of themself, be it religious, political, or social doctrine" is this effect in action.
Though, some criticisms of what you said:
1. It can depend on surroundings. A leftoid will rightly feel like an independent mind in a conservative area and a rightoid will rightly feel like an independent mind in a liberal area.
2. Your logic can misidentify skeptics as traditionalists. It is easy to misconstrue a progressively minded skeptic as a conservative because they criticize most currently popular progressive issues.
On a personal note: as a progressively minded skeptic, in my experiences with society, coworkers, friends, significant others, and family, I feel I have increasingly been lumped in as a "deplorable conservative." I have felt this cultural shift coming for many years now, when "SJWs" (I know this hits a sour note with many liberals, but I don't know how else to succinctly categorize these people) first started cropping up in the spaces I frequented:
0. The removal of Christmas celebration from my elementary school
1. Atheism+
2. My school's official hackathon group (was taken over by left leaning people who said you cannot form teams based on peoples' programming ability)
3. My school's official programming FB group banning "spicy" posts (an example being one where people were arguing failing fizzbuzz is an acceptable way to decide someone is not a programmer)
4. My school via the coed programming fraternity- it was a place full of people involved in 2 and 3
5. The wider programming community (donglegate, stallman's cancellation, linus and sarah sharp controversy, github and meritocracy, redis CoC controversy, etc)
6. Gamergate (specifically attempts to politically pressure games to alter their stories and design to suit audiences that aren't the typical customer).
7. Politics that are safely expressable at work without having a meet 'n greet with HR. Very, very far left ideas are routinely plastered at work, and political "courageous conversations" meetings expect exclusively uncourageous mainstream ideas.
8. Politics that are safely expressable with acquaintances, friends, and family without risk of being excommunicated.
9. For brevity, I exclude many others.
Thankfully, the latest batch of ideas (abolish police, abolish suburbs, abolish capital gains) have such a large impact that it has finally given me a hill worth dying on, and I feel free to non-anonymously express, with all the snark of a twitter checkmark, that these ideas blow ass. If that skepticism makes me an oppressor, then I embrace being one. I suppose I do deserve some credit for not being silent, since that would be violence.
Though, some criticisms of what you said:
1. It can depend on surroundings. A leftoid will rightly feel like an independent mind in a conservative area and a rightoid will rightly feel like an independent mind in a liberal area.
2. Your logic can misidentify skeptics as traditionalists. It is easy to misconstrue a progressively minded skeptic as a conservative because they criticize most currently popular progressive issues.
On a personal note: as a progressively minded skeptic, in my experiences with society, coworkers, friends, significant others, and family, I feel I have increasingly been lumped in as a "deplorable conservative." I have felt this cultural shift coming for many years now, when "SJWs" (I know this hits a sour note with many liberals, but I don't know how else to succinctly categorize these people) first started cropping up in the spaces I frequented:
0. The removal of Christmas celebration from my elementary school
1. Atheism+
2. My school's official hackathon group (was taken over by left leaning people who said you cannot form teams based on peoples' programming ability)
3. My school's official programming FB group banning "spicy" posts (an example being one where people were arguing failing fizzbuzz is an acceptable way to decide someone is not a programmer)
4. My school via the coed programming fraternity- it was a place full of people involved in 2 and 3
5. The wider programming community (donglegate, stallman's cancellation, linus and sarah sharp controversy, github and meritocracy, redis CoC controversy, etc)
6. Gamergate (specifically attempts to politically pressure games to alter their stories and design to suit audiences that aren't the typical customer).
7. Politics that are safely expressable at work without having a meet 'n greet with HR. Very, very far left ideas are routinely plastered at work, and political "courageous conversations" meetings expect exclusively uncourageous mainstream ideas.
8. Politics that are safely expressable with acquaintances, friends, and family without risk of being excommunicated.
9. For brevity, I exclude many others.
Thankfully, the latest batch of ideas (abolish police, abolish suburbs, abolish capital gains) have such a large impact that it has finally given me a hill worth dying on, and I feel free to non-anonymously express, with all the snark of a twitter checkmark, that these ideas blow ass. If that skepticism makes me an oppressor, then I embrace being one. I suppose I do deserve some credit for not being silent, since that would be violence.
At some point ideology meets reality and that's when things begin to crumble.
If we construct society and organizations as if merit is not a highly important parameter in achievement, wealth, and success - and instead rely on cosmetics, as if this were inconsequential, then we'll see erosion in all factors which deem a nation or organization successful.
If we construct society and organizations as if merit is not a highly important parameter in achievement, wealth, and success - and instead rely on cosmetics, as if this were inconsequential, then we'll see erosion in all factors which deem a nation or organization successful.
Totally agree. It's unfortunate though that evaluating merit is so dependent on culture. To me, proving what is and isn't merited feels very similar to proving which programming language should be selected for a project. Except for some very rare scenarios you will find yourself dealing with soft reasoning, and the arguments you construct will depend on the audience you are trying to convince. Perhaps this is a problem of my own, but along this vein I find myself producing different proposal documents depending on whether I will be presenting to a developer, manager, or 3rd party team.
