Some predictions about the future of the relationship between the coronavirus and humanity:
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/coronavirus-links-discussion-open
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/coronavirus-links-discussion-open
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
SlateStarCodex is back as Astral Codex Ten (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Maurile Tremblay
- Start date
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
This one in particular has me literally laughing out loud. It's spot-on, but also so well-written and cruel that it seems like something Christopher Hitchens might have written:
rockaction
Footballguy
Freddie DeBoer sort of summarized something I thought this morning, only it was with sadness that I thought it and not quite so much anger as with which he expressed his opinions. In looking for songs to pick for the modern pop channel that is one of the categories in the Genrepalooza thread I'm taking part in this morning, I had noticed how insipid (yes, I know, that's always the complaint) pop music has gotten over the past ten years. But when I say insipid, I'm really thinking of a cultural phenomenon going on. Pop culture, more than ever (even more so than the screaming and swooning Beatles fans) seems that it's female-centric and centers around nothing more than the celebration of the feminine. I wondered how we'd fallen so far to giving Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion single of the year, Pheobe Bridgers artist of the year, Arianna Grande pop culture icon of the year, Billie Eilish songwriter of the year, Mitski alternative queen of the year, the whole host of them doing nothing but singing about the cultural experience of being a woman, really. Taylor Swift's new albums count, too. Anyway, I was wondering why the critics like and affirm such reductively simple and unoriginal stuff. DeBoer's aside about the critics and not wanting to hear another cishet man (I believe was the wording) sort of sealed something for me I already knew. That our cultural gatekeepers are far beyond gone appreciating music and art qua music and art, and that worse than that, one must first and foremost appreciate theory and cultural intent to make it as a critic of one of these publications. And that the role of gatekeeper that the critic plays has made it nigh impossible for bands or artists that don't come from that whole in-group-sanctified theory or intent behind their music to even exist as a culturally meaningful entity. Which is a shame, because outsider art can be so beautifully done and realized, revealing not only its beauty but truths about the human condition. Real art, I'd posit, exists not so much in democratic theory and intent but in truth and beauty, however difficult and uncomfortable those notions are. Sex or gender cheerleading seems so stupid when stacked up against great works of art and literature. It looks...flimsy.
Anyway, the anger he writes with wasn't there for me, but I was melancholy about the whole thing early this morning. Thanks for posting his piece. Felt less alone in my thoughts for a minute. Because I seriously can't pick an original song from this era without thinking about the vapid and warmed-over Ms. Magazine philosophy I'm getting with it, from the production room to the bedroom to her thoughts and beyond.
Enough.
Also read Aaronson's link to the in-group/out-group essay at SSC. Interesting again.
Anyway, the anger he writes with wasn't there for me, but I was melancholy about the whole thing early this morning. Thanks for posting his piece. Felt less alone in my thoughts for a minute. Because I seriously can't pick an original song from this era without thinking about the vapid and warmed-over Ms. Magazine philosophy I'm getting with it, from the production room to the bedroom to her thoughts and beyond.
Enough.
Also read Aaronson's link to the in-group/out-group essay at SSC. Interesting again.
Review of Freddie DeBoar's book about schooling:
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-cult-of-smart
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-cult-of-smart
rockaction
Footballguy
"Certainly it is hard to deny that public school does anything other than crush learning - I have too many bad memories of teachers yelling at me for reading in school, or for peeking ahead in the textbook, to doubt that."
I've been there. Once, when complaining that another student was reading too slow in kindergarten, my punishment was to be sent away from class to read sixth grade material and take a test on it. This is not a humblebrag. It was humiliating and punitive, and was because I wanted to go play football. That's it. We were late for recess. That's why I complained and was met with the well-intentioned but confusing and borderline psychotic prescription of trying to solve problems and address symbolism (yes, Suskind touches on that) within literature eight times over my head. Fun. Now they've even eliminated recess in the interest of keeping kids in line and attuned to their studies. Hogwash, I say. I also say they should get rid of it all, and that's not informed by my libertarian hatred of the well-intentioned but flawed premise of Horace Mann's great experiment, it's by experience. I hated most schooling from fourth grade on. It does not suit my temperament.
I also read a review of this book by Geoff Shullenberger yesterday, who is proving every bit the thinker these days, very relevant because his field of study is critical theory, something that has come to the fore in academia and has therefore filtered down to the populace, just in unknown ways.
