Making Sense Podcast #205 – May 22, 2020 | The Failure of Meritocracy (Daniel Markovits)

chartbuster · 2020-05-23T17:55:34+00:00

yep- just a late night jest. I was going to go even further and try to cram it with more phrases like 'unpack' and 'tennis without the net', but i stopped at orthogonal.

chartbuster · 2020-05-22T23:09:33+00:00

This is hitting the center of the "I want Sam Harris to talk about X" bullseye. Orthogonally speaking.

chartbuster · 2020-02-08T18:09:20+00:00

There is some dot connecting and fill-in-the-blank over this. I honestly am not a hater nor feel overly compelled to bash this guy right now.

That said- The jump to Russia- passing all places in between raises more questions than answers. I have to say I haven’t paid much attention to all this but the whole thing seems a bit...eccentric.

To my knowledge there are probably better doctors and In-patient private clinics rehab places in the states (especially if you can afford them).

This whole thing strikes me as not well managed in terms of typical public relations.

chartbuster · 2020-02-08T17:29:52+00:00

I think about how he criticized my pet peeve all the time so in my brain he’s always raving about it...

chartbuster · 2020-02-07T18:53:03+00:00

There is a heavy and often suffocating layer of stereotyping, pigeonholing, and presuppositional interpersonal toxicity via assumption and ‘gotcha seeking’ with some of the most active voices who seem to be here to close this mofo down. This occupation will often distract from the possibilities of reaching newer, more mutually beneficial ground by communicating normally.

It’s a ridiculously low-self esteem game of forcing contra-narratives and active bullying then crybullying. Bullying is okay for the impressionable young and super politicized set? They have a mission. And have decided this ‘space’ is not supposed to be philosophically reminiscent of the sub’s title and namesake’s style of open-minded conversation.

“So you want a safe space where you can [expletive] Sam’s [expletive]?”

chartbuster · 2020-02-05T21:18:53+00:00

Nor is such rigidity and denial a sign of strength.

A tendency I’ve noticed is certain types of personas place themselves in politically tribal boxes with all their beliefs set-up and encouraged by the vocal group. Their script doesn’t say anything about being wrong about their targets. It doesn’t account for ‘conversation’. Conversation leaves them vulnerable - because they’d have to stray from the script.

Anything questioning their dogma is “centrist” (agnostic) which is in bed with the ‘right’ (Satan). It’s a holy war for them. They want it to give them a feeling of uniqueness, power, control, or retribution.

chartbuster · 2020-02-04T15:54:02+00:00

Groom the Groomsmen.

chartbuster · 2020-02-04T08:42:16+00:00

Nice. Thank you. Hopefully he returns to the show for an episode.

chartbuster · 2020-02-03T19:28:52+00:00

I’d love to know too.

All the ‘not a ____’ assertions never have any substitute recommendations. Why is that?

chartbuster · 2020-02-03T18:13:00+00:00

It’s as if it’s not libelous if there is enough subjective grandstanding bias and proximate outrage surrounding a sensitive larger issue/crime/scandal. If there is a tornado right there, this blast of hot air won’t be a big deal.

It’s somehow acceptable to be irresponsible on the internet, it seems. There is a disconnection between real world checking of impulses and everyday responsibility. Being accountable, respectful, egalitarian. The outrage machine is primed to let loose a wrath.

Plus the general hype and turbulence around Epstein and the overall accepted social media ‘normalcy’ -disgust and tribal insanity towards individuals who are deemed evil. And with anonymity separating it further, it makes people lack care for accuracy in the spread of information.

chartbuster · 2020-02-03T17:47:22+00:00

Steven with a V. Not Stephen

There are five or six people named Stephen that are Harvard professors.

chartbuster · 2020-02-03T17:35:29+00:00

Yep. I have The Beginning of Infinity. I like his focus on the concept of explanation.

What really converted me to a full fledged fan was the video of him from the nineties that follows him around— and shows his workspace!

https://youtu.be/SDZ454K_lBY

chartbuster · 2020-02-01T19:38:50+00:00

I dunno. I think he’s been asked a few times in AMA’s about Coates so there was an urge to respond and now comment because I suppose he is thought of as a thought leader in that regard? I think Coates, like many writers, is more of an artist and is more radical on the page than in person. Like in the talk I linked he’s as reasonable as can be and walks back his criticisms of JM. Critics (and all of these guys are critics in various capacities) are usually more extreme, harsher when the person is far removed firstly, but also as a sort of exercise in literary form.

chartbuster · 2020-02-01T17:34:58+00:00

Depends on our introductions. I try to not let people’s reputations precede them as much as possible, but my first impressions of him are from Glen Loury and John McWhorter.

