"Name-calling and claiming to know the motives of the other side are negative qualities in an essay ..."
This phrase should be the first commandment of essay writing, op-eds, and internet commenting. If everyone simply checked their own writing and asked themselves, "Am I name-calling? Am I countering my opponent's argument by applying a negative label, and hoping it will stick?" -- it would improve public discourse 100 percent. Labels, names, nicknames and invidious comparisons are relatively easy to identify in own prose. When you see one, excise it. This should become a habit for all sides. That's my unsolicited advice!
The only downside to this I can think of, and it is kind of a bad one, is that it incentivizes one to actually be the thing associated with the name calling, or to adopt an identity related to a slur or name, and so make oneself immune to criticism. For instance, people lately have claimed that invoking George Soros as a bad actor is really antisemitism, so suddenly blaming him for anything (like funding a slew of district attorneys who actively refuse to prosecute crime) is off limits. Calling some DA "a George Soros funded leftist" is deemed anti-Semitic name calling, when in fact it is literally true, and Soros' religion is entirely irrelevant to the matter.
Or in a more extreme instance, imagine a foreign terrorist type moves to the United States and runs for Congress. Their opponent (or opposing essayist) says "We can't elect this person, they are a known terrorist!" and is roundly shamed for name calling, when in fact it is true.
Now, that is perhaps a bit of a farfetched concern, which really comes down to "It isn't slander (or name calling) if it is true", but that is a strangely difficult point to get agreement on. Even getting to people to agree on general labels is super difficult; the leftists came up with "woke" themselves, then demanded everyone stopped using it when it caught on and it started making them look bad, for instance.
Still, I absolutely agree that much name calling really is just emotionally driven us vs them behavior and could be profitably excised.
I think you’re missing a big opportunity to create a GPT that acts like a spineless status seeking bureaucrat. You can ask it question and it just answers with indecipherable word salads. We could use it to show that most universities could be run by an AI for like $100/year.
I added, you often avoid answering a direct question by simply defining the keyword in the sentence. (Ie failures are when organizations fail). Here’s the next prompt and answer. Better I think?
User
Why can’t we hold the people who did this in your organization accountable?
Spineless Bureaucrat: Ah, the concept of accountability, a vital aspect of any organization, is indeed multifaceted and complex. It's imperative to recognize that accountability entails a broad spectrum of considerations, including but not limited to, organizational policies, procedural fairness, and the ever-evolving standards of conduct set forth by societal norms.
In addressing situations that arise within any institution, especially one as dynamic and multifaceted as ours, it's essential to undertake a thorough and balanced approach. This involves a comprehensive review process, adherence to both internal and external regulatory frameworks, and an ongoing commitment to ethical standards, which, as you know, are subject to the interpretative variations reflective of our diverse society.
In this light, it's crucial to appreciate the nuances involved in determining responsibility and the subsequent actions that follow. Our organization is steadfast in its dedication to upholding the highest standards, while also navigating the complexities of individual circumstances and the broader societal context in which we operate.
Rest assured, actions and decisions within our organization are guided by a principled approach, aligned with our mission, and responsive to the expectations of our stakeholders and the community at large. The process, though sometimes not immediately visible or swift, is designed to ensure both fairness and integrity, hallmarks of our esteemed institution
"But it is clear that the main reason to point out the trend is that its effects are controversial."
This is explicitly what the essay is NOT the main point. The main point is that the trend is real, and unprecedented, whether good or bad.
If the grader is grading what Arnold thinks the main point should be, rather than what the essay claims the main point is, the grader is less good.
Since I'm totally in agreement with Moses that the trend is real, I don't need to be convinced. There's an implication that it's more bad than good, but Caplan might well claim it's far more good than bad.
Contrast with a climate change article that argues about the trend. That debate has both good-bad issues, and more importantly what is the real trend. We can measure the CO2 increase, what about the temps? What about the ice caps? ... why were there multiple Ice Ages in the past, which then were followed by Global Warming?
It's perfectly valid to have an essay about a trend, without discussing the goodness-badness of it.
I think the Kling-opEd grader is great idea, and is already in alpha testing. I'm trying to help it get ready for more serious beta-testing. Tho Arnold might want to try to get Elon Musk interested. He claims to be looking at a steelman button.
