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
It’s worst in echo chambers (university departments). Almost never found in jiu jitsu or reality-based activities. Social media amplifies it: Like, share, nod. Result: Bad decisions in voting, daily choices. Don’t be a dick. Spot it in yourself to overcome. 4/5
Combat it: Ask if you can explain fully, then try. Use Street Epistemology to probe beliefs. Detail concepts, write or speak them out. To not pretend to know things you don’t know, you must first know that you don’t know them. 5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
Here’s a quick tip for helping you think through an issue in six easy steps. A thread:
1. State your belief in a single sentence.
2. In a single sentence, state at least one position opposed to your belief.
3. Ask yourself what you would need to know—definitively—for the belief that opposes yours to be true.
4.Ask yourself if every reasonable person would agree to what you stated in #3.
5. Ask yourself how you could go about figuring out #3.
6. If there’s no way for you to figure out #3, perhaps you’re not being reasonable or you may need more information or you may want to reconsider your response. (It could also be that the opposing believe is just patently false or silly.)
This thread will explain, in plain language, what disbelieving “not all cultures are equally valid” entails.
If you disbelieve the claim that “all cultures are as valid as each other,” then you believe, “All cultures are as valid as each other”. If you believe all cultures are as valid as each other, then you must believe…
…that there is no objective, independent, non-perspectival way to make a judgment about a culture or cultural practice. If you believe this—and you must believe it if you disbelieve that all cultures are as valid as each other—then…
It is important to understand that DEI is not simply an admin arm of higher ed but an ideological apparatus that grew from a body of academic literature. In 2018, @HPluckrose, @ConceptualJames, @MikeNayna, & I exposed the DEI-related fields as totally fraudulent. THREAD
2. We engaged in a one-year immersive exploration of DEI-related fields. We attempted to understand DEI disciplines as “outsiders within” and test their scholarship at its highest levels. (We using fake identities.)
3. Our success metric was three papers in leading DEI-related journals. We thought if we could get three absurd papers published at the highest level it would be the academic scandal of the century & higher ed would be forced to address the problem.