My belief in there being some major cultural influence on people's reasoning of the connection of their ideology to reality is what gives me some sympathy and belief in arguments from people I almost always disagree with, namely proponents of fixes to systemic * ism. I typically disagree with them on the definition of systemic * ism and the correct fix to the systemic * ism. I believe (with some evidence) the inputs to the system produce the disparity to a much larger extent than the individual components of the system being * ist and as such I believe we should work to correct the inputs rather than altering the components. And when people do propose changing components of the system, I find it does often come at the cost of beneficial things like merit. I think that the people proposing these ideas don't necessarily dislike the ideas the system is based on, but rather than have a dislike of some transitively caused property of the system, propose the most obvious fix to it, and then fail to consider further than first order effects of their change (ex: removing merit resulting in lower quality output). And this is why I consider myself a skeptical progressive: I think the cause of fixing systemic * ism is good, but I think the currently proposed solutions are damaging.
I think people who believe everyone who disagrees with them are deplorable would be surprised at the results of sitting down and talking with them. Perhaps the internet is just a bad medium for this.
My belief in there being some major cultural influence on people's reasoning of the connection of their ideology to reality is what gives me some sympathy and belief in arguments from people I almost always disagree with, namely proponents of fixes to systemic * ism. I typically disagree with them on the definition of systemic * ism and the correct fix to the systemic * ism. I believe (with some evidence) the inputs to the system produce the disparity to a much larger extent than the individual components of the system being * ist and as such I believe we should work to correct the inputs rather than altering the components. And when people do propose changing components of the system, I find it does often come at the cost of beneficial things like merit. I think that the people proposing these ideas don't necessarily dislike the ideas the system is based on, but rather than have a dislike of some transitively caused property of the system, propose the most obvious fix to it, and then fail to consider further than first order effects of their change (ex: removing merit resulting in lower quality output). And this is why I consider myself a skeptical progressive: I think the cause of fixing systemic * ism is good, but I think the currently proposed solutions are damaging.
I think people who believe everyone who disagrees with them are deplorable would be surprised at the results of sitting down and talking with them. Perhaps the internet is just a bad medium for this.
> Thankfully, the latest batch of ideas (abolish police, abolish suburbs, abolish capital gains) have such a large impact that it has finally given me a hill worth dying on
Who's seriously calling to "abolish suburbs"? It's easy to stand up against ideas no one is advocating for - that's called a straw man.
Who's seriously calling to "abolish suburbs"? It's easy to stand up against ideas no one is advocating for - that's called a straw man.
YIMBYs I guess. People who want to be able to live near work without paying millions for the privelege, people who want to be able to use public transit, people who don't like subsidizing others' desire to drive and park everywhere, people who think coffee shops should be allowed to be built within walking distance of their homes.
This is called “ending subsidies for suburbs” or “ensuring affordable access to housing” or “promoting livable neighborhoods” or even “removing onerous regulations preventing development in our nations most productive urban areas”. That’s very different than “abolish the suburbs”, which makes it sound like you’re going to ban single family homes.
It doesn't ban single family homes, but it would ban communities composed exclusively of single family homes. Whether it is called "abolish suburbs" or "promoting livable neighborhoods," once the veil is pierced, it will be interpreted the same. You are right though that "abolish the suburbs" is more rhetorical than fact.
I mean, no one is advocating eliminating single family zoning nationally either. Your characterization of Biden’s plan is totally wrong.
Why is it wrong? I am reading from his own platform.
Biden's plan specifically calls for ending state and local policies that allow "exclusionary zoning" and cites the "Home Act." Looking into the Home Act, "exclusionary zoning" refers to "single-family zoning" as "exclusionary zoning."
1. Biden plan citing Home Act: https://joebiden.com/housing/
2. The home act impact on single family "exclusionary zoning": https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/c...
Biden's plan specifically calls for ending state and local policies that allow "exclusionary zoning" and cites the "Home Act." Looking into the Home Act, "exclusionary zoning" refers to "single-family zoning" as "exclusionary zoning."
1. Biden plan citing Home Act: https://joebiden.com/housing/
2. The home act impact on single family "exclusionary zoning": https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/c...
That's not what it says. Here's the actual text:
> As President, Biden will enact legislation requiring any state receiving federal dollars through the Community Development Block Grants or Surface Transportation Block Grants to develop a strategy for inclusionary zoning, as proposed in the HOME Act of 2019 by Majority Whip Clyburn and Senator Cory Booker. Biden will also invest $300 million in Local Housing Policy Grants to give states and localities the technical assistance and planning support they need to eliminate exclusionary zoning policies and other local regulations that contribute to sprawl.
Neither of those eliminate single family zoning for locations that want to keep them.
Here's the actual text of the HOMES act: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4808...
It requires communities that receive certain subsidies (community development block grants and surface transportation block grants) to make a plan to address inclusionary zoning. That's also not ending single family zoning; if you want to keep your existing zoning you can, you just can't get subsidized by the federal government to do it.
Also it doesn't even come close to "abolish suburbs". Curious if you still think that was an accurate characterization?
> As President, Biden will enact legislation requiring any state receiving federal dollars through the Community Development Block Grants or Surface Transportation Block Grants to develop a strategy for inclusionary zoning, as proposed in the HOME Act of 2019 by Majority Whip Clyburn and Senator Cory Booker. Biden will also invest $300 million in Local Housing Policy Grants to give states and localities the technical assistance and planning support they need to eliminate exclusionary zoning policies and other local regulations that contribute to sprawl.
