The Show Must Grate On…
by rsbakker
Aphorism of the Day: Les is mor.
[Addendum 19/08/11: For those of you popping over from Vox Day, something on the inverse correlation between logical competence and self-appraisal.]
[Addendum 18/08/11: Some (or perhaps just another) perspective]
I finally had a chance to check out the comments on the “Prince of Misogyny” post I referenced a couple of days back. The parallels to the responses on Theo’s blog are nothing short of creepy. The big difference seems to be that where everyone on Theo’s board was busy calling me a low self-esteem loser, these guys are accusing me of insufferable pomposity…
I guess I am all things to all people after all! A Nancy that needs to “grow a pair,” and a Pig who can’t stop showing them off. How awesome is that?
Believe it or not, I actually want to keep both of these blog war ‘relationships’ afloat. I know some of you hate it, and think it’s just an aggravating waste of time, and you could be right, but these exchanges make me very curious. And I find it’s helping me see my past my own tendencies to become defensive or morally censorious–and most importantly, to find the kinds of questions that give these ‘hard believers’ pause. (Does anyone know of any real research done on individuals prone to fanatical belief on facile grounds?).
As a veteran of Gabe Chouinard’s old board, I’ve been through the real wringer with people who were every bit as perceptive as they were nasty. Matt Stover, especially, was an estimable opponent, as apt to grill your character as thoroughly as your arguments (imagine Happy Ent, only really, really pissed). These guys are strictly bush league in comparison. There’s nothing anybody’s said that has prickled enough to jarr me from my experimental mindset–yet.
And as far as the books go, I actually think this stuff demonstrates that my writing, for better or worse, is rich enough to support a wild, wild variety of competing interpretations. And most important of all, that it’s actually reaching people who can be outraged.
Anyway, by way of UPDATES, I thought I should mention that I have included a couple new pieces in Essays, Speculations, and Stories. This last page I just added today.
As with everything, feedback is welcome! With “The New Theory” essay, I’m especially interested in where people would like me to add footnotes. It’s a puppy I would actually like to publish someday… I think.
Three Pound Brain 
Thanks as always, Bakker. That’s a wealth of new material. Pretty cool.
Scott posted:
“I guess I am all things to all people after all! A Nancy that needs to “grow a pair,” and a Pig who can’t stop showing them off. How awesome is that?”
Reminds me of:
Eshu was walking down a road one day, wearing a hat that was red on one side and black on the other. Sometime after he entered a village which the road went through, the villagers who had seen him began arguing about whether the stranger’s hat was black or red. The villagers on one side of the road had only been capable of seeing the black side, and the villagers on the other side had only been capable of seeing the red one. They soon came to blows over the disagreement which caused him to turn back and rebuke them, revealing to them how one’s perspective can be as correct as another person’s even when they appear to be diametrically opposed to each other. He then left them with a stern warning about how closed-mindedness can cause one to be made a fool. In other versions of this tale, the two halves of the village were not stopped short of extreme violence; they actually annihilated each other, and Eshu laughed at the result, saying “Bringing strife is my greatest joy”.
So what you’re saying Jorge is Bakker is trolling everyone lol.
He does seem to get people incredibly annoyed, I’ve never been annoyed at anyone i’ve never met like this, I find it fascinating.
In the Bakker and Woman thread, people were actually saying cause Bakker used one persons name who is male and no one elses at all (or 2 people and no one else)and this was “very interesting” and could be proof. (of him being a woman-hater)
I was howling with laughter at the things folk will think constitute proof once their mind is set.
I guess it isn’t so funny from Bakker’s side though being involved with people who think correlation and causation are the same.
I think Jorge is actually calling Bakker the embodiment of the Trickster God. Lol, where did I read that passage, Jorge? Hero With A Thousand Faces?
Dude, I’m constantly wondering how many of you just Scott sockpuppets.
(I look for stray umlauts, which are the telltale sign.)
The story came from the Wikipedia article on Eshu, which I read on a Wiki run about a year ago. ALL THIS TECHNOLOGY IS SO AWESOME!
Most trolls just do it for the shits and giggles.
Scott actually has an agenda. Besides selling more books.
