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

Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 584 posts

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#571

Post by adamsea »

tripletao wrote: post #561
adamsea wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just seems like a lot of conclusions to draw around an article that hasn't been released yet and which no one has read. Plus, what if the New Yorker article got something wrong (not necessarily thru negligence)? Or what if the NY Times article changes between now and its publication (if it's published)? What if Alexander misunderstood something? Or, what if there are circumstances which people have not chosen to p…

I also appreciate the response, and I certainly agree that no one except the NYT reporter knew what would be published (and not even they knew what the ultimate consequences would be for Alexander). But since the only way for Alexander to know for sure would have been for him to wait and see if he gets fired, I can't blame him for acting speculatively. Maybe people respond in proportion to their self-assessed risk th…

FWIW I think you’re making a lot of assumptions.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#572

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

memexy wrote: post #515
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I am aware of the difference. I have a doctorate in psychology, which gives me a PhD. It does not qualify me to prescribe drugs and save the lives of people on airplanes, which is something that a psychiatrist could be reasonably asked to do. While psychiatrists spent time understanding physical and mental disorders, psychologists spend time understanding cognitive and behavioural aspects of humanity and running…

Which part of my statement about being trained in the human psyche was incorrect? Also, I didn't ask about your credentials and they're irrelevant to whatever point you're trying to make. I have a graduate degree in math. Have we dispensed with the credentials now?

I feel like you may be getting upset, which I am sorry for.

I am mentioning my credentials because I have been complaining about people not distinguishing between psychologists and psychiatrists for many, many years. I am a little triggered by such comparisons.

The human psyche (incidentally not a word you ever hear in psychology (and potentially psychiatry) classes) is large, and psychologist and psychiatrists focus on very different things.

Like it's fine if you don't see a difference between the two subjects, but others do as they are very, very different.

I guess the closest analogy would be if I called you (a mathematician by training, i assume) a statistician.

Many people might not see the difference between the two roles, but I am relatively confident that you would.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#573

Post by amznthrwaway »

dpbriggs wrote: post #560
amznthrwaway wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are only two rational explanations here: 1) Scott Alexander wanted more attention, and he realized that deleting his site and blaming the NYT for it would garner dramatically more attention, creating opportunities that he wanted. He recognized that he could become a martyr to a certain group, and use that for future gains. 2) Scott Alexander is an absolute moron who did not foresee the Streisand Effect that he…

He's had mental breakdowns over harassment tangential to the site's function (culture war debates). His relative degree of anonymity and obscurity shields him from the worst of the internet. He may write rationalist essays but he's human. I understand that you're celebrating his loss, but that's just not a charitable read. He provided one the last bastions of nuance on the internet.

I'm not celebrating his loss.

I don't even think that he lost. I think it's most likely that he made a calculated win, and that easily manipulated people such as yourself are getting played.

It's telling, though, that you presume I'm celebrating. Your victim mentality shines strong. As does your eagerness to vilify those who perceive a situation differently than you.

It's almost as though you're not even the tiniest bit rational. That you're more of a cult member than anything else.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#574

Post by resters »

ForHackernews wrote: post #567
resters wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, but can we honestly believe that if Lewis-Kraus had omitted the extra verbose reassurances that Scott isn't a Trump supporter and within hours of the article's publication there were calls for the New Yorker to fire him, that the New Yorker's editors would defend the more nuanced treatment? Seemingly, Lewis-Kraus does not believe this. I wonder if the extra verbiage was his own decision or the result of edit…

I guess you can believe whatever you want, but it's equally possible that the author is trying to (accurately) emphasize to his readership that Scott Alexander isn't a member of the alt-right/scientific racism segment of the self-proclaimed Rationalist community.

Yes, and I hope that is the correct explanation. But I think we should be wary of the tremendous pressure that publications face to lean away from nuance and anything that requires careful reading and to rely on broad and pat generalizations.

In my view, the New Yorker is an incredible publication that typically features writing that is superb and also well edited (if edited at all). So that's why this one stood out.

Maybe the issue is that so many people are quick to label anything that sounds like rationalism as alt-right.

I read the thing James Damore wrote and the problem was not the content he claimed was factual, it was the tone. He could have made the same point without sounding like he was on a "side" in an ongoing battle.