So on to the real meat in DeBoer's book and back to Charles Murray, as DeBoer's thesis is essentially Murray's, just thirty years later and to the left. Murray has been known to have remarked, in conversation, that he had hoped The Bell Curve would offer an olive branch to the harder left, in that drawing from the premise that IQ determines earnings and social status, and since IQ is genetic and landed or inherited, the conclusion would be that we weren't a meritocracy at all, but that the game, so to speak, was fixed from the beginning of our existences on earth. He later went on to publish books and give lectures about education whereupon he intoned what DeBoer does: that there, by mathematics alone and for whatever reason one may choose, will always be below-average people just by the definition of average alone. The divergence between he and others was what to do about it, this inequality. For liberals, it was to level the playing field through social programs, for deBoer, it's the dismantling of the entire capitalist system and reconstructing the schooling method. For Murray, it was to do nothing at all but emphasize the trades. He intoned that we are largely happy, things were better than at any point in human history, and that we must find our worth in either God or our work and family, unequal yet fulfilled. I'll never forget the dictum of the left as stated by someone famous that I forget who was quoted by Murray once in a National Review essay. The left, he said, wants to "interfere, interfere, interfere" with the natural order of things in the name of progress. Which is why left-libertarianism is a very intellectually defensible position even to this former rightist. To have interfered with previous interferences might be necessary for not just the happiness derived from some sense of a fair game, but might restore happiness sapped from the populace by the existence of law alone. A heady concept, yes. Potentially an anarchist's lament and solution. But more defensible than other leftist positions.
Anyway, given the interventions and interferences necessary to accomplish equality palatable to the left, I'm going with Murray over both traditional liberals and deBoer. Suskind's review is interesting, and invokes these thinkers and lines of thought all over again for me. If it sounds like I know a lot about Murray, I do. I cannot help but think that we'll wind up butting up against his propositions for a long time when it comes to class, IQ, and equality. It's becoming more apparent as the years go on that this is a real issue, and possibly an intractable one.
Last edited by a moderator:
Westerberg
Footballguy
Dr_Zaius
Footballguy
Really enjoyed reading through the discussion of the last few pages. I would stop by the politics forum more often if the the politeness was on the level of this thread.
I confess I have not read any of the Bell Curve and am only familiar with it through people's discussions and writings about the book. I did read all of Scott's Freddie DeBoar book review as well as a lot of the comments. If I understand it right, I actually totally agree with the starting tenet that IQ and its inheritability gives people "privilege", to use a term I don't particularly care for. I also think that we equate IQ with value to our detriment, as the genius is of no more inherent worth as a human than the naturally strong, tall, or handsome.
Where it goes off the rails for me, is that it seems to then conclude that success is wholly unearned and the result of the mere luck of getting a genetic silver spoon. While IQ may correlate with success and knowledge, surely a person has no small sway on his ultimate destiny and can hone the skills that he has leading to more success. It seems to me we should neither disparage the person whom through no fault of his own can never be a physicist nor claim the person who spent the broad part of his life trying to learn and grow humanity's knowledge base has somehow robbed his fellow man through his action.
I confess I have not read any of the Bell Curve and am only familiar with it through people's discussions and writings about the book. I did read all of Scott's Freddie DeBoar book review as well as a lot of the comments. If I understand it right, I actually totally agree with the starting tenet that IQ and its inheritability gives people "privilege", to use a term I don't particularly care for. I also think that we equate IQ with value to our detriment, as the genius is of no more inherent worth as a human than the naturally strong, tall, or handsome.
Where it goes off the rails for me, is that it seems to then conclude that success is wholly unearned and the result of the mere luck of getting a genetic silver spoon. While IQ may correlate with success and knowledge, surely a person has no small sway on his ultimate destiny and can hone the skills that he has leading to more success. It seems to me we should neither disparage the person whom through no fault of his own can never be a physicist nor claim the person who spent the broad part of his life trying to learn and grow humanity's knowledge base has somehow robbed his fellow man through his action.
djmich
Footballguy
Agree with Dr. Zaius, interesting discussion and on a good level. Crazy that the conversation has turned to IQ as really one of the defining topics of "advantage" as I've been thinking about this recently...cool to see there is some writings that delve into it more.
In a society that has at least basic equal rights under the law, IQ would seem to be the ultimate advantage (along with some other non gender/race traits) but nobody seems to get worked up about how to solve the essential unfairness of this fact of birth. We've built a society that rather than really a bunch of racists is full of IQists...and thats celebrated.
Rock thanks for the summary of some of the different interpretations from those authors...as you've summarized their conclusions I think Murrays is most aligned with how I'd land. Needs to be supported with appropriate social safety nets (the extent to which will eternally be argued about).
