It's about how Twitter calls for intimate speech and then crushes that intimacy. About how Twitter rewards us for gambling on shared context - and then gives us the perfect tool to destroy that context.
The whole inspiration of the piece is Ted Cohen's philosophy of jokes. Cohen says: all jokes depend on some shared background knowledge. And that shared background needs to emerge as a surprise. You totally ruin the joke if you warn your audience about what they need to know.
So every joke is a trust fall. You take a gamble, a leap of faith. You're depending on the pre-existence of shared context. This is why, says, Cohen, jokes build intimacy. The point of a joke is that you're depending on somebody else to be there for you, to understand.
Twitter often works like jokes. The format of tweets is so short, that we so often depend on shared background context. And the joy of Twitter is when we leap out into the void and we find people that do share that context. Strangers, who get us. It's intimacy out of nothing.
So Twitter encourages intimacy. It calls for high-context speech. It rewards us for it. And then it gives us exactly the tool to rip intimate speech out of its context: the re-tweet.
Maybe my favorite part of this piece was getting to do a philosophical close-reading of one of my favorite tweets ever: @sarahjeong historic, hysterical coup tweet:
PS I love this piece. Am I allowed to say that? It's my favorite thing I've written in years. A vague version of this idea was bouncing around in my head, and when I saw the Cohen connection, I leapt out of my bed and shouted something embarrassingly joyous.
PS there's a factual error in the piece that's already been pointed out - Jeong wasn't fired, but people called for her to be fired, over her tweets. Getting it fixed now - thanks for those that caught it!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So, the American Philosophy Association awarded the 2021 Book Prize to my book, GAMES: AGENCY AS ART. I am: shocked, elated, bemused, joyous, and more than a little bewildered.
I think I get to make, like, a little acceptance speech or something? So here it is:
This book was the center of my intellectual, emotional, and spiritual life for like 7 years. I also spent the whole time pretty sure that, like, nobody would read it except for maybe half-a-dozen other weirdos like me who were already writing about the philosophy of games.
I'd actually been on the verge of giving up on philosophy. I couldn't get myself to be interested anymore in the Official Topics that I was supposed to be interested in, and I couldn't figure out how to get other people interested in the stuff I was really interested in.
The funniest argument I have ever read is Augustine's theory of sexual shame in City of God. It somehow starts with a totally reasonable question ("Why is our nudity shameful?") and ends up someplace beyond gonzo... about the agility of our genitalia in Paradise. Thread:
So here's Augustine's question: why is our nudity supposed to be shameful?
It can't be because our bodies are shameful, because they're made in God's image.
It can't be because sex is bad, because God told us to reproduce.
It can't be because pleasure is bad, because there's plenty of other pleasures that are fine.
"The Seductions of Clarity" is now officially out!
It's about how to fake clarity - how to manipulate the *feeling* of understanding to manipulate beliefs. With two core case studies: conspiracy theories and bureaucratic language.
The main idea: we are cognitively limited beings, that need to guesstimate what's worth investigating, and what's not. We need a *heuristic for terminating thought*. Because we don't have the time to investigate everything.
Proposal: many of us use the *feeling of clarity* as a heuristic for terminating thought. We use the feeling of confusion as a signal to investigate something, and the feeling of clarity as a signal that we're done.
One of the best pieces of advice I ever got, delivered by a wise person while I was fuming over a parking ticket:
"3% of your income is for mistakes. If it's too much over, you're too sloppy. If it's too much under, you're sweating the smalls stuff too much."
The exact number should probably be varied depending on life circumstances, etc. But the idea that one can make *too few* mistakes and that this is a sign of wasted energy on diminishing returns was... profoundly transformative, and I've ended up applying it everywhere.
Related: A German friend just told me that Germany is having a much worse time with the vaccine rollout, literally because Germany is spending a huge amount of time making sure only eligible people get the vaccine, where the US has a "if a few people line-skip, eff-it" strategy.
So I've been stuck on the camera policy for my Zoom classes. I totally get the worries about student privacy and invasiveness. But I also know that my teaching gets radically worse when I'm facing mostly all black squares. So this time, I tried complete honesty.
Report-thread:
My last term of Zoom/COVID teaching, I was totally convinced by the arguments that demanding cameras on was an invasion of privacy, that looking into a student's home life was a totally different matter from having them show up into your class.
I said, very directly, that I had no problems with cameras off. The result: all students left their cameras off, and I was left lecturing into a sea of black squares. I found this exhausting, isolating, miserable. And my teaching suffered badly, from lack of feedback.
New paper forthcoming: "The Seductions of Clarity"! The paper is about the seductive *feeling* of clarity, and how that feeling might be faked - and how our cognitive vulnerabilities might be manipulated.
It's about the *sense* of understanding - not actual, genuine understanding, but the *feeling* associated with understanding. I propose: we use this sense of clarity as a thought-terminating heuristic.
We cognitively limited beings actually need a heuristic to end our investigations. But this creates a huge vulnerability. If an epistemic manipulator can fake the sense of clarity, then they can get us to end our investigations too early - and swallow a flawed belief system.