This is a little bit out of our wheelhouse, but not only is
Kevin a friend of the sub, it’s a good review, just remember to flag
serious posts as NSFW
Furthermore, the review speaks to me on a personal level as
favourable to my own sceptical views of the statistical nous of
bestselling psychologists
Since we have Pinker on the sidebar, it looks like Harding could be a
new character in the ongoing litany of not quite LessWrong
types who deserve to come in for ridicule here anyway
I've ranted about this piece so many times now, but shout out to the *New Yorker* for publishing that piece of shit article profiling Harden and chastising "The Left" for refusing to acknowledge the potential benefits of a society structured around everyone's genetically predetermined ceilings for success.
(And arguing that refusing to talk about genetic determinism leaves an opening for *Quillette* and Razib Khan and the like, as though most people even know who the fuck those are, and as though they don't benefit even more from liberal media sources playing into their shtick of invoking a sort of leftist intransigence and orthodoxy set against you when the evidence for your claims is weak).
Hey, nice review!
That must have been a bizarre experience on top of frustrating, but yeah: a sizeable number of critics with specific, relevant critiques is a hurdle to overcome; a sizeable number of random, decontextualized critics is a backdrop that helps suggests intellectual bravery and idiosyncratic genius.
Shout out the the bizarre choice of photo where she is barefoot in some sort of warehouse loft with a artistic cut-out of a human head . Like shes the villain in a strange thriller novel.
I think that's pretty insulting to leftists lol. It really sounds like "the only reason you don't share this unsubstantiated just-so story must be that you are so tribal that you refute anything coded right-wing, not that it is an unsubstantiated just-so story! So I am sure that if I make an even more unbelievable just-so story to convince you it is actually left wing, you will instantly believe it right, because you are too partisan to have good mental habits?"
There is, unfortunately, a long history of left wing hereditarian/eugenicist thought - although it might be impolite to elide those two
Even George Bernard Shaw was a fan of the idea
Well, there is also a long history of right wing environmentalism (arguably environmentalism as we conceive it today was born out of German nationalism), but today it is clearly coded left wing.
Still, all these "idea x, who you might think being of political position a, is actually of political position b!" sound really really condescending. It's like if the author never actually talked to people of position a and believed all the stereotypes and the accuses of tribalism and virtue signalling thew around about a.
For example, if I was a conservative, that pathetic little exercise of Haidt about convincing conservatives to care about the environment just by throwing a bit of "visionary American entrepreneurs" and "Russia and China bad" in the discourse would really upset me. Does he seriously think that people are just emotional chimps ready to switch their opinions if you use the right words?
I loved reading the article and was really glad he added that last ethics part. As important as it is to debunk that genetics stuff, nobody should trust someone whose political commitment to human needs being fulfilled depends on them being "efficient" or "good". It's not talked about enough imo and it's nice to see it in an unexpected context. Could have quoted Marx instead of going the demsoc route but, well. :p
Ha, I did put in the "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" quote from Critique of the Gotha Program originally and the editor nixed it for being cliche.
The podcast Death Panel had a solid review of her book. I would
caveat a recommendation by saying I have no ability to judge the hosts
relevant expertise. But they did criticize along a similar line of
Harden just seeming to argue far behind where the relevant science
is.
really motivating me to dive deeper on polygenetic scores once I get
a fucking job and don’t spend all my time trying to get a job or
drinking because I don’t have a job
This is a little bit out of our wheelhouse, but not only is Kevin a friend of the sub, it’s a good review, just remember to flag serious posts as NSFW
Furthermore, the review speaks to me on a personal level as favourable to my own sceptical views of the statistical nous of bestselling psychologists
Since we have Pinker on the sidebar, it looks like Harding could be a new character in the ongoing litany of not quite LessWrong types who deserve to come in for ridicule here anyway
The podcast Death Panel had a solid review of her book. I would caveat a recommendation by saying I have no ability to judge the hosts relevant expertise. But they did criticize along a similar line of Harden just seeming to argue far behind where the relevant science is.
really motivating me to dive deeper on polygenetic scores once I get a fucking job and don’t spend all my time trying to get a job or drinking because I don’t have a job
very good read, thank you.