In Paul Fussell’s book on class (I think), he says that people are really worried about differentiating themselves from the class immediately below them, but largely ignorant of the customs and sometimes even existence of the classes above them. When I found SSC, and then The Motte, and stuff like TLP, I was astonished to find a tier of the internet I had had no idea even existed. The quality of discourse here is . . . usually . . . of the kind that “high brow” (by internet standards) websites THINK they are having, but when you see the best stuff here you realize that those clowns are just flattering themselves. My question is, who is rightly saying the same thing about us? Of what intellectual internet class am I ignorant now? Or does onlineness impose some kind of ceiling on things, and the real galaxy brains are at the equivalent of Davos somewhere?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It really is a shame how far academia has fallen. Hopefully it hasn't always been this way. In my opinion one of the largest things that separates the rationalist sphere from everyday intellectuals is willingness to question academia and a rejection of Scientism.
Unfortunately most of the intelligenstia seems to have been captured by the idea that Science is the end all be all, and if something is in a scientific publication it is correct, full stop. Many people abuse this rhetorical tactic assuming nobody will read the sources, which in most spheres is largely true.
Our #1 competitive advantage in my mind is the ability to seriously question the academic class.
Bingo. For better or worse (probs worse) mainstream culture treats universities and academic researchers as brilliant, untouchable geniuses spitting out revolutionary research on a regular basis, such that one should just accept their vision without question.
Meanwhile some rat-adjacent groups are like "I dunno man, this low powered study with n=250 composed mostly of affluent college students might not be completely representative of the real world, and we've seen this idea implemented in practice and it doesn't seem to work very well.
And academia is so ossified it takes years for it to respond to critiques. Communities that have healthy norms for updating beliefs as new information come in are going to be ahead of the curve in general.
I think the bigger difference is willing to engage with what makes good or bad science. Scientism, as you call it, just get religious again "believe the Science" (with a capital 'S') but only if it's things I agree with and a study I support, not if it's, e.g. personality differences between men and women, or ... just about anything to do with Covid...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link