This is getting deep into Dark Arts territory, and according to Predictably Irrational, the opportunity to use these powers for evil has not gone unexploited.
I’m a little worried that calling (a/i)rrational persuasive techniques “Dark Arts”, even in seemingly indefensible (though, it must be said, minor) cases like this, biases us against them and will make people averse to using them even when doing so is ethical and beneficial. What do others think? Am I overreacting?
Dan Ariely, who apparently learned his teaching methodology from Professor Quirrell
FWIW, I suspect most casual readers don’t know about Methods of Rationality and were confused by this.
I’m a little worried that calling (a/i)rrational persuasive techniques “Dark Arts”, even in seemingly indefensible (though, it must be said, minor) cases like this, biases us against them and will make people averse to using them even when doing so is ethical and beneficial. What do others think? Am I overreacting?
Here is a provocative thought. In my opinion, scientists nowadays command the trust and confidence of the general public largely thanks to the “dark arts.”
Nobody except the scientists themselves and a tiny number of hobbyist enthusiasts who have invested the large effort to study the relevant material has the necessary competence to judge whether the work in any particular field is true and sound or just bullshit. (To be precise, in some applied areas, people can be reasonably confident because they constantly see useful new technologies coming out of the research efforts, but that’s not the case for most fields.) Now, when scientists make outreach to the general public and try to popularize science—thus reinforcing their status and authority—it’s absolutely impossible for them to argue things in a way that would be both: (1) correct and logically rigorous, and (2) comprehensible even to exceptionally intelligent and informed readers and listeners, let alone average ones.
Because of this, we get popular science materials that are, from an intellectually rigorous point of view, basically a pile of bullshit arguments for conclusions that are likely true, but for altogether different reasons—reasons which the intended audience is utterly incapable of comprehending. Even the conclusions themselves are often so complicated and remote from everyday experience that they get presented in a way that is perhaps technically true, but virtually guaranteed to cause misunderstanding and puzzlement in most of the audience. Sure, some fields allow for decent popular presentations, like e.g. people studying the migration patterns of animals. But the stuff found in most pop-science treatments of, say, physics or evolution is just awful, and the silly and naive beliefs that masses of people form by reading them are even worse.
Therefore, for many areas of science, the bulk of the general public has no reason to believe that scientists are right except raw appeals to authority and the “dark arts” pop-science bullshit they’ve been served. Yet, our political system involves a significant democratic component, and scientists must maintain their intellectual authority in front of wide masses of people lest they lose government and philanthropic support. This might well be impossible to do without serving them a steady diet of “dark arts” pop-science that, on its own merits, has barely any more logical validity than all sorts of superstition and charlatanism that scientists are competing with for authority and public prominence.
Here is a provocative thought. In my opinion, scientists nowadays command the trust and confidence of the general public largely thanks to the “dark arts.”
Yeah, but was this relevant? Shouldn’t this go in an open thread or its own post?
Yes, you’re right, it is probably too off topic. I replied to the above comment without too much thinking about the context. I’ll delete it and cache the thought for a more appropriate moment.
Holy crap we’re broken. Good info.
I’m a little worried that calling (a/i)rrational persuasive techniques “Dark Arts”, even in seemingly indefensible (though, it must be said, minor) cases like this, biases us against them and will make people averse to using them even when doing so is ethical and beneficial. What do others think? Am I overreacting?
FWIW, I suspect most casual readers don’t know about Methods of Rationality and were confused by this.
Well, they should fix that.
The label “Dark Arts” is itself an example of Dark Arts: romanticizing something to hide assumptions in it.
Nick Tarleton:
Here is a provocative thought. In my opinion, scientists nowadays command the trust and confidence of the general public largely thanks to the “dark arts.”
Nobody except the scientists themselves and a tiny number of hobbyist enthusiasts who have invested the large effort to study the relevant material has the necessary competence to judge whether the work in any particular field is true and sound or just bullshit. (To be precise, in some applied areas, people can be reasonably confident because they constantly see useful new technologies coming out of the research efforts, but that’s not the case for most fields.) Now, when scientists make outreach to the general public and try to popularize science—thus reinforcing their status and authority—it’s absolutely impossible for them to argue things in a way that would be both: (1) correct and logically rigorous, and (2) comprehensible even to exceptionally intelligent and informed readers and listeners, let alone average ones.
Because of this, we get popular science materials that are, from an intellectually rigorous point of view, basically a pile of bullshit arguments for conclusions that are likely true, but for altogether different reasons—reasons which the intended audience is utterly incapable of comprehending. Even the conclusions themselves are often so complicated and remote from everyday experience that they get presented in a way that is perhaps technically true, but virtually guaranteed to cause misunderstanding and puzzlement in most of the audience. Sure, some fields allow for decent popular presentations, like e.g. people studying the migration patterns of animals. But the stuff found in most pop-science treatments of, say, physics or evolution is just awful, and the silly and naive beliefs that masses of people form by reading them are even worse.
Therefore, for many areas of science, the bulk of the general public has no reason to believe that scientists are right except raw appeals to authority and the “dark arts” pop-science bullshit they’ve been served. Yet, our political system involves a significant democratic component, and scientists must maintain their intellectual authority in front of wide masses of people lest they lose government and philanthropic support. This might well be impossible to do without serving them a steady diet of “dark arts” pop-science that, on its own merits, has barely any more logical validity than all sorts of superstition and charlatanism that scientists are competing with for authority and public prominence.
Yeah, but was this relevant? Shouldn’t this go in an open thread or its own post?
Yes, you’re right, it is probably too off topic. I replied to the above comment without too much thinking about the context. I’ll delete it and cache the thought for a more appropriate moment.
That seems a bit extreme. Why not put it on the open thread now, even if you plan on elaborating later?
Don’t worry, I can quickly reproduce the same argument whenever a more opportune context comes up.
I like the reference to “Dark Arts”, but I’ve removed the Quirrell part on your suggestion.