Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Pretty good review, sums up some of my objections to Pinker.

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2018/03/20/enlightenment-how-pinkers-tutelary-natures/

Good piece. I liked this bit (but of course):

As it stands, I’m with Nietzsche and Adorno. All things are not equal… and we would see this clearly, I think, were it not for the intentional obscurities comprising humanism. Far from the latest, greatest hope that Pinker makes it out to be, I fear humanism constitutes yet another nexus of traditional intuitions that must be overcome. The last stand of ancestral authority.

And most of the information after (too cluttery to quote half an article):

Just what are these pertinent facts? First, there is a profound distinction between natural or causal cognition, and intentional cognition. Developmental research shows that infants begin exhibiting distinct physical versus psychological cognitive capacities within the first year of life.

 

[Einherjar86]

You like the bit in which he agrees with Adorno???

 

[Dak]

You like the bit in which he agrees with Adorno???

I didn't see anything after that which could be described as critical theory. It was a rather basic neuroscience perspective but with some philosophical jargon thrown in.

 

[Einherjar86]

Indeed. Turns out Adorno was more on point than even he likely realized.

 

[Dak]

Bakker's latest really hammered the point home.

Edit: Didn't realize Bakker had a ABD PhD. I don't know how people fall into that. I can't afford to not finish my future dissertation. Earnings difference would be like 50k+ per year + retirement benefits.

 

[Einherjar86]

Bakker's latest really hammered the point home.

FINISH HIM.

Edit: Didn't realize Bakker had a ABD PhD. I don't know how people fall into that. I can't afford to not finish my future dissertation. Earnings difference would be like 50k+ per year + retirement benefits.

If I recall, he became pretty disillusioned with academia. Personally, I think he realized he could write about the same ideas in a fantasy series and make a comparable amount of money (he's under contract and his series is mentioned alongside Malazan and ASOIAF). And it would reach a wider audience.

 

[Einherjar86]

There's a really interesting discussion going on in the comments of Peter Watts's most recent blog post (which he's since amended a couple times, noting when he does so):

http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=7917

I'm not going to quote any sections because there are a lot of comments, but it's an interesting debate. Made some points about the history of vaccinations that I wasn't aware of.

 

[Dak]

I've read some research on herd immunity and the methodology looks kind of shit. It appears that vaccines for stuff like polio might be worth it to get people through to adulthood, but overall vaccines appear oversold.

I haven't gotten the flu shot since getting out of the military and haven't had the flu until this year, after the kids exposed me to it for like a week and a half, and it's only the second time they have had it.

Edit: To Watts thesis, I'm much more concerned with MRSA type stuff than a killer flu. If theres a major pandemic I expect it will be more due to compromised immune systems through shitty lifestyles and fast transmission through porous global transit vectors than whether or not we vaccine.

 

[Einherjar86]

I didn't get a flu shot this year either, and I didn't catch it. Got a nasty case of norovirus just after New Year's though, knocked me out for about twenty-four hours.

I was mostly interested in the suggestion that vaccines have never really been that effective. But I also think Watts is right that, at this point, it's smarter to keep vaccinating than not. Obviously if select individuals choose not to vaccinate then it won't make a huge difference; but if everyone simultaneously chose to not vaccinate, the consequences would be severe. That won't stave off the next "rolling pandemic" though, as Watts puts it.

 

[Dak]

I was mostly interested in the suggestion that vaccines have never really been that effective. But I also think Watts is right that, at this point, it's smarter to keep vaccinating than not.

From a standpoint of "we aren't sure, so let's err on the side of caution", it makes sense to continue to vaccinate. Plus, again, not all vaccines are created equal. Some probably work much better than others for any number of potential reasons, and getting nuanced on the public policy level is usually a nonstarter (again, for a variety of reasons). Although I haven't done intense research on the subject, reading some actual research on herd immunity and looking the the correlations between vaccinations and disease rates vs wealth/hygiene changes and disease rates leaves me doubting the vaccine success story generally speaking (although maybe not specifically speaking).

While avoiding things like Scarlet Fever or Polio are good because of the extreme risks (blindness, paralysis), avoiding most temporary illness, particularly without lifestyle considerations, is a conceit of our times.

 

[Einherjar86]

While avoiding things like Scarlet Fever or Polio are good because of the extreme risks (blindness, paralysis), avoiding most temporary illness, particularly without lifestyle considerations, is a conceit of our times.

I feel like flu vaccinations (for example) are more important for very young and very old people; but for most people our age, they probably aren't necessary.

And I do agree that lifestyle considerations are important, although I'm sympathetic to people for whom healthy lifestyles aren't an affordable option. That said, I think there's something to be said for doing 30 minutes of cardio and strength workouts four times a week.

 

[Dak]

I feel like flu vaccinations (for example) are more important for very young and very old people; but for most people our age, they probably aren't necessary.

I'm mixed on this. Best I'll admit is they probably don't hurt anyway. Unfortunately the military and medical facilities require them so I'll be getting them regardless. Wah wah.

And I do agree that lifestyle considerations are important, although I'm sympathetic to people for whom healthy lifestyles aren't an affordable option. That said, I think there's something to be said for doing 30 minutes of cardio and strength workouts four times a week.

