On Picking Your Champions In The Internet Age
The problem I will be speaking to in this post, is outsourcing your thinking.
But I'm going to start with Tex Winter, Mike D'Antoni and some beloved names Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, Steve Kerr, Phil Jackson and Steph Curry.
The triangle offense was developed in basketball in the 1940s, but wasn't tested in the NBA really, until Phil Jackson hired Tex Winter as assistant coach and put it in the hands of Michael Jordan. It would then win 6 championships until the dissolution of the Jackson-Jordan-Pippen dynasty. Jackson would then take it to the Shaq-Kobe Lakers where it would win 3 more championships and lose 1 before Shaq-Kobe dissolved and sent Shaq to the Miami Heat, then it would go to 3 more finals and win 2 more championships with the Kobe-Gasol lineup.
The triangle offense proved to be the right answer and in capable hands is probably the winningest offensive strategy since recruiting Bill Russell to your team.
Then there was Mike D'Antoni a multiple coach-of-the-year winner with Pheonix Suns and Houston Rockets whose fast paced 7-seconds-or-less offense oriented play style was championed by 2 time MVP winner Steve Nash and 1 time MVP winner James "Little Game James" Harden.
D'Antoni had the right idea, it would seem, and certainly Nash and Harden are great at what they do, however (I) feel about James Harden's head-game. The person who would make small ball fast paced offense work though to the tune of 4 championships was Steve Kerr and Steph Curry along with Klay Thompson.
Nobody else has really been able to get small ball to work, before or since. This is the key point though, having the right idea isn't enough, you need the competence to execute.
So there are many high profile historical case studies in the internet age of bad champions. Where really a market chose the wrong person to champion a cause - Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Jordan Peterson, Bill Maher are a few that come to mind that I could talk about where people are right about something and hence we could side with a given champion but overall the champions are bad choices.
Think of it if you will, like being arrested for a crime you didn't commit because you happen to know you were at home, lucid, reading a book at the time when the crime was committed. Alas, no alibi, okay but the quality of your lawyer may determine whether you go to trial and whether you serve prison time and how much time you might get.
So instead of someone really high profile I'm inclined to pick as a case study Peter Boghossian as an example of someone who is a public figure, a public intellectual, who has many positions I'm inclined to agree with and why I wouldn't pick him to be my champion.
I need to be upfront though, basically since Covid, I've watched a number of intelligent people that were providing lucid and coherent social and cultural commentary to varying degrees basically go off the rails. (Naomi Klein author of "Doppleganger" seems to have more to say about that phenomena than I can.)
Peter is not quite off the rails, (*update he appears to have gone off the rails completely in the last few months) he is for me an interesting midpoint in the three principle actors of "The Grievance Studies Affair" where James Lindsay seemed to go totally insane, Helen Pluckrose seems totally sane and Peter I'm not sure about.
For the most part, the reasons I wouldn't pick Peter Boghossian as a champion are at a superficial level - he uses the word "astonishing" so much, it is not reassuring to me that he is a thoughtful person, yet seems to live in a perpetual state of astonishment.
While I'm sure he intends it to mean "look at the level of depravity and delusion that is being tolerated" his liberal use of "astonishing" starts to imply someone who doesn't know much about anything like "wait you can buy a loaf of bread that comes sliced in the bag now? Wow! That is astonishing." Though a specific example might be "so white people are claiming to be Native American to get highly paid jobs at universities and not-for-profits, that is just astonishing."
And then, there is the extent that Peter Boghossian is a nerd. Behaviourally he seems somewhat self aware of this fact, but he just cannot stop talking about Brazillian Jiu Jitsu to help himself. Yes it's a popular hobby but Peter is a BJJ nerd. As an atheist he may be familiar with the "religion is like a penis" meme where it's nice that you have one, good for you, but don't whip it out in public and don't shove it down my kids throat. Peter is so captivated by BJJ that he likely needs penis rules to curtail his propensity to want to talk about how fabulously marvellous BJJ is. An example, I once watched Peter observe a "hidden claim street epistemology" exercise, and without going too deep into street epistemology, its an exercise where typically someone asks someone on the street "what do you believe" and someone will say "I believe in God" and then you ask them why, and they'll offer some reason and then you sort of explore whether its a good reason or not.
