I agree more with Josh Hawley on Russia/Ukraine than with other politicians. I also think Hawley is dangerously wrong in most of his views and wish he was not in the Senate.
As you are pointing out, if you automatically disagree with everything someone says, you are using a rock.
Very well put. I think I can offer a diagnosis for Tyler's strange condition. It seems Cowan has unfortunately fallen prey to respectability disease. Too much time spent in the fancier DC circles, hobnobbing with the rich and powerful while asking for their money, has burdened him with too much to lose by being associated with society's lessers, regardless of the truth value of a particular point. He is, as you put it, now concerned with being in the proper coalition, being seen to agree with the right sorts of people and not the unfashionable sort. He can't full throatedly back freedom* any more because he fears losing the approval of the inner circle. He must mince words about how of course freedom and liberty are important, but we must balance them off against the needs of the state to protect some others mumble mumble and really these people don't want real liberty... He gets to be the token tame libertarian for the mainstream media, so long as he doesn't challenge them or say anything upsetting to the narrative.
Only someone with very few gifts from the ruling class to lose can say things like "Look, I may not agree with these guys on everything, but they are right on here, and everyone else at the party has it wrong." The desire to fit in and continue fitting in, to be in that inner circle, kills objectivity and reason, replacing it with group think. Tyler has fallen victim to his own success.
*It is possible that he can't back it here for the same reasons he has been terrible on COVID overall, because he is a germaphobe and is unable to think clearly on the matter.
"For whatever set of views you think is justified, try to stick to the versions of those views held by well-educated, reasonable, analytically-inclined people. You will end up smarter over time, and in better places. Peer effects are strong, including across your ideological partners."
This reads like someone who has no familiarity with, oh say, the American Progressive Era, the rise of a certain analytically-inclined German government, or a certain analytically-inclined peasant who studied physics and mathematic and tried to get various European countries on a more analytical governing model before returning to Russia and succeding.
Peer effects *are* strong. They can lead those analytical thinkers to sterilize rape victims (Buck v Bell), exclude minorities from full citizenship due to phrenology (US occupatin of Germany), calculate the amount of opium to dump onto Chinese markets to undermine their ability of self-rule, calculate the number of Congolese to die per value of natural resorce extracted so your new slaves don't die before you've stolen everything in the entire country, etc etc. These weren't weird one-offs. These were things that people let happen because of peer effects and those smart, analytical thinkers all said it was the right thing to do.
Without psychoanalyzing Cowen, Alexander, or folks who favor rationality in general, I'd submit that much of what passes for "rationality" is a very poor basis for decision-making and could very easily be replaced by a sort of moral "do the least harm" principle.
Let's use the truckers vs. the Canadian government as an example. Cowen is putting his faith in the "rock" of the "smart and reasonableness" of the Canadian government (or if you read differently, his "rock" is actually the stupidity of and antipathy he feels for the Truckers). TheSvi says (I think) accept the Litany (what is true in a particular circumstance) and try not to have Rocks.
I think Cowen's view is irrational for the reasons pointed out, but I think the latter view falls down because strictly speaking, there is no truth in this particular circumstance. All we've got is a conflict between two groups that both appear to be utterly irrational to me.
I think it's rational to get vaccinated, but enforcing a vaccine mandate upon a group of people who are unwilling to do so and for whom the benefits of the vaccine are at this point highly questionable is also... irrational.
What I'm saying is, there's no rational solution to an irrational conflict. There is, however, a pretty simple moral way to pick a side by applying the Coase Theorem. In a conflict, there's always a way the right can be assigned that maximizes social value. What happens if Ottawa drops the mandate? Well, everything is over tomorrow. Sure, some of the whackos might keep protesting, but 95% of folks are going to go home. Some politicos maybe get harmed for trying to exert too much authority, but a gracious back down would resolve things pretty quickly.
On the other hand, a draconian sort of "win" for Ottawa would look like what? Lots of people coerced into doing something they don't want to do. Unemployment, distrust, the feeling of oppression, resentment, and a potentially significant amount of violence. Those are some pretty high costs.
I guess this seems straightforward to me, when I disparage "rational arguments" it's because those I hear in favor of the "smart and reasonable people" tend to be something to the effect of:
1. The slippery slope (if we give the FREEDOM ROCKERS what they want, they might ask for more). This is not a reasonable argument though, when one concedes that the mandate is, itself, pretty irrational. Stop doing the irrational thing, and then deal with the slippery slope if it happens.
