Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 151 posts

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#11

Post by Der_Einzige »

kaycebasques wrote: post #8
Der_Einzige wrote: post #3

I like attacking academics for careerism as much as the next guy (and especially in the context of the strange embrasure of post modernist authors) but they straight up aren't even talking about the worst form of this yet. The French authors listed at least had a sembalance of value from their works. Hell, I'd highly recommend everything Arendt wrote and Derrida wrote at least one good book on the Marx/Stirner rivalr…

Philosophize This just did a series on Foucault [0] and Deleuze [1] which I got a lot of value out of. Particularly the Deleuze discussion about how post-modernism doesn’t always have to devolve into deconstruction. That was eye-opening and hugely helpful for me. And Foucault’s idea of the panopticon is probably very relevant to anyone interested in surveillance capitalism. I studied History at Cal so I understand th…

Foucault's only half decent book was discipline and punish (where the panopticon chapter is in) but if you actually read him (or open up any of DnGs anti-oedipus) you will see very rapidly why you had to have a secondary source understand them.

It's because modern people don't read Charlatan authors as much as Foucault did. Foucault is a terrible historographer and no amount of writing against "metanarratives" or "totalizing descriptions of history" saves him from this

"Deconstruction" is not what I critique. I critique people who unironically stlll believe in the powers of psychoanalysis. DnG don't get a pass for inventing schozoanalysis - it's way worse!

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#12

Post by jlawson »

lostmymind66 wrote: post #9
hirundo wrote: post #4

> As every freshman course in “critical thinking” reminds us, the dull, unhappy burden of the rational mind is to follow the evidence where it leads, not the bandwagon. If you do that you frequently end up with a position that is "extremist" to someone or another. This effect is so reliable that if you meet someone who isn't extremist about anything it's safe to say that they don't think for themselves, rationally or…

Just because you came to the same conclusion as the mainstream population, doesn't mean your are incapable of independent thought. "That doesn't mean such a person won't be wrong as much as anyone else, but they're not necessarily more wrong than conventional wisdom" Conventional wisdom usually is a result of many generations passing down wisdom and knowledge down to the next generation. It's not always correct, but…

Responding to your first paragraph.

If you came to the same conclusion as the mainstream on every issue, it almost certainly means you're incapable of independent thought. Not just one issue.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#13

Post by povertyworld »

kaycebasques wrote: post #8
Der_Einzige wrote: post #3

I like attacking academics for careerism as much as the next guy (and especially in the context of the strange embrasure of post modernist authors) but they straight up aren't even talking about the worst form of this yet. The French authors listed at least had a sembalance of value from their works. Hell, I'd highly recommend everything Arendt wrote and Derrida wrote at least one good book on the Marx/Stirner rivalr…

Philosophize This just did a series on Foucault [0] and Deleuze [1] which I got a lot of value out of. Particularly the Deleuze discussion about how post-modernism doesn’t always have to devolve into deconstruction. That was eye-opening and hugely helpful for me. And Foucault’s idea of the panopticon is probably very relevant to anyone interested in surveillance capitalism. I studied History at Cal so I understand th…

Pretty sure the panopticon predates Foucault by at least a century.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#14

Post by Der_Einzige »

hirundo wrote: post #4

> As every freshman course in “critical thinking” reminds us, the dull, unhappy burden of the rational mind is to follow the evidence where it leads, not the bandwagon. If you do that you frequently end up with a position that is "extremist" to someone or another. This effect is so reliable that if you meet someone who isn't extremist about anything it's safe to say that they don't think for themselves, rationally or…

This is exactly why the term for what this article is criticising is "Critical Theory".

Leftist postmodernists are damn good at critiquing things, and calling out why one should reject a mainstream position.

Of course, they forgot that the seductive belief in rationalism - specifically in the claim that some human recognize reality more correctly than others (and education is what separates the wrong from the correct) - is most likely the beginning of every from of hierarchy and oppression that they critique.

Why is it that Foucault - an author who writes all about how shitty schools are - is required reading in many undergraduate classes? If he saw people being graded for regurgitating his ideas, he'd be spinning in his grave!

The Academy is where critical theory goes to be neutered. And it must be, as it would be too subversive without tenured academics to keep the proles from direct action.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#15

Post by lostmymind66 »

jlawson wrote: post #12
lostmymind66 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you came to the same conclusion as the mainstream population, doesn't mean your are incapable of independent thought. "That doesn't mean such a person won't be wrong as much as anyone else, but they're not necessarily more wrong than conventional wisdom" Conventional wisdom usually is a result of many generations passing down wisdom and knowledge down to the next generation. It's not always correct, but…

Responding to your first paragraph. If you came to the same conclusion as the mainstream on every issue , it almost certainly means you're incapable of independent thought. Not just one issue.

