I don't agree. If anything, I think "racist eugenicist", while probably not 100% accurate to what SSC represents, is not as bad as the actual problem here. Racist eugenicists are easy to ignore; people who are Just Asking Questions are a more challenging problem.
That is to say that I don't think SSC is a eugenicist or racist on purpose, necessarily. I think he's a pretty-smart guy who thinks his intellect and knowledge in one area (psychiatry and medicine) gives him the ability to reason about other areas correctly without restriction, and without context that is necessary. For example:
"HBD" as a term is a stand-in for racial science or eugenics. Those are explicitly racist fields of study, and are distinct from things like the study of human genetic variation.[1]
A common misconception is that correctness is a defense to allegations of racism the same way truthfulness is a defense to defamation. It's not the presence of data, but rather the leaps in interpretation of that data which underpin eugenics.
The problem with saying "HBD is mostly correct" is that that statement doesn't mean supporting "data shows Black people have lower IQs as a group in America". (That statement is extremely fraught itself, but it's at least got some data around it[2].) It means supporting "Black people are genetically predisposed to have lower IQs", adding "people with lower IQs are of less societal value than people with high IQs", and ending with "Black people should not be allowed to reproduce so that the population will have a higher IQ overall."
When Siskind/Alexander is saying "HBD" is probably right, he may not realize he's doing this, but that whole chain of logic is the kind of thing he's throwing his hat in, not just the first statement. If he wanted to discuss just that first part, he needs to consider environmental context he simply is not considering, and which eugenics as a "science" purposefully avoids addressing.
He doesn't seem to know what he doesn't know, which to me is more dangerous than knowing what you don't know, and not caring.
I think your concerns are reasonable, but the tweet was clearly just wrong. If it was raising the concern you are, then I wouldn't be as angry, but then it wouldn't have been a story at all. So I remain convinced that the tweet was profoundly idiotic at best, more likely in bad faith. I don't think you can read Scott's work and then call him racist without having an axe to grind.
Ed: I would also add that while thinking you have an infallible BS detector is dangerous, believing that truth can only come from certain people and your enemies never have unique insight is another form of hubris, and I think the latter has at least as good as argument for being more dangerous in the long term.
> The arrogance of being sure you are smart enough to never make a mistake in the ideas you pick up is pernicious and deadly.
I actually really like that Slate Star Codex had a page where Scott listed his mistakes, and that he makes public predictions at the start of each year and rates whether they were correct. These are great ways to keep track of one's thinking, and more people should do it: https://web.archive.org/web/20191224063106/https://slatestar...
His humility is definitely one of his appealing attributes, but I gotta say, it's not necessarily enough. I've gone through a couple cycles of thinking I was careful enough about my thoughts and being gently but forcefully humbled, and probably have a few more to go. You can still make mistakes without being aware of the possibility if your humility doesn't look at the right areas of your mind. On the original hand, if someone has to trawl through reactionary trash, I can't think of anyone I would trust more, including myself by a long shot.
This is one guy making assertions and then using his own assertions as evidence of his assertions. It’s a junk one sided accusation.
I don’t know what the full context of their conversation was because it isn’t included. But I find it really offensive when people pretend that intelligence and athletic ability amongst a whole host of other things do not exist along a spectrum and are not genetically influenced. Their implication is that it’s a moral failing. Someone with say an IQ of 80 is going to have an extremely hard life through no fault other than genetics and the harsh environment that we as a society give them.
> But I find it really offensive when people pretend that intelligence and athletic ability amongst a whole host of other things do not exist along a spectrum and are not genetically influenced.
That's not what people who talk about "HBD" being bad are doing. My comment in response to andrewflnr has more, but the criticism is not that intelligence or athletic ability aren't genetically based at all, it's "HBD"/eugenics focus on genetic heritability to the exclusion of everything else, ignores evidence to the contrary, and does so for the explicit purpose of harming people of other races. They also ignore evidence that while it is variable, that variability is not racially determined, e. g. is not correlated to the genetic differences that create phenotypes we categorize as "races".
