[glenstein]

I think social dynamics are real and must be answered for but I don't think any self-correction or lacktherof has anything to do with subject matter which can be understood independently.

I will never take a proponent of The Bell Curve seriously who tries to say they're "just following the data", because I do hold them and the book responsible for their social and cultural entanglements and they would have to be blind to ignore it. But the book is wrong for reasons intrinsic to its analysis and it would be catastrophic to treat that point as moot.

[Eisenstein]

I am saying that those who actually believe something won't stick around and associate themselves with the original movement if that movement has taken on traits that they don't agree with.

[glenstein]

You risk catastrophe if you let social dynamics stand in for truth.

[Eisenstein]

You risk catastrophe if you ignore social indicators as a valid heuristic.

[glenstein]

Literally every comment of mine explicitly acknowledged social indicators, just not to the exclusion of facts. You're trying to treat your comments like they're the mirror image of mine, but they're not.

[Eisenstein]

The problem with your posture is that it cultivates a defensive self-regard which operates as a filter against substantive critique.

If I wished to mirror your comment style with its performative weight and implied authority, then I would adopt a tone closer to this.

[glenstein]

It is not an unfair filter to (correctly!) note that I specifically accounted for this and agreed with it.

I said:

"I do agree that things like EA and Libertarianism have to answer for the in-the-wild proponents they tend to attract"

"I think social dynamics are real and must be answered for"

"I will never take a proponent of The Bell Curve seriously who tries to say they're "just following the data", because I do hold them and the book responsible for their social and cultural entanglements"

In the face of that, you're trying to claim that I'm ignoring "social indicators as a valid heuristic."

That's not true and no amount of projection or character attacks can make it true. These are verbatim quotes from both of us. You're attempting to present a point I agree with as if it's a new unacknowledged critique.

Meanwhile, when I say the subject matter of a belief system matters for its content, you don't engage with it but reply to me by re-asserting the point I agree with as if it does the work of responding to me. No amount of social signalling takes the place of evaluating intellectual content on its merits and saying "intellectual content matters" is not a denial of the importance of social signalling.

[mitthrowaway2]

Some very bad people believe that the sky is blue. Does that incline you towards believing instead that it's green?

[Eisenstein]

My claim is not that people abandon beliefs but that they abandon labels when the label takes on connotations they do not want to be associated with.

[int_19h]

If people really believe in something, it stands to reason that they aren't willing to just give up on the associated symbolism because someone basically hijacked it.

Coincidentally, libertarian socialism is also a thing.