/u/justcool393 has a nice post about science and values below, and the conversation veers into discussion of what makes for good science. Without wanting to criticise anyone in that conversation, I'd like to vent a bit about a problem with broader discussion around Science (with a capital S), namely a kind of essentialism about science and the scientific method that's ubiquitous in Rat-adjacent spaces and popular science reporting.
In short, one of the few really good insights coming out of history & philosophy of science in the last fifty years has been the demise of Essentialism about science, in favour of a view of science as disunified and pluralistic. If you start looking at the history of activities we label as "science", you'll find radically different methods, norms, and distribution of labour being adopted at different times, different disciplines, and different theorists.
This is true synchronically - some fields like pharmacology that have to deal with the insane complexities of human physiology are data-centric and heuristic by nature, others like particle physics involve a lot of narrow theoretical work and are reliant on dramatic insights, others like material science are somewhere in between. Moreover, ideas like replicability and experiment simply don't apply to all branches of science; many areas of geology (e.g. study of mass extinctions) are dependent on natural accumulation of evidence and lucky finds, while others (like parts of cosmology) are strikingly limited in the kinds of experimental data they can access, so the challenge becomes a matter of using existing data to probe theories.
But it's also true diachronically; what made for successful science in the 18th century is very different in many respects from what makes for successful science in the 21st century. Part of that is the disappearance of low hanging fruit, and the need for large scale co-ordination across teams with tens of thousands of contributors. Part of it may also be that we have stronger priors on which theories we can discard with minimal proof (e.g., perpetual motion machines). And while it's tempting to see these shifts in norms and practices of science over time as reflecting some linear trend, there's no guarantee that's the case. Here it's worth using the heuristic of an underlying "tech tree" that we're climbing (of course, things aren't like that, but work with me). In videogames, usually the amount of research points required to unlock the next branch of the tree increases steadily over time. But there's no reason to assume that has to be the case, or applies in a blanket way across different areas of science. We don't know what the future of the tech tree will look like; it's possible that advances in technology and society could open a new wave of "gentleman scientists" (cf. some of more optimistic commentary on the LK-99 affair).
I imagine some of you might be tempted to scoff at this and try to boil down "Science" into a few sensible epistemic rules, e.g., use of Bayes's theorem, active efforts at disconfirmation, preregistration of explicit weighted hypotheses, etc.. I think this is valuable as epistemology, but it doesn't provide a core to science - for one, plenty of non-scientific practices (e.g., running a sports team, managing an investment fund, optimising a relationship) also benefit from incorporating these rules. For another, many of the most fertile and successful canonical periods in the history of science (e.g., the Enlightenment) were a methodological Wild West, where few if any of these rules applied. So it's neither sufficient nor necessary for something to be science that it embody these principles. But perhaps most fundamentally, this approach to essentialising science relies on drawing a misleading equivalence between scientists and individual believers. In fact, belief doesn't have to come into science at all: someone can be a perfectly good scientist while remaining personally agnostic on the theories they're testing. What matters is that, for example, the results of their experiments are appropriately incorporated within industry and institutions. Indeed, there are some occasions where arguably science benefits from individual epistemic irrationality; e.g., scientists on the fringes who pursue low-probability high-impact theories to the detriment of their careers because they're (irrationally) true believers. All of those scientists would be individually better off (and more likely to get jobs) if they pursued safe mainstream alternatives. But if everyone does that, science is more likely to get stuck in local theoretical minima.
So if there's no core to "science", then what should we attribute the remarkable successful Renaissance/ Enlightenment technological revolution to? This is a big question, and I won't seriously attempt to answer it here. But two quick thoughts.
First, I wouldn't underestimate the role of what we could loosely call "engineering" - the steady accumulation of advances in things like horse-breeding and ship-building and glass-blowing and metallurgy and mining and industrial chemistry and carbon-fiber construction and so on. Many of the advances we think of as instances of historic scientific genius (e.g., Enlightenment astronomy, Hooke's microscopy, Faraday's insights on electromagnetism; see also, famously, John Harrison's resolution of the longitude problem) were very dependent on prior slowly-accumulated advances in fields like these, built on the back of lengthy intergenerational metis rather than just technê.
