[hammerzeit]

If Wieseltier's aim was to provide an ex post facto justification of what went down at the New Republic, he's certainly nailed it. The strawmen he constructs without a whit of evidence wouldn't pass freshman comp; that he's accorded greater privilege demonstrates just how high the shit must have been piled at The New Republic's stables.

What's interesting is we're starting to see the outlines of the narrative that will define the intellectual critique of silicon valley, and it's an old chestnut.

It's the line that silicon valley is all machine and no soul -- a group of folks interested in success only without any capability for reflection, intuition, emotion. That in the quest to ask 'does it work,' we fail to ask 'should it work?' Robots and nerds, in essence.

It's a line that can be traced back to Doug Bowman's '41 shades of blue' post[0] -- itself beginning to define the narrative of Google (and Marissa in particular) as pencil-necked spreadsheet jockeys who wouldn't know good taste if it hit them over the head.

This narrative is, frankly, bullshit. Anybody who's worked on any sort of technology product knows the limits of data in decision-making -- I have yet to see any place where gut feel didn't radically dictate the shape and vision of every company. Similarly, to argue that the Internet is anything other than the most effective device for the production of the same humanistic, intellectual material that Wieseltier bemoans the loss of is to demonstrate an utter unfamiliarity with the internet and how it works.

No, what Wieseltier bemoans is one thing and one thing only: That the means of distribution are no longer so dominated that he automatically, uncritically earns a right to them. The world doesn't need that any longer and we are the better for it.

[0] http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/03/20/goodbye-google.html

[williamcotton]

Ah, the old "gatekeeper" argument.

Did you come up with this while reading "The Top 8 Reasons Why Silicon Valley Should Never Be Criticized" on Buzzfeed?

[hammerzeit]

There are many, many critiques of silicon valley that are relevant and problematic and need to be heard and engaged with more.

This is absolutely not one of them.

[williamcotton]

I think he makes some very good points about an obsession with objective quantities over more subjective analysis of qualities.

Especially when it comes to literary works, art, and discussions of politics and economics.

I've worked in tech for the last decade so I know from first hand experience that there is plenty of subjectivity in the decision making and design processes.

But at the same time there's an attitude that "if it sells, it's good". Sometimes when I'm in meetings it seems like were selling lowest-common-denominator products on after hours television. Basically just trying to come up with scams instead of trying to build real value.

Furthermore, thinking that web pages and software are the best approaches to "solving the world's problems" definitely lends towards a digital and quantified solution.

From what I've heard at The New Republic they wanted to start using the same sort of metrics that a company like Bleacher Report (which I was the first engineer at) might use.

There's world of a difference between stories about 3rd tier college football teams and the history of intellectual criticism that made The New Republic what it was.

[hammerzeit]

There are certainly plenty of folks in silicon valley who could care less about quality as long as it hits the numbers. It may or may not be the case that the new management at TNR are folks like that -- if it is, that's depressing to say the least.

But there are also plenty of folks in silicon valley creating and empowering new forms of content and thought. Even buzzfeed, everyone's favorite target, has produced some awesome longform work to complement their listicle crap. To say nothing of the Mediums of the world.

To argue, as Wieseltier does, that this first group is indicative of a silicon valley ethos, is where he goes off the rails. By what right does he get to make that claim? Because Google hired Ray Kurzweil?

The most generous interpretation is that he's simply unaware of the humanistic side of the internet.

What worries me is the more likely claim that this stems from a certain form of engineer essentialism -- that technologists are inherently unable to appreciate a work of art or cultural criticism. He himself writes this:

"The processing of information is not the highest aim to which the human spirit can aspire, and neither is competitiveness in a global economy. The character of our society cannot be determined by engineers."

Wieseltier seems to really believe that a bunch of pocket-protectored math geeks have taken over his beloved humanities and are trying to reduce it to a bunch of equations. To do so is, I still find, extremely shallow and deeply insulting.

[williamcotton]

The most generous interpretation is that he's simply unaware of the humanistic side of the internet.

That humanistic side of the Internet has been drowned out by a sea of dingbats so obsessed with becoming the next Mark Zuckerberg that it is barely perceptible.

I'm an engineer as well as an artist and I got in to this industry for the humanistic side of things. I'm frankly disgusted with how things have been shaping up over the last decade. Our industry is full of callousness and arrogance. To make it worse the economic externalities of their successes are driving out anyone involved with humanities from the cities where this is taking place. It has created the feedback loops that result in the kind of ignorance that he's addressing.

[walterbell]

Could you please recommend one of the others?

[hammerzeit]

Evgevny Morozov is a great place to start; he can go a little off the rails but much of his critiques of technological determinism are well-located.

I don't fully subscribe to all of Model View Culture's political aims but their arguments need to be engaged with.

