New NYT Editor, a bit bigoted?

[Jason]

@jp - Certainly. Also, see Al Franken as a example that combines everything we've discussed in this thread. If there's a difference, it's that the left seem to police their own in academia and in congress whereas the right seem rather craven/expedient in comparison. Only news example I can think of where the right is calling out the right is Shep Smith. As MA also pointed out ... it might come down to the observation that hypocrisy is practically the only deadly sin left on the [postmodern] left whereas the right operates on different values (like loyalty).

Watching the Left cut off Al Franken was like attending an adult circumcision. The Right would never spill that much blood for something merely symbolic. I'm not sure who I agree with.

[IlliniDave]

Only news example I can think of where the right is calling out the right is Shep Smith.

I guess that depends on what you mean by news and what you mean by "the right". Even if you just mean Fox News (there aren't many other right leaning mainstream outlets) and Trump, people keep score:

https://www.thewrap.com/11-times-fox-ne ... -trump/24/

It's a running thing and they are up to 17 now. Of course, that's an 18-month total that probably doesn't even compete with an hour on "neutral" CNN The only individual I've come across that is a 100% consistent Trump supporter, besides Trump, in Sean Hannity. Lately I've been working late and my daily 30 minutes of Hannity has been replaced by 30 minutes of Mark Levin, who has been ballistic over the tariffs of late (neither he nor Hannity are news guys though).

Then if you count McConnell and Ryan, and other moderate legislative types, the last 6 years have been a chorus of boos that extends to the water cooler. The whole Obama Era was characterized by infighting on the right and the conservative pundits were harsh on both their collective ineptness and on the various factions. The politicians themselves have not been nice to each other, nor many of them with Trump. There is a steady stream of those types who appear on NPR's morning news program. So I don't know if that counts as left calling out right, or right calling out right. I basically never watch Fox News, though I do see an odd clip here or there on Youtube, so I don't know how much their news segments take sides in the red shirt infighting.

[Campitor]

What I sincerely have a hard time understanding, in reference to provocateurs, is why do people in opposition or emotionally hurt by the message/messenger listen to the vitriol? Just walk away. Milo fans aren't going to be swayed by any anti-Milo speeches or chants. At that point your just indulging immaturity by reacting emotionally to Milo and his followers by crashing his hosted event.

But then again, when you look at the age groups involved, both sides haven't matured enough or experienced enough life to make more contemplative choices or see the kernels of truth in the opposing view points. I think there are times when a messenger and their message is so heinous and dangerous that voices need to speak up in opposition but in a constructive way. Standing on opposite sidewalks yelling at each other isn't going to change ideology or improve the political discourse.

[prognastat]

@Campitor

Many see the college grounds as a universal safe space for their opinions and are utterly disgusted to see someone like Milo being able to be present and vocally shitting on their sacred cows in their safe space.

I suspect to them it isn't far off from how you would feel violated by a home invasion occurring. It's sad that this is the case and that they can't differentiate situations.

[jacob]

@Campitor - You're talking about Kegan4 as opposed to Kegan3---as in, why not just ignore all that Kegan3 bullshit when I can just do my own thing because it doesn't affect me personally?

Because ultimately, those in opposition might understand or more likely worry that if X-policy attacks Y1 without opposition then X might come for Y2 next ... and so on towards Y3 and maybe realize that if they're Y4 then they're next in line. Whereas a lot of people don't care or are actually opposed to policies as long as they don't need them personally after which they're suddenly in favor. As much as it blows the mind of the INTJ (and it still blows mine), most people really don't think that far ahead in space, time, or consequences. However, many (like half) actually manage to somehow feel it (evolutionary empathy). This is why the controversy wrt the-us and the-other persists because nobody thinks through it. Knee-jerking is encoded in our DNA.

A very common example would be to be someone who is e.g. against gay marriage or medicaid right up and until the point when some family member suddenly comes out of the closet or loses their job and now needs insurance because they got pregnant. A similar example would be someone who is all for taxing the rich until the start making real money and suddenly develop a strong opinion on the capital gains tax. There is actually a lot of staunch people out there who at this point would instantly and magically change their opinion in terms of who deserves what once and only once it begins to affect them personally. Because many humans are ultimately just self-serving while not even realizing it. Not everybody is capable of thinking beyond their own personal tribe.

[prognastat]

A very common example would be to be someone who is e.g. against gay marriage or medicaid right up and until the point when some family member suddenly comes out of the closet or loses their job and now needs insurance because they got pregnant.

This is just so common and it's sad. I would say that empathy isn't necessarily the only way for some of these things such as social stigmas as many libertarians don't support gay rights out of a great sense of empathy, but more at the indignation against personal liberties being curbed most of all on something that doesn't harm others.

[Campitor]

@Campitor - You're talking about Kegan4 as opposed to Kegan3---as in, why not just ignore all that Kegan3 bullshit when I can just do my own thing because it doesn't affect me personally?

I was thinking more along the lines of channeling energy towards constructive political discourse that actually affects change. I want to avoid "dog barking" the vehicle of political opposition which accomplishes nothing. Yelling down speakers and leveling personal attacks instead of debating data and ideas doesn't move the political needle in a healthy direction.

[BRUTE]

this writer obviously excluded

obviously.

@DLj:

mentioning Milo and Shapiro in the same breath is already perceived as dishonest, or at least uninformed, to anyone who has heard both of them talk.

brute would be interested in DLjs opinion of Charles Murray's work. brute has listened to an interview. Murray seemed reasonable, and not at all reprehensible or racist. brute has not read The Bell Curve. from brute's experience, IQ isn't really a big thing except for negative outliers - but DLj seems to disagree, if brute remembers correctly.

[IlliniDave]

Bret Weinstein gave an excellent speech describing how the far left is pressuring the moderate left on campuses. (For those who don't know him, he's an evolutionary biologist and bona fide progressive.)

I spent my Friday evening listening to that. I was familiar with the details of his story, but hadn't heard him talk about it at length. The more I've heard from him the more I like him. Now I'm interested in reading up on game theory. Thanks for the link.

[jennypenny]

A very common example would be to be someone who is e.g. against gay marriage or medicaid right up and until the point when some family member suddenly comes out of the closet or loses their job and now needs insurance because they got pregnant.

This is just so common and it's sad.

It's 'sad' to INTJs but not to most other types. Other types think it's sad that INTJs spend so much time alone thinking about things that 'might' happen and that they can't live in and enjoy the moment. One isn't better than the other, they are just different. I think the fact that the majority doesn't change their mind about an issue until they have some personal experience with it is probably a good thing for most issues -- it prevents changing society too quickly and frequently, and avoids making changes to ward off issues that might be solved or fizzle out before they affect a majority of people.


@iDave-- He has a Youtube channel and it's very good. He speaks slowly and deliberately, so interviews rarely do him justice. I like watching his lengthier stuff.


I had dinner last night with someone who teaches graduate-level journalism and communications students at a big university. She said that Jeong would have known not to tweet what she did and that those students are taught that their words are their craft and to preserve the integrity of them. She (my guest) was very disappointed in the Times for hiring Jeong because standards are how they maintain their credibility and distinguish themselves from the partisan media. She agreed with me about social media mobs but she said this was not the place to take a stand against them.

[7Wannabe5]

Murray seemed reasonable

"Seemed" being the operative word. The problem with the analysis offered in "The Bell Curve" is that it makes the error of misapplying aggregate. A less loaded example would be you have statistical results correlating BMI with heart attack risk based on population of all adults in the U.S. Now I tell you Individual X has BMI of 30 and you quote me an insurance price to cover risk of heart attack in next 5 years. Then I tell you that Individual X is a member of the subgroup of under 32 year old females with greater than 48 inch hip measure. Or I tell you that Individual X is a member of the subgroup of over 66 year old males with systolic BP over 210. Do you then choose to double-down on the validity of the first study rather than quoting a new insurance price in either instance?

Murray's argument is based on a sort of absurd science in which less information is likely to give better results than more information.

[IlliniDave]

@iDave-- He has a Youtube channel and it's very good. He speaks slowly and deliberately, so interviews rarely do him justice. I like watching his lengthier stuff.

I'm listening to this one this morning while getting caught up on my July month-end accounting. It's Bret and his brother Eric (also an interesting guy, and I think the guy who coined the term "intellectual dark web"). I'm only about 1/3 through but they are saying some interesting things about the "center right", which for them seems to be a place for people without a home. Objectively I probably fall on the center right part of the spectrum, although I see myself as more center left because my reference framework is rooted in the environment of my formative years in the 1980s and probably is not reflective of all that's changed in 30 years. I can sympathize with feeling an amount of homelessness when it comes to politics and philosophy (to the extremely limited degree I philosophize). I'm not optimistic I have the raw intellect to keep up with the way these guys (and the other IDW people) think. Sorry to stray off-topic, but I get a dash of hopefulness when I see discourse between various perspectives instead of what masquerades as discourse on most platforms out there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmXq97do-tQ

[7Wannabe5]

I agree, based on video linked, that Weinstein seems to be centered in reality. Interesting how the words "systems" and "narrative" keep popping up everywhere these-a-days. I would note that it seems like Peterson is preaching pro-narrative to the same crowd that Weinstein is cautioning against fitting facts to narrative. I also appreciated Weinstein's take on the danger of losing a sense of humor. I quoted Mark Twain above, because like Franken, he is in danger of being exiled by the humorless extreme of either camp.

[Jason]

(@) ID

https://oyc.yale.edu/economics/econ-159

(@) 7W5

Absurd Science = Eugenics

[IlliniDave]

I would note that it seems like Peterson is preaching pro-narrative to the same crowd that Weinstein is cautioning against fitting facts to narrative.

That may be true to some extent, but Weinstein (Bret, not Eric) in the link I shared this morning thinks Peterson is really on to something. They've sort of come to the same place from opposite directions: Peterson comes from psychology and has sought insight from evolution and biology. Weinstein comes from evolutionary biology and has looked to psychology to further understanding of how evolution in humans. From that perspective I don't think Peterson is "preaching pro-narrative" as much as he is simply recognizing/theorizing that ancient narrative is a repository of human evolutionary wisdom (which is in part social/cultural) captured before we invented a scientific jargon for it as opposed to it being the face of a cardboard villain recently christened "the white hetero patriarchy" that he's trying to promote. Using the ancient cross-cultural archetypes/mythologies to understand peoples' psychology is not the same thing as constructing a narrative as a short-term tool for advancing narrow political/social/economic agendas, at least in my view.

[daylen]

Peterson and the Weinstein brothers have a common enemy at the moment (radical left), and I think that this makes their views appear closer that they actually are. I do agree with what ID said about Peterson, though Peterson can come off as "preaching pro-narrative" at times when he is taken out of context. Jordan will often start off with facts then use the same tone of voice to convey a subjective moral that follows inductively after those facts. This is where he gets into trouble.

Eric, on the other hand, is a typical analytic that often pushes ideas full speed ahead on his progressive train and ignores the implementation details of his socialistic-leaning vision.

This combination makes for some interesting conversation.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li2J4GxZ6iM

[IlliniDave]

Daylen, aside from the overlap between Peterson's and B Weinstein's academic work, what really brings the IDW gang "together" is not the closeness of their ideas, but their willingness to have the difficult conversations despite their differences in a collegial manner, rather then resort to the TV-format 5-minute moderated shouting match.

[daylen]

Yes, that is another factor of course. The common enemy provides substrate.

[7Wannabe5]

I don't think Peterson is "preaching pro-narrative" as much as he is simply recognizing/theorizing that ancient narrative is a repository of human evolutionary wisdom

Right. That is why I interjected a book written by Mark Twain into this discussion. Jason also attempted to bring more narrative into the discussion, but his reference to the characters and plot structure of "Billions" wasn't ancient enough.

P.S. Is there any way to get transcripts for these super-long videos you guys are linking? I could probably finish reading "The Age of Stagnation" (highly recommend-humor rating->extra dry- Das gets my personal vote for sexiest Asian.) and/or watch 3 more episodes of "Mistresses" in the time it would take me to watch one of these discussions.

[daylen]

https://ccm.net/faq/40644-how-to-get-th ... tube-video

.. also 1.25x, 1.5x, or 2x speed.

.. or download audio and listen to like podcast.. https://ytmp3.cc