Yeah, the main issues we have are the people who work hard but eat like shit, and the people who sit all day and eat like shit. Even with exercise most people consume a bunch of shitty food. I don't buy the cost issue because eating healthy is cheaper $ wise, but it is not convenient. Some people are worked to the bone with 2 jobs etc so I get not wanting to meal prep or whatever. But there are still better options than McDs on both counts. I get a little worked up about this stuff but it happens when you keep seeing people under the age of 50 or even 40 with ischemic heart failure.

 

[Dak]

I think Bakker is killing it right now. I have no objections but rather an ovation at this point.

Edit: I should provide a qualifier: Thinking on these things simply isn't available to something like 99.5% of people.

 

[Einherjar86]

Really good stuff. He's been harping on this for a while, but he's definitely honed his ideas and writing style.

Of course it's true that most people don't have the time/energy to consider these ideas (or the time to train themselves to think/read about them), but I don't think the upshot of such work should be personal gains at individual levels. The social value of this kind of writing is only applicable on scales that exceed individual usefulness and livelihood. The idea that philosophical writing resembling Bakker's should speak to the folk-psychological and everyday common-sense ruminations of the average person is one reason for the suspicion toward academic writing. That said, I don't think it needs to be the concern of philosophers to justify their intellectual interests (although it is a concern of academia's communications and public outreach departments).

 

[rms]

What's the bakker stuff in reference too?

You guys up to date on Harris v Klein?

 

[Dak]

What's the bakker stuff in reference too?

You guys up to date on Harris v Klein?

Bakker is kind of going meta on the Thinking Fast vs Thinking Slow issue.

I don't know if I'm "up to date", but if you look up charlatan in the dictionary, it will refer you to the entry on Ezra Klein.

 

[rms]

just from last week, Ezra and harris went 'at it' again. I think disingenuous ass, instead of charlatan

 

[Einherjar86]

What's the bakker stuff in reference too?

Bakker is kind of going meta on the Thinking Fast vs Thinking Slow issue.

I'm sure he's written about Kahneman in the past, you could probably do a google search and find the posts.

To elaborate just a bit, Bakker's pretty canny when it comes to exposing the weak spots of contemporary cognitive science and philosophy of mind. His posts are long (slatestarcodex long, sometimes) but worth perusing: https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/

I don't know if I'm "up to date", but if you look up charlatan in the dictionary, it will refer you to the entry on Ezra Klein.

I have to say, I found the recent Vox piece articulate and pretty transparent. He's simply commenting on observations available to anyone, and he cites a lot of the Harris/Murray interview. It may be that he's ignoring some of his own previous comments/positions--I'm not familiar with the history of the argument. For what it's worth, I think Harris gets way more credit than he deserves. Klein picks apart the interview Harris did with Murray, and it's pretty damning. I'm not familiar enough with Klein's history or previous work to argue about his character; but it's unfair to accuse him of charlatanry and excuse Harris.

 

[rms]

I gotta read the latest article from Klein(vox) but his response to those emails between him and Harris is illuminating

thanks for the blog, maybe ill have some time to 'think' again..

 

[Dak]

I have to say, I found the recent Vox piece articulate and pretty transparent. He's simply commenting on observations available to anyone, and he cites a lot of the Harris/Murray interview. It may be that he's ignoring some of his own previous comments/positions--I'm not familiar with the history of the argument. For what it's worth, I think Harris gets way more credit than he deserves. Klein picks apart the interview Harris did with Murray, and it's pretty damning. I'm not familiar enough with Klein's history or previous work to argue about his character; but it's unfair to accuse him of charlatanry and excuse Harris.

My overall impression of Klein is that he misrepresents research and researchers on genetic links, partially because he's afraid of how they could be interpreted, and he approves of no-platforming people like Murray, because simply looking at genetics is racist.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...ace-iq-forbidden-knowledge-podcast-bell-curve

This isn’t “forbidden knowledge.” It’s ancient prejudice.

Then he proceeds to engage in guilt by association, strawmanning, etc. A supposed example of the thinly veiled racism of Murray is illustrated by the following:

MURRAY: Because we now have social policy embedded in employment policy, in academic policy, which is based on the premise that everybody’s equal above the neck, all groups are equal above the neck, whether it’s men and women or whether it’s ethnicities. And when you have that embedded into law, you have a variety of bad things happen.

Interpreting this as racist requires really poor reasoning. If you want to improve future outcomes, you have to accurately understand the present circumstances. You can't get the future you want (more equality, in this case) by pretending it already exists in terms of policy prescription (force people into positions based on race). I see things like affirmative action putting the proverbial cart before the horse and having a variety of negative effects, much like premature deindustrialization, and this is what Murray is referring to.

Klein also curiously tries to put The Bell Curve into a "broader context" with this paragraph, yet fails to explain how this is problematic:

It’s worth noting, too, that The Bell Curve sits in a broader context within Murray’s work. His previous book, Losing Ground, argued that the Great Society’s anti-poverty programs had simply made the poor poorer. “A huge number of well-meaning whites fear that they are closet racists, and this book tells them they are not,” Murray said. “It’s going to make them feel better about things they already think but do not know how to say.”

Did it make them poorer? Is it necessarily racist to be anti-poverty programs? Klein (rightly) assumes his audience already assumes no and yes, respectively.

Klein's own positions and approaches are bad from start to finish.

Edit: Harris has problems with his attributing practically everything bad ever to religion. That's not an issue here.