Recently, someone recommended I read The Truth of Fact, The Truth of Feeling by Ted Chiang. Just finished it about an hour ago. I liked it a lot.
Hypothesis: A big march for cause X will contribute to the eventual success of X.
- Define X carefully
- Find independent and identical (or nearly-identical) places where X is being supported and stage a march in some of those places and not others.
- Wait to see outcomes and determine statistical significance of any differences between places with marches and places without.
- Examine possible confounds and alternative explanations for statistically different outcomes.
- Submit to peer review.
What the Marchers for Science did:
- Define “for science” as anything positively related to nerds, anti-Trumpism, feminism and other fashionable identitarian conceits, Christianity-bashing, engineering, technology, cute puns based on words you learn in science class, immigration enthusiasm, catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming (obviously), and a bunch of other incongruent stuff.
- Stage marches friggin’ everywhere.
- Take no measurements, just post a lot of pictures to social media and repost news stories and argue about them in Facebook comments.
- Don’t think about whether the march was a success because success was never defined.
- Pat themselves on the back and go home.
I learned something from this, but it isn’t something any journal would publish.
One problem with the web is that it is largely built by people who are generally optimistic and naive; they think the whole world is like their college dorm was, or like neighborhood or workplace is, where everyone they meet is courteous, conscientious, or at least tidy and bright. (Silicon Valley bigwigs have a left-libertarian streak, of course.) In reality though, humans by and large are glorified apes, so you wind up with everything devolving toward 4chan and Facebook killers.
ACTUAL related posts:
Most people want affordable family formation, but most people don’t want to be realistic about what “affordable” means.
The recent incident in which four black thugs kidnapped and tortured a retarded white kid for apparently racist reasons got me thinking about the problem of how a group or a movement can remain legitimate in the face of embarrassment by bad people who purport to be members of it.
(Obviously, this incident is not the only example of this problem, which does not only exist on the identitarian Left. But since thinking about this incident kept me up late, this is the example I choose to focus on. Besides, the problem is not distributed evenly across the political spectrum.)
If I was in some way a representative of BlackLivesMatter and I had an opportunity to speak to journalists, what would be the best way for me to respond to an incident like this?
So far it seems that BLM representatives have tried to distance BLM from the thugs, saying things like “These criminals do not represent BLM, and BLM does not condone violence.” That’s basic CYA, but there are a few issues with it:
- There are lots of other videos and media showing BLM activists condoning violence in words or actions.
- Because BLM isn’t an organized movement but more of a cause du jour that anyone can participate in, “true” membership is unfalsifiable.
- It doesn’t address the relationship between BLM statements and acts of violence that seem to have been inspired by them.
- It’s a cliche CYA statement that has never persuaded anyone except lawyers who are on the clock.
Issue #1 is actually the least serious. By now most people realize and are jaded by the volume of information available online; it’s well-understood that one can compile quantitative data to support just about any viewpoint. A BLM activist could say “For every video showing BLM activists committing or condoning violence I can show you two videos of a white person committing or condoning violence in the name of some cause you consider legitimate,” and even if objectively there are more actual incidents of one than the other, the “bottomless bowl” nature of the internet creates the (plausible) impression that both are uncountable, resulting in a stalemate.
Issue #2 is the most intractable. I don’t know whether it’s true but I’ve heard that BLM protests have been funded by George Soros–yet BLM does not have any certifiable badge of membership or agreed-upon “includes/excludes” list of actions, goals, and values.
Either would be a quick way to verify (via membership or actions/statements, respectively) who/what is representative of the movement and who/what is not. The latter (an “includes/excludes” list of actions, goals, and values) would be the more realistic thing for them to have, and is even possible if a few dozen high-profile people would sign their name to a document containing such a list, Declaration of Independence-style. But it’s so unlikely to happen I would put its probability at less than 0.1% over the next four years.
That list would consist of a series of statements like this:
We will [action] in order to [goal] because we believe [value]. We will not [action] because we do not believe in [value].
