The article is interesting for how badly it misrepresents American history. Intellectual elitist dominance of US policy is a frequently debated topic throughout the history of the United States. Moldbug is right that certain views flowed from academia to public consciousness. But he ignores a lot of other causal factors.
Regarding US race relations, Moldbug ignores that (1) the trend towards pro-civil rights court rulings predates California’s Proposition 14 by at least 40 years in cases like Buchanan v. Warley (1917) and Missouri exrel. Gaines (1938) and (2) the prime mover of US political opinion was probably public unwillingness to support the methods of Bull Connor.
Regarding the political tilt of academia, Moldbug ignores the conservative movement’s recent success in creating an academic movement that lead to the appointment of conservative judges who have dramatically rolled back US constitutional and statutory interpretation from the more liberal positions of the Warren Court.
Finally, the disparate treatment of unjust tyrants like Castro and Pinochet in academia (1) ignores the different treatment of those regimes by the US government, and (2) partially reflects a feeling of guilt that the US was involved in establishing conservative regimes by taking actions like supporting the coup against Allende or the assassination of Patrice Lumumba and creation of the Mobutu regime. By contrast, there was relatively little US support for the creation of the Castro regime, and thus less culpability for the injustices that followed.
In short, Moldbug’s history is incredibly selective—making it impossible to take seriously any of the conclusions he draws from his historical analysis.
Regarding the political tilt of academia, Moldbug ignores the conservative movement’s recent success in creating an academic movement that lead to the appointment of conservative judges who have dramatically rolled back US constitutional and statutory interpretation from the more liberal positions of the Warren Court.
That you tout this as a grand example of right wing victory is somewhat surprising, it in my eyes weakens your case considerably for it is a feeble thing compared to the vast cultural shift leftward in the past decades and centuries.
The current structure of society creates an almost inevitable pressure in favor of “leftist” social dynamics and social norms. Further, academic ideology is a substantial causal factor in the leftward pressure because the students of one generation are the policy-makers of the next generation.
My points were (paragraph by paragraph):
academic pressure doesn’t explain the civil rights movement in the US
academia is not immune to right-wing ideas
the evidence that academia is leftist is explainable by other factors beyond ideological bias (with a side helping of policy-makers don’t seem as leftist as their professors)
In short, that makes the second sentence of Moldbug’s thesis not likely enough for further consideration. I leave it to you to judge whether the first sentence stands without the second. But Moldbug doesn’t seem to think so—otherwise, why waste all that energy citing that particular historical evidence at all?
As an aside, if one’s political theory really can’t distinguish between the victorious community organizer and the defeated business executive, then my evidence is entitled to substantially less weight. But that isn’t the consensus usage in the doctrines of history or political science dating back to before the rise of PC concerns (but after the Glorious Revolution—so Moldbug may not care). Further, I assert political theories that can’t tell the difference (e.g. political Marxism as practiced) are insufficiently nuanced to be capable of making useful predictions.
In short, Moldbug’s history is incredibly selective—making it impossible to take seriously any of the conclusions he draws from his historical analysis.
This is a fully general argument against historical analysis. I can’t think of a single historian who isn’t incredibly selective.
Regardless I didn’t mean to invoke the entire article, merely the statement which seems obviously correct in general. The w-forceis there and we’re not sure what it is. It might be caused by humans moving in a forager direction because of wealth, “moral progress”, the same kind of memetic selection that gave us religions… Even if I agree with everything it has done so far and is likely to do in the near future, I probably wouldn’t like what it does in a few decades or centuries. As I have no reason to suspect it has conveniently weakened at the time my values are in vogue this scares me.
I fear Cthulhu as I fear Azathot for much the same reasons.
This is a fully general argument against historical analysis. I can’t think of a single historian who isn’t incredibly selective.
No, it really isn’t. Our confidence in empirical propositions from the history / social sciences disciplines is structurally lower than our confidence in empirical propositions from hard science. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t point to some empirical propositions and say “Not likely enough for further consideration.”
Even if I agreed with everything it has done so far and is likely to do in the near future, I probably wouldn’t like what it does in a few decades or centuries.