Neither of those eliminate single family zoning for locations that want to keep them.
Here's the actual text of the HOMES act: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4808...
It requires communities that receive certain subsidies (community development block grants and surface transportation block grants) to make a plan to address inclusionary zoning. That's also not ending single family zoning; if you want to keep your existing zoning you can, you just can't get subsidized by the federal government to do it.
Also it doesn't even come close to "abolish suburbs". Curious if you still think that was an accurate characterization?
I'll stand by it, but I admit my argument is weaker than needed to match the rhetoric.
I don't think the proposal directly bans suburbs, but I think it may transitively. I wouldn't expect there to be a single state that doesn't receive federal dollars for community development. And if the state receives any dollars at all, per this proposal they are required to move towards bans on "exclusionary zoning" aka "single family zoning." So if a state wants to ensure federal funds for communities and allow for single family zoned suburbs, there seems to be a conflict. Because I believe every state would be interested in doing both (subsidizing poorer communities and permitting suburban communities), it worries me greatly that this bill will effectively ban suburbs.
I would absolutely remove my characterization of this bill as abolishing suburbs if the bill only applied to states that use federal funds to subsidize the creation of suburbs. I would still have a problem with it, but it would be very minor.
I don't think the proposal directly bans suburbs, but I think it may transitively. I wouldn't expect there to be a single state that doesn't receive federal dollars for community development. And if the state receives any dollars at all, per this proposal they are required to move towards bans on "exclusionary zoning" aka "single family zoning." So if a state wants to ensure federal funds for communities and allow for single family zoned suburbs, there seems to be a conflict. Because I believe every state would be interested in doing both (subsidizing poorer communities and permitting suburban communities), it worries me greatly that this bill will effectively ban suburbs.
I would absolutely remove my characterization of this bill as abolishing suburbs if the bill only applied to states that use federal funds to subsidize the creation of suburbs. I would still have a problem with it, but it would be very minor.
> And if the state receives any dollars at all, per this proposal they are required to move towards bans on "exclusionary zoning"
No, they aren't required to “move toward bans” on anything. They are to move toward inclusive land use by some combination of zoning policy and other regulation. And it's only CDBG recipients that have to do this, which are often local governments. Rich suburbs probably aren't competing for CDBG grants in the first place, and wouldn't have to do anything.
The specific examples in the act of policies which can meet the requirement, and many of the examples are consistent with single-family zoning.
No, they aren't required to “move toward bans” on anything. They are to move toward inclusive land use by some combination of zoning policy and other regulation. And it's only CDBG recipients that have to do this, which are often local governments. Rich suburbs probably aren't competing for CDBG grants in the first place, and wouldn't have to do anything.
The specific examples in the act of policies which can meet the requirement, and many of the examples are consistent with single-family zoning.
That is comforting. I will research this.
[Edit] the specific line from Biden's plan that included "states" which gave me the initial idea this policy applies to states rather than individual communities. "Biden will enact legislation requiring any state receiving federal dollars through the Community Development Block Grants or Surface Transportation Block Grants to develop a strategy for inclusionary zoning"
I will continue researching nonetheless. It may just be misleading copy.
[Edit] the specific line from Biden's plan that included "states" which gave me the initial idea this policy applies to states rather than individual communities. "Biden will enact legislation requiring any state receiving federal dollars through the Community Development Block Grants or Surface Transportation Block Grants to develop a strategy for inclusionary zoning"
I will continue researching nonetheless. It may just be misleading copy.
> I would absolutely remove my characterization of this bill as abolishing suburbs if the bill only applied to states that use federal funds to subsidize the creation of suburbs.
That would be all of them. The federal government explicitly subsidized the creation of suburbs after WWII though FHA and VA insured loans (as in, this was their literal intended purpose). In some cases they even directly hired builders to construct suburban towns wholesale (e.g. Levittown and Daly City)[1].
You know, I find this conversation pretty ironic in the context of this thread. It's clear you haven't researched this issue at all but are willing to announce fairly strong opinions about it based on nothing more than an obvious mischaracterization by the president.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-02/how-the-f...
That would be all of them. The federal government explicitly subsidized the creation of suburbs after WWII though FHA and VA insured loans (as in, this was their literal intended purpose). In some cases they even directly hired builders to construct suburban towns wholesale (e.g. Levittown and Daly City)[1].
You know, I find this conversation pretty ironic in the context of this thread. It's clear you haven't researched this issue at all but are willing to announce fairly strong opinions about it based on nothing more than an obvious mischaracterization by the president.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-02/how-the-f...
I realize all states do this, but your response does not address my intended point. That's my fault, I will improve my point.
1. My reading of the proposal, and the reason I dislike the proposal: if a state uses federal funds for any community development project, some forcing function will cause them to stop single family zoning. This jeopardizes single family zoning in all states, since it has tied funding to all community development spending rather than specifically to federal funds going to single family zoning. Even if a state stops directing federal funds to single family zoned communities, they are still encouraged to not create single family zoned communities.
2. A proposal I would be more comfortable with: if a state uses federal funds specifically to fund single family funded communities, they must move toward ending single family zoning. States can continue receiving federal funds as long as they don't spend them on single family zoned communities.