So what claim does Peter choose to road-test hidden claim street epistemology - "I am going to get my black belt in BJJ" Like I love making analogies to basketball and cited NBA greats, so there's some degree to which I should never be a Presidential Candidate if I can't curtail using basketball as a metaphor for everything. Peter doesn't seem aware that the way he talks about BJJ seldom even offers an analogy, or anything that isn't of interest unless you are interested in BJJ.
And then below this in terms of Peter being a nerd is that he really loves Star Trek, and it's kind of the same thing. Like he interviewed "The Critical Drinker" who is far higher profile than him, likely an even worse champion, but The Critical Drinker is a flawed champion of media-as-entertainment. The critical drinker is not in my experience a very good interview subject, in stark contrast to the popularity of his Movie and TV reviews. But Peter is someone who got less out of him than most because I was left with the impression that Peter has watched almost nothing but Star Trek.
And again it was the same thing as BJJ which is in the manner in which I mean Peter is a "nerd", Red Letter Media hosts Mike and Rich talk about Star Trek all the time, they manage though to relate it to what they are talking about such that many people enjoy watching Mike and Rich talk about Star Trek media they have watched with no interest in watching it themselves. Mike will often raise Star Trek in the form of "This movie has the same plot as this Star Trek TNG episode, but in Star Trek they handled it like this it's simple it's clean that's what this movie needed to do instead of..." so relevant and insightful. Peter evokes Star Trek/BJJ like this: "I really like Star Trek/BJJ." Yep, Okay Peter.
All of which is to say, Peter being a bad champion is in my opinion, overdetermined. I think he is onto something with street epistemology, I think he is on to something with the hoax papers and I agree with many of the positions he holds in terms of the excesses of the far left. He seems excitable like nerds, and easily distracted, like nerds such that for everything he gets right he is just prone to these bad judgement calls where I'd never trust him with the ball in clutch time. He's Lebron. Not Kobe, not Steph, not Jordan.
If I was trying to manage an NBA team to the championship though, I would be bringing in my scouts everyday and planning to trade Peter for draft picks.
I just wanted to be honest and upfront that I use superficial cues, yellow flags if you will to make predictions about where a champion is likely to fall short.
Now, the timing of this post is reactionary. It follows the Harris-Trump Presidential Debate which I didn't watch because I don't vote and the case against re-electing Trump is for me overdetermined. I totally understand Biden being dead and people still voting for the democratic candidate as a cost of polarization. I would expect a Labrador candidate or a literal cactus win almost half of the electoral votes for either party because of polarization.
But I checked in because I remember Peter having an astonished reaction to the last debate between Biden and Trump:
This is not astonishing to me, and it shouldn't be astonishing to anyone who wrote a book titled "A Manual for Creating Atheists" who saw the whole Four Horseman book tour debates of the early 21st century, they should know that there's a bunch of people out there that can watch Dinesh D'Souza ramble about stupid counterfactual nonsense while getting smashed and humiliated by a calm thoughtful person making sound and valid arguments and sound and valid rebuttals and they will say Dinesh D'Souza won by virtue of merely existing because he is defending the position that it is rational to believe that God created the universe.
What I was curious to see, was whether Peter would make the same point about the Harris-Trump debate. The CNN flash poll shows a similar disparity as has almost all commentary I have heard. Again it's not astonishing to me at this point that there are people who will think Trump won a debate if he simply manages to stay alive until the end of it. But Peter should have been astonished that 37% of the CNN polled audience live in a reality where Trump did better than Kamala in the debate.
What Peter posted in the wake of that debate was:
So firstly, its possibly a reaction to the presidential debate. But now its no longer how astonishing that 37% of people in a CNN flash poll think Trump won a debate and in Peter's defence nobody should be astonished at this point that there's people for whom Trump can do no wrong. It's just Peter as a voter thinks national debt is our #1 problem and in doing so provides another determinant as to why Peter is a bad champion in the internet age.
