...the third of these is underconfidence. Michael Vassar regularly accuses me of this sin, which makes him unique among the entire population of the Earth.
Well, that sure is odd. Guess that’s why Vassar was promoted. It makes sense now.
Anyway, EY’s history doesn’t seem to me marked by much underconfidence. For example, his name has recently been used in vain at this silly blog, where they’re dredging up all sorts of amusing material that seems to support the opposite conclusion.
Since I know EY has guru status around here, please don’t jump down my throat. For the record, I agree with everything he says. I must, for the force of his rationality encircles me and compels me.
Anyway, for those who don’t want to follow the link, here’s the best part—a bit of pasted materials in a comment by someone named jimf:
When Ayn [Rand] announced proudly, as she often did, ‘I can
account for every emotion I have’—she meant, astonishingly,
that the total contents of her subconscious mind were
instantly available to her conscious mind, that all of her
emotions had resulted from deliberate acts of rational
thought, and that she could name the thinking that
had led her to each feeling. And she maintained that
every human being is able, if he chooses to work at the
job of identifying the source of his emotions, ultimately
to arrive at the same clarity and control.
Barbara Branden, The Passion of Ayn Rand
pp. 193 − 195
From a transhumanist acquaintance I once
corresponded with:
Jim, dammit, I really wish you’d start with
the assumption that I have a superhuman
self-awareness and understanding of ethics,
because, dammit, I do.
This is a brutal oversimplification, but it seems to me, roughly speaking, that in mis-identifying fundamentalism with the humanities, they tend to advocate a reductionism that re-writes science itself in the image of a priestly authoritarianism with too much in common with the very fundamentalisms they claim to disdain (and rightly so).
The author understandably distances himself from his own output, reminiscent of the passages ridiculed in “Politics and the English Language”.
...the third of these is underconfidence. Michael Vassar regularly accuses me of this sin, which makes him unique among the entire population of the Earth.
Well, that sure is odd. Guess that’s why Vassar was promoted. It makes sense now.
Anyway, EY’s history doesn’t seem to me marked by much underconfidence. For example, his name has recently been used in vain at this silly blog, where they’re dredging up all sorts of amusing material that seems to support the opposite conclusion.
Since I know EY has guru status around here, please don’t jump down my throat. For the record, I agree with everything he says. I must, for the force of his rationality encircles me and compels me.
Anyway, for those who don’t want to follow the link, here’s the best part—a bit of pasted materials in a comment by someone named jimf:
When Ayn [Rand] announced proudly, as she often did, ‘I can account for every emotion I have’—she meant, astonishingly, that the total contents of her subconscious mind were instantly available to her conscious mind, that all of her emotions had resulted from deliberate acts of rational thought, and that she could name the thinking that had led her to each feeling. And she maintained that every human being is able, if he chooses to work at the job of identifying the source of his emotions, ultimately
to arrive at the same clarity and control.
Barbara Branden, The Passion of Ayn Rand pp. 193 − 195
From a transhumanist acquaintance I once corresponded with:
With detractors like this, who needs supporters? I almost wonder whether razib wrote that blog post in one of his faux-postmodernist moods.
I advise you all not to read it; badly written and badly supported criticism of EY is too powerful of a biasing agent towards him.
The author understandably distances himself from his own output, reminiscent of the passages ridiculed in “Politics and the English Language”.