Yep. Recent debunking (once again) of their canon by Kevin Bird in an article titled "No support for the hereditarian hypothesis of the Black–White achievement gap using polygenic scores and tests for divergent selection"
About 20 years ago at East Coast University, I lived in a shitty, rodent-infested shared house with a guy named Burt Klinkyplink (not his name, but not dissimilar from his name).
Burt was a crypto-fascist, in exactly the evasive way that a lot of people on SSC were. "Fascist? Use what's between your ears when you talk. It's not the 1930s and I'm not literally Mussolini!"
He wasn't in the College Republicans, because he wasn't interested in organizations. This was also before Eliezer Yudkowsky and his Rationalists. So Burt described himself as an Objectivist instead. Funny how "Objectivist" and "Rationalist" both carry the connotation of always being right!
Burt wasn't against the gays, he just thought it was natural to destroy them. People in the US would rise up and destroy them. The end. He also solely referred to them as "fags" and "fudge-packers," and he wouldn't tolerate being called out on it because "are you really afraid of a word?"
Burt also wasn't against Black people, he just thought that The Bell Curve was right. He would also only listen to gangsta rap for pleasure. Because, you see, female vocalists obviously sing for men, and he wasn't interested in romance, while male vocalists obviously sing for women, and he wasn't gay. So gangsta rap was the only music for men like him. It was, objectively, the best music.
He read a lot of history books, but only military history and conservative political theory. He spent a lot of time painting wargaming miniatures in his room. His fiction reading mostly centered on quasi-fascist detectives who did most of their talking with their fists. (It was, of course, the only correct literature for men to read -- "fine literature" was for women.) His cinematic interests focused on Rutger Hauer's trashiest 80s schlock. He demonstratively carried a blackjack.
Comically, he ridiculed "degenerate" modern art. He also insisted on absurd linguistic prescriptivism. For example, he would assert to anyone who would listen that Indian people are spelling their names not according to the rules of correct English spelling.
And the reason why I know this in such detail is that he was constantly telling everyone how right-thinking he was, at length and in great detail. This was his only conversation mode. When US invaded Iraq, he followed me for about two hours praising the US for making a move on "Maddas" (he seemed constitutionally unable to pronounce the name "Saddam" properly -- it wouldn't have been disparaging enough). He would come along to a group dinner and start telling the present company how women should dress to avoid harassment, seemingly for the pleasure of watching people be uncomfortable.
To be honest, out of all the shitty experiences in my life, being forced by circumstance to share a house with Burt is likely the most traumatic and lasting. The furrow of pseudo-intellectual troglodyte conservatism that Scott Alexander and his followers are ploughing is remarkably similar, to a comical level of eccentric detail, such as overstated disdain for poetry and other kinds of absurd, arch gestures of distaste. And their bizarre prolixity.
I am beginning to sympathize with SA's insistence on privacy. In my mind, he is a huge disservice to his medical profession. If I had a therapist, I would try very hard to make sure it wasn't someone like Scott Alexander.
This image of this guy you're painting doesn't sound anything like Scott Alexander, if anything Scott Alexander is the opposite of "certain he's right"
> The furrow of pseudo-intellectual troglodyte conservatism that Scott Alexander and his followers are ploughing is remarkably similar, to a comical level of eccentric detail, such as overstated disdain for poetry and other kinds of absurd, arch gestures of distaste.
This in no way resembles what I’ve seen from siskind and frankly your comments seems like a bizarre form of character assassination.
Repeated and sustained interest in explicitly racist fringe ideologues, because "what if there's gold there"? Weary dismissals of "ugh, gender"? Complaints about perceived wretchedness of contemporary art? Anxieties about criminality as a missed harbinger of social catastrophe? Openness to ideas about some kind of across-the-board cultural decay or loss of vigor? Paranoia about being persecuted for the intellectual courage to examine dangerous, yet important ideas?