1. Freud's heuristic: "He does not believe who does not live in accordance with his beliefs." Peter dedicates very little time and energy to talking about the national debt. He does a lot of street epistemology and culture stuff predominantly. Campus culture, cancel culture, plagiarism etc. This makes sense in terms of Peter's expertise as a philosophy professor, but I don't watch all of the content Peter produces, I've heard him bring up National Debt 2 or 3 times but I am yet to hear a single argument from Peter as to why its a problem, let alone the number 1 problem.
2. This seems remarkably like proving a negative. Like convince me that protesters aren't paid actors, or that the world isn't flat, or that Santa isn't real. I have heard Peter express his opinion that the national debt is the number one problem nobody is talking about, but I'm yet to hear Peter give any argument as to why it is a problem at all.
3. I haven't looked into it, and I have no idea what Peter thinks the problem is. Like is he worried about the government defaulting on its debt like Greece? Is he worried about Japan, China and Russia cashing in their trillions of foreign reserves and destroying the global economy? Or is he worried that all of US GNP will go to paying interest on bonds? Is he worried that the US will use inflation to eat the national debt by devaluing the dollar? Is he worried interests rates will rise or fall? Is he worried that another currency will become the reserve currency of choice? The main thing for me, is that I can't at this point rule out that Peter is making the common intuitive mistake of confusing a nation for a household. So he could be worried about anything from hyperinflation to austerity budgets to foreclosing on the White House and the President having to move in with his parents.
4. Probably the easiest argument to dismiss national debt as the #1 problem, is to suggest that it may be a symptom rather than the problem. For example, there's no real evidence that either Republican or Democrat administrations do anything to curb government spending, the government grew in size under Reagan - the politician that campaigned on the government not being the solution but the problem. If the national debt is a result of a two party system that is polarized where people cannot vote for the most appealing suite of issues because they have to prioritize abortion legality (for example) then that would supersede the problem that arises from this causal problem.
And I can't help but notice the general low quality of the points Peter often attempts to make:
Okay. Does this mean anything of interest to anyone? Let me try and explain through a relevant analogy, if someone put up a graph indicating Flat-Earther's trust in mass media vs Globe-ists and it showed that people who believe based on overwhelming evidence and readily observable phenomena and experiments anyone can conduct that the Earth is a sphericalish shape, trusted mass media and Flat Earther's didn't, what would this tell us about the quality of the media?
Much more useful would be graphs of how relatively uninformed and misinformed various media audiences are - because we can measure this objectively. While there are things we don't know that we know, and things we don't know we don't know, there's a huge body of things we actually know we know - like we know that Darth Vader doesn't say "Luke I am your father." in The Empire Strikes Back because we have the fucking movie.
Gallup are good but this graph isn't exactly easy to read and when Peter shares it it's not clear why. I am serious when I say, its not even interesting. It seems like trust steadily declined, then rapidly, then picked up again for Democrats but not Independents or Republicans. Distrust is more extreme for republicans than independents which is kind of interesting I guess. The massive and most pronounced diversion seems to come in when Trump starts his 2015 Presidential campaign, which is no surprise.
I suspect Peter thinks we should be concerned about how much Democrats or Liberals trust the mass media, but once you match it to dates I think you should be more concerned about the Republican or Conservative outright rejection of mass media. These are a political force that are saying adios to reality.
Worse than this, it was a repost of this astonishment from two weeks ago which is even worse, because the chart is clipped to cut out at 2020, before Democrats trust declined again to 58% from 73% and the poster represents it as "Republicans realize it is propaganda" and "Democrats are still plugged into the Matrix." that Peter is reposting. And they mischaracterize data on "Mass Media" as a synonym for MSN.