I still disagree. Many issues usually fall into 2 or a few sides (abortion, taxes, gun control, etc), so statistically, it's fairly easy to come up with your own opinion on any one issue and match the mainstream.

There are also many people that go to the extremist views because they want to be different. They are guided by the mainstream and choose a different side, just so they can feel like a rebel. I don't really consider this independent thought.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#16

Post by traverseda »

hirundo wrote: post #4

> As every freshman course in “critical thinking” reminds us, the dull, unhappy burden of the rational mind is to follow the evidence where it leads, not the bandwagon. If you do that you frequently end up with a position that is "extremist" to someone or another. This effect is so reliable that if you meet someone who isn't extremist about anything it's safe to say that they don't think for themselves, rationally or…

Extremism isn't an understanding it's a way of doing things.

I don't imagine that people are getting called extremists for jumping on the communism bandwagon, as an example. They're getting called extremists for how they're behaving, how they're promoting their ideas.

>There are many animals which have what are called dominance contests. They rush at each other with horns - trying to knock each other down, not gore each other. They fight with their paws - with claws sheathed. But why with their claws sheathed? Surely, if they used their claws, they would stand a better chance of winning? But then their enemy might unsheathe their claws as well, and instead of resolving the dominance contest with a winner and a loser, both of them might be severely hurt.

You can think of the marketplace of ideas as a sort of dominance contest. The academic extremists I've encountered don't keep their claws sheathed, they're willing to do whatever it takes to make sure their ideas are the winner. And that's a problem because it poisons the discourse for everyone and promotes anti-intellectual sentiment.

If you're being called an extremist just for having some out-there ideas, well I don't know what's up with your social group but I don't think that's normal. Extremism is about tactics, it's about the fanaticism that keeps you from being able to co-exist with other ideas.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#18

Post by xfs »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #14
hirundo wrote: post #4

> As every freshman course in “critical thinking” reminds us, the dull, unhappy burden of the rational mind is to follow the evidence where it leads, not the bandwagon. If you do that you frequently end up with a position that is "extremist" to someone or another. This effect is so reliable that if you meet someone who isn't extremist about anything it's safe to say that they don't think for themselves, rationally or…

This is exactly why the term for what this article is criticising is "Critical Theory". Leftist postmodernists are damn good at critiquing things, and calling out why one should reject a mainstream position. Of course, they forgot that the seductive belief in rationalism - specifically in the claim that some human recognize reality more correctly than others (and education is what separates the wrong from the correct…

Well, you have to master the language of critique before being able to critique the language itself.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#19

Post by jeremyjh »

jlawson wrote: post #12
lostmymind66 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you came to the same conclusion as the mainstream population, doesn't mean your are incapable of independent thought. "That doesn't mean such a person won't be wrong as much as anyone else, but they're not necessarily more wrong than conventional wisdom" Conventional wisdom usually is a result of many generations passing down wisdom and knowledge down to the next generation. It's not always correct, but…

Responding to your first paragraph. If you came to the same conclusion as the mainstream on every issue , it almost certainly means you're incapable of independent thought. Not just one issue.

People outside the mainstream on a topic who are not deeply experienced specialists in that field have almost certainly fallen prey to well-crafted arguments that advance a falsehood. These arguments are far more common than novel ideas that are both correct and dominated by an incorrect mainstream idea. So when you encounter any argument against a mainstream position you need to be deeply skeptical of it, and if you don't have dozens of hours to research it all yourself you should fall back to the mainstream position.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#20

Post by kartan »

hirundo wrote: post #4

> As every freshman course in “critical thinking” reminds us, the dull, unhappy burden of the rational mind is to follow the evidence where it leads, not the bandwagon. If you do that you frequently end up with a position that is "extremist" to someone or another. This effect is so reliable that if you meet someone who isn't extremist about anything it's safe to say that they don't think for themselves, rationally or…

extremism /ɪkˈstriːmɪz(ə)m,ɛkˈstriːmɪz(ə)m/ noun the holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism.

Update: My point is that you are redefining what "extremism" means. e.g. The far-right is extremism. To think that you can create colonies in Mars in the next 10 years is "unorthodox".

If you redefine extremism to something that is acceptable, and most people defines far-right as extremism, you are defining the far-right as something that is acceptable. That is the danger of redefining words.

Post reply on HN