This week, The Consult (as I am going to begin calling the entire scientific establishment from now on) managed to cure two cases of refractory leukemia by re-engineering T-lymphocytes (with a retrovirus) to kill cancer. As a species we are rapidly moving towards… something… I don’t know if it’s the semantic apocalypse or not, but H. sapiens can’t be re-engineering neurons and genes while still being subject to the same dogmatic philosophical parasites that have pestered us during our evolution. It’s already scary enough that a THEOCRACY might soon have access to nuclear weapons. Bakker, in his own way, is trying to fight that.
Or he’s just a fascist communist sexist amoral-moralist who is simultaneously full of pomposity and low self-esteem.
Kind of off topic of me
The Consult (as I am going to begin calling the entire scientific establishment from now on
I kind of suspect a ‘consult’ comes from percieving there only being science involved, and overlooking the urges that grip and ply the tool that is science.
And I find it’s helping me see my past my own tendencies to become defensive or morally censorious–and most importantly, to find the kinds of questions that give these ‘hard believers’ pause.
I’d like a look at the seemingly common idea of “Well, you raised the claim – the onus is on you to prove it!!!1!”
I’d like it, because I think one can’t force someone elses brain to actually absorb anything – it’s quite easy to be denial of anything, and people seem to be in denial of how easy that state is to achieve?
To me, it seems they have to be willing to do some of the work. Yet people try and put the onus entirely on the other person to prove it?
What approach vectors are there?
Backfire seems to belong to the whole problem of belief polarization in general. Here’s an interesting little nugget about the psychology of trolls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
Remember, if any accuses you of being an amateur psychologist, tell them that’s an interesting psychological theory.
I forgot to mention the Dude was still making hay of the fact that I called him a ‘dude,’ which just goes to show, there’s no one easier to troll than a troll.
What strikes me more than the _differences_ between the attacks of Theo and the Princess of Philogyny are the _similarities_. I’m especially puzzled by the fact that you’re frequently charged with being an ‘intellectual lightweight’ (in whatever formulation). I am going and have gone to a couple of the most prestigious universities in the world. Now, I don’t mean to suggest that you’ll only find smart people at such places, nor that everyone at such places is smart. But I think I can tell the difference between poseurs and the real thing, and you, my friend, are the real thing.
I remember once at a Con — Toronto WorldCon, probably — when you were on a panel about religions vs. science. The other people on the panel (I forget who) were all, if I remember correctly, kind of lightweight compatiblists. You, predictably, disagreed with them, strongly. As the discussion progressed, I remember turning to Caitlin and saying, “They just don’t understand what Bakker’s saying.”
Caitlin responded, “Well, I don’t always agree with Scott either.”
“Neither do I,” I said. “But that’s not the point. The point is that their responses aren’t _responsive_ to what Bakker’s saying. They simply don’t understand…”
And that’s such an important distinction: the difference between genuine disagreement and a failure to understand. I’ve often discovered, especially in online discussions, that people will fire back at me, saying, “Well, I just don’t agree, and you don’t seem willing to accept that.” I try to explain to them that I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. Being a philosopher, that’s pretty much par for the course. But as a philosopher, I also know the difference between debating with someone who _understands_ what I’m saying and debating with someone who doesn’t.
Which is why I think it’s so important not to jump ship and just go hang out with the likeminded: to learn the best tactics, the best ways to show people that they’re standing on a house of cards.
It’s been so long since I’ve read Sextus, but I’m sure I’m just unconsciously ripping off another of his guiding principles.
Not that last time worked out so well, but this is rather assuming of being understandable? That there is a series of logical links from the other persons known quantities onto the stated idea.
When maybe the idea is absent one or more of those stated links. Hell, I’ve done enough programming to repeatedly have the experience of writing logic that does not connect properly with the rest of the program, yet obviously when I wrote it I was sure it connected. The great thing about programming language compilers is you can’t blame them for not understanding – it’s only ever you that’s stuffed up.
Now as to people who don’t even try and construct the model one describes, in their heads? That sort of not understanding? I get that, but I think that’s a seperate subject and not really about not understanding.
So when _you_ don’t understand, there’s nothing to understand, but when someone _else_ doesn’t understand, then maybe they’ve failed to “construct the model one describes, in their heads”? Hrrm.
So when _you_ don’t understand, there’s nothing to understand
I guess when someone says “Your assuming your understandable” they could then, should the other persons give way to the vulnerability of doubt, take advantage of that vulnerability to press in the above idea, attributed to themself.
