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.
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.
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.
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!