I Met Paul Graham Once

In terms of "people being convinced by others", I think this is a relatively recent phenomenon. I think it's possible to be simultaneously concerned about social contagion and social influences, especially among young people who don't have a fully developed understanding of themselves, hasty treatments without due diligence on behalf of medical providers, commercial incentives in the medical community, etc, etc... while also acknowledging that some people simply do suffer from legitimate, intractable gender dysphoria.

There is no evidence that I can find that reparative therapy is effective. A teenager being lured into something on social media for social clout is simply not the same thing as a person who genuinely, intractably believes that they were born in the wrong body.

> If I was gender dysphoric (unable to accept the truth and be comfortable in my own body)

One thing I find interesting about this framing ("unable to accept the truth", "affirm my delusion") is that it seems to ignore any kind of biological/chemical occurrences in the body and brain that could explain gender dysphoria and instead casts it purely in a judgemental "these trans people are just nuts" light, which seems odd given that this is a topic on which we clearly don't have all the answers.

But getting back to pg’s essay and the zeitgeist of the late 80s and early 90s…

> But PG does not allow this nuance in his arguments, and completely disregards the problems any of his examples were trying to treat in the first place. In fact he claims that the thought process that leads to these changes causes disaster, and need to be stopped.

In the quote above my quote of you, pg was talking about how “political correctness” began to limit the ability to discuss heterodox ideas at universities. He was lamenting the fact that “the search for truth” had given way to “the search for ideas that generally do not offend” (my wording, not his).

He gives an example of Larry Summers discussing a theory of Darwin’s. Whether that theory is right or wrong is irrelevant — the mere discussion of it cost him his very high profile job because it made some people feel uncomfortable. Note that Larry Summers continued to have great jobs after being ousted as Harvard’s president (including remaining a professor at Harvard), so it’s not like anyone that mattered actually thought he did anything particularly heinous, it was just a forced and capricious move in the performative art of “social justice”.

This happened in many other lower profile examples, and it produced (and has continued to produce) a chilling effect on the discussion of ideas that might be offensive to certain groups (mainly the folks that pg is referring to in his essay — call them whatever you want).

So why is this important?

1. When ideas, especially controversial ones, can’t be discussed, then research areas tend to end up at local maxima. This is incredibly regressive and limiting for research fields. Note that this already exists by way of not being able to challenge the ideas of certain researchers while they are still active/alive, and limiting this by not being able to challenge ideas that certain groups might find offensive (even if backed up by data) is even more restrictive. I’m guessing this is one reason why pg regularly takes shots at the socials sciences — the discussion of ideas is often to limited to that which is fashionable/acceptable to a small group, and progress in the field languishes and is limited because of that.

2. Ideas that are important but controversial end up either being shelved or (at best) discussed behind closed doors rather than openly. As a simple example, when scientists realized that challenging certain aspects of the efficacy of covid vaccines (a completely normal and relatively banal topic in public health circles) was grounds for getting canceled, they just had to do it in secret. By limiting the pool of people who can discuss a matter, the ideas are either less finely honed or take longer to hone. In the case of Covid, this literally cost lives. There are many ideas out there that fall into this category, and what is happening is that these researchers are either researching in relative silence (loss for the world, imho) or they are just leaving academia and either going to the private sector (where research is sometimes not shared for competitive reasons) or just leave academia completely (thereby thinning the pool of talent, also a loss for the world and the search for truth, imho). As a former academic myself, I can just say… I have stories, and they sadden me.

To summarize, the chilling effect I mentioned has made a mockery of certain areas of academics and university life.

Are the benefits better than the losses. I think that’s an interesting discussion that is beyond the scope of a forum like this, but I would say that, as a whole, they are not. Many/most of the benefits that came out of the PC movement and the “woke” movement (as defined by pg) could have been accomplished without the massive amounts of collateral damage that they caused in other areas due to casting an unnecessarily wide net.

[edit: I think this is the crux of the issue. The pc/woke folks seem to take an approach of “at any cost”, while more moderate folks who support many of the same ideas of fairness and equality care deeply about potential collateral damage. IMHO, the pc/woke folks would gain much more support if they were willing to negotiate on this aspect rather than completely ignore it.]

I think that we will find an equilibrium at some point [1], but I think that the “woke” folks are going to find that some of their sacred cows get absolutely destroyed on the way there. Again, it will be an unnecessary over-correction to an unnecessarily extreme intervention. It didn’t have to be this way.

[1] Note that some of the best practitioners have pretty much already found this equilibrium, but much of their best work is (again) only discussed in limited circles. One of the most amazing people I’ve ever met was the head of dei (or some title like that) at a widely known gaming company. We discussed all of the hot-button topics in her field, and she gave answers that I think would be widely acknowledged (e.g., by both “liberals” and “conservatives”) as being actionable and incredibly reasonable. She was a prime example of knowing when to use the deft touch (e.g., someone just wasn’t socialized well) versus using the scorched earth approach (e.g., someone had deep-seated issues that made them a danger to those around them). I think that the “woke” community would win massive kudos from large swathes of the general population if they rallied behind folks like this woman, but the “behavior police” and the “ragers” (my term) would then have no cause celebre, so I doubt it will happen.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful and interesting comments. This exchange has caused me to exercise some rhetorical muscles that I haven’t had to use in a while.

Please continue your search for truth with passion and vigor — I’m certain that you will wield that knowledge and power constructively.

Did he generate them purely from his genius and benevolence?

Sticklers for rules are the traditional definition. I think most of us have met a tyrant before, ruler of a very small kingdom. Often in a government position.

Also, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance