Thanks for speaking thoughtfully on these controversial topics, Robin. I don't know if you are the best person to do it, or it is the best strategy for you in the long run, but I am appreciative regardless, I wouldn't have the guts that you have.
No, the feeling of being repressed is not the same thing as being repressed. And one person's (your) feelings are a very poor basis for making a policy decision.(When the snide comments are inescapable and ubiquitous, i.e. sexism & racism, I may have a different view, but you're not a victim of either of those systemic biases.)Personally, I think this is one of the best things about the internet. You may not like people making snide remarks about you; you have every right to complain about it. But you can't stop it, and if you remain on Twitter, you'll be forced to listen to it. You can complain, but we will, can, and should compartmentalize your complaints from your proper academic thought. Thank you for the reply - obviously I'm a fan or I wouldn't be here. Your commitment to open conversation is wonderful.
Okay, so let me get this straight: You say visibly news-managing (using violence etc) makes me look bad. (1)
So your advice to me, a cultural elite, is: if I don't news-manage, I will do better, because I will look good (by (1)), even if things aren't great.
But this is just more news-management!
In other words, I'm news-managing my attempts at news-managing, which is, in the end, just a kind of news-management. By (1) any news-managing looks bad, so this can't be useful advice, unless you can do the meta-managing covertly, which, if you can, why not do the object-managing covertly?
I see. So your response rests on the distinction between "don’t stretch too hard to infer what you think they mean in scattered hints of what they’ve said and done" and "don't stretch too hard to infer their motivations for what they say in scattered hints of what they've said and done"?
The problem with that is that "dog whistle" is your term and "gaslighting" is compatible with either of the above. People are responding negatively to your statements in various ways. You're painting those responses as "they're saying I really mean this" as opposed to "they're saying I am really motivated by this". I've looked at some of the material and don't see much textual support for the narrower interpretation.
I think the error here is the conflation of adminstrative/political leadership with cultural leadership. They are not the same thing. Someone saying mean things about you on Twitter is not the same as being oppressed by a manager/leader with power over you. When a writer complains about the motives of other writers for (attacking/disagreeing) with him, that's just falling into precisely the same trap that Hanson omplains about all the time.
You could be accused of implying that the motives they imputed to you are untrue. I'm not doing that, mind you, but it does seem like what your accusers are doing, so... like that.
Shorter Robin Hanson: I am (singularly?) immune to the cognitive biases and suppressed motives I describe at length in my recent book "The Elephant in the Brain", and I will not be analyzed in the way I have analyzed the rest of humanity.
So when the smirks and eye rolls didn't work for all the victims of Hitler, Stalin and the Confederacy, your suggestion would be what? God forbid these monsters be depicted as tyrannical assholes that led totalitarian governments that murdered millions and millions of humans......ya know, it was just a difference of how one acquires prestige and dominance.
Perhaps a physical war metaphor might hold some insight:
When one side achieves significant gains in a battle there is a some ambiguity about who controls what territory. During this time the best strategy is to keep pushing uncompromisingly to establish control over as many available spots as possible. Then, once initial possession is secured, nuance can be allowed to test whether the dominance is real.
So most authorities allow subordinate eye-rolls, smirks, negative gossip, etc. as long as they are not too overtly a direct commonly-visible challenge to their authority.
Thanks for speaking thoughtfully on these controversial topics, Robin. I don't know if you are the best person to do it, or it is the best strategy for you in the long run, but I am appreciative regardless, I wouldn't have the guts that you have.
How could you possibly take this post as a defense of Hitler and Stalin?
No, the feeling of being repressed is not the same thing as being repressed. And one person's (your) feelings are a very poor basis for making a policy decision.(When the snide comments are inescapable and ubiquitous, i.e. sexism & racism, I may have a different view, but you're not a victim of either of those systemic biases.)Personally, I think this is one of the best things about the internet. You may not like people making snide remarks about you; you have every right to complain about it. But you can't stop it, and if you remain on Twitter, you'll be forced to listen to it. You can complain, but we will, can, and should compartmentalize your complaints from your proper academic thought. Thank you for the reply - obviously I'm a fan or I wouldn't be here. Your commitment to open conversation is wonderful.
If it feels the same to the person being repressed, it will have the same consequences that I outlined.
If feelings decide then crazy always wins. Objective metrics are likely available.
I didn't say management looks bad, I said strong repression looks bad.
Okay, so let me get this straight: You say visibly news-managing (using violence etc) makes me look bad. (1)
So your advice to me, a cultural elite, is: if I don't news-manage, I will do better, because I will look good (by (1)), even if things aren't great.
But this is just more news-management!
In other words, I'm news-managing my attempts at news-managing, which is, in the end, just a kind of news-management. By (1) any news-managing looks bad, so this can't be useful advice, unless you can do the meta-managing covertly, which, if you can, why not do the object-managing covertly?
Conflating violence with tolerance as news-management seems disingenuous.
I see. So your response rests on the distinction between "don’t stretch too hard to infer what you think they mean in scattered hints of what they’ve said and done" and "don't stretch too hard to infer their motivations for what they say in scattered hints of what they've said and done"?
The problem with that is that "dog whistle" is your term and "gaslighting" is compatible with either of the above. People are responding negatively to your statements in various ways. You're painting those responses as "they're saying I really mean this" as opposed to "they're saying I am really motivated by this". I've looked at some of the material and don't see much textual support for the narrower interpretation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)
I think the error here is the conflation of adminstrative/political leadership with cultural leadership. They are not the same thing. Someone saying mean things about you on Twitter is not the same as being oppressed by a manager/leader with power over you. When a writer complains about the motives of other writers for (attacking/disagreeing) with him, that's just falling into precisely the same trap that Hanson omplains about all the time.
As I make no claims about my motives here, I can't see how I can be accused of misrepresenting them.
You could be accused of implying that the motives they imputed to you are untrue. I'm not doing that, mind you, but it does seem like what your accusers are doing, so... like that.
Shorter Robin Hanson: I am (singularly?) immune to the cognitive biases and suppressed motives I describe at length in my recent book "The Elephant in the Brain", and I will not be analyzed in the way I have analyzed the rest of humanity.
So when the smirks and eye rolls didn't work for all the victims of Hitler, Stalin and the Confederacy, your suggestion would be what? God forbid these monsters be depicted as tyrannical assholes that led totalitarian governments that murdered millions and millions of humans......ya know, it was just a difference of how one acquires prestige and dominance.
Perhaps a physical war metaphor might hold some insight:
When one side achieves significant gains in a battle there is a some ambiguity about who controls what territory. During this time the best strategy is to keep pushing uncompromisingly to establish control over as many available spots as possible. Then, once initial possession is secured, nuance can be allowed to test whether the dominance is real.
So most authorities allow subordinate eye-rolls, smirks, negative gossip, etc. as long as they are not too overtly a direct commonly-visible challenge to their authority.
Not like this: https://www.youtube.com/wat... ?