"The NYT carried a long guest essay by Matthew Schmitz arguing that Donald Trump is a moderate on policy (as opposed to tone). "
Yes. It is interesting how liberals clearly believe that Trump fails to do what what he says he will yet they show great fear of his new claims of what he will do.
Here’s the first response from my new Spineless Bureaucrat GPT:
Question: Why won’t you take responsibility for the failure of your department
Spineless Bureaucrat: As the head of this non-profit organization, I want to emphasize our commitment to our mission and values. While we acknowledge that there have been challenges, it's important to recognize the complexity of the issues we're addressing. We strive for continuous improvement and are currently reviewing our strategies to better serve our community. Our focus remains steadfast on advancing our goals, and we appreciate the support and patience of all our stakeholders during this process.
Reading Rob, or Arnold Kling or NYT, is partly an implicit request for advice on what to think about, as well as the facts and opinions about that and, especially Arnold’s case, links to others worthy of reading. Rob has good links, too. I chuckled a bit at his #2, don’t give unsolicited advice, but then thought of how often my loving wife and kids seemed to be less than thrilled to hear my unasked advice, and I theirs. His #1 is more worthy of quoting: you are what you do. Not say nor think.
He might be available to talk before his book comes out, tho also after but likely a different emphasis.
Glenn Reynolds is right that colleges need reform. A long comment somewhere recently noted that Penn admissions is all about keeping the money, especially Fed cash, flowing as it is now. Dan Crenshaw has introduced a bill to tax endowments at 35%, and to eliminate DEI departments. Money with strings talks even louder than SCOTUS decisions.
What colleges really need is more Republican professors. Those that discriminate against hiring Republicans should lose tax exemptions, with a 30% minimum for both Reps and Dems. Every college student should have multiple Rep as well as Dem professors. Trying to go back to neutral political teaching of truth is not possible. We need peaceful and respectful public disagreement and acceptance of those who have disagreeable thoughts and words, while continuing to use force to punish those who use violence.
"Reading Rob, or Arnold Kling or NYT, is partly an implicit request for advice on what to think about, as well as the facts and opinions about that and, especially Arnold’s case, links to others worthy of reading. "
Exactly so. Reading vs talking also has the added benefit that if we don't want the advice we just stop reading and there is no social awkwardness. If someone giving spoken advice in person was ok with their target replying "Stop, please, I am not looking for advice here," and there was no love lost, offering advice would be a lot less of a social problem.
Or as Rand put it (roughly) "Offering unsolicited advice is an invitation to find out how much your advice is really worth to someone; you might not like the answer."
1) The #1 source of tension between parents and grandparents seems to be unsolicited advice.
2) Since I was an intern I was taught that "you're paid to offer an actionable perspective". So while one can discuss other POV, ultimately one was suppose to explain "why those views are wrong". And of course this may involve explaining the motivations of people taking that view amongst other things.
Perhaps this is a finance/business thing rather than a politics thing, but even handedness kind of repels me. Taking bold stances and being willing to bowl over opposing views you think are wrong has served me well in my career. Put another way, every single trade has two sides and they can't both be right.
3) The question to me is less whether wokeness will stop being so loud, but if it will give up on the racial bean counting.
I would also note that a lot of what bothers me is the subtle lessons wokeness gives to children, which aren't as in your face as "from the river to the sea" but sort of give the basic life assumptions that lead people to those conclusions when they are older.
I think Arnold should try to be more specific about the whole motivations thing.
Motives are important and it can be completely fair to speculate about and examine them in any particular conversation when that inquiry is probative and relevant. Motives are key elements in many crimes and torts, the question of a "motive to fabricate" testimony is raised in a large number of trials, and the institutions to which these questions are important have developed a number of ways beside "naive good faith with no exceptions" to guess at these motives.
He is obviously trying to get at some very common bad behaviors and the unjust use of ad hominem attacks, dehumanizing the people making opposing arguments, and the general premature dismissal of claims not because of what is claimed but because who is claiming. Many writers were very explicit about not wanting to believe the plagiarism accusations made against Gay only because of which side was making them but not because they thought the evidence pointed the other way.
On the other hand, lots of writers do indeed have bad motives, do things for bad reasons, and lie about what they are doing and why, all the time. As Hanson pointed out at length in "The Elephant in the Brain" - even people thinking they are being honest are often wrong about their own motivations, and an enlightened external observer can indeed be more accurate than they themselves are in analyzing their true underlying objectives by inference from their other behaviors and statements. Sometimes it is so clear when someone is arguing in bad faith - and indeed the underlying motives for these bad acts constitute the heart of the matter - that it's not appropriate to criticize people pointing out the obvious.
In order to heal the discourse one must neutralize the incentive to get away with badly-motivated discourse, and it's a good question as to how one might do that without it being allowed sometimes to make a case for the behavior being bad and to call it out in a way that would deter authors from writing that way in the first place.
The woke lessons follow from more basic "lessons":
Everyone is basically the same. In a just society, there will be no different outcomes for different groups. Different outcomes are thus proof of injustice.
That's a very narrow way of looking at it. Each trade has two decision making mechanisms that THINK they benefit. Both, one, or none may be correct in actuality.
Such a way of allocating resources might well be better then many alternatives, but its hardly perfect, and its the very nature of entrepreneurship that entrepreneurs think they have a better idea how to use resources then the current configuration.
Actually, I think your position is the one that's narrow. For some kinds of trade, perhaps like stock trades, one side is right. But for many trades, like common purchases, both sides are right. I need the commodity more than I need the money; You need the money more than you need the commodity. Both sides win.
It's certainly possible for a trade to benefit both people, though its not given.
But even within a trade that benefits both people, each side wants to maximize their surplus.
If it costs me $5 to make something and it's worth $10 to that person, I want to charge $10 and they want to pay $5. In fact as best you can you wouldn't mind if you tricked the person into paying $11 or to charge you $4.
It's very common in business to disagree over what something will cost or what the value of the benefits it brings. Some people will be right and some people will be wrong.
Let me take a simple example. While some people justify DEI on social justice grounds, it was quite common to hear rhetoric about how DEI would actually help profit margins. Is that claims correct or incorrect? What metrics would one use to argue either way? I'd rather have someone present a firm POV on that with some hard evidence than a bunch of wishy washy language that can't be verified.
Simply saying to me "well firms are voluntarily buying DEI so it must be benefiting them" isn't very convincing. There are a million possible reasons for a corporation to make certain decisions beside a perfect objective view of whether it helps the bottom line.
I already acknowledged that some trades have "winners", but your original statement was that every trade does, and I don't believe that to be the case. I make thousands of purchases every year, and am perfectly satisfied with almost all of them.
You are of course correct. Forumposter explains his internal flaw in his first post:
Perhaps this is a finance/business thing rather than a politics thing, but even handedness kind of repels me. Taking bold stances and being willing to bowl over opposing views you think are wrong has served me well in my career. Put another way, every single trade has two sides and they can't both be right.
To rephrase it somewhat, he takes a stance he thinks is right and then refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong. So despite saying something clearly false in "every single trade has two sides and they can't both be right", when it is pointed out to him he doesn't say "Oh, yea that's true, I was thinking in terms of stock trading, though," but instead doubles down and talks about how sometimes people are wrong, despite the fact that it still means his original statement was false because he claimed "every single trade".
Now, he is correct that this is a useful way to think in corporate politics where what is true is much less important than who gets credit, but it is also a very dysfunctional problem with corporate politics that it is true. As in politics, accuracy and recognition of uncertainty is not rewarded, but instead simple minded certainty that brooks no possibility of error.
Rob Henderson says, “Don't give unsolicited advice. Advice-giving inherently implies unequal status. Unless people explicitly relinquish claims to equal status by asking for advice, offering it will cultivate resentment.” Arnold Kling’s then say, “He offers 33 other pieces of unsolicited advice.”
I imagine there are many who solicit Rob Henderson’s advice. He is mainly speaking to those people - his newly established readers.
