This article rubs me the wrong way. I can't place my finger on it just yet, but I think the last sentence is giving me a starting point. Most progress, both socially and scientifically, hinges on...
This article rubs me the wrong way. I can't place my finger on it just yet, but I think the last sentence is giving me a starting point.
... maintaining and improving our best epistemic norms and institutions, and winning trust in, and conformity to, them.
Most progress, both socially and scientifically, hinges on bucking against the system, not trusting and conforming to it.
I think the word choice there was poor, but that he is saying that sticking with the institutions and cooperations that advance knowledge should be adhered. But if you are at all like me, it might...
I think the word choice there was poor, but that he is saying that sticking with the institutions and cooperations that advance knowledge should be adhered.
But if you are at all like me, it might be the writing style and unnecessary verbosity that is annoying and clouding the point, whether you agree with the point or not. The post has lots of redundant bits, and could have benefited from some restructuring and editing down.
The one thing that I think it did do ok was to communicate his point that "truth" or reason based discovery and empiricism is taken for granted. The world is full of people who are convinced of the truth of their world view, etc, and can't recognize the subjectivity of the foundations of that view.
I agree there were some good points in there. But much like the crunch/alt-right pipeline something feels weird in the phrasing and conclusings that stem from a very reasonable staring point. I'll...
I agree there were some good points in there. But much like the crunch/alt-right pipeline something feels weird in the phrasing and conclusings that stem from a very reasonable staring point. I'll hone in one one of the places I started feeling that unease.
Why is there poverty?
Looking at the children's question and inverting it to say 'Why is there wealth' is an intersting mental excercise, but it sidesteps the actual question. And they make a bunch of supporting points of the commonly held beliefs that underly American Capitalism Exceptionalism.
Wheras I would see what the child is probably trying to actually ask:
Why is there still poverty?
To which I would answer 'because the people whom have aquired wealth would rather hoard it than distribute it.'
Yeah. I think posts like this come from people with a philosophical bent whose goal is to discuss and debate, not solve the actual problems. They are more interested in the argument than the...
Yeah. I think posts like this come from people with a philosophical bent whose goal is to discuss and debate, not solve the actual problems. They are more interested in the argument than the subject matter.
I agree that inverting these arguments can lead to misleading ends and arguments. I do think it can be useful, properly framed and thought through. But yeah, it's an odd piece.
I'm reminded of the phrase "Arguing with a philosopher is like wrestling a pig in the mud. After an hour you realize they enjoy it."
But this is exactly the sort of answer that would deserve an "explanatory inversion", no? The default state of people is not to share, except usually with a very limited subset (family and...
To which I would answer 'because the people whom have acquired wealth would rather hoard it than distribute it.'
But this is exactly the sort of answer that would deserve an "explanatory inversion", no? The default state of people is not to share, except usually with a very limited subset (family and friends). So the author's point is that, if you want to understand why the wealthy hoard their wealth, then you should also try to understand why some of the wealthy choose to share their wealth instead (e.g., by signing the giving pledge); by understanding the latter group, you will be better informed to create systems that incentive sharing.
In their one quoted bit: It is only difficult to explain the rule abidingness if you accept that the default state is to smash the other person over the head with a rock. The simple explaination...
The default state of people is not to share.
In their one quoted bit:
difficult to explain why more people do not break the law more often (since it is so often in their interest to do so).”
It is only difficult to explain the rule abidingness if you accept that the default state is to smash the other person over the head with a rock. The simple explaination is that most people don't need laws to do the right thing. You can handwave away that adherence as being socially conditioned, but it's hardly a settled fact as we see cases of sharing and cooperation throughout nature as well.
It's already pretty well established why billionaires sign the non-enforcable Giving Pledge: Because it gives them some good PR for their money shell games. Actual charity doesn't come with a press release.
I'm not saying inversion is a useless mental excercise, but I am saying that most of the examples they provided draw into right-wing conclusions, because they start from right-wing assumptions like 'the default state of humans is greed, so we should built our systems to exploit it.'
I think your viewpoint might be colored by the assumption that the thinker is right-leaning, but I don't think that's the case. Take this excerpt from their post on the recent UK riots: Regarding...
