A thing I've noticed about myself and others as we move though careers in academia:
The transition from "powerless" to "powerful" is often imperceptible. People fail to realize when they have gained power over others, and fail to see how they might be misusing it. [thread]
Woke folks tend to be attuned to the standard dimensions of power: faculty have power over students, tenured faculty have power over untenured faculty, dominant groups have power over underrepresented groups.
Beyond that there's professional power that sometimes gets missed:
Young grad students have power over undergrads
Older grads have power over younger ones
Asst. profs have power over grads, job candidates, and non-TT faculty
But there's also the more subtle power of being known. We often don't notice when we've moved from "completely unknown" to "known" or from "known" to "well known."
So, we don't realize when our criticism and praise -- especially in public -- becomes an exercise in power.
There's also the boundary between social and institutional power. When I started, I quickly became assimilated into the culture of my department. I could affect change more than some more senior colleagues because it was easier for me to talk to those with institutional power.
The internet makes it even more complicated. There are prominent examples of people who may have relatively little credibility as scholars, but nonetheless wield substantial social power on the internet.
Of course, we all know examples of professors who I'm subtweeting. But there are also graduate students and junior faculty who have substantial power on twitter, even though they don't necessarily have much institutional power in the field.
Before you assume I'm being critical, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with having power. One just needs to be self-reflective about what one does to be sure one is not causing harm. I mention it because people often fail to notice when they start to wield "twitter-power."
I think some people miss their own power because they focus on the ways they are disempowered and ignore ways that they are empowered. I've had interactions where people seem to think "I can't be in a position of power, because I am powerless relative to [insert-group]."
Intellectually, we know that no one is all powerful or completely powerless. But I think that gets lost when we tell narratives about our position in the world. It's useful to reflect, not just on the ways others have power over us, but also on the ways we have power over others.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Just in case anyone reading this is thinking about debating a crackpot on a famous podcast. Here are some important tips for how to debate from a former debater and coach.
1. I don't care that you are an expert. You have not prepped for the debate. In college, we scouted. A lot. Knowing the subject matter is not enough, you need to know what your opponent is going to say and prepare specifically for that.
2. Prepping is not just scouting, but also preparing what you will say in response. Framing your argument is super important and thinking through what you'll say is critical. Plan for way more than you think you need because you never know what direction it will go.
I think slot machines are really interesting and I'm always curious about why they are designed the way they are. They have changed in some pretty significant, and I'm curious to know why.
(Fair warning, I'm not an expert on any of this, so this may be all hot air.)
My understanding is that there has been a kind of paradigm shift in the way that slot machines are being designed. The machines of 30 years ago focused on maintaining the veneer of "winning."
They were designed to make it seem like you had a lot of "near misses" where you almost won big, except for one small thing. They also made sure that you could always hear someone else winning, so it seemed like a win was just around the corner
1. Be specific about your knowledge of the student. Detail how you know the student and on what basis you make a judgment. We (seriously) get letters where it's not clear the faculty knows the student very well, but still says incredibly nice things.
2. Match your letter to the students other application materials. It looks strange when the letter doesn't match the application. (We do sometimes get "This student will excel in any CS PhD program." It's not as crazy given our program, but still a little off putting.)
First, unless I knew someone really well, I would be cautious saying something is "not worth it." I don't know how much value someone puts on learning philosophy or how much $ they have. How could I possibly judge whether something was worth it for them?
I think a lot of people have in mind "financially remunerative" when they say "worth it." This is an ironic standard for a philosopher to adopt. (Dear philosophers, somethings other than money have value. Surprised I have to say this.)
This is a common question that philosophers ask and get asked a lot. In my opinion, the answer is obviously "yes" and thinking that there might not be progress in philosophy is the result of thinking about philosophy the wrong way. A 🧵
Since I'm a philosopher, I need to know what counts as philosophy? Let's start with a simple version: has there been progress on the questions asked by people who were called "philosophers"?
The answer here is quite obviously yes. Aristotle, for instance, asked a bunch of questions regarding physics, biology, psychology, etc. We know SO MUCH MORE than he did, so there is obviously progress on those questions.
A short story about the time I was accused of being part of a cabal to keep a dangerous & "controversial" idea from seeing the light of day.
It's not the idea that you probably think it is...
Last year I (and a bunch of other folks I know) got an email from a seemingly nice fellow who wanted to talk to me about infinity and set theory.
Initially the emails started off very kind. The writer said he was "confused" about how infinities work in math.
He had some questions because it seemed incoherent that infinity + 1 = infinity. He wondered why this didn't violate basic properties of addition. (He mistakenly thought that infinity could be treated just like a regular natural number for the purposes of addition.)