I mean, this is aggrieved doomsday conservatism in its full, florid form. All that's missing is some outbursts about the ivory tower being packed with radical liberals. And I'm sure I could find plenty of "discussion" of that pivotal issue, with extended citations from other intellectual figures in this "sphere," if I went looking for it in SSC archives.
according to you, he is a racist. so all the people swarming the internet to dox him and misinterpret leaked personal correspondence are demonstrating "Repeated and sustained interest in an allegedly explicitly racist fringe ideologue."
> Weary dismissals of "ugh, gender"?
oh no!
> Complaints about perceived wretchedness of contemporary art?
What a Philistine.
> Openness to ideas about some kind of across-the-board cultural decay or loss of vigor?
What moron is open to ideas in this day and age?
> Paranoia about being persecuted for the intellectual courage to examine dangerous, yet important ideas?
Apparently its not paranoia.
> I mean, this is aggrieved doomsday conservatism in its full, florid form.
You've convinced me, he's a terrible person and you're correct to misrepresent his words because he's not entitled to being represented accurately.
> All that's missing is some outbursts about the ivory tower being packed with radical liberals.
Well just pretend its there, that didn't stop you from misrepresenting anything else he posted.
15 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 18.4 ms ] threadThat is to say that I don't think SSC is a eugenicist or racist on purpose, necessarily. I think he's a pretty-smart guy who thinks his intellect and knowledge in one area (psychiatry and medicine) gives him the ability to reason about other areas correctly without restriction, and without context that is necessary. For example:
"HBD" as a term is a stand-in for racial science or eugenics. Those are explicitly racist fields of study, and are distinct from things like the study of human genetic variation.[1]
A common misconception is that correctness is a defense to allegations of racism the same way truthfulness is a defense to defamation. It's not the presence of data, but rather the leaps in interpretation of that data which underpin eugenics.
The problem with saying "HBD is mostly correct" is that that statement doesn't mean supporting "data shows Black people have lower IQs as a group in America". (That statement is extremely fraught itself, but it's at least got some data around it[2].) It means supporting "Black people are genetically predisposed to have lower IQs", adding "people with lower IQs are of less societal value than people with high IQs", and ending with "Black people should not be allowed to reproduce so that the population will have a higher IQ overall."
When Siskind/Alexander is saying "HBD" is probably right, he may not realize he's doing this, but that whole chain of logic is the kind of thing he's throwing his hat in, not just the first statement. If he wanted to discuss just that first part, he needs to consider environmental context he simply is not considering, and which eugenics as a "science" purposefully avoids addressing.
He doesn't seem to know what he doesn't know, which to me is more dangerous than knowing what you don't know, and not caring.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation
[2] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-black-white-test-scor...
Edit: This tweet sums up my concern here: https://twitter.com/ElSandifer/status/1362135175912693766
The arrogance of being sure you are smart enough to never make a mistake in the ideas you pick up is pernicious and deadly.
Ed: I would also add that while thinking you have an infallible BS detector is dangerous, believing that truth can only come from certain people and your enemies never have unique insight is another form of hubris, and I think the latter has at least as good as argument for being more dangerous in the long term.
I actually really like that Slate Star Codex had a page where Scott listed his mistakes, and that he makes public predictions at the start of each year and rates whether they were correct. These are great ways to keep track of one's thinking, and more people should do it: https://web.archive.org/web/20191224063106/https://slatestar...
I don’t know what the full context of their conversation was because it isn’t included. But I find it really offensive when people pretend that intelligence and athletic ability amongst a whole host of other things do not exist along a spectrum and are not genetically influenced. Their implication is that it’s a moral failing. Someone with say an IQ of 80 is going to have an extremely hard life through no fault other than genetics and the harsh environment that we as a society give them.
That's not what people who talk about "HBD" being bad are doing. My comment in response to andrewflnr has more, but the criticism is not that intelligence or athletic ability aren't genetically based at all, it's "HBD"/eugenics focus on genetic heritability to the exclusion of everything else, ignores evidence to the contrary, and does so for the explicit purpose of harming people of other races. They also ignore evidence that while it is variable, that variability is not racially determined, e. g. is not correlated to the genetic differences that create phenotypes we categorize as "races".
https://twitter.com/itsbirdemic/status/1356710918026067973
Burt was a crypto-fascist, in exactly the evasive way that a lot of people on SSC were. "Fascist? Use what's between your ears when you talk. It's not the 1930s and I'm not literally Mussolini!"
