We’ve heard of the libertarian to Alt-Right pipeline but I thought
this was an interesting illustration of how certain aspects of even Bill
Gates friendly liberals like Pinker can lead down that road. I’ve seen
people react in disbelief when even people like Jordan Peterson are
categorized with Pinker because they seem so different. As people on
both sides of the culture war recognize though, there are certain
orientations and ideas that a wide variety of “centrist” to right-wing
modern thinkers have. See the IDW and the concept of the alt-liberal (https://twitter.com/OmanReagan/status/958150463601258496)
for two different examples.
I also misspelled Steven Pinkers name in the title lol
Pinker does promote a softer, less conspiratorial version of the cultural Marxism theory, which really goes at least as far back as the 19th century, [as far as I can tell](https://www.reddit.com/r/CriticalTheory/comments/7wjl0h/petersons_views_on_postmodernism_are_misinformed/du295a5).
The inconvenient truth is that "Alt-liberalism" is nothing more or less than the true "core" ideology of the professional class. Even the most rabid liberal-progressive SJW likely still believes that intelligence justifies rank (otherwise the whole race and IQ thing wouldn't bother them at all), that experts ought to be in charge of society (see /r/neoliberal), that techno-Benthamist utilitarianism is the correct ethics and politics (believed mostly as an inherited prejudice rather than a well reasoned position, of course), that their class is the vanguard of human Progress, etc.
The only "heresy" that the IDW people commit is in their belief that there is no further moral improvement to be made. Most other liberals understand that many groups of people have had their intellectual potential stunted by oppression, that many stupid, lazy, and ignorant folks are still ruling over us, and that our society is not by any means utility-optimized, or necessarily on the right track.
But if the liberal progressives do win their battle with the Right and get their way politically, then several decades from now you can expect them to start sounding eerily similar to Pinker and Peterson.
The new hierarchies of our liberal professional overlords would probably be justified not by folk concepts of race and gender at all, but by reference to certain genetic markers contributing to intelligence and the presence of an optimal developmental environment. People act like social-constructivism and hereditarianism are opposed to each other, but really they're two components of the same bio-power, and the ruling class can and will use both to justify their social position.
Helicopter parenting will essentially be a model for all of society: a vast surveillance-state Panopticon, coupled to social institutions and propaganda apparatuses designed to condition and incentivize human beings to behave and desire in the "right" ways.
This is really what the Christian conservatives were warning us about, what they wanted to stop in its tracks. Their vision of where Enlightenment modernism would end up was very prescient. It's too bad they discredited their best ideas by being total psychopaths.
I like a good utopian fantasy, too, but unless people find competitive hierarchy-free organizational structures, doing away with hierarchies will at best lead to domination by more efficient hierarchical groups.
Really? I'm only dimly aware of Christian conservative criticisms of modernity and am mostly familiar with the racism, sexism, and general bigotry. Do you have any links or books you recommend?
> experts ought to be in charge of society
Huh? What's wrong with having people who know what they're doing in charge of the relevant public policy?
> But if the liberal progressives do win their battle with the Right and get their way politically, then several decades from now you can expect them to start sounding eerily similar to Pinker and Peterson.
This is some Both Sides bullshit.
I am not comfortable with that phrasing either, especially with the anti-science bent that the right has, but the leftist critique of expertise is often directed towards the kind of technocrat that implements a grand, sweeping program without knowing much about conditions on the ground. For example, Germany suffered enormous destruction of its forests because of overconfident forestry experts: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/scott-state.html?mcubz=1
> In state "fiscal forestry," however, the actual tree with its vast number of possible uses was replaced by an abstract tree representing a volume of lumber or firewood. If the princely conception of the forest was still utilitarian, it was surely a utilitarianism confined to the direct needs of the state.
> From a naturalist's perspective, nearly everything was missing from the state's narrow frame of reference. Gone was the vast majority of flora: grasses, flowers, lichens, ferns, mosses, shrubs, and vines. Gone, too, were reptiles, birds, amphibians, and innumerable species of insects. Gone were most species of fauna, except those that interested the crown's gamekeepers.