Second, I'd emphasise that the major expansion in human knowledge that (according to the traditional story at least) started in Europe in the 1600s-1700s and has since taken over the world should not be attributed to us summoning The Science Demon (the Science Demon doesn't exist, on my view; he's like like sixty different minor demons) but something rather more abstract. If I was pressed, I'd call him something like "pluralistic-quantified-high-stakes-competition-demon" (a close relative of one of the Darwinian demon). What started to happen in Europe, maybe, around the 1600s-1700s, was European civilisation started to converge on a successful recipe, involving lots of inter-state and inter-elite competition, increased quantification/visible demonstrations of results via things like warfare, ideological pluralism allowing lots of experimentation, etc..
That said, I'm not a historian, and precise characterisation of the demon is beyond my paygrade as a philosopher, so I'll leave my speculations at that. But what I would emphasise is that if are looking for any kind of unified explanation of "the success of science", it won't be at the level of "do experiments using method X"; it'll be something far bigger and more abstract, more at the level of civilisation-wide social-institutional design than epistemology.
doglatine
9mo ago
I think this says a lot about the "anti-woke right". It's basically just warmed over liberalism from 20 years ago
What you call the anti-woke right is really the institutional anti-woke right — the version of the right that can get editorials in national newspapers, books with major publishers, and professors at good universities. It is beholden to liberal norms because of the utter collapse of the traditional right in major cultural institutions and its failure to build alternatives.
This is why right-wing anti-elitism (as exemplified by Trump) is a fairly anaemic long-term threat to the left: it doesn’t build anything to compete with their long-term bases of power.
doglatine
9mo ago
Agreed. Under his old alias he expressed explicit support for ideas that are so far outside the Overton Window that even Putin or Xi Jinping wouldn’t publicly endorse them (even if they carried them out in practice).
doglatine
9mo ago
It’s a big part of why Google has become less interesting over the years. Used to be a solid way of finding interesting blogs and personal websites, whereas these days the first few pages for any given result are largely carbon-copy authoritative sources.
I pitched a “Google Discover” search tool to a Google CM friend a while back to solve this problem, basically a Google version of StumbleUpon that would help you find interesting new content, possibly with legal disclaimers. He loved the idea and said he’d run it past higher ups but he said I shouldn’t hold my breath b/c of general risk aversion in the company when it comes to search.
doglatine
9mo ago
It’s £250/month for a family of four with a £150 annual deductible, and it’s specifically to allow us to get electives done quickly in fancy hospitals.
doglatine
9mo ago
As a Brit who moved back home a few years ago after 7 years in the US, I am also very interested in this debate.
To be honest, since moving back, it feels like my standard of living has continued to improve along the lines of a typical mid-life success sequence. Lots of stuff is cheaper in the UK; groceries, phone plans, and pharmacy items are all examples. The NHS makes private health insurance strictly unnecessary, but as the NHS gets more stretched, more and more of us middle-class Brits have it. But my wife and I pay £250/month for a very nice private policy that covers us and the kids and has very good deductibles and copays.
On the other hand, wages are dramatically higher in the US (if my wife were working in the US in an equivalent role, she’d be earning 3x her current salary). Also, US suburban house prices and sizes are extremely reasonable by UK standards.
One extra bit of context that may be useful: British people love to moan, whether it’s about the weather, public transport, or overpaid celebrities. It’s practically a national pastime. Similarly, we like to talk about national decline, precisely because we have generally quite positive associations with the past; these differ across the political spectrum, of course, with eg the left being more likely to get nostalgic about pre-Thatcher days of strong unions and national industries, but they’re there. Brexit has supercharged a lot of these pessimism/declinism narratives, with the globalist side of the political spectrum keen to point to Brexit as the cause of this new phase of decline (even worse than the previous one!). So I’d caution Americans and other non-Brits from getting too sucked into this — while Britain does have real problems, the whole debate is also systematically infested by national psychodrama.
doglatine
10mo ago
Anyways, shoutouts to this whole debacle for rekindling my fear of women, and quenching my fear of missing out.
This kind of stuff is only really a major problem with a very specific western, educated, secular, metropolitan, young, trendy demographic. Unfortunately, most people here fall into many of those same baskets. However, there’s no reason not to branch out. I’ve been urging people here for years to broaden their dating horizons. Dating across class and education boundaries never worked for me, but I’ve had great romantic relationships with women from Russia, Japan, and Pakistan, and my wife is Filipina.
doglatine
10mo ago
I mean we’re on the fifth republic already. It’s not hard to imagine a sixth.
doglatine
10mo ago
There's a whole raft of powerful policies waiting beyond the Overton Window, e.g., making eligibility for government benefits or government housing dependent on having at least 1 French grandparent. As long as one is willing to address the charge of "second-class citizenship" with 'yes, and so what?', then France can quickly make itself intolerable for its own immigrant underclass.
doglatine
11mo ago
Hanania is far and away my favourite US politics blogger right now. This piece somehow managed to be both hilarious and insightful. He manages to describe Republican primary voters in a way that should to any rational reader code as contemptuous and disparaging, and yet he comes across like he's giving a purely descriptive analysis. Potentially the American Dominic Cummings?
doglatine
11mo ago
I agree with this, and I regularly lambast my students for saying things like -
As has been widely demonstrated, AI is a tool of the patriarchy (Anderson, 2018; Balaji, 2021; Cernowitz, 2023).
As I emphasise, using citations like this demonstrates nothing. This kind of "drive-by citation" is only barely acceptable in one context, namely where there is a very clearly operationalised and relatively tractable empirical claim being made, e.g.,
Studies of American graduate students demonstrate a clear positive correlation between GPA and SAT scores (Desai, 2018; Estefez, 2020; Firenzi, 2022).
Even then, it's generally better to spend at least a little time discussing methodology.
doglatine
11mo ago
Bing Chat largely doesn't have this problem; the citations it provides are genuine, if somewhat shallow. Likewise, DeepMind's Sparrow is supposedly extremely good at sourcing everything it says. While the jury is still out on the matter to some extent, I am firmly of the opinion that hallucination can be fixed by appropriate use of RLHF/RLAIF and other fine-tuning mechanisms. The core of ChatGPT's problem is that it's a general purpose dialogue agent, optimised nearly as much for storytelling as for truth and accuracy. Once we move to more special-purpose language models appropriately optimised on accuracy in a given field, hallucination will be much less of a big deal.
Part two:
Simple example: I dated a woman who revealed - after we'd been together for several months - that she had serious financial problems and that they were a major source of anxiety for her. If she'd told me this on our first or second date, it would have been a huge red flag for me. As it was, by the time she revealed this to me she'd already demonstrated many really impressive virtues, as well as displaying good sense in realising this was quite a personal piece of information, so it was no longer a deal breaker.
(5) Don't be (too) spontaneous. Romantic comedies play up spontaneity and we associate it with romance. That's why it's important to be able to fake it. Glib one-liners aside, you should try to be prepared for different eventualities so you can embrace spontaneity when it comes. This means simple stuff like ensuring your apartment/house is clean and presentable and doesn't look like the abode of a serial killer (seriously, have some decorative objects/stuff on the walls). It means having a trashcan with a lid in the bathroom (if it's not obvious why this is something you should have if you're expecting female company, think about it). It also involves having options to cover various contingencies. If you meet your date for happy hour drinks and tells you she's getting hungry, you should know a few good restaurants nearby. If the initial bar you picked to meet is crowded and noisy, have some decent alternatives in walking distance. The rule against spontaneity also extends to responding to messages. While the whole 'three day rule' is bullshit, I think it's a good idea not to respond to a date's messages too quickly. It can be super awkward when you write someone a message saying "hey that was fun last night, HMU next week if you want to do it again" and they respond immediately, basically forcing a conversation you weren't prepared for. Give yourself some time to think about your response and don't pressure communication.
(6) Don't be too open with your feelings too quickly. Again, Hollywood has a lot to answer for here. We rarely see romantic leads downplaying their affections, but it can be really important early on in a relationship not to come over too strong. Two simple reasons for this. Firstly, it can again show a lack of judgment. There are lots of emotionally unstable people out there (men and women) who express their undying love for someone after a couple of dates, and most people are aware (if only implicitly) that this kind of behaviour typically bespeaks someone with a cluster of personality disorders. Displaying good judgment means showing that you're a smart cautious person who doesn't rush into things or make themselves vulnerable unless they've had clear indicators of interest from their partner. Second, there is a balance of power issue here. I don't want to overstate this, but thinking back to the investor metaphor, if you're too eager, too soon, it can make you look like a dodgy salesman trying to offload an inferior product as quickly as possible. By being sensibly restrained and responsive to what your new romantic partner says and does, you show that you recognise your own value: you have something important to bring to the table, and you're not going to risk giving it away too quickly to an unsuitable partner. In special conditions - an intense and rapid holiday romance for example - the above advice may be temporarily waived, but again, pay attention to cues and respond appropriately.
