I think can finally state what is it about many of your arguments makes me go “sigh, here we go again”. (And I suspect a lot of people, given that your political posts tend to be negatively received by a lot of people).
Your arguments take a general form that is something like the following. State that A could have beneficial effects B, C and D. Dismiss any suggestions that A could have negative effects E, F and G. Insistently state that since A could have beneficial effects B, C and D, then the expected utility of A is positive—throw some made up numbers and probabilities to justify said expected positive utility of A, so therefore we should do A.*
This is incredibly annoying. It is even more annoying because, (and I’m sorry to be blunt), you’re way out of your depth on most of the things you write. You don’t know how ISIS works (not that I think that the average person should spend time figuring out how ISIS’s ideology works), you don’t know how politics works, and your model of rationality is out of touch with how human knowledge is actually furthered.
*Also ignore suggestions that A could have a net negative effect on B, C and D via other casual pathways. See here to see what I’m talking about:
Dismiss any suggestions that A could have negative effects E, F and G
Can you clarify where in the piece I “dismiss any suggestions that A could have negative effects E, F and G”?
you don’t know how politics works
I’d say the fact that a major newspaper published a political op-ed I wrote is pretty good evidence for me having some knowledge for how politics work
how human knowledge is actually furthered
I actually have quite a bit of knowledge about how to further knowledge, both in teaching and in research
However, I’m always happy to learn new things about ISIS, politics, and furthering human knowledge, and look forward to hearing any insights from you about them :-)
the fact that a major newspaper published a political op-ed I wrote is pretty good evidence for me having some knowledge for how politics work
I’m not as certain as pianoforte611 is that you don’t know how politics works, but while I agree that having a political op-ed published in a major newspaper is evidence that you understand politics, I don’t think it’s tremendously strong evidence. If you write something that will appeal to the paper’s readers, or that will arouse controversy and draw in readers (or, online, clicks on advertisements), then that may be all they care about. There is some pretty stupid stuff published in major newspapers.
I agree that having a political op-ed published in a major newspaper is evidence that you understand politics, I don’t think it’s tremendously strong evidence
I agree it’s not tremendously strong evidence. Having multiple op-eds published in multiple papers, as I have, provides more evidence, of course.
If you write something that will appeal to the paper’s readers, or that will arouse controversy and draw in readers (or, online, clicks on advertisements), then that may be all they care about. There is some pretty stupid stuff published in major newspapers.
Yup, there is stupid stuff, but it’s most often by specific writers who they know and specifically frame as controversial, for example a prisoner on a hunger strike in California. They generally don’t publish stupid stuff by people who are positioned as experts. Papers do have a reputation to uphold.
I skimmed two of your papers. I’m honestly shocked that you’re the same person. They were both precise, carefully argued and with none of the pseudo-rigor or tunnel vision that I’ve found in your other writing. I apologize for misjudging you.
Unfortunately, I’m not interested in debating the specifics of this argument, and I never claimed to be an expert on ISIS. However I maintain that you are going beyond your scope of expertise when you claim to know what “ISIS would love to see”.
I’m glad you took the opportunity to skim my papers. My writing is highly varied depending on the audiences for whom I’m writing. Unfortunately, op-eds have to be a certain kind of format that is not given to the kind of precise and carefully-argued style in which I would much rather prefer to write. Pieces I specifically write for LW are also written in a more rigorous style, although not the level I would write for a peer-reviewed journal.
I hear you about “ISIS would love to see”—this was a rhetorical maneuver. It’s one of those stylistic things needed to get an op-ed published, as I learned over much trial and error. While “love” is rhetorical, the bigger point still stands. ISIS has specifically described its goal as attacking the notion that Muslims and non-Muslims can live together, and specifically aims its attacks to result in creating a hostile environment for Muslims in western countries so that they would turn to ISIS.
I think can finally state what is it about many of your arguments makes me go “sigh, here we go again”. (And I suspect a lot of people, given that your political posts tend to be negatively received by a lot of people).
Your arguments take a general form that is something like the following. State that A could have beneficial effects B, C and D. Dismiss any suggestions that A could have negative effects E, F and G. Insistently state that since A could have beneficial effects B, C and D, then the expected utility of A is positive—throw some made up numbers and probabilities to justify said expected positive utility of A, so therefore we should do A.*
This is incredibly annoying. It is even more annoying because, (and I’m sorry to be blunt), you’re way out of your depth on most of the things you write. You don’t know how ISIS works (not that I think that the average person should spend time figuring out how ISIS’s ideology works), you don’t know how politics works, and your model of rationality is out of touch with how human knowledge is actually furthered.
*Also ignore suggestions that A could have a net negative effect on B, C and D via other casual pathways. See here to see what I’m talking about:
http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/23/what-makes-people-do-what-they-do/
Can you clarify where in the piece I “dismiss any suggestions that A could have negative effects E, F and G”?
I’d say the fact that a major newspaper published a political op-ed I wrote is pretty good evidence for me having some knowledge for how politics work
I actually have quite a bit of knowledge about how to further knowledge, both in teaching and in research
However, I’m always happy to learn new things about ISIS, politics, and furthering human knowledge, and look forward to hearing any insights from you about them :-)
I’m not as certain as pianoforte611 is that you don’t know how politics works, but while I agree that having a political op-ed published in a major newspaper is evidence that you understand politics, I don’t think it’s tremendously strong evidence. If you write something that will appeal to the paper’s readers, or that will arouse controversy and draw in readers (or, online, clicks on advertisements), then that may be all they care about. There is some pretty stupid stuff published in major newspapers.
I agree it’s not tremendously strong evidence. Having multiple op-eds published in multiple papers, as I have, provides more evidence, of course.
Yup, there is stupid stuff, but it’s most often by specific writers who they know and specifically frame as controversial, for example a prisoner on a hunger strike in California. They generally don’t publish stupid stuff by people who are positioned as experts. Papers do have a reputation to uphold.
I skimmed two of your papers. I’m honestly shocked that you’re the same person. They were both precise, carefully argued and with none of the pseudo-rigor or tunnel vision that I’ve found in your other writing. I apologize for misjudging you.
Unfortunately, I’m not interested in debating the specifics of this argument, and I never claimed to be an expert on ISIS. However I maintain that you are going beyond your scope of expertise when you claim to know what “ISIS would love to see”.
I’m glad you took the opportunity to skim my papers. My writing is highly varied depending on the audiences for whom I’m writing. Unfortunately, op-eds have to be a certain kind of format that is not given to the kind of precise and carefully-argued style in which I would much rather prefer to write. Pieces I specifically write for LW are also written in a more rigorous style, although not the level I would write for a peer-reviewed journal.
I hear you about “ISIS would love to see”—this was a rhetorical maneuver. It’s one of those stylistic things needed to get an op-ed published, as I learned over much trial and error. While “love” is rhetorical, the bigger point still stands. ISIS has specifically described its goal as attacking the notion that Muslims and non-Muslims can live together, and specifically aims its attacks to result in creating a hostile environment for Muslims in western countries so that they would turn to ISIS.