Scott Alexander is a psychiatrist whom some describe as the “public-facing conscience” of Rationalism: more concerned w/ empathy, therapy, & moral uncertainty than w/ pure logic. Others describe him as 😪 a highly-public figure w/ a yen for platforming reactionary forces, & for never taking a clea— we mean, biased— stance on the figures & ideas which he hoists in front of his readers.
Scott would call this “earnestly exploring arguments from all sides”, in a spirit of “intellectual fairness” (SOIF). His SOIF has landed him w/ some peculiar bedfellows:
• “Race realists” & evolutionary psychologists known for promulgating frankly racist ideas;
• “The Bell Curve” author Charles Murray, whose ideas on race & IQ have been "condemned" as "scientifically-flawed, racist, & socially dangerous";
• Curtis Yarvin: the mind behind Neoreactionary Ideology, which blends authoritarianism, techno-libertarianism, & a rejection of modern democratic values;
— plus a whole assortment of whom we have seen described as “internet cranks, edgelords, & right-adjacent thinkers”, but whom our much more diplomatic Scott would describe as “people with interesting ideas” (PWII).
His m.o. is to “steelman” for these PWII— to present the strongest possible version of their arguments. Some call his steelmanning “nuanced” & “generous”, while others decry it as lacking all criticism— that is, as only exploring arguments from their most idealized sides.
Scott is typically far too neutral to endorse these ideas overtly. His steelmanning might mime endorsement, sure. His choice to platform them might, to some, make these cranks & edgelords seem like delicate figurines which he has rifled thru the flea-markets for, & brought home to tenderly display on his living room mantel. Do we not “endorse” the decor with which we surround ourselves? 🤷🏻♀️ We, as a fellow figurine lover, would in a heartbeat swear endorsement of each & every one of our tchotchkes. They got our stamp of approval the minute we seized upon them. Scott has diff. opinions on the art of curation— for better or for worse; but we, in a SOIF, will leave him to it.
***
Scott furthers his warm & cuddly reputation among Rationalists by saying that he’s “often sympathetic” to social justice causes (SJC). He has some pointers for these SJC, which we think is cool— we chronically have “some pointers” for our favs; we care enough to notice what they’re doing, & want them to do even better ☺️ What, we wonder, are Scott’s pointers (SP) for the SJC of America?
First, SP come from a place of evident hurt. Our heart goes out to him there.
Scott feels hurt bc, as he perceives it, many activists perceive his gestures of care as misbegotten, his attempts at goodness inadequate, & his rationalistic intellectual tradition as bankrupt. He wishes they would see him as the earnest, empathetic guy whom he sees himself to be. This is v. hard. This makes us feel like Scott is the wallflower at our high school dance, which we can’t bear to witness. We want to coax him into our circle, to bounce & dip w/ the rest of us, & ofc to tell us all abt his earnest, empathetic contributions to the cause— to any cause. Has he ever done grassroots organizing? Has he ever joined a protest? Has he ever done movement building work— or even direct action?
That is not Scott’s style. He might describe himself more as a commentator or analyst for the organizing, movement-building, & protestery of others. Very well— in these desperate times, we need all sorts. This brings us back to the q.: what has Scott, from his perch in the stands, observed abt the foibles of activist spaces? What are his constructive critiques?
***
First, Scott advises activists to keep themselves open to good-faith inquiry, & to speak w/ a goal of fostering understanding— to refrain from the shutting-down of difficult convos. Also, to refrain from rhetoric which he calls “emotionally-loaded”.
This mostly sounds nice! We ourselves enjoy a difficult convo— not a convo where we let the potential biases & ‘phobias (BAP) of our conversation partner (CP) go unchecked, but a convo where we can unpack these BAP together. From where do they originate? Which insecurities or painful life experiences are they a response to? We love nothing more than to achieve what Emmanuel Levinas might call a “face-to-face interaction” b/w us & our CP— where we are each a human being, on equal footing, & on a continual journey of growth.
Our misty-eyed agreement w/ Scott, however, screeches to a halt once he starts to moan abt the overemotional tones of others. We would invite him to not shut down those convos which might exceed his emotional range. We would invite him to foster his own understanding of what painful life experiences could have caused his CPs to feel so strongly— & obviously, to never angerwash the earned grievances of his cherished CPs.
***
Second, Scott raises an eyebrow at activists who show “too much” moral certainty. He has some stern words for these hypothetical activists: they risk framing dissent as a kind of sin, & they undermine “principles of dialogue & intellectual humility”.
This is hard for us to respond to, bc this is essentially a strawman argument. To which specific activists is he sternly talking? We have no idea. We cannot see their “too-muchness” for ourselves, & cannot hear how they speak to those w/ differing opinions. We are moving on.
***
Scott’s third point feels like an extension to point #2. He calls activist spaces hostile to curiosity, & punishing towards deviation. He sounds an alarm over their “creation of fear & groupthink”.
As we did during point #2, we cannot help but ask ourselves: is Scott, in the bleachers, overlooking a fascist regime? His characterization is dire— he is describing a real nightmare! We have yet to experience this nightmare in any activist spaces we’ve encountered. Have we gotten lucky? Q.s abound, &, in the absence of any named, specific examples, hang tantalizingly in the air.
***
Comment #4 gets personal again. Activist spaces, according to Scott, shun nerds. They shun Rationalists. They shun cis, white, male Rationalist nerds, just like him.
We would enjoin Scott to stop nursing his broken heart, leap into the fray, & see what happens! Go hold a sign! Go support your local union strike! Risk too-muchness in your support of marginalized Americans, & at all costs, refrain from retreating like a turtle into your expectations of hostility from these ppl! We’d also politely beg him to zip it once he slides— as he is wont to do— into equating “the social discomfort & emotional pain of getting critiqued online” w/ “being systemically oppressed”. We, noting his taste for logic lingo, would urge him to consider whether this equation does not belie a category error: whether it’s not suggesting that “being awkward” is on par w/ “being locked out of housing, jobs, healthcare, or legal recognition.”
***
Back to Katie's & Andrew's hott Alice facts. This next one makes our mouth burn & tingle deliciously.
*****
Next: Shy, Unseen, but Lethal