So for example, an item on BLM’s list could look like this:
We will hold peaceful protests in order to bring attention to unfair police brutality against black people because we believe justice should be administered equally. We will not commit acts of violence against innocent people because we do not believe two wrongs make a right.
And so on. There are still concepts and terms in there that could be debated and shown to be unclear, but it’s a fairly simple way to at least remove 80-90% of the current ambiguity.
Issue #3 is the one I feel most pessimistic about because it’s the haziest yet also probably the most important. The relationship between one person’s speech and another person’s action is not well understood, and in any case is extremely complicated. Statements intended to be peaceful have often been used to justify violence, so clearly there are a lot of unpredictable intermediaries between a statement and an action.
This is true no matter how carefully the statement is uttered, because humans are not perfectly rational; just to name two innate human characteristics, our tribalism and violent urges–though evolutionarily necessary and often still useful–twist and blur the perceptible arrow of causation.
BLM can never disprove that a violent act was inspired by their statements, and the more they try the more disingenuous they look. Yet at the same time they cannot take responsibility without nullifying themselves. (That might be why Obama, when commenting on the incident, was so quick to blame the internet and social media. On the face of things he’s correct in part, but this is still passing the buck, or at least passing the 50 cents.)
Issue #4 boils down to a failure of imagination and persuasive ability. What kind of statement or action would persuade a white guy who’s skeptical of BLM’s good faith that BLM earnestly just wants equal justice and disavows violence? BLM representatives should think about that.
One solution could be to conduct their own highly visible symbolic internal witch-hunt–punishing a few thugs like that as a message to the others. Or maybe it’s create a casual holiday called Make a White Friend Day. Or better yet, Make Friends With a White Cop Day, where the message is “We know not all white cops are racist, and we want to work with the non-racist ones to help put an end to this problem.”
Those are just the first three ideas off the top of my head and have their own problems, but all three would be way more effective than the existing perfunctory disavowal.
You probably already knew, but over the past few months you’ve been bashed over the head by how many of your friends, family, and online contacts are either whiny deranged liberals who think Trump is Hitler, or how many are racist right-wing fossils who think Trump is Jesus.
You’ve done a lot of work pruning your various feeds to block that infuriating stuff and show more of just the few things you’re interested in. You’ve even resolved to check your social media less often.
But you’re already starting to backslide. By February you’ll be logging in as often as ever before, and somehow those same irritating voices will be back, screaming about the Fascist Nazi Apocalypse of Xenophobic Misogynists or how Whites Aren’t Safe In Their Own Country Anymore–and the first weeks of Trump’s presidency will be used for ammo in either case.
Why not just cut the cord? Delete your social media accounts. Delete the social media apps off your phone. It’s very easy, and takes less than a minute. Just do it now.
It seems like the direction of change in our society is at least partially, in some cases, determined by the way we believe it is going to change.
For instance, there seems to be this consensus that future humans are going to use a lot of sophisticated AI and live in space or on other celestial bodies. It started as a vision by a few influential sci-fi writers (as in Asimov’s “The Last Question”, or Star Trek), became a vision shared by lots of sci-fi writers, and may be becoming a kind of assumption among people in general.
If there was a popular genre of sci-fi in which future societies always lived under the ocean, and government agencies and cutting-edge private companies who developed the means to live under the ocean received a lot of media attention, then advances toward living under the ocean would be highlighted. Kids would get excited to some day contribute to that effort. And at some point in the future, that is indeed what we would end up doing.
TL;DR: narratives are self-fulfilling.
Tomorrow’s election outcome will not be the difference between salvation and ruin for our society. The internet–that Great Preserver Of All Things–has failed to lengthen our memories.
So many sites on the internet just let anyone create accounts for free and post their ideas, their media, their comments, whatever–anonymously in many cases. What if the popular notion that the internet should be a place of openness and free speech is wrong? Is our world better or worse for it?
“Here’s how future technology might contribute to relationship problems…” Click here for the 3-sentence review