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

The death of a public intellectual

thmsmlr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 374 posts

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#31

Post by nerdponx »

busterarm wrote: post #17
m463 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't Jordan Peterson a canadian university professor? I've only briefly heard him, but why is he so polarizing? He just seemed to say sort of "be a decent person and work hard".

Because he disagrees with the idea of compelled speech and that conflicts with how some people self-identify.

Yes, that's precisely why I don't like him, thank you for articulating it so clearly! I want to compel the people around me to speak a certain way, and I have built an identity around that, and Peterson's cutting social commentary shakes me to my core.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#32

Post by 000ooo000 »

satisfice wrote: post #16
greendude29 wrote: post #6

> First it was Jordan Peterson, then it i was Eric Weinstein, then Chamath, the list goes on. Most recently, it’s been Peter Zeihan. These are not intellectuals, let alone public ones. They are all American and follow a 'clickbait' model to public discourse. Seems like you repeatedly fall for it and enjoy doing so. Nothing here reflects any form of intellect.

What do you think an intellectual is? An intellectual is someone whose hobby or vocation is using his mind to consider the big questions and issues of human life. There is no certification or competency test for intellectuals. If you say you are one, then— like saying you are a “football fan”— you probably are one. I say I am an intellectual because I want people to think I am always ready to talk about any philosoph…

I tend to be a bit repulsed by any online discussion of 'intellectuals'. Pretty much always devolves into BS a la GP. "You like Josh Joshson? He's stupid, you must be too", or "who needs intellectuals? Use your own brain"

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#37

Post by RationalDino »

This relates to one of the topics I want to get to on https://rationaldino.substack.com/ but which will take a while.

There is a very simple litmus test to tell which are likely to fade, versus which aren't. How certain are they?

https://www.amazon.com/Expert-Political-Judgment-Good-Know/d... reports on a long-term study about pundits. Basically they can be divided into two groups:

1. Hedgehogs. Have one overarching theory that they are certain of.

2. Foxes. Can pick and choose from a variety of sources.

Both groups are smart, informed, and interesting. But when you follow them for a long time, a clear pattern emerges.

- Foxes do much better at making future predictions that come true.

- Hedgehogs become far more popular pundits, and generally wind up getting paid far better. Most pundits with popular shows are hedgehogs.

Why? My theory is that we listen to pundits because it is comfortable to outsource our thinking to them. We find that comfortable if they are smart, well-informed, and certain. It is easy for us to think, "Well if this smart and well-informed guy is so certain, I'd surely agree if I did the work. So now I don't have to bother."

There is a problem here. We become certain when it is easy for us to think a thing true, and hard for us to think it might be false. We feel that the evidence is truly overwhelming. It may be overwhelming. But it is more likely that we're simply being intellectually dishonest. So we actively choose intellectually dishonest pundits who agree with our presumptions, and then become sure that they are right. We enjoy listening to them. But, being intellectually dishonest, they are probably wrong. And now we're emotionally committed to their brand of insanity!

Try this rule of thumb out. Assume that a person who is certain, is probably wrong. And when you find yourself feeling certain, nurse that little doubt about how you REALLY know. It takes time, but consistently making this choice can change your life. For a start, you'll start actually thinking about things that you currently only think you're thinking about.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#38

Post by opportune »

raincole wrote: post #30
vintageplayer wrote: post #20

I'm not an expert, but I have an opinion, maybe some of you want to follow: ALWAYS SUPPORT THE UNDERDOGS. They are the ones experimenting with new ideas and hopefully sharing both what worked and what didn't. Unfollow all the players with a huge following. They stop producing quality. Start by supporting underdogs, people who have a following, but small and growing. Eventually they'll become bigger in terms of follow…

So you judge someone's speech's value by their popularity. Just in the opposite direction.

Also known as compulsive contrarianism
Post reply on HN