In a society that has at least basic equal rights under the law, IQ would seem to be the ultimate advantage (along with some other non gender/race traits) but nobody seems to get worked up about how to solve the essential unfairness of this fact of birth. We've built a society that rather than really a bunch of racists is full of IQists...and thats celebrated.
Rock thanks for the summary of some of the different interpretations from those authors...as you've summarized their conclusions I think Murrays is most aligned with how I'd land. Needs to be supported with appropriate social safety nets (the extent to which will eternally be argued about).
Advice for Republicans: embrace class warfare!
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/a-modest-proposal-for-republicans
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/a-modest-proposal-for-republicans
rockaction
Footballguy
I've read Paul Fussell's Class and his Thank God For The Atom Bomb. I'd say that the book Class, along with The Closing Of The American Mind, are two books that actually completely changed my worldview and life. That's saying something for a book.
As for the modest proposal (is it Swiftian or serious?) I see an interesting ragout of things there, don't you? I would say that his analysis about what Republicans should be doing is indeed what they are fumbling (and greatly fumbling) their way towards. They're just not hyper-intellectual enough to know they're already doing it or how to do it effectively. But as AC10 implies, his suggestion, rather than creating an aspirational party, simply points out the way to further divide a populace using the left's old tactical methods and dialectic.
Aspiration vs. opposition:
Nietzsche Contra Wagner is a good example of what we have going on right now on the right, only the right is less intellectual and less highbrow about it. Nietzsche Contra Wagner embodies a sour-minded theory about something that is in opposition to someone else, based upon (in the book) petty jealousy. But that's what AC10, on the surface, modestly recommends. A highbrow version of the current state of affairs.
Reagan was for the shining city on a hill, an aspiration for us all to attain, something it seems like AC10 would get behind. A vision of the future for all rather than mere objection to the winners of the status quo.
As for the modest proposal (is it Swiftian or serious?) I see an interesting ragout of things there, don't you? I would say that his analysis about what Republicans should be doing is indeed what they are fumbling (and greatly fumbling) their way towards. They're just not hyper-intellectual enough to know they're already doing it or how to do it effectively. But as AC10 implies, his suggestion, rather than creating an aspirational party, simply points out the way to further divide a populace using the left's old tactical methods and dialectic.
Aspiration vs. opposition:
Nietzsche Contra Wagner is a good example of what we have going on right now on the right, only the right is less intellectual and less highbrow about it. Nietzsche Contra Wagner embodies a sour-minded theory about something that is in opposition to someone else, based upon (in the book) petty jealousy. But that's what AC10, on the surface, modestly recommends. A highbrow version of the current state of affairs.
Reagan was for the shining city on a hill, an aspiration for us all to attain, something it seems like AC10 would get behind. A vision of the future for all rather than mere objection to the winners of the status quo.
Last edited by a moderator:
I suspect that everyone is sick of the NYT thing, but this is probably the best analysis of it that I've seen:
https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-framers-and-framed-notes-on-slate.html
https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-framers-and-framed-notes-on-slate.html
This is a good one on how confirmation bias can be really hard to break out of:
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/trapped-priors-as-a-basic-problem
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/trapped-priors-as-a-basic-problem
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Putting this here because this argument comes up all the time on this forum and it would helpful to have something in-house that we can link to instead of having to walk people through the same problem over and over again.
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/more-antifragile-diversity-libertarianism
The point I think Scott is glossing over here is that, even if social media companies are more like car manufacturers than nuclear power plants (which I don't concede in the context of organizing the Jan 6 insurrection), it is pretty obvious that Parler is Yugo. And it's weird to criticize car dealerships for not wanting to stock Yugos. By Scott's own admission, Yugo is supposed to go out of business.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
That's a good point.
This particular article appealed to me because it does a good job addressing a common strawman attack on libertarianism -- that libertarians can't possibly have any reason to object to decisions made by private firms. This is the intellectual equivalent of "Well, if you say you're a Christian, then how come you eat shellfish?" in the sense that it's a dumb but superficially-appealing argument that comes up over and over again, and one grows weary of having to constantly take out that trash. There's a good reason why people like you and me -- well, I don't know about you because you're a mod and therefore a narc
-- might object to overly-intrusive moderation standards on social media forums, even when those standards are designed and enforced by a private firm.
Yeah, the way I see things:There's a good reason why people like you and me -- well, I don't know about you because you're a mod and therefore a narc
Pretty much any content-based moderation restrictions coming from the government are bad. (Some content can be limited with respect to time/place/manner.)
Content-based moderation restrictions coming from private firms can be either good or bad, depending on how good or bad they are.
