[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.

[Eisenstein]

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

And I said that people tend not to associate themselves with labels that have connotations that they don't like.

These two statements are not the same.

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

Yet you completely dismiss my point.

> "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"

What does this have to do with group associations?

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

Because you never acknowledged my point.

> That's not true and no amount of projection or character attacks can make it true.

You are the one who started with the insults, I was following suit.

> 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.

Because I wasn't contesting that. I was adding something to it.

[glenstein]

I've provided three direct quotes where I explicitly acknowledged social dynamics. You keep claiming I didn't. Now you claim you were 'just adding' and that I 'started with the insults' yet the thread shows you introduced personal criticism first with 'defensive self-regard' while my initial comments were substantive.

Most tellingly: you dismiss my direct, repeated acknowledgments as 'not counting' while claiming credit for 'adding' a point you never actually verbalized until this moment. Your standard for what constitutes 'acknowledgment' shifts based entirely on whether you're demanding it or taking credit for it.

And the Bell Curve example directly illustrates holding proponents responsible for social entanglements, the exact thing you claim I never addressed.

[Eisenstein]

Saying that I am 'trying to mirror your posts' is not an insult? What is it then?

Your entire tone is disdainful and dismissive, and your constant need to insist that I am missing something when you refuse to acknowledge my basic point is tedious.

Yes, you acknowledged 'social indicators'. No, you did not acknowledge that 'people who stick around in clubs filled with other people they vehemently disagree with about core issues tend to be rare'.