He wasn't in the College Republicans, because he wasn't interested in organizations. This was also before Eliezer Yudkowsky and his Rationalists. So Burt described himself as an Objectivist instead. Funny how "Objectivist" and "Rationalist" both carry the connotation of always being right!
Burt wasn't against the gays, he just thought it was natural to destroy them. People in the US would rise up and destroy them. The end. He also solely referred to them as "fags" and "fudge-packers," and he wouldn't tolerate being called out on it because "are you really afraid of a word?"
Burt also wasn't against Black people, he just thought that The Bell Curve was right. He would also only listen to gangsta rap for pleasure. Because, you see, female vocalists obviously sing for men, and he wasn't interested in romance, while male vocalists obviously sing for women, and he wasn't gay. So gangsta rap was the only music for men like him. It was, objectively, the best music.
He read a lot of history books, but only military history and conservative political theory. He spent a lot of time painting wargaming miniatures in his room. His fiction reading mostly centered on quasi-fascist detectives who did most of their talking with their fists. (It was, of course, the only correct literature for men to read -- "fine literature" was for women.) His cinematic interests focused on Rutger Hauer's trashiest 80s schlock. He demonstratively carried a blackjack.
Comically, he ridiculed "degenerate" modern art. He also insisted on absurd linguistic prescriptivism. For example, he would assert to anyone who would listen that Indian people are spelling their names not according to the rules of correct English spelling.
And the reason why I know this in such detail is that he was constantly telling everyone how right-thinking he was, at length and in great detail. This was his only conversation mode. When US invaded Iraq, he followed me for about two hours praising the US for making a move on "Maddas" (he seemed constitutionally unable to pronounce the name "Saddam" properly -- it wouldn't have been disparaging enough). He would come along to a group dinner and start telling the present company how women should dress to avoid harassment, seemingly for the pleasure of watching people be uncomfortable.
To be honest, out of all the shitty experiences in my life, being forced by circumstance to share a house with Burt is likely the most traumatic and lasting. The furrow of pseudo-intellectual troglodyte conservatism that Scott Alexander and his followers are ploughing is remarkably similar, to a comical level of eccentric detail, such as overstated disdain for poetry and other kinds of absurd, arch gestures of distaste. And their bizarre prolixity.
I am beginning to sympathize with SA's insistence on privacy. In my mind, he is a huge disservice to his medical profession. If I had a therapist, I would try very hard to make sure it wasn't someone like Scott Alexander.
This in no way resembles what I’ve seen from siskind and frankly your comments seems like a bizarre form of character assassination.
I mean, this is aggrieved doomsday conservatism in its full, florid form. All that's missing is some outbursts about the ivory tower being packed with radical liberals. And I'm sure I could find plenty of "discussion" of that pivotal issue, with extended citations from other intellectual figures in this "sphere," if I went looking for it in SSC archives.
according to you, he is a racist. so all the people swarming the internet to dox him and misinterpret leaked personal correspondence are demonstrating "Repeated and sustained interest in an allegedly explicitly racist fringe ideologue."
> Weary dismissals of "ugh, gender"?
oh no!
> Complaints about perceived wretchedness of contemporary art?
What a Philistine.
> Openness to ideas about some kind of across-the-board cultural decay or loss of vigor?
What moron is open to ideas in this day and age?
> Paranoia about being persecuted for the intellectual courage to examine dangerous, yet important ideas?
Apparently its not paranoia.
> I mean, this is aggrieved doomsday conservatism in its full, florid form.
You've convinced me, he's a terrible person and you're correct to misrepresent his words because he's not entitled to being represented accurately.
> All that's missing is some outbursts about the ivory tower being packed with radical liberals.
Well just pretend its there, that didn't stop you from misrepresenting anything else he posted.