I think I’m wrong, not because I said it, but I did set myself up for that uneven leverage power and the capacity to say it or whatever junk. I tried to disarm, while still keeping steel in my own hand. After watching a ‘debate’ between a climate change scientist and climate skeptics and noticing none could/would doubt their own side because the other would leap on them like ravenous dogs for it, I should have remembered my observation of that. Nah, I didn’t. Didn’t open up my own vulnerability first.
I’ll take your comment, with no further attempt to parry it.
My last post, above, was needlessly and unproductively snarky. Sorry about that!
Note to self: avoid message boards when you find yourself fucked up and bored at 1:30 in the morning. Just. Go. To. Bed.
” I know some of you hate it, and think it’s just an aggravating waste of time, and you could be right”
This.
Sorry. I’ve been a fan of the blog for a while now and haven’t commented before, but these last few posts just aren’t working. They make you look small, Scott.
I know what you’re saying, and I would think ‘being the bigger man’ would be the rational thing to do, if it were the case that these people simply withered on the vine when you change the channel. The problem is, they don’t. Some of them flourish.
But there’s an issue of principle here too (one that I would all too happy to be argued out of): in both cases, we’re dealing with people who seem to epitomize the kinds of cognitive shortcomings that the Three Pound Brain is devoted to critiquing. Wouldn’t it be hypocritical to only critique things that tidy and well-behaved – which is to say, from a distance?
I feel like I have to get my hands dirty, and that for all the (many) missteps I’ve made, I’m learning some valuable lessons.
This is fair enough, but I feel like the second one was more of a misstep. Yes, agreed Theo was worth critiquing. But I was really disappointed with the second target – just someone having fun at your expense on their own blog? And I felt there was something off-key about your response – that you seemed to have gone out of your way to find a negative review of your work and then, in a slightly lordly manner, declared you were amused by it? And then saying, oh, they were just a troll. Whatever else we can say about your response to Theo, it was sincere – and, importantly, never simply dismissive. What I really didn’t like with the second one was, partly, they didn’t seem worth it (though you’ve answered that) but partly that your own answer didn’t seem worth it.
You see what I mean? I don’t want to seem overly harsh. It’s not intended that way. Just that you can do better than “I feel flattered” and so on. The blogger had a point, perhaps, when they said you were beating your chest. On this one, you did come off a little bit like that.
The strange thing is that I kind of feel it was the other way around. In a very real sense I was the one trolling.
But with the second post? I wonder if anyone has done any work on the psychological tendency to respond in kind… ‘Reciprocal escalation in interpersonal conflict,’ or something. You know, someone shouts at you, you shout back. Someone makes fun of your face, you say something about their personality.
I definitely felt the desire to do that, but I thought I had caught myself, and moulded it into ‘acerbic wit.’ I wonder how many people picked up on the same vibe as you…
I dunno – I thought the idea actually was to go out of your way to forfil the goal of reaching those who genuinely disagree?
The thing is, what happens when you think your there, but you are not? To say one should do better is like cracking ones shin on a coffee table in the dark (thinking it was empty space) but ‘doing better’ is to not swear like a sailor. Like that was the problem.
Apart from ‘the reader doesn’t have to read the book as the author wants them to’ (which was repeated several times), I can’t see any principles that the blogger upholds, while with Theo I think I could see them all over the place. It just seemed the wrong location for the stated goal.
I haven’t read The New Theory in it’s entirety, but what I skimmed I liked. I like the idea of a paradigm shift. I think it’s been long overdue in several areas of academia.
Are you going to propose, in more detail, a methodology?
I have several pages of material that I hope to post in the Speculations section at some point. I’m not sure how coherent it is…
So, are you grooming an army of *activist philosophers* Bakker? A thousand Socrates to wander about the Agora and poke holes in people’s certainty?
*Nervous laugh* You’re the Engels of uncertainty, the Marx of doubt. I guess that makes Neuroscience your Hegel. Wait wait…. we’re the Left Hegelians and the technological optimist (brain-changers) are the Right Hegelians.
Haha…ha?
The barracks are filled. The depots are stocked. The weapons are very well lubricated. If only we could find the right fucking music….
Onward christian soldiers marching as to war? =)
“But with the second post? I wonder if anyone has done any work on the psychological tendency to respond in kind… ‘Reciprocal escalation in interpersonal conflict,’ or something. You know, someone shouts at you, you shout back. ”
It is known, barking is contagious.