> From an anthropologist's perspective, nearly everything touching on human interaction with the forest was also missing from the state's tunnel vision. The state did pay attention to poaching, which impinged on its claim to revenue in wood or its claim to royal game, but otherwise it typically ignored the vast, complex, and negotiated social uses of the forest for hunting and gathering, pasturage, fishing, charcoal making, trapping, and collecting food and valuable minerals as well as the forest's significance for magic, worship, refuge, and so on.
The result of listening to the experts in the first quoted paragraph was ecological devastation that took decades to recover from and inspired a slang term that roughly means "forest death."
When leftists rail against 'experts,' they're often referring to the utilitarian thinker who killed the German forest--the agent of the state who doesn't care about the actual humans and other organisms that might be affected by their policies. I don't think any leftist seriously disputes the idea that some people will have expertise, and within the realm of that expertise, should be listened to. But leftists are not fond of the sort of expertise that knows only decontextualized numbers, and even less fond of the kinds of public policy it leads to.
Coincidentally, that kind of expertise overlaps a lot with the Science! worship a lot of rationalists have.
Accusations of full-on Hayek-ianism are overblown though.
http://crookedtimber.org/2007/10/31/delong-scott-and-hayek/
http://crookedtimber.org/2010/09/10/scott-versus-hayek/
That's what I was getting at: Scott (god, why is everyone we discuss on this sub named Scott) is very dissimilar, politically, to a large segment of Seeing Like a State admirers.
I'm not sure what are the right terms to use, but I think significant parts of environmentalism are essentially conservative in worldview. They have a suspicion of hubristic attempts to re-engineer nature in the same way that social conservatives are suspicious of what they view as hubristic attempts to re-engineer human society.
This creates some interesting conflict around climate change. The modernist/neoliberal/progressive (whatever you want to call it) approach to climate change is to use market-based systems like a revenue-neutral carbon tax or cap-and-trade. This doesn't sit well with others (I'm thinking of people like Naomi Klein) that view markets as the source of the problem and argue that the real solution is to dismantle capitalism.
What does a healthy suspicion of re-engineering nature have to do with an aversion to market-based systems, or dismantling capitalism? I'm afraid I don't see a connection to either. China's not exactly a pure capitalist country, and it's a major polluter. The Soviet Union was terrible at dealing with pollution too, and to this day, the water in some Russian cities is not safe to drink.
The leftist aversion to neoliberal fixes for reining in CO2 pollution have more to do with a distaste for incrementalist politics than a reverence for the complexity of nature--i.e. they believe that cap and trade will be insufficient relative to the pollution problem at hand. IMHO the left doesn't really think about environmentalism except when using it as a showpony for the negative externalities of capitalism.
Usually, the conservative environmentalists I know are scientists who oppose geo-engineering techniques, like spraying sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere to block sunlight. Or even more radically, there's EO Wilson, who thinks that humanity should withdraw from half the planet's land masses and concentrate in cities as much as possible.
>>experts ought to be in charge of society
>Huh? What's wrong with having people who know what they're doing in charge of the relevant public policy?
Everyone more or less agrees that it is good to listen to experts in the fields of their expertise. The question is whether, or how strongly, expertise should grant the ability to impose decisions on non-experts who disagree. Technocracy and democracy are in opposition in this way.
Bakunin:
> Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.
I'm not saying there's anything "wrong" with people like yourself. I'm just advising you to have the self-awareness to understand what you really are: a member of a ruling class with a particular, distinctive set of principles, narratives, and prejudices, which were formed out of an inherited social culture and political economy rather than any "objective" basis.
I'm pointing out the truth that the "SJWs" and the "classical liberals" are simply the left and right wings of this class, and in reality their shared understandings and values are far more fundamental than their disagreements.
Well-educated, likely in STEM, likely "knowledge worker" of some sort, likely North American (perhaps Californian), likely white or Asian, llikely middle- or upper-middle-class, center or center-left in political persuasion with no _radical_ radical beliefs, etc, etc.
