Here are some problems with factoring historical injustices into decision making processes. Also known as “equity.”
1) Groups will compete for the distinction of having been the most historically oppressed so that they will receive the largest share of resources.
2) Individuals and groups will undervalue the traits necessary for success to the extent that they’ll receive an unequal distribution in their favor. This cycle cannot be broken because merit is inherently disincentivized.
3) The system will incentivize frequent airing of past injustices. This is because doing so will increase the likelihood of receiving a greater share of whatever is being distributed.
4) Proponents of equity-based systems must increase their confidence in the claim that “past oppression was responsible for current disparities” beyond the warrant of the evidence. If they did not, they would not be eligible for as many resources.
We cannot create fair systems by treating people differently on the basis of identity markers or past injustices. We can create fair systems by placing equality front and center. This begins with granting everyone a public education of the first rate and exceptional health care.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There are ways you can circumvent ideological corruption. You can think more clearly, critically, and less tribally and ideologically. But you have to want it, and wanting is a disposition. Here are 7 techniques:
1) Identify the core reason you hold a position and eliminate it from the deliberation (“the real reason check”). Are your other arguments sufficient to warrant belief?
2) Make good arguments against what you believe. The more moral the belief the more important this becomes
3) Try to figure out how your belief could be wrong (related to #2)
4) Publicly admit when a belief was incorrect, esp about a core position. Bonus: If you criticized someone apologize to them.
5) Habituate yourself to think in terms of counterexamples
After Charlie Kirk’s murder, many were shocked to see people celebrate killing someone for mainstream conservative views. I’m not. As a professor, I saw the ideology that taught “disagreement = harm” take over higher ed. This is the endgame of that lesson. 🧵
In this campus culture, to even question the ideology is to cause harm. That belief fueled extreme reactions to speech. Administration and students relentlessly harassed me for holding mainstream liberal positions until I resigned. 2
A society that equates argument with injury will normalize violence toward opinion. What's worse, the ideology that seeded this holds radical views far outside the values of middle America. 3
We think we understand something until we’re asked to explain it. Often, we’re clueless. Breakdown, consequence, fix. 1/5
Example: A toilet. Most would claim knowledge, but describing its mechanics exposes one’s ignorance. We overestimate our grasp of policies, tech, even zippers. 2/5.
This breeds arrogance, pettiness, and shallowness. Conversations falter: Weak arguments, dogmatism, uninformed opinions. People think we’re dicks. It’s not stupidity, it’s cognitive default. Recognition sharpens our thinking. 3/5
Here’s my take on the “Triggernometry Meets Guilty Feminist” discussion: It’s a tragic example of how to NOT have a discussion. In this thread, I’ll cover mistakes in conversation and reasoning while offering basic suggestions for improvement. 1
@triggerpod
While this conversation is funny and engaging, it is also tragic. The guest is hopelessly trapped in a moral and epistemic cage of her own making. Her unwarranted conviction makes her situation not only tragic but also pitiable. 2
Harris, @tegmark and others are incorrect in their assumptions about math. Here’s my heretical take: Math, at its core, is empirical. All numbers derive from counting. It’s observable. 🧵
Consider these two propositions which I’ll reference below:
Math starts with numbers.
Counting is a form of measuring.
We define a measurement, like an inch, and count. 1, 2, 3, etc.
Take the coaster on my table. We agree to call a thing on my table a coaster. There are one and one and one coasters; there are three coasters on the table.