I think your viewpoint might be colored by the assumption that the thinker is right-leaning, but I don't think that's the case. Take this excerpt from their post on the recent UK riots:
[M]y scepticism about the impact of online misinformation in these riots is not driven by a desire to legitimise them, paint them in a more positive light, or—as much of the pundit class has done—connect them to “root causes” that coincidentally align with my personal dislikes.
I have the opposite motivation: I think more responsibility and blame should be placed on the shoulders of far-right activists, thugs, and hooligans, not less.
Regarding the article in the OP: I would agree with the author that the default state of people is not to share -- that's evidenced, for example, by the fact that most people don't donate all of their disposable income to charity. Usually we're only generous to those close to us.
I find the idea that not sharing is the default state to be a useful mental model. For example, I think we would both agree with the old saying that the existence of billionaires is a policy failure. One seemingly-simple solution would be a 100% wealth tax above some threshold. But then the question becomes: how do we determine the threshold? If we're okay with people hoarding some amount of wealth (e.g., maybe a household having a few thousand dollars of disposable income per year), then at what point does the amount of disposable income become obscene? We could probably think of some good guidelines, but that's not a question with an objective answer.
However, if we at least acknowledge that not sharing is the default, then we can at least understand why the obscenely rich behave so selfishly -- like the household with a only few thousands dollars in disposable income, billionaires often believe that their billions in disposable income is theirs to do with as they wish. Of course the comparison is perverse! But at least the reason is intelligible.
On the other hand, some people with little means decide to live generously, donating their money and time to causes they believe in. The implication by the author is that, if you want to design systems that encourage people to behave better, then you should study the people who act generously instead of just labeling the billionaires as being selfish, as that has little explanatory power.
I don't see it that way, because it follows that only the selfish would perform the deeds neccessary to become obscenely wealthy. That has plenty of explanatory power, including explaining why the...
if you want to design systems that encourage people to behave better, labelling billionaires as being selfish, as that has little explanatory power.
I don't see it that way, because it follows that only the selfish would perform the deeds neccessary to become obscenely wealthy. That has plenty of explanatory power, including explaining why the wealthy continually and perpetually push against laws that attempt to mitigate the wealth accumulation.
But either way, I don't see labelling greed/selfishness/altruism as a useful method for building an equitable society. A good system does not rely on altruism and does not allow the greedy/selfish to exploit it. It matters not what the motives are (the road to hell is paved with good intentions), it matters what the actions and outcomes are.
I think the author seems to be best classified as Liberal but more in a classical European philosophy kinda sense than in a colloquial US politics usage kinda sense.
I think the author seems to be best classified as Liberal but more in a classical European philosophy kinda sense than in a colloquial US politics usage kinda sense.
For what it’s worth, I got a similar vibe from the article. Reading through a bit more of the site, it turns out he’s a lecturer in philosophy at a university in the UK. Which I think helps...
For what it’s worth, I got a similar vibe from the article. Reading through a bit more of the site, it turns out he’s a lecturer in philosophy at a university in the UK. Which I think helps explain some of it. Reading through just this article left me a bit on edge as to how straightforward I should take some of these arguments and how intellectually honest he was being as a writer. The rest of the site helps contextualize it a bit. There’s some interesting and nuanced stuff there but I also think we have some underlying disagreements.
This article rubs me the wrong way. I can't place my finger on it just yet, but I think the last sentence is giving me a starting point.
Most progress, both socially and scientifically, hinges on bucking against the system, not trusting and conforming to it.
I think the word choice there was poor, but that he is saying that sticking with the institutions and cooperations that advance knowledge should be adhered.
But if you are at all like me, it might be the writing style and unnecessary verbosity that is annoying and clouding the point, whether you agree with the point or not. The post has lots of redundant bits, and could have benefited from some restructuring and editing down.
The one thing that I think it did do ok was to communicate his point that "truth" or reason based discovery and empiricism is taken for granted. The world is full of people who are convinced of the truth of their world view, etc, and can't recognize the subjectivity of the foundations of that view.
I agree there were some good points in there. But much like the crunch/alt-right pipeline something feels weird in the phrasing and conclusings that stem from a very reasonable staring point. I'll hone in one one of the places I started feeling that unease.