2. Those people are so awful/stupid/deplorable/etc so they deserve to be treated badly and its fine for the government to make life miserable for them. Again, this is patently irrational. Bad, stupid deplorable people are still citizens whose rights matter.
> One could also say at least Ron Paul has a rock, and thus has predictable thoughts that are roughly consistent and are not corrupted by various political considerations as much as those of his rivals. Whereas the alternatives are much worse than rocks. Or alternatively, that the other candidates all have rocks that say “DO WHAT GETS YOU ELECTED” and you’d prefer an actual analytical thinker but you’ll take “FREEDOM!” over “DO WHAT GETS YOU ELECTED” any day.
I wish this would a) fit on a shirt and b) not require a bunch of context to explain. I am not looking forward to the latest round of congressional elections in my home state.
Tyler's post felt off to me in roughly the same way it did to you.
However, perhaps here is a more charitable reading of his post: People who agree with you for the wrong reasons are not on your side. By supporting them, it is true that you are indirectly supporting a correct position. But more importantly, in the long run and in the bigger picture, you are indirectly supporting a wrong algorithm for coming to conclusions.
Perhaps also he could be saying: If you publicly support Group X in having View Y, onlookers will only remember that you support Group X, and will continue to assume you support Group X in their other views, whatever those may turn out to be. Most people cannot fathom that comments about views aren't simulacrums that are really comments about the groups who hold those views. (Keep in mind that Tyler has been a public intellectual for a long time now...)
I agree with you that letting such considerations determine what you believe to be true is a recipe for disaster. I say, decide what you believe first, and then decide if you have to lie about it second. Allowing those two steps to get mixed up together is one of the most destructive cognitive biases.
In this example I think Tyler and you are writing for different audiences. You are writing for a slice of the population with extremely rare analytical skills. Tyler appears to be writing for the much bigger slice who are trying to decide whether or not they should join the Convoy's (or Ron Paul's) movement. Tyler's (obviously imperfect) heuristic seems to me to be saying, "Ask Zvi!" and do what he says. :)
I agree more with Josh Hawley on Russia/Ukraine than with other politicians. I also think Hawley is dangerously wrong in most of his views and wish he was not in the Senate.
As you are pointing out, if you automatically disagree with everything someone says, you are using a rock.
I don’t think the OP was saying “run” when the people hold offensive views. I think he was saying run when the people hold stupid views.
In other words, people who believe in QAnon have very little credibility because it’s stupid, not because it’s offensive.
Very well put. I think I can offer a diagnosis for Tyler's strange condition. It seems Cowan has unfortunately fallen prey to respectability disease. Too much time spent in the fancier DC circles, hobnobbing with the rich and powerful while asking for their money, has burdened him with too much to lose by being associated with society's lessers, regardless of the truth value of a particular point. He is, as you put it, now concerned with being in the proper coalition, being seen to agree with the right sorts of people and not the unfashionable sort. He can't full throatedly back freedom* any more because he fears losing the approval of the inner circle. He must mince words about how of course freedom and liberty are important, but we must balance them off against the needs of the state to protect some others mumble mumble and really these people don't want real liberty... He gets to be the token tame libertarian for the mainstream media, so long as he doesn't challenge them or say anything upsetting to the narrative.
Only someone with very few gifts from the ruling class to lose can say things like "Look, I may not agree with these guys on everything, but they are right on here, and everyone else at the party has it wrong." The desire to fit in and continue fitting in, to be in that inner circle, kills objectivity and reason, replacing it with group think. Tyler has fallen victim to his own success.
*It is possible that he can't back it here for the same reasons he has been terrible on COVID overall, because he is a germaphobe and is unable to think clearly on the matter.
"For whatever set of views you think is justified, try to stick to the versions of those views held by well-educated, reasonable, analytically-inclined people. You will end up smarter over time, and in better places. Peer effects are strong, including across your ideological partners."
This reads like someone who has no familiarity with, oh say, the American Progressive Era, the rise of a certain analytically-inclined German government, or a certain analytically-inclined peasant who studied physics and mathematic and tried to get various European countries on a more analytical governing model before returning to Russia and succeding.
