I’m beginning to realize I care a little bit too much about truthfulness. This isn’t humblebrag. I’m not especially great at being truthful compared to the average person who puts some level of effort into it. Like anyone else, it’s much easier for me to see and call out dishonesty from my perceived enemies than it is to acknowledge the same in my own bubble. I get called out occasionally for instances where I was moving too fast, assumed to much and was dishonest by means of not doing due diligence. You can see some evidence of that
So, do you think you care too much about the truth or not? You say so in your first sentence, but the rest of your article seems to indicate that you actually think you care the right amount about the truth and the rest of the world is wrong.
In your construction, Yglesias is basically saying that rationalists value truth over tact, no? I certainly value truth over tact, but I bet Yglesias would actually argue that the two needn't be in opposition for "normal" people. I think that's wrong--a dedication to the truth absolutely means we need to dismiss tact, but it's not an unusual argument to make. And I'm not at all sure that making that argument means you have a lower standard of truthiness, but maybe?
I think Zeynep doesn't get what you're after at all. I'd actually be interested in her response here. I think her response is just that the lies were immaterial to the point she was making, even though it's your central point--why didn't she address the lies? The Fauci lies are, to me, the most problematic thing about him, but is his job actually to tell the truth? Suppose for a minute that he's actually able to save lives by lying (it's not hard to imagine a world where that's the case), is his lying justified? Note that I do not think that's the actual case here--I think his lying has cost lives, but in the hypothetical situation, should he lie?
I've been working more aggressively recently to put filters on my reading habits to minimize exposure to writers who don't put a high priority on factual truth. I really appreciate this post.
"To the intelligentsia preoccupied with planning, managing, and guiding, no idea will seem so patently absurd as that the masses, if left wholly to themselves, would labor and strive of their own accord." - Eric Hoffer, The Ordeal of Change. Societal manipulation is about power and status, some people are nicer about it than others. I think this doesn't have to be separate from the result even if it is distasteful.
The response by Cheng Tien Pao is particularly interesting. I appreciate the corrosive effect that the Fauci type lies can have, but the charitable take is that he was probably making a calculation in the spirit of what those Buddhist sutras illustrate.
So, do you think you care too much about the truth or not? You say so in your first sentence, but the rest of your article seems to indicate that you actually think you care the right amount about the truth and the rest of the world is wrong.
In your construction, Yglesias is basically saying that rationalists value truth over tact, no? I certainly value truth over tact, but I bet Yglesias would actually argue that the two needn't be in opposition for "normal" people. I think that's wrong--a dedication to the truth absolutely means we need to dismiss tact, but it's not an unusual argument to make. And I'm not at all sure that making that argument means you have a lower standard of truthiness, but maybe?
I think Zeynep doesn't get what you're after at all. I'd actually be interested in her response here. I think her response is just that the lies were immaterial to the point she was making, even though it's your central point--why didn't she address the lies? The Fauci lies are, to me, the most problematic thing about him, but is his job actually to tell the truth? Suppose for a minute that he's actually able to save lives by lying (it's not hard to imagine a world where that's the case), is his lying justified? Note that I do not think that's the actual case here--I think his lying has cost lives, but in the hypothetical situation, should he lie?
Thanks man.
I've been working more aggressively recently to put filters on my reading habits to minimize exposure to writers who don't put a high priority on factual truth. I really appreciate this post.
"To the intelligentsia preoccupied with planning, managing, and guiding, no idea will seem so patently absurd as that the masses, if left wholly to themselves, would labor and strive of their own accord." - Eric Hoffer, The Ordeal of Change. Societal manipulation is about power and status, some people are nicer about it than others. I think this doesn't have to be separate from the result even if it is distasteful.
Buddhist ethics is interesting on this. You can get a flavor in the Quora question: https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Buddha-ever-lie
The response by Cheng Tien Pao is particularly interesting. I appreciate the corrosive effect that the Fauci type lies can have, but the charitable take is that he was probably making a calculation in the spirit of what those Buddhist sutras illustrate.
One minor factor that you may have accidentally overlooked:
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/