(edit: not saying I agree that this is a good or meaningful characterization)
>The inconvenient truth is that "Alt-liberalism" is nothing more or less than the true "core" ideology of the professional class.
Pretty sure it's a movie about climate change, but ok
>The inconvenient truth is that "Alt-liberalism" is nothing more or less than the true "core" ideology of the professional class. Even the most rabid liberal-progressive SJW likely still believes that intelligence justifies rank (otherwise the whole race and IQ thing wouldn't bother them at all), that experts ought to be in charge of society (see /r/neoliberal), that techno-Benthamist utilitarianism is the correct ethics and politics
Interesting, I think you're correct about liberalism vs more racially aware kind of libertarian rationalism. (massive leaps of thinking with no evidence warning) They seem to be different responses to the status and position of different groups within the upper ranks of the professional middle classes. Libertarian rationalists seem to be mostly STEM-y tech people from more 'independent'/competitive and male oriented career tracks who justify their position (etc) by emphasising hard work etc, the interest in 'HBD' is obviously other things (like a scientific response to things being 'taboo'), but in my discussions in /r/slatestarcodex it seems partly also a response to being threatened by the liberal ethos that 'if there is a difference in gender of x thing then it's probably because of sexism/racism', so they are going to be looking around for ways that fit into their world-view that contradict that. Whereas the centrist 'alt-liberal' types define themselves against the socially conservative values of the white working class (since the seminal conflict over the vietnam war and integration maybe, and the drift in incomes between the high school and college educated) and contain organised groups of women and black/etc middle class people that cement their position with little or no consequence (because they don't really work in STEMy professions). So a situation where society is exactly the same as it is now in terms of wealth/income distribution, but with a diverse section of people in all areas of society is ideal as it appears radical and keeps all the parties in the liberal group happy (especially the upper section of the income distribution.
TBH I don't know why I wrote this comment, just collecting my thoughts basically.
I’ve thought for a few years now that there must be a certain
pipeline from STEM-based liberalism to the far-right. I haven’t quite
figured it out yet.
Another one is Joe Rogan -> alt-right, but that’s more based on
shitty YouTube algorithms.
Much like the goof troop over on /r/ssc, they begin by uncritically 'innocently' examining far right ideas out of intellectual curiosity, and by the end of the week are "really persuaded by the strength of the arguments".
One wonders what a racial islamist cleric could get done in that sub, but for the unuttered racism...
What is his view on Stalin's role in the Ukrainian famine? I just read [this essay](https://espressostalinist.com/2017/03/31/grover-furr-the-ukrainian-famine-only-evidence-can-disclose-the-truth/), and he fails to disclose his view after 1,700 words ostensibly on the topic.
Now, yeah, but the makeup of gamergate was different in the beginning. The turning point was when milo showed up and started getting people to read breitbart.
Edit: by makeup I mean the makeup of the people involved. I'm not saying it wasn't about harassing women.
This is literally false. Gamergate was about abusiveness from the first moment. Gamergate was never good, not for a second.
standard garlic to Gators: [List of Gamergate claims](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_Gamergate_claims)
I remember when gaming info all came from the Sears catalogue and industry magazines like Nintendo Power. That was the height of ethics in vidya journalism -- a truly Edenic time.
I mean.. I confess I initially really gave zero to negative fucks about it.
It really seemed as a petty issue, *at most*. Less than hairdresser chit-chatting otherwise.
After months and months it really seemed "important", and I gave a look at that...... And ffs it still seems crazy to me to even just spend 30 seconds \*thinking\* to it, in the shower. Let alone that it was a completely fabricated story.
you're not wrong. There just were more misinformed left types there at the beginning who identified with the "gamer" identity before it became another alt-right shithole.
So I have a small little story to tell: a long time ago, when I was a
young grub, I was a new atheist (I know, rite?), from that crowd of
public “intellectuals” I was recommended Pinker’s Blank Slate.
I am embarrassed to say that I found a great deal of pleasure reading
his story. He’d set up strawmen and knock them down with such drama. But
it’s in such drama that I learned that Pinker was a joke. My experience
is when you try to compare the portrait he paints of philosophy,
history, social science, gender studies, and the arts to the things that
philosophers, historians, social scientists, feminists, and artists are
actually doing—you’re bound to be embarrassed by the enjoyment derived
form reading Pinker’s stuff. It’s all a joke.
But that experience taught me an important lesson: the poisoned
smugness Pinker’s message imparts on young and vulnerable minds are
seeds of pain. Either by the “violence” Pinkerian thinking inflicts on
other disciplines (not to mention the “real world”), or in the
suffering of self-reflection (or public shame) to be found in unlearning
The Blank Slate.
I’ve always suspected genetic roots of behavior. This suspicion was
solidified upon reading Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate.
And here in honest lay the futile ground Pinker tills: what I always
“suspected,” Pinker “solidified.” If only rationalists had a term that
covered this error in thought….
When I was a young grub, I was interested in the neuropsychology of memory in relation to the work of folks like Sherry and Schacter. (Schacter's 7 Sins of Memory is good and still recommended if you're interested in memory psychology in general.) That led me to Pinker and the evo psychs. I sipped the Kool-Aid for some time until I wanted to actually apply it to a project and realized what a shitshow the underlying literature was.
His attempts to reaffirm "common sense" using Science^TM is also quite explicit in his attacks on cultural Marxists and "cafe intellectuals." Louis Menand summed it up pretty well in that review:
>In general, the views that Pinker derives from "the new sciences of human nature" are mainstream Clinton-era views: incarceration is regrettable but necessary; sexism is unacceptable, but men and women will always have different attitudes toward sex; dialogue is preferable to threats of force in defusing ethnic and nationalist conflicts; most group stereotypes are roughly correct, but we should never judge an individual by group stereotypes; rectitude is all very well, but "noble guys tend to finish last"; and so on. People who share these beliefs probably didn't need science to arrive at them, but the science is undoubtedly reassuring.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/11/25/what-comes-naturally-2
Isn’t Jayman an HBDer
We’ve heard of the libertarian to Alt-Right pipeline but I thought this was an interesting illustration of how certain aspects of even Bill Gates friendly liberals like Pinker can lead down that road. I’ve seen people react in disbelief when even people like Jordan Peterson are categorized with Pinker because they seem so different. As people on both sides of the culture war recognize though, there are certain orientations and ideas that a wide variety of “centrist” to right-wing modern thinkers have. See the IDW and the concept of the alt-liberal (https://twitter.com/OmanReagan/status/958150463601258496) for two different examples.
I also misspelled Steven Pinkers name in the title lol
I’ve thought for a few years now that there must be a certain pipeline from STEM-based liberalism to the far-right. I haven’t quite figured it out yet.
Another one is Joe Rogan -> alt-right, but that’s more based on shitty YouTube algorithms.
So I have a small little story to tell: a long time ago, when I was a young grub, I was a new atheist (I know, rite?), from that crowd of public “intellectuals” I was recommended Pinker’s Blank Slate. I am embarrassed to say that I found a great deal of pleasure reading his story. He’d set up strawmen and knock them down with such drama. But it’s in such drama that I learned that Pinker was a joke. My experience is when you try to compare the portrait he paints of philosophy, history, social science, gender studies, and the arts to the things that philosophers, historians, social scientists, feminists, and artists are actually doing—you’re bound to be embarrassed by the enjoyment derived form reading Pinker’s stuff. It’s all a joke.
But that experience taught me an important lesson: the poisoned smugness Pinker’s message imparts on young and vulnerable minds are seeds of pain. Either by the “violence” Pinkerian thinking inflicts on other disciplines (not to mention the “real world”), or in the suffering of self-reflection (or public shame) to be found in unlearning The Blank Slate.
And here in honest lay the futile ground Pinker tills: what I always “suspected,” Pinker “solidified.” If only rationalists had a term that covered this error in thought….
😭😭😭😭😭😭