(7) Don't expect instant results (and don't get bitter). Finding a lifelong romantic partner is one of the most important and challenging things people do. While some people get lucky and stumble on a suitable partner early on, it's increasingly common for people to have to go on a lot of dates before they find someone they can happily date for a few months, let alone the rest of their life. I suggest leaning into the experience and learning to enjoy the process of dating itself rather than just focusing on outcomes. Dating offers an unparalleled way to hone social skills in an emotionally complex environment, as well as a unique opportunity to meet people from varied backgrounds and learn about them and their lives. This is true even if they don't go home with you at the end of the night. Indeed, you should absolutely expect to be rejected repeatedly. Rejection burns, but it's a little less intense each time, and if you've been on the dating market for a while then it'll probably become incrementally less painful. If you are rejected, try to be gracious and smooth about it, and I'd generally recommend not asking the person why they ended things (or didn't want them to start). While you might get lucky and hear some useful advice, you're far more likely to get a delicate platitude about things just not working out.
In fact, most people have lots of implicit criteria for romantic partners that they may not even be fully aware of themselves. Maybe you weren't tall enough, maybe they didn't like your accent, maybe you reminded them too much of a bad ex. Closure is something we do for ourselves, and if you rely on other people to provide it for you then nine times out of ten you'll be left hanging. Moreover, just because a date doesn't result in romance doesn't mean it's pointless. In addition to providing good life experience, it can provide other opportunities. Two of my best friends today are women I went on dates with where there didn't turn out to be much chemistry. Both of these women subsequently set me up with friends of theirs, complete with a letter of recommendation stating that I was a good and decent guy. Above all, for god's sake don't get bitter and starting coming up with theories about how women are stupid, silly, or evil. Dating is a nightmare for women too, and while the problems they face are often different from those experienced by men, almost no-one has it easy. And on a more practical note, bitterness will not help make your more attractive or enhance your dating prospects - in fact, quite the opposite.
(8) Don't think you're above following the rules. "This is all bullshit. Two of my best friends got together on a first date where they bonded over their love of anime and MT:G and they were immediately open about their kinks and are now married with ten children." There are absolutely people who find love via pathways quite different from those discussed here, and I don't pretend any of the suggestions I'm giving are absolute. However, they represent my considered advice as to how to make dating more productive and less mysterious for straight men, and if you're feeling frustrated or despondent, I think they're a solid starting point. But the internet is full of people giving romantic advice, some of which is quite different from my own, and I don't take myself to be some inspired oracle dispensing eternal truths. Nonetheless, if what you're doing isn't working, or is making you unhappy, you should try something else.
Reposting my original advicepost from the Motte —
Since dating came up in last week's Culture Wars thread and seemed to trigger a bit of brief discussion, I thought some people in this sub might be interested in hearing a bit of dating advice geared towards contrarians. Back in Radicalizing the Romanceless, Scott says -
Male attractiveness seems to depend on things like a kind of social skills which is not necessarily the same kind of social skills people who want to teach you social skills will teach
I think I can give some useful pointers in this regard. Note that as sex and dating are fundamentally gendered experiences, most of my advice is geared towards straight men, and won't be applicable to straight women (though some surely will). I'd be interested to hear female perspectives as a result. I also imagine that a lot of people won't be interested in hearing advice on this topic, or will find some of what follows obvious and patronising. This is probably unavoidable, but apologies in advance.
As to why I feel arrogant enough to give any advice: I've had a fairly long, rich, and interesting dating life, with quite a few painful lessons learned along the way. I discovered the existence of sex and romance relatively late by some measures - in my late teens - when I lost a lot of weight and suddenly found women responding to me differently, so I think I have a bit more insight than someone for whom this stuff came wholly naturally. Additionally, I'm fascinated by sex and dating norms, both on a philosophical and practical level (in fact, I've taught undergraduate classics on the applied ethics of sex and romance), and despite now being happily married I still read a lot of dating and love advice out of raw curiosity. Still, as always, YMMV, and I'm happy to debate any of the below points.