We were having a discussion elsewhere about whether “moral progress” and “moral regress” were meaningful labels. Establishing our disagreement on those points seems to be a prerequisite for figuring out what we can and can’t learn from history. At the very least, agreement on terminology is necessary to shorten inferential distance enough for us to even have a conversation.
The article is interesting for how badly it misrepresents American history. Intellectual elitist dominance of US policy is a frequently debated topic throughout the history of the United States. Moldbug is right that certain views flowed from academia to public consciousness. But he ignores a lot of other causal factors.
Regarding US race relations, Moldbug ignores that (1) the trend towards pro-civil rights court rulings predates California’s Proposition 14 by at least 40 years in cases like Buchanan v. Warley (1917) and Missouri exrel. Gaines (1938) and (2) the prime mover of US political opinion was probably public unwillingness to support the methods of Bull Connor.
Regarding the political tilt of academia, Moldbug ignores the conservative movement’s recent success in creating an academic movement that lead to the appointment of conservative judges who have dramatically rolled back US constitutional and statutory interpretation from the more liberal positions of the Warren Court.
Finally, the disparate treatment of unjust tyrants like Castro and Pinochet in academia (1) ignores the different treatment of those regimes by the US government, and (2) partially reflects a feeling of guilt that the US was involved in establishing conservative regimes by taking actions like supporting the coup against Allende or the assassination of Patrice Lumumba and creation of the Mobutu regime. By contrast, there was relatively little US support for the creation of the Castro regime, and thus less culpability for the injustices that followed.
In short, Moldbug’s history is incredibly selective—making it impossible to take seriously any of the conclusions he draws from his historical analysis.
That you tout this as a grand example of right wing victory is somewhat surprising, it in my eyes weakens your case considerably for it is a feeble thing compared to the vast cultural shift leftward in the past decades and centuries.
As far as I can tell, Moldbug’s thesis is:
My points were (paragraph by paragraph):
academic pressure doesn’t explain the civil rights movement in the US
academia is not immune to right-wing ideas
the evidence that academia is leftist is explainable by other factors beyond ideological bias (with a side helping of policy-makers don’t seem as leftist as their professors)
In short, that makes the second sentence of Moldbug’s thesis not likely enough for further consideration. I leave it to you to judge whether the first sentence stands without the second. But Moldbug doesn’t seem to think so—otherwise, why waste all that energy citing that particular historical evidence at all?
As an aside, if one’s political theory really can’t distinguish between the victorious community organizer and the defeated business executive, then my evidence is entitled to substantially less weight. But that isn’t the consensus usage in the doctrines of history or political science dating back to before the rise of PC concerns (but after the Glorious Revolution—so Moldbug may not care). Further, I assert political theories that can’t tell the difference (e.g. political Marxism as practiced) are insufficiently nuanced to be capable of making useful predictions.
This is a fully general argument against historical analysis. I can’t think of a single historian who isn’t incredibly selective.
Regardless I didn’t mean to invoke the entire article, merely the statement which seems obviously correct in general. The w-force is there and we’re not sure what it is. It might be caused by humans moving in a forager direction because of wealth, “moral progress”, the same kind of memetic selection that gave us religions… Even if I agree with everything it has done so far and is likely to do in the near future, I probably wouldn’t like what it does in a few decades or centuries. As I have no reason to suspect it has conveniently weakened at the time my values are in vogue this scares me.
I fear Cthulhu as I fear Azathot for much the same reasons.
No, it really isn’t. Our confidence in empirical propositions from the history / social sciences disciplines is structurally lower than our confidence in empirical propositions from hard science. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t point to some empirical propositions and say “Not likely enough for further consideration.”
We were having a discussion elsewhere about whether “moral progress” and “moral regress” were meaningful labels. Establishing our disagreement on those points seems to be a prerequisite for figuring out what we can and can’t learn from history. At the very least, agreement on terminology is necessary to shorten inferential distance enough for us to even have a conversation.
Damn right. Now, who the fuck downvoted this extensively argued, well-linked comment without replying?