Looking at the children's question and inverting it to say 'Why is there wealth' is an intersting mental excercise, but it sidesteps the actual question. And they make a bunch of supporting points of the commonly held beliefs that underly American Capitalism Exceptionalism.
Wheras I would see what the child is probably trying to actually ask:
To which I would answer 'because the people whom have aquired wealth would rather hoard it than distribute it.'
Yeah. I think posts like this come from people with a philosophical bent whose goal is to discuss and debate, not solve the actual problems. They are more interested in the argument than the subject matter.
I agree that inverting these arguments can lead to misleading ends and arguments. I do think it can be useful, properly framed and thought through. But yeah, it's an odd piece.
I'm reminded of the phrase "Arguing with a philosopher is like wrestling a pig in the mud. After an hour you realize they enjoy it."
But this is exactly the sort of answer that would deserve an "explanatory inversion", no? The default state of people is not to share, except usually with a very limited subset (family and friends). So the author's point is that, if you want to understand why the wealthy hoard their wealth, then you should also try to understand why some of the wealthy choose to share their wealth instead (e.g., by signing the giving pledge); by understanding the latter group, you will be better informed to create systems that incentive sharing.
In their one quoted bit:
It is only difficult to explain the rule abidingness if you accept that the default state is to smash the other person over the head with a rock. The simple explaination is that most people don't need laws to do the right thing. You can handwave away that adherence as being socially conditioned, but it's hardly a settled fact as we see cases of sharing and cooperation throughout nature as well.
It's already pretty well established why billionaires sign the non-enforcable Giving Pledge: Because it gives them some good PR for their money shell games. Actual charity doesn't come with a press release.
I'm not saying inversion is a useless mental excercise, but I am saying that most of the examples they provided draw into right-wing conclusions, because they start from right-wing assumptions like 'the default state of humans is greed, so we should built our systems to exploit it.'
I think your viewpoint might be colored by the assumption that the thinker is right-leaning, but I don't think that's the case. Take this excerpt from their post on the recent UK riots:
Regarding the article in the OP: I would agree with the author that the default state of people is not to share -- that's evidenced, for example, by the fact that most people don't donate all of their disposable income to charity. Usually we're only generous to those close to us.
I find the idea that not sharing is the default state to be a useful mental model. For example, I think we would both agree with the old saying that the existence of billionaires is a policy failure. One seemingly-simple solution would be a 100% wealth tax above some threshold. But then the question becomes: how do we determine the threshold? If we're okay with people hoarding some amount of wealth (e.g., maybe a household having a few thousand dollars of disposable income per year), then at what point does the amount of disposable income become obscene? We could probably think of some good guidelines, but that's not a question with an objective answer.
However, if we at least acknowledge that not sharing is the default, then we can at least understand why the obscenely rich behave so selfishly -- like the household with a only few thousands dollars in disposable income, billionaires often believe that their billions in disposable income is theirs to do with as they wish. Of course the comparison is perverse! But at least the reason is intelligible.
On the other hand, some people with little means decide to live generously, donating their money and time to causes they believe in. The implication by the author is that, if you want to design systems that encourage people to behave better, then you should study the people who act generously instead of just labeling the billionaires as being selfish, as that has little explanatory power.
I don't see it that way, because it follows that only the selfish would perform the deeds neccessary to become obscenely wealthy. That has plenty of explanatory power, including explaining why the wealthy continually and perpetually push against laws that attempt to mitigate the wealth accumulation.
But either way, I don't see labelling greed/selfishness/altruism as a useful method for building an equitable society. A good system does not rely on altruism and does not allow the greedy/selfish to exploit it. It matters not what the motives are (the road to hell is paved with good intentions), it matters what the actions and outcomes are.
I think the author seems to be best classified as Liberal but more in a classical European philosophy kinda sense than in a colloquial US politics usage kinda sense.
For what it’s worth, I got a similar vibe from the article. Reading through a bit more of the site, it turns out he’s a lecturer in philosophy at a university in the UK. Which I think helps explain some of it. Reading through just this article left me a bit on edge as to how straightforward I should take some of these arguments and how intellectually honest he was being as a writer. The rest of the site helps contextualize it a bit. There’s some interesting and nuanced stuff there but I also think we have some underlying disagreements.