Letter on justice and open debate

[Treehugger]

I think it's the usual whiners whining their usual whines. Every single one of the people who signed that letter has access to a major platform, and boy, do they ever use it. They're not being silenced; they never shut the fuck up. They're not concerned about restrictions on speech, they just don't like being criticized when they say stupid or awful things. We need to stop pretending that every "take" is as valuable as every other. The journalism of takes isn't journalism. That's what I think.

So I take it you disagree, but can only come up with an ad hominem argument. Not compelling.

I was asked for my opinion, not an argument. Even characterized as an argument, however, it's not an ad hominem. The ad hominem is an informal fallacy, which means that you can't identify it based on its form alone; you need to consider the content. It's a fallacy of relevance, meaning it's only instantiated when the content presented is irrelevant. For an ad hominem, that means that the personal attack must be immaterial. That's patently not the case here.

I believe what you actually mean is that I've constructed a straw man. I don't think that's the case either, but it's a better fit for the facts.

Seems like a very uncharitable interpretation of the words of the letter. The idea is that they are not particularly writing about defending their own freedom, since most of them already have plenty of power and security. They are defending other people.

Whatever their intentions, the central issue is whether the claims of the letter are plausible. And they are.

You're right, I'm not being very charitable. That's because I'm pretty sure I've seen the same content bandied about endlessly for years now, and not to laudable ends. I look at the signatories, and all my flags are raised. They have not earned my trust; in fact, they've almost all earned my distrust. It's not at all clear to me that they're defending the "freedom" of the disempowered. It's not clear to me because (1) they're parrotting the same old narrative we've seen trotted out for years now as part of an explicit effort to legitimize absolutely shit ideas (many of them long-debunked), (2) it's mostly (although I'll grant it's not entirely) the same people who spend their columns promoting their shit ideas to "teach the controversy", (3) the letter is such vaguely worded pablum that it's hard to discern much concrete content beyond the concern for both-sidesism that I know (from their previous work) most of its authors are worried about, and (4) so, so many of the signatories spend their time and power punching down on these issues.

You know the work of all one hundred writers who signed it? Or are you just giving free reign to your own preconceptions?

[marshwiggle]

(3) the letter is such vaguely worded pablum that it's hard to discern much concrete content beyond the concern for both-sidesism that I know (from their previous work) most of its authors are worried about

The nerve of people, thinking that one should actually listen to both sides of an argument. Cut that off at the knees ASAP.

[downer]

 Parasaurolophus -- it sounds like you are mainly thinking of Pinker and Haidt. Maybe Gladwell. I was struck that Kathy Pollitt and Michelle Goldberg signed. I haven't heard of most of the signatories.

Anyway, there is the question of whether the letter will accomplish anything other than spur a lot of tweets. Maybe most will have forgotten about it by Sept. Too much other stuff going on. But I will definitely recall it as a significant moment.

[Parasaurolophus]

You know the work of all one hundred writers who signed it ... or are you just giving free reign to your own preconceptions.

I didn't realize this was actually a Gish Gallop and I had to be familiar with the work of every author before I could formulate an opinion on their vague letter. Mea culpa. I imagine you're familiar with all of their work, then?

Sarcasm aside, I am familiar with the work of 41 of the signatories, which I think is good enough. People I trust are familiar with the work of many of the others.

The nerve of people, thinking that one should actually listen to both sides of an argument. Cut that off at the knees ASAP.

There aren't always two equally viable sides. This is especially true when we're talking about well-established knowledge or hate speech. For example, flat-earthers and young-earth creationists don't deserve equal consideration, and neither does the KKK.

[mahagonny]

Sure. How can you disagree with it? Everybody agrees intolerance is on the rise until you give names.

[Treehugger]

You know the work of all one hundred writers who signed it ... or are you just giving free reign to your own preconceptions.

I didn't realize this was actually a Gish Gallop and I had to be familiar with the work of every author before I could formulate an opinion on their vague letter. Mea culpa. I imagine you're familiar with all of their work, then?

You are missing the point. Unlike you, I don't need to have read all the signatories because I don't happen to believe that who wrote something is more important than what they wrote. I believe that ideas should stand or fall on their own. I don't happen to care about the gender, race, ethnicity or other characteristics of the writers, but I am betting you do. Hence you should know them all before dismissing their argument, but I don't have to be familiar with them all to support it.