I’m reading slowly through the ‘new theory’ article
the New Theory always seeks to strike a genuine dialogue, which is to say, to avoid commitments that render communication monologic
I think this is defining something by what it is not, rather than by what it is? Ie, genuine dialogue is not monologic. Okay, so amongst the many, many other things it could be, what is genuine dialog?
Does it tie in with the natural scientist example you gave, where they generally agree on what evidence it takes to change their mind? Or perhaps more to the point, that they will themselves produce some method by which they will change their mind (ie, the onus isn’t entirely on the other guy).
I think there are bigger people to debate, say someone who read your books (like Kalbear) and disagree with your portrayal.
This person is a shock jock with a supposed cause. No one with a serious goal of equality attacks the other side. Really as a person of color whenever I see someone go after “whitey” I realize they are blinded by irrational hate and ruining the real dialogue. Cowards fighting race wars on the internet – Gandhi and King were beaten and/or threatened on the streets but now our “champions” fight with blog updates whenever their investment banking jobs allow. :rolls eyes:
Not to mention the fact that, growing up, a huge portion of my friends were white and it was other minorities or those of my own race that gave me difficulty.
Which just goes to show that all these ‘identity issues’ are dreadfully complicated. The question is, when it comes to people who seem almost violently bent on simplistic interpretations, is it even possible to make them stop and think?
Actually, thinking about it, why not ask her to read your books, or at least the first one, and then offer her critique? Or you could have a public chat and have people come and watch?
Or just write a bit about what you are trying to do with the characters of Esmi, Serwe, Mimara, and the Empress, link her to it, and see what she thinks. I realize this might be problematic for Esmi and Mimara because their stories are not yet done.
He didn’t even properly read the five pages he claimed to read as a basis of making drastic generalizations across my entire work, personality, and my readers as well. I’m not sure writing more is the solution. Part of the problem of being so publically vicious is that it becomes real difficult to back away from your words. Saving face becomes a paramount motivation.
Yeah dude, look at it.
You have someone who was led to their conclusions by others (they haven’t read the books and they are not finished) who’s core argument seem to be, you sockpuppeted yourself and you thought she was a dude (you also thought a dude was a girl once, so i’m not sure what that means, as i make that mistake myself online sometimes)
Is it really worth engaging this, sure it must be annoying getting labelled , getting called blind by the ugly must irk, but they’re blind so you can’t go socking them.
Whether it’s worth it or not is an open question. The experiment grates on…
I just wanted to clarify… I’m all for the experiment. I have no problem with you trolling other blogs. I guess part of my disappointment is exactly that I was looking forward to you taking on a left-winger or liberal, just to see how it would go. I thought you were going to tackle Ken Macleod or someone like that. I would still welcome that. That’s probably why I’m down on this – like a couple of other posters have suggested, this was a poor target. Also, it was one of the most defensive posts you’ve written (and the one above still is, a bit – “strictly bush-league” – yes, I know they are, that’s part of the problem). The ones where you actually build a defense of your position – as you were closer to in responding to Theo – seem more open because they’re not dismissive. Again, this is meant to be a helpful observation… I’m not simply saying you should leave the fray… Perhaps if you’d said, “I found this, and I don’t think it’s very funny, because it’s a pretty mean accusation, but it is perfect for illustrating the theme of this blog” and gone from there?
You’re totally right. I’ll definitely take a look at MacCleod. The Dude was just too… convenient, both in terms of emotion and effort.
And I really am searching for some kind of ‘cognitive kung fu,’ something I can boil down to a series of maxims that’ll help people combat people who seem to be abject puppets of their biases.
What we really need, I think, is ‘cognitive aikido.’ The problem is that the one throwing the punch first has to _accept_ that the laws of physics hold in order for the aikido to land him on the mat…
Well might as well see where it takes you.
I’ll read the updates anyway. Just thinking the best discussions have an equal exchange of knowledge and perspective from both sides, and i’m predicting this one won’t.
In terms of cognitive kung fu, an idea I had was simply to challenge Theo to write a fantasy that does not match his moral views. Like write a fantasy where rape in marriage does exist. Or even just loosely imagine a draft of such a fantasy.
Then we could speculate about fiction together!