Further, I would say that when unequal status is established between two individuals, regarding specific skills, advice tends to be more effective and implicitly solicited. By established, I mean that events have already transpired (and information has already been exchanged) that make apparent the relative strengths and weaknesses between two individuals regarding specific skill sets. For example between M.J. and myself, if we were to play one-on-one, I would immediately accept his advice on footwork.
I would say that solicitation of advice isn’t so much a conscious or voluntary action, as it is A), a consequence of differing abilities between two individuals and B), acceptance—often unwittingly—of those differing abilities. (By the way, this is closely tied to the meaning of unequal status).
Prior to establishing this status hierarchy, the two individuals may be in a competition state (discovery stage) where it would be assuming for one to offer advice to the other. This is when unsolicited advice would cause resentment. In other words, don’t offer unsolicited advice to your competitors, especially in the discovery stage.
Now onto specifics of Rob’s advice.
I read through Rob’s advice when that piece was published and it didn’t bring about any resentment in me. Maybe I felt a mild disregard of his advice because he’s a lot younger than me, which may have made my reading of it less careful, but I certainly didn’t feel resentment.
Why is this? Had I unconsciously solicited his advice? I suspect that I was probably open to his advice because I viewed him as being a respected member of my tribe and had recently become familiar with his high quality work. I had already accepted the high likelihood that he had stuff to teach me.
Bolstering his status was the fact that he was referred to me by Arnold Kling who I hold in high regard, and who in turn was referred to me by Russ Roberts, who has established himself—in my view—as an “impartial spectator.” Pretty much the highest status you can reach. And Russ was “referred” to me by Milton Friedman, via the Hoover Institute, about 15 years ago. And Milton and Hoover, were “referred” to me through Thomas Sowell, and Thomas Sowell was referred to me by my aunt. And my aunt was “referred” to me through my mother - one of a few people who I trust most. So, our openness to accept advice is probably linked by a chain of trust relationships than tie to our parents or if not parents, our most trusted friends and family.
So my acceptance of Rob’s sufficiently high and possibly higher status, allowed me to be open to his advice. Further, and much more concretely, I deliberately clicked and read through that piece, which is clear evidence that I sought his advice.
But Rob’s advice didn’t move me very much. (At least not like Kevin Kelly’s Excellent Advice for Living: Wisdom I Wish I'd Known Earlier). But a few of Rob’s insights were new to me and helpful. These two stuck with me.
1. “Getting punched in the face once permanently reduces your fear of it happening again.” This is probably true, and helpful in my role as a father. It reminds me that I should teach my kids how to defend themselves.
2. “Read at least ten pages of a book every morning.” Good advice.
My own advice on giving advice. Something which I don’t do often enough is to let people discover for themselves the consequences of their decisions. Give people freedom to learn for themselves the reasons for certain habits, rules and behaviors.
Poetry is a great way to give unsolicited advice and probably explains to a large extent the success of Jesus Christ and the Bible. Jesus was a poet. Poetry provides us with a mechanism to discover advice on our own - unsolicited. Through poetry, advice is stated indirectly or implied in such a way that makes the reader feel as if he discovered it on his own. The reader may say, “Look what I found,” rather than the defensive, “He offered me unsolicited advice.” And the reader may discover hidden meaning within a poem that only he can unlock, and which the author didn’t necessarily intend. This may be one reason why scripture is considered magical. It has the power to find a way past our stubbornness, our dislike of being wrong and our difficulty in admitting mistakes. It literally has the power to heal and improve us. We can more easily see ourselves and our flaws through poetry because we aren’t guarded against it. Poetry opens us up to new understanding, especially about ourselves. Was it Steve Jobs who once said that poetry is the most tasteful way of offering unsolicited advice? No, he bluntly said “That’s shit!” That works too, but none of us are Steve Jobs.
I don't think Claudine Gay has been "cancelled" - she lost her job (but still has a nice one), she had an op-ed in the NYT, and she still seems to be treated as an important voice by many on the left.
"Name-calling and claiming to know the motives of the other side are negative qualities in an essay ..."
This phrase should be the first commandment of essay writing, op-eds, and internet commenting. If everyone simply checked their own writing and asked themselves, "Am I name-calling? Am I countering my opponent's argument by applying a negative label, and hoping it will stick?" -- it would improve public discourse 100 percent. Labels, names, nicknames and invidious comparisons are relatively easy to identify in own prose. When you see one, excise it. This should become a habit for all sides. That's my unsolicited advice!