(1) Don't be unattractive. Sorry to start out with this one, but it can't be overstated. This particular bit of advice is usually placed second to "be attractive", but I think being attractive is a lot harder than not being unattractive, so I'd recommend focusing on the latter. Worse still, I think trying to be attractive can lead people to try to be extravagant or unconventional in their personal style or behaviour (see 'peacocking') and this can backfire horribly. Instead, focus on minimising unattractiveness. This means obvious stuff like good personal grooming - don't underestimate the difference wearing cologne, having good dental hygiene, having a good haircut, and trimming your beard regularly can make.
It also means having a good solid wardrobe and sense of style. I'd suggest that for most men conservatism is the right strategy, at least to begin with - stuff like OCBDs, slim or straight leg jeans, smart sneakers or brogues, and fairly slim fitting cashmere or merino wool sweaters. As a rule of thumb, if you're interested in looks, buy clothes that are slightly tighter than is optimal for comfort (surprisingly, this also applies if you're overweight). Malefashionadvice has some good tips, but bear in mind it's a bit of a circle jerk. One of the key purposes of all of these efforts (in addition to looking and smelling better) is to show that you are sensitive to and aware of presentation norms in your peer group.
Of course, it can also help a lot if you have chiseled abs and arms like Henry Cavill, and everyone should figure out a good diet and exercise routine for their long-term health and mental well-being. But that's a huge topic I won't address here. I'd also flag that I think being 'ripped' or 'shredded' or even just in good physical shape are factors that can be overstated in dating - there are plenty of stylish, well-dressed, funny, confident but slightly pudgy men who are also real casanovas, and plenty of desperate depressed singletons over at /fit/. Above all, don't put off dating until the day you have a body like a Greek god: it will probably never come.
(2) Don't assume dates will come to you. Most men can go years without ever once being approached by a woman with explicit romantic interest. You will need to be proactive to find a romantic partner. In the modern age, this sadly means getting on dating sites and apps. The upside to this is that the costs of failure are typically pretty small: the people you meet are people you will never see again, and with whom you probably have no friends in common, so even if it's all horribly awkward it will have few negative consequences downstream. While I've been out of the dating pool long enough that I can't recommend the best current apps, a good rule of thumb is to be proactive about setting up as many dates as possible and to triple your rate of failure (though always remember the human... and for god's sake never, ever send dick pics to anyone you've known for less than six months).
Most dates will inevitably be crash-and-burn ventures, but as long as you learn from the experience and gain confidence, you'll still be benefiting. I would strongly suggest that you don't pay for your date's food and drinks on the first few dates. It increases the costs of a bad date and can lead to bitterness and unreasonable expectations. Besides, it's current year, as the meme goes. Note that each dating site and app has its own norms and strategies. Each has its own target demographics, and while some will skew towards detailed profiles and lengthy intro messages, others will be more of a numbers game (though they all are to some extent). When you join a new dating site, try to learn 'the meta', whether from reading blogs or asking the advice of friends. One big point worth emphasising: the pictures you put up really matter. That may seem shallow, but it's just how it is. Get the advice of friends, and maybe even get a professional photoshoot done. The difference between a bad set of profile photos and good ones is colossal.
(3) Don't treat dating like a purely cooperative venture. While dating is ultimately a non-zero sum game that should lead to happy relationships, early on, there's a definite element to it that requires a more strategic mindset. This is a delicate point, and I certainly wouldn't recommend being adversarial about it, but you should certainly be trying to manage your date's first impressions of you (see point 4 below). While you shouldn't think of a date like a job interview, it's not totally crazy to think of it as resembling a pitch to an investor: you want to accentuate your positives and avoid dwelling on the negatives. You need to be confident and genuinely believe that you have something valuable to offer the other party. Hopefully most of you believe you do have value to offer, whether it's your intellect, your common sense, your good finances, or your in-depth knowledge of the Punic Wars. If you don't think you have anything to offer, you're not ready to date. See a therapist or work on yourself until you've nurtured a bit of confidence. But otherwise, you should really reflect on your best qualities and ground your behaviour in the date on a strong sense of your own value. "I have a lot to offer as a romantic partner, and any woman who chooses to date me will be making a great choice," is a useful mantra, even if sometimes it takes a bit of effort to internalise it.