There aren't always two equally viable sides. This is especially true when we're talking about well-established knowledge or hate speech. For example, flat-earthers and young-earth creationists don't deserve equal consideration, and neither does the KKK.

Right because there is only the academic humanities party line (critical race theory & theoretical cousins — all founded on similar questionable assumptions) and hate speech. That's it, right?

Besides, I don't think the signatories are in the KKK or go around "hating" large groups of humanity.

Also why just two sides? One of the points is that complexity is being reduced to a simple two-sided power struggle. Reality is a lot more complex and, frankly, beautiful than that.

And finally just because something counts as "well-established knowledge" in the academia humanities does not at all mean it is the incontestable truth. Far from it. To take but one example, you do realize that most of Derrida's work is just a bunch of sophistical tautologies and has been proven to be such and yet he is still taught in lit theory classes.

[marshwiggle]

The nerve of people, thinking that one should actually listen to both sides of an argument. Cut that off at the knees ASAP.

There aren't always two equally viable sides. This is especially true when we're talking about well-established knowledge or hate speech. For example, flat-earthers and young-earth creationists don't deserve equal consideration, and neither does the KKK.

First of all, two sides don't have to be "equally viable" in order to both be useful. In a traffic accident, for instance, a court may find one party 25% responsible and the other 75% responsible. That's way different than simply assigning all of the blame to one party.

Second, flat-earthers are supporters of what was once "well-established knowledge"; if round-earthers had been silenced when a flat earth was "well-established knowledge" it would have prevented any progress ever.

Finally, "hate speech" is anything but well-defined; the definition morphs according to whoever uses it, and most recently many people use it for anything that makes someone "uncomfortable". (Unless the person about whom it is said is privileged, in which case it's OK to say basically anything, no matter how derogatory and/or dishonest; it stil won't be called "hate speech".)

[Parasaurolophus]

i'm so sorry you didn't like my negative opinion of the editorial. But when you ask for opinions, you get opinions.

You are missing the point. Unlike you, I don't need to have read all the signatories because I don't happen to believe that who wrote something is more important than what they wrote. I believe that ideas should stand or fall on their own. I don't happen to care about the gender, race, ethnicity or other characteristics of the writers, but I am betting you do. Hence you should know them all before dismissing their argument, but I don't have to be familiar with them all to support it.

I don't actually care about their gender, race, ethnicity, etc. What I care about is the views I've seen them espouse, and the bullshit concern-trolling I've seen them perform in the public arena. In other words, I care about how their past content informs this current, vacuous, piece of content.

Right because there is only the academic humanities party line (critical race theory & theoretical cousins — all founded on similar questionable assumptions) and hate speech. That's it, right?

...no? You're making an awful lot of assumptions and projecting all kinds of stuff onto me.

I do think there's a right and a wrong analysis of the so-called "free speech crisis", and I think that the voices which cry about it the loudest consistently and persistently (even willfully) misdiagnose it, even in spite of the evidence.

Besides, I don't think the signatories are in the KKK or go around "hating" large groups of humanity.

I didn't say that. Although I know it's true of at least one signatory (she's not in the KKK, but there is one largeish group of humanity she absolutely loathes).

Also why just two sides? One of the points is that complexity is being reduced to a simple two-sided power struggle. Reality is a lot more complex and, frankly, beautiful than that.

I didn't say there were only ever two sides. What I said was that there aren't always two equally viable sides. On some issues there may be three or four, but on a great many of the issues that the 41 signatories I know of care about, there just aren't. There's one, and then there's a lot of bad faith, disinformation, and stupidity.

In other words, sure, other opinions are available, but some opinions are better than others. When it comes to matters of fact, we shouldn't privilege uninformed opinion over evidence. In other other words, I'm not a Millian about free speech, and I don't think that the evidence supports Mill's idealism.

And finally just because something counts as "well-established knowledge" in the academia humanities does not at all mean it is the incontestable truth. Far from it. To take but one example, you do realize that most of Derrida's work is just a bunch of sophistical tautologies and has been proven to be such and yet he is still taught in lit theory classes.

Wrong target, buddy. I'm an analytic philosopher: I don't know anything whatsoever about Derrida (although I'm willing to bet there's more to his thinking than you're willing to grant, if not as much as cultural or literary theorists might like--I'm not as hostile to continentals as others of my ilk are, though I do share the same broad attitude).

I'm also not talking about views in "theory", metaphysics, epistemology, language, etc. I don't know where you got that idea.

[Treehugger]

i'm so sorry you didn't like my negative opinion of the editorial. But when you ask for opinions, you get opinions.

You are missing the point. Unlike you, I don't need to have read all the signatories because I don't happen to believe that who wrote something is more important than what they wrote. I believe that ideas should stand or fall on their own. I don't happen to care about the gender, race, ethnicity or other characteristics of the writers, but I am betting you do. Hence you should know them all before dismissing their argument, but I don't have to be familiar with them all to support it.

I don't actually care about their gender, race, ethnicity, etc. What I care about is the views I've seen them espouse, and the bullshit concern-trolling I've seen them perform in the public arena. In other words, I care about how their past content informs this current, vacuous, piece of content.

Right because there is only the academic humanities party line (critical race theory & theoretical cousins — all founded on similar questionable assumptions) and hate speech. That's it, right?

...no? You're making an awful lot of assumptions and projecting all kinds of stuff onto me.

I do think there's a right and a wrong analysis of the so-called "free speech crisis", and I think that the voices which cry about it the loudest consistently and persistently (even willfully) misdiagnose it, even in spite of the evidence.

Besides, I don't think the signatories are in the KKK or go around "hating" large groups of humanity.

I didn't say that. Although I know it's true of at least one signatory (she's not in the KKK, but there is one largeish group of humanity she absolutely loathes).

Also why just two sides? One of the points is that complexity is being reduced to a simple two-sided power struggle. Reality is a lot more complex and, frankly, beautiful than that.

I didn't say there were only ever two sides. What I said was that there aren't always two equally viable sides. On some issues there may be three or four, but on a great many of the issues that the 41 signatories I know of care about, there just aren't. There's one, and then there's a lot of bad faith, disinformation, and stupidity.

In other words, sure, other opinions are available, but some opinions are better than others. When it comes to matters of fact, we shouldn't privilege uninformed opinion over evidence. In other other words, I'm not a Millian about free speech, and I don't think that the evidence supports Mill's idealism.

And finally just because something counts as "well-established knowledge" in the academia humanities does not at all mean it is the incontestable truth. Far from it. To take but one example, you do realize that most of Derrida's work is just a bunch of sophistical tautologies and has been proven to be such and yet he is still taught in lit theory classes.

Wrong target, buddy. I'm an analytic philosopher: I don't know anything whatsoever about Derrida (although I'm willing to bet there's more to his thinking than you're willing to grant, if not as much as cultural or literary theorists might like--I'm not as hostile to continentals as others of my ilk are, though I do share the same broad attitude).

I'm also not talking about views in "theory", metaphysics, epistemology, language, etc. I don't know where you got that idea.

Ok, points taken. You mention the "trolling" that some of the signatories have done without naming names. That's OK. They are public figures. You can name names so we know what you are talking about.

I know that many in the academic humanities have problems with Steve Pinker. I read his Blank Slate and found it incredibly refreshing. I'm sure his arguments are not without their flaws, but after having survived 10+ years of social constructivist dogma, it was nice to had the "other side" explored. And I have a hard time believing the whole book is just 100% wrong.

[Hibush]

In contrast to the main debaters on the thread, I only recognize half a dozen names on the list, and don't have any strong opinion about those I do recognize. So my reaction to the letter is largely about what the text says and what's going on in my sphere.

Going to the tldr;, I get the gist to be

• "The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silen]ce or wish them away.
• we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes
• 
  We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences"

Those all appear to be reasonable values. There has always been desire by those whose arguments are weak to  silence the counterarguments. That is not good for reasoned debate, so the signatories are encourage those are persuaded that their values are correct that they should strengthen their arguments rather than undermine those making a counterargument or finding weaknesses that need addressing.

At my place, the old faculty are strongly pro free speech, even speech with which they vehemently disagree. Younger faculty are more conservative. Students, being less mature, seem to want their own view to prevail without opposition. If we are responsible faculty, we disabuse them of that notion.

[Parasaurolophus]

It's especially ironic that this letter is being published in Harper's, since their previous editor was fired for being critical of an anti-Me-Too essay by Katie Roiphe. It was a bad essay, and pretty viciously reactionary, but commissioned by John MacArthur, the magazine's president and publisher (and a signatory of this letter!). James Marcus, the editor at the time, objected to the essay and did not think it was fit to publish. MacArthur overrode him and fired him. Free speech!

And while I'm at it, Bari Weiss (another signatory) has a very, very, very, very long history of trying to get people fired for being critical of Israel (and Muslim). Free speech!

Likewise, Cary Nelson was a prominent voice arguing that Stephen Salaita should have his job offer at Illinois revoked for his tweets. So, again, free speech!

Fight bad speech with good speech! Ra ra ra!

[ergative]

Ok, points taken. You mention the "trolling" that some of the signatories have done without naming names. That's OK. They are public figures. You can name names so we know what you are talking about.

I know that many in the academic humanities have problems with Steve Pinker. I read his Blank Slate and found it incredibly refreshing. I'm sure his arguments are not without their flaws, but after having survived 10+ years of social constructivist dogma, it was nice to had the "other side" explored. And I have a hard time believing the whole book is just 100% wrong.

Funny--I thought that Parasaurolophus was referring to JK Rowling who is decidedly critical of trans people's right to exist. I actually quite enjoy Pinker's writing, and have read just about all of his popular books, but I also think that many of his ideas come from a position of unexamined privilege. Most recently, I was struck by his response to the whole NIPS/Neuro-ips debacle, in which he basically said that people were too peal-clutchy about the possibility of the name NIPS evoking nipples---when in fact the issue was that the people at NIPS conferences were already making crude jokes about it, causing explicit discomfort to those who subsequently complained.

If you've never been made uncomfortable by these issues, or excluded because of them (or forced to choose between dealing with them and excluding yourself---self-deportation, if you will) it's easy to think that the complainers are too uptight and sensitive and should just let free speech reign. I find myself repeatedly reminded of the overlap between anti-mask gun rights folks (mah FREEDOMS) vs. those who complain about BLM (how DARE they!).

I've been seeing the expression 'consequence culture' on Twitter. If you have the right to express an opinion, then other private institutions and private individuals have a right to criticize it and refuse to associate with you. That seems reasonable to me. I find it hard to see where the oppression lies when Harpers is happily giving its platform to people who feel oppressed by the lack of a platform elsewhere.

[financeguy]

Treehugger, speaking of cancel culture and Pinker...

Larry Summers got "cancelled" (resigned the Harvard presidency, returning to econ department) for just MENTIONING Pinker's work in a context that got people upset. For those who weren't following this, the comments involved why more females are not in STEM fields. The "short" oversimplification is that while average cognitive ability between males and females is similar, there is a wider variability for males while females are less variable. There are as such more males at the extreme levels of cognitive ability needed to achieve at the highest levels of STEM, but also many more homeless and incarcerated males than females. Is this really controversial? Apparently it is so controversial that you can get a third party fired for proposing your hypothesis as a potential explanation when asked directly about the topic. What should Larry have said? Sexism and bias are of course the only "allowed" answers.

The funny thing regarding this is that Steven Pinker isn't even "the other side" of the argument. To say something isn't entirely a blank slate is not to take a particularly deterministic viewpoint. If you want to see heads actually explode, go to Charles Murray who has offended nearly everyone who has not read the Bell Curve or Coming Apart. Anyone who thinks this guy is some radical simply hasn't read a single word he's said, yet he's the poster child for racism in the academy for including one section in a text on cognitive ability the implications of differences among ethnic groups. This is definitely a topic that is not allowed, not even because the Middlebury mob crowd cares about the race per se. You're HAVE to say everything is due to environment because if anything is heritable or innate, that leaves no room for a government "solution."

[Treehugger]

Treehugger, speaking of cancel culture and Pinker...

Larry Summers got "cancelled" (resigned the Harvard presidency, returning to econ department) for just MENTIONING Pinker's work in a context that got people upset. For those who weren't following this, the comments involved why more females are not in STEM fields. The "short" oversimplification is that while average cognitive ability between males and females is similar, there is a wider variability for males while females are less variable. There are as such more males at the extreme levels of cognitive ability needed to achieve at the highest levels of STEM, but also many more homeless and incarcerated males than females. Is this really controversial? Apparently it is so controversial that you can get a third party fired for proposing your hypothesis as a potential explanation when asked directly about the topic. What should Larry have said? Sexism and bias are of course the only "allowed" answers.

