Manage episode 274838970 series 1785627
John Nerst, in some sort of bizarre ascetic practice, enjoys studying people disagreeing online.
While online discourse is a cesspool of bad intentions, bad faith, and, of course, bad arguments, John is able to divine some deep insights about the fundamental nature of human disagreement.
In this interview, we discuss how the abstractions we use let us down when we are trying to be precise in moral arguments, how the “decoupling vs contextualizing” axis explains how smart people with good intentions can endlessly talk past each other, and why the “tilted political compass” gives many folks who are alienated by contemporary political discourse a home.Learn more from John here:
If you're enjoying the show, the best way to support it is by sharing with your friends. If you don't have any friends, why not a leave a review? It makes a difference in terms of other people finding the show.
You can also subscribe to receive my e-mail newsletter at www.toddnief.com. Most of my writing never makes it to the blog, so get on that list.Suggested Posts from John:
- “Erisology: The Science of Arguing About Everything” from The Atlantic
- The Tilted Political Compass, Part 1: Left and Right
- The Tilted Political Compass, Part 2: Up and Down
- The Nerd as the Norm
- Case Study: The War on Christmas
- Science, the Constructionists, and Reality
- A Deep Dive into the Harris-Klein Controversy
- 30 Fundamentals
- [01:38] The anxiety associated with the overwhelming amount of interesting things there are out there to learn—and how John focuses on things outside of his comfort zone in order to keep learning.
- [06:44] John’s mental model for piecing together arguments that he doesn’t agree with. And, a primer on postmodern philosophy and contextualization.
- [14:01] Many arguments result from a disagreement on the definitions of abstractions. It’s easy to pick apart the vagaries of arguments that aren’t on “our side,” while simultaneously giving the benefit of the doubt to conclusions that we like.
- [25:55] Abstractions are “leaky,” and are often the root of disagreements.
- [37:50] An argument intended to correct for a worldview that has “swung too far” can seem totally out of touch to someone who doesn’t have the same shared context.
- [44:17] Contextualizers vs decouplers: should information be interpreted in abstractions and toy problems, or should the social context in which arguments exist always be paramount?
- [53:28] Certain arguments and pieces of information are mimetically fit and can jump outside of their original context—sometimes to the chagrin of the original author
- [01:03:39] How contextualizing vs decoupling helps create the tilted political compass—and how the tilted political compass helps several people alienated by contemporary political discourse find their home
- [01:13:01] The dopamine hit from finding a validation of your identity online
- [01:16:38] Where to get started with John’s blog Everything Studies
- Universal grammar
- Noam Chomsky
- The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge
- Eric Weinstein
- String theory
- Michel Foucault
- “Nobody: ” from Know Your Meme
- Richard Dawkins’s controversial Tweet
- “The ‘10,000-hour rule’ about becoming an expert is wrong — here’s why” from Business Insider
- “The Wisdom of Crowds” by James Surowiecki
- Condorcet’s jury theorem
- “Albert Kao, PhD on the Wisdom of Crowds and Hyperconnected Networks” from Todd Nief
- “The cognitive decoupling elite” from Dross Bucket
- Wittgenstein’s “family resemblance”
- Black Sabbath
- Iron Maiden
- “A Thrive/Survive Theory Of The Political Spectrum” from Slate Star Codex
- WEIRD psychology
- Jonah Peretti
- “Negations: Capitalism and Schizophrenia” by Jonah Peretti