[edit follows]
> You know, I find this conversation pretty ironic in the context of this thread. It's clear you haven't researched this issue at all but are willing to announce fairly strong opinions about it based on nothing more than an obvious mischaracterization by the president.
Disagree it is ironic, disagree it is clear I haven't researched it, but I agree I am shameless in announcing my strong opinions. Hopefully my clarification above gives you something clearer to bite into.
1. My reading of the proposal, and the reason I dislike the proposal: if a state uses federal funds for any community development project, some forcing function will cause them to stop single family zoning. This jeopardizes single family zoning in all states, since it has tied funding to all community development spending rather than specifically to federal funds going to single family zoning. Even if a state stops directing federal funds to single family zoned communities, they are still encouraged to not create single family zoned communities.
2. A proposal I would be more comfortable with: if a state uses federal funds specifically to fund single family funded communities, they must move toward ending single family zoning. States can continue receiving federal funds as long as they don't spend them on single family zoned communities.
[edit follows]
> You know, I find this conversation pretty ironic in the context of this thread. It's clear you haven't researched this issue at all but are willing to announce fairly strong opinions about it based on nothing more than an obvious mischaracterization by the president.
Disagree it is ironic, disagree it is clear I haven't researched it, but I agree I am shameless in announcing my strong opinions. Hopefully my clarification above gives you something clearer to bite into.
I would actually prefer this way of living to sprawl, but I see no reason to make it the only federally approved form of living.
Biden; the wording is unfortunately sourced from a Trump talking point, but it flows well with the other two "abolitions," and Biden's actual proposed policy would have that effect. Some things in the policy that constitute its "abolition":
1. Ending of single family zoning [1][2]. A suburb by definition is single family zoned. I think Americans should be free to produce communities that live in a manner they desire- and if this is single-family zoned, so be it.
2. Fighting sprawl. Biden wants to implement policy that prevents and disincentivizes sprawl. A suburb is by definition not dense. People should be able to live in sprawl if they want to.
[1] Biden plan citing HOME act: https://joebiden.com/housing/
[2] The home act impact on single family "exclusionary zoning" https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/c...
1. Ending of single family zoning [1][2]. A suburb by definition is single family zoned. I think Americans should be free to produce communities that live in a manner they desire- and if this is single-family zoned, so be it.
2. Fighting sprawl. Biden wants to implement policy that prevents and disincentivizes sprawl. A suburb is by definition not dense. People should be able to live in sprawl if they want to.
[1] Biden plan citing HOME act: https://joebiden.com/housing/
[2] The home act impact on single family "exclusionary zoning" https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/c...
We've already ended single family zoning in California!
In most of the bay area, people live in sprawl who do not want to, because people are not allowed to live in dense housing with first floor retail if they want to. Should they be allowed to do that?
In most of the bay area, people live in sprawl who do not want to, because people are not allowed to live in dense housing with first floor retail if they want to. Should they be allowed to do that?
Yes! California should be free to do what Californians want, but California's desires are not necessarily aligned with the rest of the nation's desires. Each part of the nation should be free to do what that part wants. And yes, this is a potentially unachievable ideal, but we should still strive for it when possible.
[deleted]
The categorization is interesting albeit deeply ungrounded in any real rigor and seems of a piece with one of his other recent essays, in which he developed a psychoanalytic theory of the various kinds of "haters" and "losers."
Further, I wish Paul Graham would try to convey his ideas with less condescension and smugness. There's a sense in which he maligns large swaths of humanity as somehow defective or worthy of shame. Certainly the term "idiots" doesn't help.
Further there's an essentialism and determinism that's sort of disturbing (labeling preschoolers as sheep is kind of messed up) and lacking in empathy.
Finally I suppose this is obvious, but I'm guessing Graham situates himself as a paragon of fierce independent-minded thinking and courage. It's rather easier to do that when you're absurdly independently wealthy. Thinking through the courageous stand countless people are taking even right now around the world, risking life and limb, just makes this feel a bit like a grievance-laden tempest in a teapot.
Further, I wish Paul Graham would try to convey his ideas with less condescension and smugness. There's a sense in which he maligns large swaths of humanity as somehow defective or worthy of shame. Certainly the term "idiots" doesn't help.
Further there's an essentialism and determinism that's sort of disturbing (labeling preschoolers as sheep is kind of messed up) and lacking in empathy.
Finally I suppose this is obvious, but I'm guessing Graham situates himself as a paragon of fierce independent-minded thinking and courage. It's rather easier to do that when you're absurdly independently wealthy. Thinking through the courageous stand countless people are taking even right now around the world, risking life and limb, just makes this feel a bit like a grievance-laden tempest in a teapot.
> "[A]ny process for deciding which ideas to ban is bound to make mistakes. All the more so because no one intelligent wants to undertake that kind of work, so it ends up being done by the stupid."
This is pg conflating conformity (because conformists* would largely be the ones choosing to undertake the work of deciding which ideas to ban) with stupidity, which... is pretty telling... and wrong.
Intelligence (to the extent that we even understand what it is) seems largely orthogonal to both of the axes pg presents in his essay, and isn't strongly correlated with any particular personality traits at all.
This is pg conflating conformity (because conformists* would largely be the ones choosing to undertake the work of deciding which ideas to ban) with stupidity, which... is pretty telling... and wrong.