It actually makes me angry to think about how many days off Peter takes relaxing into lazy intuitive thinking while volunteering to be a champion of the Socratic method, reason etc. Think about a graph for "Trust in X/Twitter" whatever political bent you may have, your trust should be extremely low, and somebody is posting on X a suggestion that people who trust mass media, where for all its faults it is not millions of bots and individuals of no particular qualification competing 24-7 for attention by gaming algorithms that reward engagement generated by garbage hot takes, are plugged into the Matrix.
I'm sorry but if your lightning rod for Truth telling is Donald Trump, you are plugged into the fucking Matrix, the man is easily fact checked and I think it makes sense that Republicans abandon mass media when trump starts campaigning in 2015 and Democrats' trust spikes once the Trump presidency begins and news coverage becomes 90% Trump making claims and Trump claims being fact checked.
It would also explain why Peter would have no astonishment that 37% of CNN's audience flash poll actually thought Donald Trump won his debate against Kamala, even though the most talked about moment was him getting fact checked on Haitians eating pets in Springfield.
Since beginning this post, I watched an interview of Peter's with Yasmine Mohammed a former Muslim activist and campaigner for women's rights. You can if you wish check out the video because Yasmine at least is somebody whose opinions are worth hearing even if you disagree. Relevant to this post however, is that in the interview Peter pushes at least twice a moronic idea that "the west" just needs to negotiate a surrender to Islam for a more comfortable slavery. It is hard to be charitable to this idea on any grounds. My best effort would be that Peter is picking up and running with Popper's "Paradox of Intolerance" which would stipulate that if wealthy industrialized educated western democracies permit intolerant forms of religious fundamentalism, then inevitably the intolerant religious dogmatism will take over and dismantle the society that tolerates the religion in the first place.
What it is however, is such an obvious candidate for a "slippery slope" fallacy that Yasmine or anyone can dismiss it immediately as an astonishingly garbage hot-take. Right? Because of Salman Rushdie having a fatwah put on him by the Ayatollah of Iran in the 80s and that he would get stabbed by some random fanatic decades after the fatwah was rescinded and its an example where a tolerant society is tolerating intolerant belief systems doesn't mean that there aren't hundreds more failure points where a w.i.e.r.d society can get much less tolerant of a religion very quickly (as most of "the West" did post Twin Tower attacks) like fuck me Peter should not even be the spokesperson for his "Conversations with Peter Boghossian" podcast.
Then later, and the last thing of his I watched was his interview with Jozef Gherman titled "How AI Will End Academia" which from the title one could be forgiven for thinking it would contain a discussion of the crisis LLMs pose to the value of tertiary degrees. That's certainly what I expected, from both the title of the interview and the subtitle in the thumbnail, and what you get is, in my opinion a conversation between two people who are out of touch.
Jozef Gherman, you can watch for yourself, for the record I quit the interview after 20 minutes, is someone who realized that there was a market for using LLMs to generate academic papers and phds and what not that were undetectable. To Jozef's credit he makes a fairly sound argument that much of tertiary assessment is a waste of time and a distraction, probably best known and most easily recognized in business degrees (for example) as the theory-practice gap. There are for sure, real problems with tertiary institutions.
It's probably easier to shoot holes through by looking at secondary education however. Increasingly, the only point in completing high-school is to go onto tertiary studies. Maybe in the 70s and 80s a student that finished 12 years of grade school had an advantage in the job market over those who left age 16 and only completed 9 or 10 years. It may have been the difference between becoming a trainee mechanic and getting an entry level job in an office somewhere.
Nowadays though, completing years 11 and 12 are a complete waste of time if you have no plans of going to University. If you want to start your own sandwich shop or learn a trade you are likely better off entering the workforce sooner rather than later.
Bringin us to the content of senior years of highschool - we learn a bunch of arbitrary knowledge for the purpose of sitting tests in order to win scarce places at university where we learn subjects oriented toward a career of some kind. Much of the content of years 11 and 12 is for most people useless and soon forgotten. There's a bunch of Lawyers out there that at one point learned proofs for Euclidean geometry, and delivered a presentation on the Batavia shipwreck, and wrote an essay about the significance of Juliet's lamentations on the balcony over her love for Romeo.
There's like a 99% that a career lawyer will never draw on any of this shit they had to learn to win their place at law school ever again. There's furthermore a good chance that when they get into Law, one of the first subjects they take will go over all the stuff they learned in "legal studies" in high school, as it is not a prerequisite subject for applying to study law.
In short, much of what students learn in highschool is just stuff that is sufficiently difficult that it produces a wide enough distribution of scores that tertiary institutions can use it to discriminate between applicants applying for places. Lump on that all the back doors to ensure wealthy families don't fall in socio-economic standing.
There's a clear argument to be said that high school students can reclaim their lives from the drudgery of having to learn a bunch of irrelevant shit and produce a bunch of essays and reports to be read once or twice by single people before being archived then thrown away by just getting LLMs to generate reports and exams.
Except we have this system to try and identify first and foremost conscientious and industrious people to give educational opportunities to followed by, or peppered with highly intelligent people. And yeah, many people learn far more valuable stuff working a job at McDonalds in high school and socializing in and out of class, than the content of the subjects they study. But breaking a flawed system solves nothing.
However bad conservatives think affirmative action is, creating undetectable "AI" LLMs has to be worse.
So without further ranting or raving, by the time I quit the interview it was largely because I didn't trust Peter to conduct the interview.
Because Peter can be right about many many problems in Academia, but I know his position on Academia and that is that it is beyond saving and needs to be burned to the ground. So Peter is just excited about someone coming along that could destroy Academia, and so the title of the interview isn't referring to a problem but a solution.
Interestingly, when I was in College, the first time campuses would have poster sales for dorm rooms and I bought a poster called "Murphy's Law" with iterations of Murphy's law - one of which was "make a system that an idiot can use and an idiot will use it." I've been thinking a lot lately about this damning aspect of free-market capitalism where demand is efficiently supplied.
One example is just cars - go out to a nearby street and wait for how long it takes for you to observe a piece of driving that you would subjectively assess as "bad" whether it's a 9 point turn, a shithouse park, speeding, running a light, turning without indicating etc. As at writing today's newspaper headlines are all about an 11 year old boy that was killed by a driver who lost control of her vehicle while doing a U-turn and crashed through a school fence into a playground and killed the boy and injured 3 other children. Maybe it was a catastrophic mechanical failure in this case, but the fact remains our society gives cars (and licenses) to people who are not competent to use them safely.
Another example is enerative AI where like Jozef realized there's a demand for students to have undetectable LLMs to generate school work, some coders realized there's demand for an app that allows schoolboys to put underage girl's faces on pornographic pictures so they can share images of their classmates to masturbate over.
No doubt, there's a good chance in many jurisdictions this will result in courts establishing as precedent that the images created are child pornography. But just because there's demand doesn't mean a product should be created.
Bringing me to exactly why you shouldn't outsource your thinking and you should pick your champions carefully - looking at a bush-league candidate like Peter Boghossian - you can go to nice little towns in Mexica particularly in the former Mexica empire territories and find murals depicting the local indigenous people who sided with the conquistadors to help get rid of the Mexica. There are plenty of good reasons to get rid of the Mexica - they were by many accounts of other indigenous people's very bad neighbours and overlords.
What you want to do though, is not rely on Spanish Conquistadors to destroy your enemy because the real winners were the Conquistadors, who came to conquer.
Very often, the enemy of your enemy is a much much bigger problem than your enemy. They are not your friends but likely flatterers treating you not as an end but a means. Peter is someone who would welcome Kang and Kodos if they would get rid of wokeness and then be astonished that he is now slave labour building a deathray to blow up a planet he never heard of.
At least he'd no longer have to worry about the National debt.
Now Peter is just an example though, the real message you should take away is not that Peter isn't up to snuff relative to executing his own ideas of merit, but that you can't outsource your thinking. You have to think for yourself otherwise your letting Hernan Cortes do it, and before you know it your life is burned to the ground, the coffers empty and you have to learn a confusing story about some dude being fully human and fully devine and 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 and God's everywhere but you have to go to Church and give him money.