Peer effects *are* strong. They can lead those analytical thinkers to sterilize rape victims (Buck v Bell), exclude minorities from full citizenship due to phrenology (US occupatin of Germany), calculate the amount of opium to dump onto Chinese markets to undermine their ability of self-rule, calculate the number of Congolese to die per value of natural resorce extracted so your new slaves don't die before you've stolen everything in the entire country, etc etc. These weren't weird one-offs. These were things that people let happen because of peer effects and those smart, analytical thinkers all said it was the right thing to do.
Without psychoanalyzing Cowen, Alexander, or folks who favor rationality in general, I'd submit that much of what passes for "rationality" is a very poor basis for decision-making and could very easily be replaced by a sort of moral "do the least harm" principle.
Let's use the truckers vs. the Canadian government as an example. Cowen is putting his faith in the "rock" of the "smart and reasonableness" of the Canadian government (or if you read differently, his "rock" is actually the stupidity of and antipathy he feels for the Truckers). TheSvi says (I think) accept the Litany (what is true in a particular circumstance) and try not to have Rocks.
I think Cowen's view is irrational for the reasons pointed out, but I think the latter view falls down because strictly speaking, there is no truth in this particular circumstance. All we've got is a conflict between two groups that both appear to be utterly irrational to me.
I think it's rational to get vaccinated, but enforcing a vaccine mandate upon a group of people who are unwilling to do so and for whom the benefits of the vaccine are at this point highly questionable is also... irrational.
What I'm saying is, there's no rational solution to an irrational conflict. There is, however, a pretty simple moral way to pick a side by applying the Coase Theorem. In a conflict, there's always a way the right can be assigned that maximizes social value. What happens if Ottawa drops the mandate? Well, everything is over tomorrow. Sure, some of the whackos might keep protesting, but 95% of folks are going to go home. Some politicos maybe get harmed for trying to exert too much authority, but a gracious back down would resolve things pretty quickly.
On the other hand, a draconian sort of "win" for Ottawa would look like what? Lots of people coerced into doing something they don't want to do. Unemployment, distrust, the feeling of oppression, resentment, and a potentially significant amount of violence. Those are some pretty high costs.
I guess this seems straightforward to me, when I disparage "rational arguments" it's because those I hear in favor of the "smart and reasonable people" tend to be something to the effect of:
1. The slippery slope (if we give the FREEDOM ROCKERS what they want, they might ask for more). This is not a reasonable argument though, when one concedes that the mandate is, itself, pretty irrational. Stop doing the irrational thing, and then deal with the slippery slope if it happens.
2. Those people are so awful/stupid/deplorable/etc so they deserve to be treated badly and its fine for the government to make life miserable for them. Again, this is patently irrational. Bad, stupid deplorable people are still citizens whose rights matter.
> One could also say at least Ron Paul has a rock, and thus has predictable thoughts that are roughly consistent and are not corrupted by various political considerations as much as those of his rivals. Whereas the alternatives are much worse than rocks. Or alternatively, that the other candidates all have rocks that say “DO WHAT GETS YOU ELECTED” and you’d prefer an actual analytical thinker but you’ll take “FREEDOM!” over “DO WHAT GETS YOU ELECTED” any day.
I wish this would a) fit on a shirt and b) not require a bunch of context to explain. I am not looking forward to the latest round of congressional elections in my home state.
Tyler's post felt off to me in roughly the same way it did to you.
However, perhaps here is a more charitable reading of his post: People who agree with you for the wrong reasons are not on your side. By supporting them, it is true that you are indirectly supporting a correct position. But more importantly, in the long run and in the bigger picture, you are indirectly supporting a wrong algorithm for coming to conclusions.
Perhaps also he could be saying: If you publicly support Group X in having View Y, onlookers will only remember that you support Group X, and will continue to assume you support Group X in their other views, whatever those may turn out to be. Most people cannot fathom that comments about views aren't simulacrums that are really comments about the groups who hold those views. (Keep in mind that Tyler has been a public intellectual for a long time now...)
I agree with you that letting such considerations determine what you believe to be true is a recipe for disaster. I say, decide what you believe first, and then decide if you have to lie about it second. Allowing those two steps to get mixed up together is one of the most destructive cognitive biases.
In this example I think Tyler and you are writing for different audiences. You are writing for a slice of the population with extremely rare analytical skills. Tyler appears to be writing for the much bigger slice who are trying to decide whether or not they should join the Convoy's (or Ron Paul's) movement. Tyler's (obviously imperfect) heuristic seems to me to be saying, "Ask Zvi!" and do what he says. :)