Intelligence (to the extent that we even understand what it is) seems largely orthogonal to both of the axes pg presents in his essay, and isn't strongly correlated with any particular personality traits at all.
Good points.
This is a good essay and an important one, but I think it completely ignores one very important aspect of the present social discourse.
It is unfortunate, but some people in the world are politically weak and some are powerful. The weak are often marginalized and/or treated unfairly in various ways. Often the only way the weak can gain strength or political power is through common action. Common action first makes the weak much stronger but also, if well applied it confronts the strong with a moral choice that they cannot escape. Thus, often the politically strong join these common actions simply because it is the right thing to do.
Common action however requires conformism.
It is all fine to be a cool independently minded non-conformist constantly questioning the rules when you are politically powerful. But when you are politically repressed that would probably land you in jail and very quickly. So what is the protection of the politically weak -- to immediately and collectively protest and threaten to damage society if one of them is unfairly hurt. This of course requires iron conformism.
It is not always pretty. It is in fact often ugly. For example, I have noticed that in many countries, the politicians that represent a certain politically repressed minority are often the most corrupt in the country. They are often filthy rich while the community they represent is wallowing in poverty. Why? Because the minority community knows that to split their vote means to be run over. They know that they have to conform and act as one to protect themselves. Thus, they overlook the corruption of their leaders in the interest of common protection. In many minority communities to vote against the chosen candidate is not a sign of individualism but of treason against one's family and friends and neighbors. Not showing up at a protest the community has decided to participate in is treated similarly.
Paul's article is a little vague, so I am not sure exactly what he is talking about when he is lamenting the rise of conformism in US universities. But it is quite possible that this rise of conformism is there to protect vulnerable or politically weak people as much as anything else. University faculty tend to be politically powerful, but because they have relatively secure jobs they often have the freedom of conscience and morality (something many people do not have), and thus they often side with the politically weak.
So, if we want to make our society more safe for non-conformists and presentation of different ideas, we have to make it more fair. This sounds counter-intuitive but it is true. A lot of the so called taboo ideas are taboo because they are connected to a long history of horrible repression and perhaps even a present state of repression, and there is a very real fear that expressing such an idea will continue said repression.
So for example, take the idea that a certain minority race is inherently less intelligent than average. Currently this idea is pretty much taboo. One may argue that in a society that better tolerates non-conformism such an idea even if disliked or even if wrong will get a fair hearing, perhaps be researched etc. But in society where this minority race is politically disadvantaged merely mentioning this idea will result in further repression. People of that race will have difficulty getting jobs as they will automatically be assumed to be stupid. Research will be conducted but at least some of the research will be culturally biased and carefully tailored to reach predetermined conclusions. This is not theoretical. It has pretty much happened already multiple times. See, for example, Jay Coulds excellent book "The Mismeasure of Man".
But if one suggest an idea that does not carry a history of repression with it, such as linking intelligence to an astrological sign or to birth-weight the idea will not be considered taboo and may be fairly researched.
If we can imagine a fair society where someone's race is as inconsequential as their astrological sign, perhaps there would not be that much race related taboos. But that is not yet the case.
It is unfortunate, but some people in the world are politically weak and some are powerful. The weak are often marginalized and/or treated unfairly in various ways. Often the only way the weak can gain strength or political power is through common action. Common action first makes the weak much stronger but also, if well applied it confronts the strong with a moral choice that they cannot escape. Thus, often the politically strong join these common actions simply because it is the right thing to do.
Common action however requires conformism.
It is all fine to be a cool independently minded non-conformist constantly questioning the rules when you are politically powerful. But when you are politically repressed that would probably land you in jail and very quickly. So what is the protection of the politically weak -- to immediately and collectively protest and threaten to damage society if one of them is unfairly hurt. This of course requires iron conformism.
It is not always pretty. It is in fact often ugly. For example, I have noticed that in many countries, the politicians that represent a certain politically repressed minority are often the most corrupt in the country. They are often filthy rich while the community they represent is wallowing in poverty. Why? Because the minority community knows that to split their vote means to be run over. They know that they have to conform and act as one to protect themselves. Thus, they overlook the corruption of their leaders in the interest of common protection. In many minority communities to vote against the chosen candidate is not a sign of individualism but of treason against one's family and friends and neighbors. Not showing up at a protest the community has decided to participate in is treated similarly.
Paul's article is a little vague, so I am not sure exactly what he is talking about when he is lamenting the rise of conformism in US universities. But it is quite possible that this rise of conformism is there to protect vulnerable or politically weak people as much as anything else. University faculty tend to be politically powerful, but because they have relatively secure jobs they often have the freedom of conscience and morality (something many people do not have), and thus they often side with the politically weak.
So, if we want to make our society more safe for non-conformists and presentation of different ideas, we have to make it more fair. This sounds counter-intuitive but it is true. A lot of the so called taboo ideas are taboo because they are connected to a long history of horrible repression and perhaps even a present state of repression, and there is a very real fear that expressing such an idea will continue said repression.
So for example, take the idea that a certain minority race is inherently less intelligent than average. Currently this idea is pretty much taboo. One may argue that in a society that better tolerates non-conformism such an idea even if disliked or even if wrong will get a fair hearing, perhaps be researched etc. But in society where this minority race is politically disadvantaged merely mentioning this idea will result in further repression. People of that race will have difficulty getting jobs as they will automatically be assumed to be stupid. Research will be conducted but at least some of the research will be culturally biased and carefully tailored to reach predetermined conclusions. This is not theoretical. It has pretty much happened already multiple times. See, for example, Jay Coulds excellent book "The Mismeasure of Man".
But if one suggest an idea that does not carry a history of repression with it, such as linking intelligence to an astrological sign or to birth-weight the idea will not be considered taboo and may be fairly researched.
If we can imagine a fair society where someone's race is as inconsequential as their astrological sign, perhaps there would not be that much race related taboos. But that is not yet the case.
I wonder if a lot of people are somewhere in the middle, and also, if their position on the quadrants is situational.
Was PG always so precious, or have I just aged out of appreciating these sublimated attempts at bolstering ones sense of self?
The oddest thing about this essay - is that the people he's kind of lamenting - the 'banners' particularly in academia and the press - are by far not classically conventional or authoritative types.
That's where this analysis goes way wrong.
'Ban culture' is driven by 'aggressive antagonists' who generally have power through the mob, or some kind of 'new' authority, they are 'anti classical power' in their very identity.
I would characterise them as the 'least conventional' people.
The logic I think goes off the rails there.
Banners are 'people angry at the system'. Not 'people adamantly supporting the system'.
Mr. Graham may not realize that those pushing ban culture are in his camp - 'SJW' has more in common with Entrepreneur/CEO and Artist than it does 'Police' or 'Justice System'.
Also the author's choice of words to describe the groups says far more about the author than his musings on personality types.
Most tellingly 'tattletales' and 'quasi-fascists' as those who support the rules and 'Galileo' as those who break them.
It also speaks to class a little bit, because for common people, in reality, the rule breakers are more likely to be actual criminals. Like the 'bad' kind.
The closest 'common science' we can get at would be the 'Big 5' personality types of which 'conscientiousness' is somewhat correlated with following rules. Prisons are full of 'unconscientious people'. And most succesfull people are highly conscientious.
That said, it's not an exact correlation and his 'sheep' type 'vs' aggressive type are probably very differently: conventional people in the burbs, aspirational conventional in business. (I literally read that yesterday, I'm sorry I cannot find the reference, but 'Big 5 conscientiousness' does break down into sub-types).
The underlying problem with the analysis, is that there is often an inherent morality in 'convention', which the author's choice of words seems to kind of deny.
'Look both ways before crossing a street' or 'wear a mask' - these are very important rules to follow, and we need these conventions. None of us are smart enough to really understand the nature of all the rules, so we end up having to follow a lot of them.
Dr. Fauci says 'wear a mask' - and since he's the expert, I trust him on the whole, even though I could point at a myriad issues, I know it's a complicated thing.
Also:
"The first is that any process for deciding which ideas to ban is bound to make mistakes. All the more so because no one intelligent wants to undertake that kind of work, so it ends up being done by the stupid. "
So here's the thing - when CNN is deciding 'who to ban' - this is very bad.
But when Facebook is deciding how to moderate - this is not bad, and Graham is wrong to suggest only dummies would want to do this. This is an astonishingly difficult problem to solve, it's not bounded by the norms we normally understand, so it should be very attractive to real thinkers.
People say horrible, horrible things all the time. Tons of harassment, abuse, doxing, bullying, point-blank racism - and I'm not talking 'intellectuals being called out' - I'm talking 'neighbours don't want the n-word on their street' and 'my boss is a faot', people making death threats. Graham is speaking a little bit from the bubble - 'most' of censorship is simply just getting people to stop saying they're going to kill each other - not 'banning ideas'.
So I think this thought-piece has a big hole: most people shutting down freedom of expression (in the free world) in the more intellectual sense - are not 'conventional' by his own description. Not at all.
That's where this analysis goes way wrong.
'Ban culture' is driven by 'aggressive antagonists' who generally have power through the mob, or some kind of 'new' authority, they are 'anti classical power' in their very identity.
I would characterise them as the 'least conventional' people.
The logic I think goes off the rails there.
Banners are 'people angry at the system'. Not 'people adamantly supporting the system'.
Mr. Graham may not realize that those pushing ban culture are in his camp - 'SJW' has more in common with Entrepreneur/CEO and Artist than it does 'Police' or 'Justice System'.
Also the author's choice of words to describe the groups says far more about the author than his musings on personality types.
Most tellingly 'tattletales' and 'quasi-fascists' as those who support the rules and 'Galileo' as those who break them.
It also speaks to class a little bit, because for common people, in reality, the rule breakers are more likely to be actual criminals. Like the 'bad' kind.
The closest 'common science' we can get at would be the 'Big 5' personality types of which 'conscientiousness' is somewhat correlated with following rules. Prisons are full of 'unconscientious people'. And most succesfull people are highly conscientious.
That said, it's not an exact correlation and his 'sheep' type 'vs' aggressive type are probably very differently: conventional people in the burbs, aspirational conventional in business. (I literally read that yesterday, I'm sorry I cannot find the reference, but 'Big 5 conscientiousness' does break down into sub-types).
