Read on Twitter
I'm trying to figure out good discourse norms for myself. I really enjoyed the conversation(s) that came out of this tweet, but I also got feedback from friends I respect that this kind of take is net harmful in their view. I'm trying to figure it out and I'd love your takes. https://twitter.com/JeffLadish/status/1340840809873063936
Let me try to unpack it a bit. I made this post because over the past year I've seen many publications like the NYT report on or publish pieces written by professional bioethicists (academics).
These pieces are often bizarrely anti-consequentialist and seem to violate common sense morality as well as many more formal ethical systems. I have a sense that these takes are both common and influential, and result in concrete harm to many people.
However, it is pretty flippant to phrase my sentiment as I did. Even if it's also a serious question (it is), it's also a dunk. A way for people to pile on and say, haha, look at those dumb bioethicists saying stupid shit. And there's something unsavory about dunks like that.
I could have written something like "I've been seeing a lot of takes by professional bioethicists recently that seem surprisingly bad, and seem to violate both commonsense ethical standards *and* consequentalist ethics. Why is this so common?"
I expect that take, more nuanced but less punchy, would have spread less well and garnered less engagement. It would have felt less rewarding, both in ways I don't endorse (sweet sweet likes) and ways I do endorse (actual good conversation).
It does seem to me to be a problem that less nuanced, more punchy memes / tweets / whatever spread more easily. It might be worth fighting this by promoting a different kind of culture where this is less favored. But I do worry that trying to opt out of this is a poor strategy
If one is trying to influence culture more broadly, it seems that the fitness of one's memes matters a lot. However, I can also see that line of reasoning justifying lots of anti-epistemic tactics.
This comes up for me a lot when I think about businesses. I hate most advertising because it feels like I'm constantly being lied to, and that advertisers are polluting the information environment. Yet companies that want to do well usually need to advertise.
I really don't have an answer to this dilemma. I think in general I'll try to error on the side of careful arguments and careful criticisms, because I'm more interested in advancing the understanding of people than I am trying to influence popular culture(s).
At the same time, I'd also like to learn the skill of meme crafting for good. Is it possible to maintain good epistemological standards while crafting short form messages that resonate with a wider audience? Memes that can survive well in their environment?
I'd love to know how you folks navigate these tradeoffs, especially on social media. Are there good arguments for hot takes & dunking that I'm missing? Good arguments for why these kinds of things are bad strategies?
People whose takes I'd be especially curious for: @EpistemicHope @acesounderglass @uncatherio @ChanaMessinger @rothosphere @ciphergoth @tessafyi
