This essay is a nice complement to your essay The Smartest Person on the Internet is Often Egregiously Wrong.
I find it particularly difficult to calibrate my level of skepticism for writers that I find hypnotic--thinking of people like Erik Hoel and Scott Alexander. But on the other hand I perhaps over calibrate to an unreasonably high degree of skepticism for internet randos and also most journalism (I seem to not experience Gell-Mann Amnesia, though I'm not sure if that is because I am aware of the concept). I came to your writing with that unreasonably high degree of skepticism, which I started to downgrade after reading your essay on factory farming. Erik and Scott have both changed my mind in fundamental ways. I can't say you have thus far (I already didn't eat meat), but I suppose time will tell if you are able to persuade me to change my views on other topics.
Thank you for the kind and thoughtful comment. I agree with you. I read something by, for example, Emile Torres, and I find myself trying to disprove it rather than considering it impartially. Of course, this is partially rational--Torres says a lot more false things than Alexander, for example. But I think I--like most people--do this too much.
I'd be interested in hearing about some of the things that you think I'm wrong about.
I am not a utilitarian. Without turning this into a debate about utilitarianism--which I am sure you would win as my days of thinking deeply about moral philosophy came when I first encountered Parfit when I was in college 15+ years ago--I think the first essay of yours I read was a response to Sam Atis, in which you never got off the train to crazy town. I don't remember your specific points, but I do recall that your degree of confidence in the ability of utilitarianism to answer (seemingly) every moral question struck me as exceedingly overconfident.
I wrestle with this constantly, noticing that my latest opinion on something merely reflects the latest thing I read about it. I've found intelligent, articulate ideological writers to be masters of manipulation in this respect. It's very difficult to resist, but easy to spot. The trick is to notice how pleased you were to read the thing and how excited everyone else was to share it and default to not trusting that. I'm ploughing through my own new post on the wonderful writings of conservative scholars, in this vein, this week. My conclusion is... be entertained but remain sceptical.
You make a persuasive case but I am not convinced.
Great comment!
This essay is a nice complement to your essay The Smartest Person on the Internet is Often Egregiously Wrong.
I find it particularly difficult to calibrate my level of skepticism for writers that I find hypnotic--thinking of people like Erik Hoel and Scott Alexander. But on the other hand I perhaps over calibrate to an unreasonably high degree of skepticism for internet randos and also most journalism (I seem to not experience Gell-Mann Amnesia, though I'm not sure if that is because I am aware of the concept). I came to your writing with that unreasonably high degree of skepticism, which I started to downgrade after reading your essay on factory farming. Erik and Scott have both changed my mind in fundamental ways. I can't say you have thus far (I already didn't eat meat), but I suppose time will tell if you are able to persuade me to change my views on other topics.
Thank you for the kind and thoughtful comment. I agree with you. I read something by, for example, Emile Torres, and I find myself trying to disprove it rather than considering it impartially. Of course, this is partially rational--Torres says a lot more false things than Alexander, for example. But I think I--like most people--do this too much.
I'd be interested in hearing about some of the things that you think I'm wrong about.
I am not a utilitarian. Without turning this into a debate about utilitarianism--which I am sure you would win as my days of thinking deeply about moral philosophy came when I first encountered Parfit when I was in college 15+ years ago--I think the first essay of yours I read was a response to Sam Atis, in which you never got off the train to crazy town. I don't remember your specific points, but I do recall that your degree of confidence in the ability of utilitarianism to answer (seemingly) every moral question struck me as exceedingly overconfident.
I wrestle with this constantly, noticing that my latest opinion on something merely reflects the latest thing I read about it. I've found intelligent, articulate ideological writers to be masters of manipulation in this respect. It's very difficult to resist, but easy to spot. The trick is to notice how pleased you were to read the thing and how excited everyone else was to share it and default to not trusting that. I'm ploughing through my own new post on the wonderful writings of conservative scholars, in this vein, this week. My conclusion is... be entertained but remain sceptical.
The sample paragraph defending U.S. hegemony was great. Thanks for the article!