(4) Don't just be yourself. A huge amount of what we look for in a partner is good judgment, especially in social matters. There are a lot of people out there who are weird, awkward, and generally indifferent to the social cues of others, and a lot of early dating is about weeding these people out. If you're too up front, you can easily come across as someone who simply doesn't get it. There's nothing wrong, for example, with having wargaming, Magic The Gathering, and videogames as your main hobbies, but these are not high status activities, and if you lead with these you look like someone who simply doesn't notice what's high status and what's not. If you want to talk about hobbies, try to cultivate some that are high status: physical activities like climbing, running, and team sports are good, as are outdoor activities like scuba, skiing and even hiking. Travel, languages, and literature are solid, and food and cooking are easy and safe, if a bit pedestrian. Being able to talk about what's trendy in culture and your city is also helpful, e.g., "have you been watching Tiger King?" and "have you seen the fancy new restaurant that opened on main street?".
You don't need to invest too much time and effort into these interests and hobbies - just enough that you have something to say about them and can honestly report that they're something you're interested in. I'd also flag that talking about sex, kinks, and exes on a first date is generally a bad idea (unless you're meeting someone from Fetlife, of course). Again, it's about displaying good judgment and showing that you're not one of the creepy weirdos with no filter. A good general rule for most straight men is to follow women's lead on these issues, and to reveal personal information carefully and gradually. I imagine some people think this all sounds dismal: "I want a partner who accepts me for who I am, warts and all!" I think that's absolutely a realistic thing to aim for, but the process of opening up should be done gradually and in a way that's responsive to the growing intimacy between you and your partner.
(continued below)
doglatine
11mo ago
Remind me about this if I haven’t replied or posted next week! Not ignoring your nice question at all but will need to find 30 mins to do it justice.
doglatine
11mo ago
It sounds like one very effective way to protect people like A, B, and C in your story would be to more rapidly and permanently incarcerate the genuine bad eggs around them, as well as making opiate drugs less widely available. The state can’t ensure that feckless weak-willed people are exposed to healthy friendship circles or overcome their natural deficits in decision-making. However, it can intervene to ensure that there are fewer bad actors around to exploit them.
There are plenty of real-world countries that successfully implement the kind of social system I’m endorsing, from Singapore to Denmark to Germany to Japan. What these countries have in common is either (a) a high degree of social conformity, and/or (b), a state willing to get authoritarian on people who don’t toe the line (plus wealth etc., but that's something the US has in spades). Where I’m shifting my priors, especially in relation to the US, is on the critical importance of (b).
doglatine
11mo ago
My first take on the flowchart is that "consciousness" is horribly abused as a concept here. Not to abuse authority here, but: I've spent most of my academic career writing about consciousness, with the last 5 years focused on AI consciousness, I'm on the boards of multiple journals in the field, and have numerous publications in top cogsci and philosophy and even AI journals on the topic. I would say that almost without exception, anyone who knows anything about AI risk and consciousness realises there's very little connecting the two.
The interesting part of consciousness is the hard problem (aka qualia, subjectivity, zombies), and that is explicitly divorced from the kind of cognitive capabilities that could be scary; it's the mystery layer on reality, and fwiw I do think it's genuinely mysterious. I have no idea whether future superintelligent AIs are likely to be conscious -- or rather, my thoughts on the subject are complex, meandering, and dense. By contrast, it's pretty straightforward to see how an agential AI that outmatches us in capacities like strategic planning, social cognition, and behaviour anticipation is scary as fuck.
I don't care if it's conscious. I care whether it's able to outthink me.
I hope this isn't too shallow for a top-level comment, but I wanted to share a personal observation about shifts in political views. Specifically, in the last couple of years, I've become a LOT more authoritarian on crime. Part of this is probably me getting older (damn kids, stop cycling on the sidewalk!), but I'd single out two main factors.
(1) A big part of it has been related to noticing shifting views on the issue among city-dwelling liberals (that's my in-group, whether I like it or not). I regularly visit a bunch of US cities for work, and I subscribe to their relevant subreddits, and there's been an incredible shift from "defund-the-police is a solid principle albeit the details need to be worked out" to "lock up the bums now". And similarly, several real life liberal friends who were traditionally pretty anti-police have become much more authoritarian of late, complaining about how e.g. the NYC subway used to be incredibly safe but has now become a creepy unpleasant space to inhabit, and something needs to be done.