The underlying problem with the analysis, is that there is often an inherent morality in 'convention', which the author's choice of words seems to kind of deny.
'Look both ways before crossing a street' or 'wear a mask' - these are very important rules to follow, and we need these conventions. None of us are smart enough to really understand the nature of all the rules, so we end up having to follow a lot of them.
Dr. Fauci says 'wear a mask' - and since he's the expert, I trust him on the whole, even though I could point at a myriad issues, I know it's a complicated thing.
Also:
"The first is that any process for deciding which ideas to ban is bound to make mistakes. All the more so because no one intelligent wants to undertake that kind of work, so it ends up being done by the stupid. "
So here's the thing - when CNN is deciding 'who to ban' - this is very bad.
But when Facebook is deciding how to moderate - this is not bad, and Graham is wrong to suggest only dummies would want to do this. This is an astonishingly difficult problem to solve, it's not bounded by the norms we normally understand, so it should be very attractive to real thinkers.
People say horrible, horrible things all the time. Tons of harassment, abuse, doxing, bullying, point-blank racism - and I'm not talking 'intellectuals being called out' - I'm talking 'neighbours don't want the n-word on their street' and 'my boss is a faot', people making death threats. Graham is speaking a little bit from the bubble - 'most' of censorship is simply just getting people to stop saying they're going to kill each other - not 'banning ideas'.
So I think this thought-piece has a big hole: most people shutting down freedom of expression (in the free world) in the more intellectual sense - are not 'conventional' by his own description. Not at all.
Convention and independently-minded is based on "majority" belief. With time "majority" belief changes so the one who was "independently-minded" becomes "conventional". Not sure how to categorize the old-convention minded one as.
For many years, writers of all political persuasions have divided people into the "independent-thinkers" and the "sheep". Of course, people who think like they do are the independent-thinkers and the others are the sheep.
This article follows the same very old and tired pattern, and it's a shame, because I really enjoy most of Paul Graham's essays.
Has anyone ever seen an attempt to define these terms in an objective, data-driven way? Real data on this might be quite interesting.
This article follows the same very old and tired pattern, and it's a shame, because I really enjoy most of Paul Graham's essays.
Has anyone ever seen an attempt to define these terms in an objective, data-driven way? Real data on this might be quite interesting.
> Has anyone ever seen an attempt to define these terms in an objective, data-driven way?
Broadly, yes.
The Five Factor Model includes axes for openness (what Graham divides has as "conventional-minded" to "independent-minded") and agreeableness (Graham's "aggressive" to "passive"). The FFM is well supported by various lines of evidence.
Graham's model however overlooks three other axes: conscientiousness, extraversion-introversion and neuroticism. Plus it doesn't allow for any nuance, based on a binary classification when in fact the spectra of human behaviour are incredibly wide and nuanced.
The characterisation of folks as "tattletales", "sheep", "dreamy" and "naughty" doesn't suggest an attempt at good-faith discussion.
Broadly, yes.
The Five Factor Model includes axes for openness (what Graham divides has as "conventional-minded" to "independent-minded") and agreeableness (Graham's "aggressive" to "passive"). The FFM is well supported by various lines of evidence.
Graham's model however overlooks three other axes: conscientiousness, extraversion-introversion and neuroticism. Plus it doesn't allow for any nuance, based on a binary classification when in fact the spectra of human behaviour are incredibly wide and nuanced.
The characterisation of folks as "tattletales", "sheep", "dreamy" and "naughty" doesn't suggest an attempt at good-faith discussion.
And of course, there's that relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/610/
There is always a relevant XKCD.
PGs presents a closing hope in the imagination of the aggressively independent-minded. There is hope but no assurance that doesn't turn towards sustained decline. The dark ages happened. Leonardo DaVinci lamtented that in 1400 he knew less than Galen did in 185 AD. The Islamic golden age also abandoned science to religious dogma.
Still it is hard to fathom a worldwide sustained decline. Some cultural and/or language group won't go along.
Still it is hard to fathom a worldwide sustained decline. Some cultural and/or language group won't go along.
I'm on the left myself - far enough that most people I consider like-minded would scoff at being called "liberal".
And I think that, while our broad cause is both rational and just, there are way too many people who believe that it can justify things that are unjustifiable; and who are, in effect, willing to replace their morality with "revolutionary necessity".
On the subject of conformance, freedom of speech, and censorship, in particular, this essay by Orwell is getting more relevant day by day:
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
This troubles me a lot, especially as I don't see alternatives here and now - large-scale, systemic changes are desperately needed, but that requires a mass movement; and while it's possible to have a mass movement that is not authoritarian, the one that we do have seems to be infested by authoritarian thinking to a significant degree.
True, it's fighting against authoritarianism that is even broader in scope - and worse yet, operating from a veneer of legitimacy, and with resources of state oppression at its disposal. But if "my" side wins, it'll get that same veneer - and with the attitudes that I'm observing, I find it hard to believe that the majority will be willing to discard those powerful tools as a matter of principle, or even believe that they're truly capable of misusing them.
I don't really have good answers. Insofar as decisions have to be made today, I try to go with what I see as "less wrong" - but that still leaves a lot to be desired from an ethical perspective. And yet staying out of the fight is also an unsatisfactory cop-out; for which I could, perhaps, find convincing enough excuses for people whose judgment matters to me, but never to my own conscience.