The elderly Richard Dawkins gets into political sides taking, as does Sam Harris. Both do little to hide their islamophobia. This appeals to those who were looking for scientific justifications of their beliefs, but also alienates anyone who wanted dispassionate science.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#575

Post by CompanionCuuube »

memexy wrote: post #508
CompanionCuuube wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You apparently know which one it was, and can look up the response. It isn't a very long response either. I'm not going to quote it here, because it gives you a chance to talk about it at me rather than with the original person who brought up the counterpoint.

So then you weren't asking the question in good faith. When I asked you to clarify you dodged the question. I wouldn't ask if I knew, I asked because I didn't know what you were referring to. If you want me to talk to you then make a direct point instead of confused remarks about what I know and don't know and conversations I had with other people that were unrelated to you.

> So then you weren't asking the question in good faith.

Yes, I was.

> When I asked you to clarify you dodged the question. I wouldn't ask if I knew, I asked because I didn't know what you were referring to.

If you didn't know what I was referring to, then you didn't know who you were referring to when you said the following: >> andrewprock already found an example and I agree with his assessment.

> If you want me to talk to you

I have no desire for you to talk to me: that was exactly why I asked you to respond to the other person and not me.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#576

Post by CompanionCuuube »

mst wrote: post #548
memexy wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't apologize. Stop using such tactics. I already pointed out what you did, how you did it, and why it was disingenuous. If you were sincere you would not have quoted me out of context, you would not have tried to bias the group opinion, and you would not have shifted the blame as you are doing now. You should just stop because you are no longer making any points.

"I am sorry", in this case, was meant in its plain meaning of "I feel sorrow about this being the case". Not everything is a tactic. Sometimes people just mean what they say.

Not to all people, and not necessarily to the commenter you are responding to.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#577

Post by mst »

memexy wrote: post #557
mst wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I am sorry", in this case, was meant in its plain meaning of "I feel sorrow about this being the case". Not everything is a tactic. Sometimes people just mean what they say.

> I am sorry that you consider genuine attempts to get real answers to be trolling with no explanation as to twhy. That's called shifting the blame because you're shifting the responsibility and consequences of your actions onto someone else. That is not how one begins an apology. An apology begins as " I am sorry. I will reflect and consider the feedback given and do better next time. Please feel free to give furthe…

It wasn't an apology, as I already said in the comment you're responding to.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#578

Post by mst »

CompanionCuuube wrote: post #576
mst wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I am sorry", in this case, was meant in its plain meaning of "I feel sorrow about this being the case". Not everything is a tactic. Sometimes people just mean what they say.

Not to all people, and not necessarily to the commenter you are responding to.

After clarifying that what I said wasn't an apology memexy continues to criticise me because it didn't fit their standards of apology.

I accept that my phrasing was not entirely clear but given having made what I meant explicit and still being attacked I'm unsure that my mistakes were the primary problem in this case.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#579

Post by ForHackernews »

resters wrote: post #574
ForHackernews wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you can believe whatever you want, but it's equally possible that the author is trying to (accurately) emphasize to his readership that Scott Alexander isn't a member of the alt-right/scientific racism segment of the self-proclaimed Rationalist community.

Yes, and I hope that is the correct explanation. But I think we should be wary of the tremendous pressure that publications face to lean away from nuance and anything that requires careful reading and to rely on broad and pat generalizations. In my view, the New Yorker is an incredible publication that typically features writing that is superb and also well edited (if edited at all). So that's why this one stood out.…

> Maybe the issue is that so many people are quick to label anything that sounds like rationalism as alt-right.

That is an issue, but I'll hope it's uncontroversial to point out that people like, say Curtis Yarvin, who are closely associated with both the alt-right and rationalist movements. There is in fact some significant overlap between those communities.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#580

Post by CompanionCuuube »

mst wrote: post #578
CompanionCuuube wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to all people, and not necessarily to the commenter you are responding to.

After clarifying that what I said wasn't an apology memexy continues to criticise me because it didn't fit their standards of apology. I accept that my phrasing was not entirely clear but given having made what I meant explicit and still being attacked I'm unsure that my mistakes were the primary problem in this case.

As was mentioned in another comment, memexy is in Phase 1 - mischaracterize
Post reply on HN