I do in fact remember the whole Larry Summers and sexism scandal, but didn't know (or had forgotten) that it was his mention of Pinker that triggered the whole episode.

I actually agree with Pinker/Larry Summers and believe that biological difference is largely behind the lack of women not in STEM per se since there are a lot of women in medicine and the biological sciences, but specifically in math, physics, computer science and engineering. But it's not just that there are more men at the extremes of intelligence, as LS was pointing out, but also that when women are very intelligent, they tend to be intelligent in different ways than men. They definitely tend to be more verbally and less mathematically intelligent. (Also, it is pretty clear that women are way worse at spacial relations than men.) If a women is smart enough to succeed in a STEM field, then in all likelihood she is even better in the humanities and why would anyone choose to specialize in an area of relative weakness and let their other gifts go unused?

Interestingly, there is little gender inequality in computer science in Eastern Europe.  But why is this? Is this because women are freer and happier in Eastern Europe? Nope. It is precisely because they were both less free and less wealthy than their American counterparts. First, back in the day, the Soviets forced women into CS and engineering (they were certainly not allowed just to stay home and be mothers, even if that is what they wanted to do). Then, after the fall of the Soviet Union, work in CS was one of the clearest paths out of poverty.

Clearly, if we want more women in STEM, we should just force them into STEM or impoverish them so much that they prefer spending 60+ hours a week sitting in front of a screen coding to being homeless.

If you want to see heads actually explode, go to Charles Murray who has offended nearly everyone who has not read the Bell Curve or Coming Apart. Anyone who thinks this guy is some radical simply hasn't read a single word he's said, yet he's the poster child for racism in the academy for including one section in a text on cognitive ability the implications of differences among ethnic groups. This is definitely a topic that is not allowed, not even because the Middlebury mob crowd cares about the race per se. You're HAVE to say everything is due to environment because if anything is heritable or innate, that leaves no room for a government "solution."

To be honest, I haven't read Charles Murray precisely because I had heard such bad things about him and his work. However, I probably should given that I do think that it is highly unlikely that there aren't cognitive differences among ethnic groups. It feels incredibly politically incorrect to even write this, but it just makes sense. It is widely recognized, on the one hand, that there are significant physical differences between races (it's not just all about skin color, but difference races are more susceptible to different diseases and have differing physical/athletic abilities) and on the other that the mind/brain is actually just another part of our physical body (unless you are religious or a dualist which many scientists are not). So what conclusion can we draw?

[marshwiggle]

If you want to see heads actually explode, go to Charles Murray who has offended nearly everyone who has not read the Bell Curve or Coming Apart. Anyone who thinks this guy is some radical simply hasn't read a single word he's said, yet he's the poster child for racism in the academy for including one section in a text on cognitive ability the implications of differences among ethnic groups. This is definitely a topic that is not allowed, not even because the Middlebury mob crowd cares about the race per se. You're HAVE to say everything is due to environment because if anything is heritable or innate, that leaves no room for a government "solution."

To be honest, I haven't read Charles Murray precisely because I had heard such bad things about him and his work. However, I probably should given that I do think that it is highly unlikely that there aren't cognitive differences among ethnic groups. It feels incredibly politically incorrect to even write this, but it just makes sense. It is widely recognized, on the one hand, that there are significant physical differences between races (it's not just all about skin color, but difference races are more susceptible to different diseases and have differing physical/athletic abilities) and on the other that the mind/brain is actually just another part of our physical body (unless you are religious or a dualist which many scientists are not). So what conclusion can we draw?

To be honest, Charles Murray makes heads explode (for people who haven't read his work) because the very idea of innate differences in certain abilities bothers them. (Ironically, these people have no problem accepting that character qualities are entirely determined by skin colour, sex, etc.)

Definitely worth reading. (And of course, no matter how many times it's pointed out, the fact that small, measurable differences in the means of distributions tell you virtually nothing about individuals it doesn't suit the narrative of the detractors so gets ignored entirely.) Case in point: even though my wife and I were both STEM people, she had WAY better spacial reasoning than me.