I've enjoyed watching some of the podcasts of British stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster. This episode features Quillette's Managing Editor, Colin Wright, who is also an evolutionary biologist. The topic: the science of of sex and gender, sexual dysphoria, transgender issues, navigating Woke influence at universities and at large. Excellent discussion focusing on basic scientific terms, Woke pushback and new strategic political alliances in order to seek intellectual progress.
I recently watched the new documentary, "The Social Dilemma." which has inspired me to cut my usage of Facebook. Rather than simply scold myself to cut FB usage, I decided to create more detailed guidance for myself (and anyone else who finds this useful):
Facebook Safe-Usage Product Warnings
A. Use FB no more than 10 minutes per day (extra time allowed for posting content I create and for exchanging private messages). Set a timer. This limited use will function like the rule many people use for potato chips: Put a handful into a small bowl instead of gobbling them out from the full bag.
B. Before any FB session, remind myself that FB is a valuable and useful platform with serious hidden dangers. Thus, using FB is like using a dangerous consumer product where the manufacturer failed to attach necessary usage warnings.
C. Remind myself that FB has been meticulously designed as a highly-sophisticated manipulation engine. In the short run, FB is addictive. In the long run, FB encourages us to think like teams instead of as individuals and this it is ripping our communities apart.
D. Only use FB intentionally, never out of boredom, out of habit or thoughtlessly. Don’t use FB unless I’m using it consciously. Avoid using FB when I’m tired or fatigued, because these are times when I am especially prone to go down the FB rabbit hole.
E. Before using FB, always ask myself whether there is a better use of my time, such as directly reaching out to a friend or choosing my own next thought process.
F. Do not access FB from my phone.
G. Keep all FB notifications turned off, except for private messages.
H. Use FB for several defined purposes only. If I stray from these purposes, turn FB off.
1. Checking out what is up with people I know well.
2. Interacting with thoughtful people.
3. Reading and sharing interesting, inspiring and light-hearted posts.
4. Connecting with special-interest FB Groups that I have consciously chosen to join.
5. Keeping an eye on FB Events that I might want to attend.
6. Sharing my photography and articles I’ve written at Dangerous Intersection.
7. Sharing well-written articles that I have found outside of FB.
I. Whenever on FB, I should strive to use the same tone and degree of kindness that I use when communicating with someone in person.
J. My FB friends will mostly be feeding me a steady diet of articles that reenforce my existing opinions. Therefore, I need to remind myself to always look beyond FB to seek out diverse sources of information, including news sources that are not in my comfort zone.
K. Repeatedly remind myself that FB’s algorithms delude users into believing that those with differing opinions are idiots who we are entitled to treat rudely.
L. Whenever I sense that I am caught in a cycle of doom-scrolling, I should shut off FB.
M. Always vet articles for accuracy before sharing anything on FB.
N. Remind everyone I meet to watch the important new documentary: The Social Dilemma.
The following quote is by evolutionary biologist, Diana Fleishman. Her ideas fit with my understanding that good science is a very special and rare kind of cognition that happens only within a carefully designed environment where we actively and incessantly seek out other peoples' criticism of our own ideas in order to avoid our self-imposed intellectual blindness. Encouraging criticism of each others' favorite ideas is not a sport most people enjoy. They'd rather assume that they have excellent intellectual hygiene so that they can blithely go about their days honking their tribal horns.
Human intelligence is incredibly useful but it doesn’t safeguard you against having false beliefs, because that’s not what intelligence is for. Intelligence is associated with coming up with more convincing bullshit and with being a better liar, but not associated with a better ability to recognizeone’s own bias. Unfortunately, intelligence has very little influence on your ability to rationally evaluate your own beliefs, or undermine what’s called “myside bias.”
The dark side of smart is that whenever we do good works, and cooperate, we draw from our manipulative past. The even darker side of smart is that competition doesn’t just select an ability to manipulate but also an adaptive ability to be unpredictable. And one of the best ways to be unpredictable is to not know yourself. So we have evolution to thank for shielding us from complete self-knowledge. As a result, most of our own minds are shrouded in darkness. Perhaps that’s for the best. We might not like what we’d see.
Bret Stephens has given the 1619 Project a much-needed sober factual analysis revealing that the Project is laced with ideology. To its credit, the NYT has printed Stephens' critique. Serious historians are thus getting a well-deserved moment in the sun. Here's an excerpt from Stephens' article:
An early sign that the project was in trouble came in an interview last November with James McPherson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “Battle Cry of Freedom” and a past president of the American Historical Association. He was withering: “Almost from the outset,” McPherson told the World Socialist Web Site, “I was disturbed by what seemed like a very unbalanced, one-sided account, which lacked context and perspective.”
In particular, McPherson objected to Hannah-Jones’s suggestion that the struggle against slavery and racism and for civil rights and democracy was, if not exclusively then mostly, a Black one. As she wrote in her essay: “The truth is that as much democracy as this nation has today, it has been borne on the backs of Black resistance.”
McPherson demurs: “From the Quakers in the 18th century, on through the abolitionists in the antebellum, to the Radical Republicans in the Civil War and Reconstruction, to the N.A.A.C.P., which was an interracial organization founded in 1909, down through the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s, there have been a lot of whites who have fought against slavery and racial discrimination, and against racism,” he said. “And that’s what’s missing from this perspective.”
In a lengthier dissection, published in January in The Atlantic, the Princeton historian Sean Wilentz accused Hannah-Jones of making arguments “built on partial truths and misstatements of the facts.” The goal of educating Americans on slavery and its consequences, he added, was so important that it “cannot be forwarded through falsehoods, distortions and significant omissions.”
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