"No moderation standards by private firms should ever be criticized" is wrongheaded. But so is "No moderation standards by private firms should exist." Unfortunately, a lot of the arguments about Parler seem to take one of those two basic forms.
Dr_Zaius
Footballguy
Thanks for the link Ivan - somehow I had missed that piece. My distress with the discussion about social media censorship has been less about "can Twitter legally ban person A", etc., than how many people seem to hold free speech in relatively low regard. If Twitter banned a bunch of people and took a lot flak over it, at least we'd be reinforcing the idea that we take free speech very seriously in this country, and anyone suppressing speech should have a really high bar to clear, be they the government or not. The "lol build your own platform" taunting is what concerns me, because in the end if we as a people decide we like a dollop of censorship, in the end that's what we're going to get, First Amendment or no. Jim Crow laws pretty obviously violated the 14th Amendment, but that didn't stop the brightest legal minds of the day from giving them the seal of approval, because that's what the people wanted.
With respect to something like Twitter, I think bots significantly change the appropriate level of moderation.
On the whole, I'm a big fan of letting all ideas be aired out so that they can be publicly scrutinized. Bad ideas should be criticized and refuted, not censored.
There are practical limits to that, though. While I don't think the government has any business telling people not to publish racist ideas, if Twitter becomes known as the place where racist ideas dominate every conversation, they'll lose my business. I'd rather go somewhere else. In order to guard against that possibility, Twitter should be allowed to restrict the publication of racist ideas on its own platform.
In the pre-bot era, I think there'd be very little chance of Twitter being overrun by racist tweets. (I'm using "racist" as a stand-in for anything that's undesirable to a broad userbase.) On a smaller forum like FBG, I think flatly prohibiting racist nonsense is a good idea. But on a much larger forum like Twitter, if I were in charge of it, I'd probably let discussions about race flow a lot more freely. A few people would advocate racist ideas, a lot of people would refute them, and it would all be a healthy enough process.
But bots change the game. All of a sudden, unpleasant ideas aren't limited by the number of people who are willing to advocate them. A single person can program a million bots to dominate the conversation. That's no longer a healthy process. It sucks and will make all the non-bots leave Twitter and go somewhere else. Twitter should protect against that by trying to prohibit bots. But if they can't do that effectively, they should go ahead and prohibit whatever odious tweets start to proliferate regardless of whether they can be demonstrably linked to bots.
I fully support Twitter's crack down on the spread of weird QAnon stuff, for example.
On the whole, I'm a big fan of letting all ideas be aired out so that they can be publicly scrutinized. Bad ideas should be criticized and refuted, not censored.
There are practical limits to that, though. While I don't think the government has any business telling people not to publish racist ideas, if Twitter becomes known as the place where racist ideas dominate every conversation, they'll lose my business. I'd rather go somewhere else. In order to guard against that possibility, Twitter should be allowed to restrict the publication of racist ideas on its own platform.
In the pre-bot era, I think there'd be very little chance of Twitter being overrun by racist tweets. (I'm using "racist" as a stand-in for anything that's undesirable to a broad userbase.) On a smaller forum like FBG, I think flatly prohibiting racist nonsense is a good idea. But on a much larger forum like Twitter, if I were in charge of it, I'd probably let discussions about race flow a lot more freely. A few people would advocate racist ideas, a lot of people would refute them, and it would all be a healthy enough process.
But bots change the game. All of a sudden, unpleasant ideas aren't limited by the number of people who are willing to advocate them. A single person can program a million bots to dominate the conversation. That's no longer a healthy process. It sucks and will make all the non-bots leave Twitter and go somewhere else. Twitter should protect against that by trying to prohibit bots. But if they can't do that effectively, they should go ahead and prohibit whatever odious tweets start to proliferate regardless of whether they can be demonstrably linked to bots.
I fully support Twitter's crack down on the spread of weird QAnon stuff, for example.
Last edited by a moderator:
I saw something a few days ago about some analysis ... I don't remember whether it said about 25% of posts spreading QAnon stuff recently were from bots, or about 25% of accounts spreading QAnon stuff were bots. Those are fairly different, but either way, bots seem to be a significant part of the conversation on certain topics.
djmich
Footballguy
Never heard of Freddie deBoer until Ivan quoted him above. This paragraph I think is somewhat analogous with Ivan's quote...but it really was a bit of a lightbulb moment for me on who is driving professional media (the privileged of the privileged basically) and how much rationalizing their privileged and associated guilt drives the ideology.
LINK
Similar threads