(2) I've also had a lot more professional dealings with academic criminologists lately, and damn, it's been a wake-up call. It seems to be one of the most activist domains of academia I've ever encountered (and I deal with sociologists and social psychologists on a regular basis!). Over a few different conferences and dinners, I've chatted with criminologists who were pretty explicit about how they saw their role, namely speaking up for oppressed criminals; empirics or the rights of the wider populace barely came into the conversation. On top of this, there have been some spectacular scandals in academic criminology that have helped confirm my impression of the field. Suddenly, all those papers I happily cited about how prison doesn't work etc. seemed incredibly fragile.
I'm going to add two quick personal longstanding reasons why I'm inclined to be quite authoritarian on crime -
(i) Despite my fallouts with The Left, I'm still broadly a social democrat; I think that an effective state is one that provides good free services to all its citizens, including things like high quality education, healthcare, and public transit. But in order to be democratically sustainable, this requires a certain amount of imposed authority: if public schools become known as a magnet for drugs and gang violence, then middle-class parents will pull their kids out and send them to private schools, and won't give their votes or (more importantly) their organising energy to maintaining school quality. If subways become excessively creepy and weird and violent, the middle classes will get Ubers, and vote for candidates who defund public transit. In short, if the middle classes (who have options) decide not to make use of public options, then public options will die their democratic death. Speaking as someone who likes public options, I think it's essential that fairly strong state authority is exerted in public utilities to ensure that they are seen as viable by the middle class.
(ii) I have a weird sympathy towards Retributivism as a theory of justice and crime. More specifically, I have a lot of negative animus towards what I see as excessively utilitarian approaches to criminal justice, that regard criminals as just another type of citizen to be managed. As soon as we stop regarding criminals as people, but just factors of (dis)production, then I think we do them and our society a disservice; it's treating them as cattle. Instead, I'm sympathetic towards a more contractualist approach that mandates we treat all citizens as autonomous individuals who enter into an implicit social contract by virtue of enjoying the benefits of society, such that we would be doing them a disservice of sorts if we didn't punish them for their crimes. Let me try to put that in a maxim: you're an adult, you're a citizen; you fucked up, now you pay the price. If we didn't make you pay the price, we'd be treating you like a child or an animal.
Obviously lots more to be said here, but I'll save my follow-ups for the comments. Curious what others think.
doglatine
11mo ago
I had exactly the opposite take — first book okay, second book good, third book excellent.Liu can’t write characters or plausible motives for shit, but his ideas are absolutely wild. Book 1 is mostly badly written characters doing stuff. Book 2 is badly written characters doing stuff with a great reveal at the end. Book 3 is Liu coming up with insane genius explanations for string theory, matter-antimatter asymmetry, entropy, etc..
doglatine
11mo ago
I’m surprised no-one mentioned the way this incident has been covered on the /r/NYC subreddit. Given that it’s a deep blue city and Reddit is a deep blue site, you’d think everyone would be up in arms about Neely’s death. But the dominant mood is dramatically more pro-Penny than here, for heaven’s sake. Multiple posters saying that he did what needed to be done, people have a right not to be hassled by psychopaths on their commute, even some highly upvoted comments calling out progressivism by name as the ideology that created this problem. I’m utterly bemused and perplexed. Am I missing something?
On a related note, if Trump is canny, he’ll make his candidacy about law and order this time. The democrats can’t plausibly reclaim that particular political mantle after the prominence of Defund The Police, and there are enough true cop-haters along the Democrat activist base that you’d never get message discipline on the issue. And while I don’t have good polling on the issue, my sense from reading the city subs on Reddit is that crime is creeping up voters’ list of priorities. Oh, and as an issue it’s less alienating than immigration for many Latino voters, while being able to be plausibly connected to immigration with Trump’s base (“I’ve been gone four years and we have chaos in the streets of our cities, chaos on the border”).
I think this is arguably a form of what Scott called the non-central fallacy, aka "the worst argument in the world". There are plenty of instances of taking a life that aren't generally or universally reckoned to be murder (self-defense most obviously, but also killings in war, assisted suicides). Likewise, we understand there to be different moral shades attached to murder; many would choose not to incarcerate a domestic abuse victim who kills her spouse, for example (depending on circumstances). I think it's perfectly consistent to say that abortion is taking a life or even a form of murder without committing to the idea that women or doctors who perform it should be incarcerated.
More options
Context Copy link