In a different direction, what the Long Now foundation does with trying to reframe our focuses on the ultra-long-term is powerful.

Outside of that, I see much (maybe too much of it) happening on twitter, not enough written out. Definitely a challenge to improve.

[ser_tyrion]

Thanks for the recommendation: Evgeny Morozov - Against Solutionism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhU0hRng-eE

[williamcotton]

Similarly, to argue that the Internet is anything other than the most effective device for the production of the same humanistic, intellectual material that Wieseltier bemoans the loss of is to demonstrate an utter unfamiliarity with the internet and how it works.

Well I'm very familiar with how the Internet works and I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement so, to use a "logical fallacy" against you, I believe you're making an "argument to authority".

BTW, logical fallacies are a rhetorical device that attempt to deny the subjective experience in it's entirety by presuming that all interactions can be reduced to a set of objective axioms. I'm only mentioning this because you leaped to the old "strawman" device in your second sentence, and that you seem to have the generally pleasant demeanor of an esteemed Student of Lesswrong, and that this style of argument and the worldview that it presupposes are being directly addressed by the author of the article.

Can you explain how the Internet is so effective at producing "humanistic, intellectual material"? From my perspective knowing a number of writers, musicians and artists, it seems that professional industries are suffering big time. The network of agents, managers, publicists, production and support staff have steadily been disappearing because the revenue streams that supported them are drying up. This means that artists are having to take up all this slack instead of just focusing on their work. Obviously the work suffers.

I'm sure that there will be a solution but in the meantime things are pretty shit. It takes big and complex systems quite some time to reorganize.

Get ready for an argument to authority here: Maybe you're so ignorant to humanistic and intellectual pursuits that you can't see what is going on?

[hammerzeit]

I'm sure there's a point you're making here, but I'm not interested in finding it among all the insults you're slinging my way. Chill out, dude.

[williamcotton]

without a whit of evidence wouldn't pass freshman comp

that he's accorded greater privilege demonstrates just how high the shit must have been piled at The New Republic's stables.

This narrative is, frankly, bullshit.

Hey buddy, if you wanna have chilled out conversation you might want to take a look at how your own approach might affect how things progress.

[dang]

You're both breaking the HN guidelines by being personally abrasive. Please don't.

[williamcotton]

Really, saying that "maybe you might be ignorant" is breaking the HN guidelines? I think the more likely explanation is that I'm breaking the HN party line and quite clearly pointing out that the ethos that the author was referring to is quite rampant here in Silicon Valley. If we're both engaging in unethical behavior, where are his downvotes?

This place is a circle jerk of anti-intellectualism and smug arrogance. Juvenile phrases about how anyone suffering these days deserves their fate. "Why didn't they just learn JavaScript!?".

Oh, but if it's the poor and blue collar there will be some pity for their fate, barely masked contempt for the unwashed masses. But the middle class? Eviscerated and this forum spits on their grave. The story goes that they squandered their privileged position in the world.

No one can write a proper response. No one can address the content in the author's essay because there is no respect nor understanding for what has been written. Like frothing lobotomized acolytes of McLuhan the only mantra is that the "median is the only message".

Human subjectivity is reduced to a cold bowl of porridge. Everyone's opinions are equally dismissible. The only thing that matters is what can be quantified. The size of one's paycheck takes precedence. Further irony is that everyone thinks they are "creatives" and better than those mongrels in finance or law. This is just our generations version of the Wolf of Wall Street but in the lambs clothes of the globally cultured. "We teach people to code so they can better their economic stature and increase their quantifiable measurements and therefor become a better and happier person!".

Downvotes and upvotes... those ARE part of the problem! They destroy dialog. It turns what could be healthy discussion in an American Idol like popularity contest. "Vote next week for your favorite asshole!". You think it is an ethical device? Have you ever noticed that tptacek, the holder of the most "karma" on HN is basically a troll? My language is in no way more inflammatory than his. He's just got the foot soldiers to put people in their place.

All that these things do is turn forums in to an echo chamber. The other approach is to use active moderation to get rid of the trolls. But that's not the agenda. That's not the belief. The church of quantification must attempt to remove all subjective and therefor inefficient human biases.

Label them "gatekeepers" and convince the world you're doing it a service when you instead shift the power to secretive algorithms that are controlled by a small cabal of wealthy elites.

DOWNVOTE THIS!

  ....................../´¯/) 
  ....................,/¯../ 
  .................../..../ 
  ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ 
  ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ 
  ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') 
  .........\.................'...../ 
  ..........''...\.......... _.·´ 
  ............\..............( 
  ..............\.............\...

[tptacek]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8zQHO40Cys

The funny thing is, personal attacks aside, I actually agree with a lot of what you have to say, especially about karma and about the impact of the Internet on artists. And on that latter point, you & I do in fact disagree sharply with the majority of the site. You pick weird enemies.