And I think that, while our broad cause is both rational and just, there are way too many people who believe that it can justify things that are unjustifiable; and who are, in effect, willing to replace their morality with "revolutionary necessity".
On the subject of conformance, freedom of speech, and censorship, in particular, this essay by Orwell is getting more relevant day by day:
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
This troubles me a lot, especially as I don't see alternatives here and now - large-scale, systemic changes are desperately needed, but that requires a mass movement; and while it's possible to have a mass movement that is not authoritarian, the one that we do have seems to be infested by authoritarian thinking to a significant degree.
True, it's fighting against authoritarianism that is even broader in scope - and worse yet, operating from a veneer of legitimacy, and with resources of state oppression at its disposal. But if "my" side wins, it'll get that same veneer - and with the attitudes that I'm observing, I find it hard to believe that the majority will be willing to discard those powerful tools as a matter of principle, or even believe that they're truly capable of misusing them.
I don't really have good answers. Insofar as decisions have to be made today, I try to go with what I see as "less wrong" - but that still leaves a lot to be desired from an ethical perspective. And yet staying out of the fight is also an unsatisfactory cop-out; for which I could, perhaps, find convincing enough excuses for people whose judgment matters to me, but never to my own conscience.
Graham framing his essay as such is disingenuous, at best:
This is also bad writing. The use of set phrases / quotes in a foreign language without citation is confusing for the reader, and also pedantic.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves
And the call of the aggressively independent-minded is "Eppur si muove."
This is also bad writing. The use of set phrases / quotes in a foreign language without citation is confusing for the reader, and also pedantic.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves
There may also be some in between conformism/aggressive and having in different cases and different times.
"I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition?" My own response to such question might be, "How should I know? Such a thing is counterfactual and I do not know the answer."
I believe the discussion of ideas should not be banned; we need full freedom of speech and discussion of ideas. (Especially to complain about the government is necessary.)
"I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition?" My own response to such question might be, "How should I know? Such a thing is counterfactual and I do not know the answer."
I believe the discussion of ideas should not be banned; we need full freedom of speech and discussion of ideas. (Especially to complain about the government is necessary.)
Thank God for people like PG who are brave and wise enough to be able to craft such beautiful and timely essays. McCarthyism may be fashionable again, but we'll endure unscathed as long as writings such as these continue to be written.
Did Paul Graham just repackage DnD Alignment?
I'm not quite so sure we live in a society that protects free inquiry now, and are suddenly in danger of losing that status.
PG's essays are always thought provoking even when factually questionable.
This one is probably both.
I don't disagree with him about the need for advanced societies to protect free inquiry and independent thinking.
But the psychological taxonomy expounded here is simplistic and all the little things he attaches to it, like the psychoanalysis of tattletales, are probably not well supported by much evidence.
This one is probably both.
I don't disagree with him about the need for advanced societies to protect free inquiry and independent thinking.
But the psychological taxonomy expounded here is simplistic and all the little things he attaches to it, like the psychoanalysis of tattletales, are probably not well supported by much evidence.
I think this previous rebuttal to pg's pretence of broad mindedness still applies https://medium.com/@girlziplocked/paul-graham-is-still-askin...
Not sure why being conformist or not is important. Isn’t the more desirable thing is how you reason that your belief will lead to your desired result? What evidence have you taken in account and what risks you are aware of? How do you deal with uncertainty and how do you strive to get additional evidence.
For example, if you believe in vaccinations, are you conformist? These 4 quadrants even applicable universally for wide variety of topics for any person?
For example, if you believe in vaccinations, are you conformist? These 4 quadrants even applicable universally for wide variety of topics for any person?
Examples of what what the the aggressively conventional minded insist upon:
- Let's have a (pandemic) lock down. Given reason: let's protect everybody. Real reason: they are idiots who who cannot reason out the nuance of pros vs cons of lock down.
- Make masks mandatory. Given reason: let's protect everybody. Real reason: they are idiots who who cannot reason out the nuance of personal protection vs public harm
- Make rich pay their taxes. Given reason: they are not paying their fair share, Teal reason: they are jealous of the rich)
- Send all kids to school. Given reason: we need to 'educate' everybody, real reason: In their narrow world view they cannot fathom that at least some parents can do a better job of 'educating' their kids than conventional schools.
The concept of freedom that does not harm others is entirely lost among these sociopath individuals.
- Let's have a (pandemic) lock down. Given reason: let's protect everybody. Real reason: they are idiots who who cannot reason out the nuance of pros vs cons of lock down.
- Make masks mandatory. Given reason: let's protect everybody. Real reason: they are idiots who who cannot reason out the nuance of personal protection vs public harm
- Make rich pay their taxes. Given reason: they are not paying their fair share, Teal reason: they are jealous of the rich)
- Send all kids to school. Given reason: we need to 'educate' everybody, real reason: In their narrow world view they cannot fathom that at least some parents can do a better job of 'educating' their kids than conventional schools.
The concept of freedom that does not harm others is entirely lost among these sociopath individuals.
Most of the "free inquiry" that has been banned from universities is related to sensitive issues like race and gender. I don't see any universities out there restricting free inquiry on say, the sciences. Is there really that much social good that will come out of exploring racism and misogyny?