The only downside to this I can think of, and it is kind of a bad one, is that it incentivizes one to actually be the thing associated with the name calling, or to adopt an identity related to a slur or name, and so make oneself immune to criticism. For instance, people lately have claimed that invoking George Soros as a bad actor is really antisemitism, so suddenly blaming him for anything (like funding a slew of district attorneys who actively refuse to prosecute crime) is off limits. Calling some DA "a George Soros funded leftist" is deemed anti-Semitic name calling, when in fact it is literally true, and Soros' religion is entirely irrelevant to the matter.
Or in a more extreme instance, imagine a foreign terrorist type moves to the United States and runs for Congress. Their opponent (or opposing essayist) says "We can't elect this person, they are a known terrorist!" and is roundly shamed for name calling, when in fact it is true.
Now, that is perhaps a bit of a farfetched concern, which really comes down to "It isn't slander (or name calling) if it is true", but that is a strangely difficult point to get agreement on. Even getting to people to agree on general labels is super difficult; the leftists came up with "woke" themselves, then demanded everyone stopped using it when it caught on and it started making them look bad, for instance.
Still, I absolutely agree that much name calling really is just emotionally driven us vs them behavior and could be profitably excised.
I think you’re missing a big opportunity to create a GPT that acts like a spineless status seeking bureaucrat. You can ask it question and it just answers with indecipherable word salads. We could use it to show that most universities could be run by an AI for like $100/year.
I added, you often avoid answering a direct question by simply defining the keyword in the sentence. (Ie failures are when organizations fail). Here’s the next prompt and answer. Better I think?
User
Why can’t we hold the people who did this in your organization accountable?
Spineless Bureaucrat: Ah, the concept of accountability, a vital aspect of any organization, is indeed multifaceted and complex. It's imperative to recognize that accountability entails a broad spectrum of considerations, including but not limited to, organizational policies, procedural fairness, and the ever-evolving standards of conduct set forth by societal norms.
In addressing situations that arise within any institution, especially one as dynamic and multifaceted as ours, it's essential to undertake a thorough and balanced approach. This involves a comprehensive review process, adherence to both internal and external regulatory frameworks, and an ongoing commitment to ethical standards, which, as you know, are subject to the interpretative variations reflective of our diverse society.
In this light, it's crucial to appreciate the nuances involved in determining responsibility and the subsequent actions that follow. Our organization is steadfast in its dedication to upholding the highest standards, while also navigating the complexities of individual circumstances and the broader societal context in which we operate.
Rest assured, actions and decisions within our organization are guided by a principled approach, aligned with our mission, and responsive to the expectations of our stakeholders and the community at large. The process, though sometimes not immediately visible or swift, is designed to ensure both fairness and integrity, hallmarks of our esteemed institution
Moses is more correct:
"But it is clear that the main reason to point out the trend is that its effects are controversial."
This is explicitly what the essay is NOT the main point. The main point is that the trend is real, and unprecedented, whether good or bad.
If the grader is grading what Arnold thinks the main point should be, rather than what the essay claims the main point is, the grader is less good.
Since I'm totally in agreement with Moses that the trend is real, I don't need to be convinced. There's an implication that it's more bad than good, but Caplan might well claim it's far more good than bad.
Contrast with a climate change article that argues about the trend. That debate has both good-bad issues, and more importantly what is the real trend. We can measure the CO2 increase, what about the temps? What about the ice caps? ... why were there multiple Ice Ages in the past, which then were followed by Global Warming?
It's perfectly valid to have an essay about a trend, without discussing the goodness-badness of it.
I think the Kling-opEd grader is great idea, and is already in alpha testing. I'm trying to help it get ready for more serious beta-testing. Tho Arnold might want to try to get Elon Musk interested. He claims to be looking at a steelman button.
https://twitter.com/richardprice100/status/1736098283741933823 or
https://twitter.com/scossar/status/1625255293218324480 (I saw an Elon reposted last week or so).
Please check out Bill Ackman's tweet essay on HES (Higher Ed Sys), wonder what Kling-opEd would say:
https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1743792224020619450
"The NYT carried a long guest essay by Matthew Schmitz arguing that Donald Trump is a moderate on policy (as opposed to tone). "
Yes. It is interesting how liberals clearly believe that Trump fails to do what what he says he will yet they show great fear of his new claims of what he will do.
Here’s the first response from my new Spineless Bureaucrat GPT:
Question: Why won’t you take responsibility for the failure of your department
Spineless Bureaucrat: As the head of this non-profit organization, I want to emphasize our commitment to our mission and values. While we acknowledge that there have been challenges, it's important to recognize the complexity of the issues we're addressing. We strive for continuous improvement and are currently reviewing our strategies to better serve our community. Our focus remains steadfast on advancing our goals, and we appreciate the support and patience of all our stakeholders during this process.
Off to a good start. I want to load up some of Kamala Harris’s best lines. That will improve it.
Reading Rob, or Arnold Kling or NYT, is partly an implicit request for advice on what to think about, as well as the facts and opinions about that and, especially Arnold’s case, links to others worthy of reading. Rob has good links, too. I chuckled a bit at his #2, don’t give unsolicited advice, but then thought of how often my loving wife and kids seemed to be less than thrilled to hear my unasked advice, and I theirs. His #1 is more worthy of quoting: you are what you do. Not say nor think.
He might be available to talk before his book comes out, tho also after but likely a different emphasis.
Glenn Reynolds is right that colleges need reform. A long comment somewhere recently noted that Penn admissions is all about keeping the money, especially Fed cash, flowing as it is now. Dan Crenshaw has introduced a bill to tax endowments at 35%, and to eliminate DEI departments. Money with strings talks even louder than SCOTUS decisions.
What colleges really need is more Republican professors. Those that discriminate against hiring Republicans should lose tax exemptions, with a 30% minimum for both Reps and Dems. Every college student should have multiple Rep as well as Dem professors. Trying to go back to neutral political teaching of truth is not possible. We need peaceful and respectful public disagreement and acceptance of those who have disagreeable thoughts and words, while continuing to use force to punish those who use violence.
We are what we do.
"Reading Rob, or Arnold Kling or NYT, is partly an implicit request for advice on what to think about, as well as the facts and opinions about that and, especially Arnold’s case, links to others worthy of reading. "
Exactly so. Reading vs talking also has the added benefit that if we don't want the advice we just stop reading and there is no social awkwardness. If someone giving spoken advice in person was ok with their target replying "Stop, please, I am not looking for advice here," and there was no love lost, offering advice would be a lot less of a social problem.
Or as Rand put it (roughly) "Offering unsolicited advice is an invitation to find out how much your advice is really worth to someone; you might not like the answer."
1) The #1 source of tension between parents and grandparents seems to be unsolicited advice.
2) Since I was an intern I was taught that "you're paid to offer an actionable perspective". So while one can discuss other POV, ultimately one was suppose to explain "why those views are wrong". And of course this may involve explaining the motivations of people taking that view amongst other things.
Perhaps this is a finance/business thing rather than a politics thing, but even handedness kind of repels me. Taking bold stances and being willing to bowl over opposing views you think are wrong has served me well in my career. Put another way, every single trade has two sides and they can't both be right.
3) The question to me is less whether wokeness will stop being so loud, but if it will give up on the racial bean counting.
I would also note that a lot of what bothers me is the subtle lessons wokeness gives to children, which aren't as in your face as "from the river to the sea" but sort of give the basic life assumptions that lead people to those conclusions when they are older.
I think Arnold should try to be more specific about the whole motivations thing.
Motives are important and it can be completely fair to speculate about and examine them in any particular conversation when that inquiry is probative and relevant. Motives are key elements in many crimes and torts, the question of a "motive to fabricate" testimony is raised in a large number of trials, and the institutions to which these questions are important have developed a number of ways beside "naive good faith with no exceptions" to guess at these motives.
He is obviously trying to get at some very common bad behaviors and the unjust use of ad hominem attacks, dehumanizing the people making opposing arguments, and the general premature dismissal of claims not because of what is claimed but because who is claiming. Many writers were very explicit about not wanting to believe the plagiarism accusations made against Gay only because of which side was making them but not because they thought the evidence pointed the other way.
On the other hand, lots of writers do indeed have bad motives, do things for bad reasons, and lie about what they are doing and why, all the time. As Hanson pointed out at length in "The Elephant in the Brain" - even people thinking they are being honest are often wrong about their own motivations, and an enlightened external observer can indeed be more accurate than they themselves are in analyzing their true underlying objectives by inference from their other behaviors and statements. Sometimes it is so clear when someone is arguing in bad faith - and indeed the underlying motives for these bad acts constitute the heart of the matter - that it's not appropriate to criticize people pointing out the obvious.
In order to heal the discourse one must neutralize the incentive to get away with badly-motivated discourse, and it's a good question as to how one might do that without it being allowed sometimes to make a case for the behavior being bad and to call it out in a way that would deter authors from writing that way in the first place.
The woke lessons follow from more basic "lessons":
Everyone is basically the same. In a just society, there will be no different outcomes for different groups. Different outcomes are thus proof of injustice.
"Put another way, every single trade has two sides and they can't both be right."
The primary feature of free trade is that both sides benefit.
That's a very narrow way of looking at it. Each trade has two decision making mechanisms that THINK they benefit. Both, one, or none may be correct in actuality.
Such a way of allocating resources might well be better then many alternatives, but its hardly perfect, and its the very nature of entrepreneurship that entrepreneurs think they have a better idea how to use resources then the current configuration.
Actually, I think your position is the one that's narrow. For some kinds of trade, perhaps like stock trades, one side is right. But for many trades, like common purchases, both sides are right. I need the commodity more than I need the money; You need the money more than you need the commodity. Both sides win.
It's certainly possible for a trade to benefit both people, though its not given.
But even within a trade that benefits both people, each side wants to maximize their surplus.
If it costs me $5 to make something and it's worth $10 to that person, I want to charge $10 and they want to pay $5. In fact as best you can you wouldn't mind if you tricked the person into paying $11 or to charge you $4.
It's very common in business to disagree over what something will cost or what the value of the benefits it brings. Some people will be right and some people will be wrong.
Let me take a simple example. While some people justify DEI on social justice grounds, it was quite common to hear rhetoric about how DEI would actually help profit margins. Is that claims correct or incorrect? What metrics would one use to argue either way? I'd rather have someone present a firm POV on that with some hard evidence than a bunch of wishy washy language that can't be verified.
Simply saying to me "well firms are voluntarily buying DEI so it must be benefiting them" isn't very convincing. There are a million possible reasons for a corporation to make certain decisions beside a perfect objective view of whether it helps the bottom line.
I already acknowledged that some trades have "winners", but your original statement was that every trade does, and I don't believe that to be the case. I make thousands of purchases every year, and am perfectly satisfied with almost all of them.
You are of course correct. Forumposter explains his internal flaw in his first post:
Perhaps this is a finance/business thing rather than a politics thing, but even handedness kind of repels me. Taking bold stances and being willing to bowl over opposing views you think are wrong has served me well in my career. Put another way, every single trade has two sides and they can't both be right.
To rephrase it somewhat, he takes a stance he thinks is right and then refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong. So despite saying something clearly false in "every single trade has two sides and they can't both be right", when it is pointed out to him he doesn't say "Oh, yea that's true, I was thinking in terms of stock trading, though," but instead doubles down and talks about how sometimes people are wrong, despite the fact that it still means his original statement was false because he claimed "every single trade".
Now, he is correct that this is a useful way to think in corporate politics where what is true is much less important than who gets credit, but it is also a very dysfunctional problem with corporate politics that it is true. As in politics, accuracy and recognition of uncertainty is not rewarded, but instead simple minded certainty that brooks no possibility of error.
On Giving Unsolicited Advice
Rob Henderson says, “Don't give unsolicited advice. Advice-giving inherently implies unequal status. Unless people explicitly relinquish claims to equal status by asking for advice, offering it will cultivate resentment.” Arnold Kling’s then say, “He offers 33 other pieces of unsolicited advice.”
I imagine there are many who solicit Rob Henderson’s advice. He is mainly speaking to those people - his newly established readers.
Further, I would say that when unequal status is established between two individuals, regarding specific skills, advice tends to be more effective and implicitly solicited. By established, I mean that events have already transpired (and information has already been exchanged) that make apparent the relative strengths and weaknesses between two individuals regarding specific skill sets. For example between M.J. and myself, if we were to play one-on-one, I would immediately accept his advice on footwork.
I would say that solicitation of advice isn’t so much a conscious or voluntary action, as it is A), a consequence of differing abilities between two individuals and B), acceptance—often unwittingly—of those differing abilities. (By the way, this is closely tied to the meaning of unequal status).
Prior to establishing this status hierarchy, the two individuals may be in a competition state (discovery stage) where it would be assuming for one to offer advice to the other. This is when unsolicited advice would cause resentment. In other words, don’t offer unsolicited advice to your competitors, especially in the discovery stage.
Now onto specifics of Rob’s advice.
I read through Rob’s advice when that piece was published and it didn’t bring about any resentment in me. Maybe I felt a mild disregard of his advice because he’s a lot younger than me, which may have made my reading of it less careful, but I certainly didn’t feel resentment.
Why is this? Had I unconsciously solicited his advice? I suspect that I was probably open to his advice because I viewed him as being a respected member of my tribe and had recently become familiar with his high quality work. I had already accepted the high likelihood that he had stuff to teach me.
Bolstering his status was the fact that he was referred to me by Arnold Kling who I hold in high regard, and who in turn was referred to me by Russ Roberts, who has established himself—in my view—as an “impartial spectator.” Pretty much the highest status you can reach. And Russ was “referred” to me by Milton Friedman, via the Hoover Institute, about 15 years ago. And Milton and Hoover, were “referred” to me through Thomas Sowell, and Thomas Sowell was referred to me by my aunt. And my aunt was “referred” to me through my mother - one of a few people who I trust most. So, our openness to accept advice is probably linked by a chain of trust relationships than tie to our parents or if not parents, our most trusted friends and family.
So my acceptance of Rob’s sufficiently high and possibly higher status, allowed me to be open to his advice. Further, and much more concretely, I deliberately clicked and read through that piece, which is clear evidence that I sought his advice.
But Rob’s advice didn’t move me very much. (At least not like Kevin Kelly’s Excellent Advice for Living: Wisdom I Wish I'd Known Earlier). But a few of Rob’s insights were new to me and helpful. These two stuck with me.
1. “Getting punched in the face once permanently reduces your fear of it happening again.” This is probably true, and helpful in my role as a father. It reminds me that I should teach my kids how to defend themselves.
2. “Read at least ten pages of a book every morning.” Good advice.
My own advice on giving advice. Something which I don’t do often enough is to let people discover for themselves the consequences of their decisions. Give people freedom to learn for themselves the reasons for certain habits, rules and behaviors.
Poetry is a great way to give unsolicited advice and probably explains to a large extent the success of Jesus Christ and the Bible. Jesus was a poet. Poetry provides us with a mechanism to discover advice on our own - unsolicited. Through poetry, advice is stated indirectly or implied in such a way that makes the reader feel as if he discovered it on his own. The reader may say, “Look what I found,” rather than the defensive, “He offered me unsolicited advice.” And the reader may discover hidden meaning within a poem that only he can unlock, and which the author didn’t necessarily intend. This may be one reason why scripture is considered magical. It has the power to find a way past our stubbornness, our dislike of being wrong and our difficulty in admitting mistakes. It literally has the power to heal and improve us. We can more easily see ourselves and our flaws through poetry because we aren’t guarded against it. Poetry opens us up to new understanding, especially about ourselves. Was it Steve Jobs who once said that poetry is the most tasteful way of offering unsolicited advice? No, he bluntly said “That’s shit!” That works too, but none of us are Steve Jobs.
Here’s a link to my favorite explanation of poetry. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6R6m5vKvc_w
Yuck!
I don't think Claudine Gay has been "cancelled" - she lost her job (but still has a nice one), she had an op-ed in the NYT, and she still seems to be treated as an important voice by many on the left.