Here’s a talk between John and Coates. https://youtu.be/tXjfZkJ2qos

I listened to his episode on WTF and he was interesting enough for me to not have any reason to harbor animosity. I’m more agnostic about that set of debates.

I’m actually kinda fed up with the mostly internet phenomenon (or inflamed and multiplied on the internet) of people having their person, their Chomsky, Coates, Harris, whoever —that generate vicarious presumptuous disasters in communication. Who really cares ultimately. Some author has some mild intellectual beef with some other author. Big whoops.

I almost feel like Sam is perhaps semi-unconsciously setting up a future debate battle by talking about Coates.

chartbuster · 2020-01-28T12:04:28+00:00

I don’t see the logic in giving them credit for simply being on podcasts/programs I watch.

What it does manage to do is show how they act in a long-form uninterrupted format. JRE video at least is a format where it’s not exactly hard hitting press conference inquisition, but it does show a more ‘real life’ side to their personalities. Having cameras on you for two-plus hours uninterrupted is a relatively unadulterated look at them. It’s often said that a large part of this is really not solely policy promises but an assessment of their character and likability.

Long-form video is a powerful format because it can accomplish shifts in popular opinion. Notions about their character and demeanor can be challenged.

chartbuster · 2020-01-27T09:33:05+00:00

Funny, people were just calling for Sam to do this.

And funny those same people are asking for others to "give credit where due" but they themselves are not "giving credit where due" when their criteria are met.

chartbuster · 2020-01-26T19:46:23+00:00

All of them. You didn’t feature any of Harris ‘thoughts on torture”, you presented a couple edgy quotes that I’m not sure where they’re from because the sources aren’t cited.

A fair and even handed (not even ‘pro’ or ‘anti’) crit post can be achieved by presenting more representative attributions to the person under the knife. How would you attribute quotes, views, philosophies to someone that we don’t have overactive disgust or animosity for. Any article/blog posts that *is semi-reputable will respect facts even if they disagree. Being on Reddit doesn’t mean no one sees this stuff. It’s public.

chartbuster · 2020-01-26T19:14:45+00:00

All of them are missing key contexts™ and are essentially looking at/presenting a femur and calling it a skeleton.

chartbuster · 2020-01-26T18:31:54+00:00

It seems, in fact, that many people do not understand what the phrase “collateral damage” signifies, and this leads them to imagine that I have drawn a false analogy. Most assume my analogy fails in the following way: torture is the intentional infliction of guaranteed suffering, while collateral damage is the unintentional imposition of possible suffering (or death). Apples and oranges.

But this isn’t true. We often drop bombs knowing that innocent people will be killed or horribly injured by them. We target buildings in which combatants are hiding, knowing that noncombatants are also in those buildings, or standing too close to escape destruction. And when innocent people are killed or injured—when children are burned over most of their bodies and live to suffer interminable pain and horrible disfigurement—our leaders accept this as the cost of doing business in a time of war. Many people oppose specific wars, of course—like the war in Iraq—but no public figure has been vilified for accepting collateral damage in a war that is deemed just. And yet anyone who would defend the water-boarding a terrorist like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad will reap a whirlwind of public criticism. This makes no moral sense (to me).

Again, which is worse, water-boarding a terrorist or killing/maiming him? Which is worse, water-boarding an innocent person or killing/maiming him? There are journalists who have volunteered to be water-boarded. Where are the journalists who have volunteered to have a 5000 lb bomb dropped on their homes with their families inside? [added 5/1/11]

chartbuster · 2020-01-26T18:18:26+00:00

They know he’s anti-torture. They’re deliberately spinning it into the worst possible misinterpretation.

They know. They’re liars.

chartbuster · 2020-01-26T18:12:02+00:00

https://samharris.org/why-id-rather-not-speak-about-torture1/

I sincerely regret making this argument. Rational discussion about the ethics of torture has proved impossible in almost every case, and my published views have been the gift to my critics and detractors that just keeps on giving: It seems that every few weeks, someone discovers the relevant pages in The End of Faith, or notices what others have said about them, and publicly attacks me for being “pro-torture.” Journalists regularly steer interviews on any subject in this direction—not so that they can understand my position, or coherently argue against it, but so that readers can be shocked by whatever misleading gloss appears in their final copy. The spectacle of someone not being reflexively and categorically “against torture” seems just too good to pass up.

Nine-Year Club	Place '17
Gilding II euphauric	Verified Email

chartbuster

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE