The Main Function of Formidable Human Brains is Not Truth-Seeking: The Defense of Claudine Gay’s Plagiarism

Notice how Greg Lukianoff distinguishes between the free speech issues and the plagiarism issues in which "smart" people at Harvard, pundits and media are using their formidable intellectual training to generate endless streams of bullshit.

I agree completely with Lukianoff who offers several valuable resources for reforming financially-bloated ideology-permeated elite colleges.

Excerpt:

Once Gay resigned, we then saw people like Nikole Hannah-Jones, Ibram X. Kendi, and others (including the Associated Press, with its coverage being mocked for its original headline, “Harvard president’s resignation highlights new conservative weapon against colleges: plagiarism”), pointing the finger at racism and right-wing animus rather than on the real problem: Harvard itself, and our institutions of higher learning as a whole.

In my and Rikki Schlott’s book “The Canceling of the American Mind,” we outline a fourth “Great Untruth” (adding to the first three Jonathan Haidt and I described in “The Coddling of the American Mind”) which is that “bad people only have bad opinions.” This is the foundational assumption of what we call the Perfect Rhetorical Fortress, the method by which cancelers on the political Left shut down arguments. By declaring someone a “conservative,” a “right winger,” — or, if you REALLY want them to be ignored, “far right,” “fascist,” or, my new favorite, “Neo-confederate” — whether they actually are conservative or not, they are also declaring that they are evil and therefore incapable of being correct. This form of non-argumentation, which I have dubbed “fasco-casting”, along with the political Right’s Efficient Rhetorical Fortress tactics (which similarly use labels like “liberal” and “woke” to automatically dismiss counterarguments) is a near-ubiquitous anti-intellectual habit these days.

Research has demonstrated that the brain is not primarily a truth-seeking organ. It can seek truth, but that is much more likely to happen in specialized environments where enlightenment principles prevail, for instance the type of environment where disciplined scientists and engineers work together to create things that really work in the real world.

Out in the wild, the real world, where most of us spend most of our time, brains are mostly used as PR departments, generating "reasons" for doing what we want to do based on our emotions.  Lukianoff offers several resources for exploring this counter-intuitive finding:

The biggest problem with smart people is that they’re incredibly good at using their prefrontal cortices to rationalize what they want to believe in the first place. This is a well-documented phenomenon, and one you can observe yourself right now. Are you inclined to agree with me here? If so, you’re already forming rationalizations about why I’m correct. If you’re inclined to disagree, you’re reading this with an eye for poking holes in everything I’m saying.

But it is a serious problem, summarized well by another Substack, The Prism:

“The correlation between intelligence and ideological bias is robust, having been found in many other studies, such as Taber & Lodge (2006), Stanovich et al. (2012), and Joslyn & Haider-Markel (2014). These studies found stronger biases in clever people on both sides of the aisle, and since such biases are mutually contradictory, they can’t be a result of greater understanding…

Since we’re a social species, it is intelligent for us to convince ourselves of irrational beliefs if holding those beliefs increases our status and well-being. Dan Kahan calls this behavior “identity-protective cognition” (IPC).

By engaging in IPC, people bind their intelligence to the service of evolutionary impulses, leveraging their logic and learning not to correct delusions but to justify them. Or as the novelist Saul Bellow put it, “a great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.”

Continue ReadingThe Main Function of Formidable Human Brains is Not Truth-Seeking: The Defense of Claudine Gay’s Plagiarism

Reimagining Plagiarism

From "The Real Harvard Scandal," by Tyler Austin Harper, at The Atlantic:

The true scandal of the Claudine Gay affair is not a Harvard president and her plagiarism. The true scandal is that so many journalists and academics were willing, are still willing, to redefine plagiarism to suit their politics. Gay’s boosters have consistently resorted to Orwellian doublespeak—“duplicative language” and academic “sloppiness” and “technical attribution issues”—in a desperate effort to insist that lifting entire paragraphs of another scholar’s work, nearly word for word, without quotation or citation, isn’t plagiarism. Or that if it is plagiarism, it’s merely a technicality. Or that we all do it.

And from Carl, who has as much patience with the Associated Press as I do . . .

Continue ReadingReimagining Plagiarism

RFK Jr’s Challenge: The Stew of Defamation and Pejoratives

The following excerpt is from a recent interview featuring Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. His comments confirm my experience. Everyone I've talked to who "opposes" RFK, Jr. knows next to nothing about him, including on the topic of vaccines. They think he is against all vaccines, which is palpably untrue. He wants them to be subjected to the same safety tests as other pharmaceuticals. This position is made clear in many of his easily accessible interviews and in his 2023 book, Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak (2023). First, an excerpt from this interview:

Patrick Bet-David: What do you say to the people who like many of your policies, who liked the fact that you're pushing the establishment? But at the same time, aren't you just kind of helping President Biden become a president again and get reelected,

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr: I'm running against the two weakest candidates in American history. President Trump has a very, very intense following up, but it's relatively small and President Biden, there's almost nobody that I've met. In fact, I can say, I've never met anybody so far who says you should vote for President Biden, because he has a great vision for the country, that he's energetic, that he can grapple with the big problems on. They all say, "You got to vote for him, because otherwise Trump is going to start a dictatorship." My polls right now: I'm beating both candidates in all Americans under 45 years old. And Americans under 35 years old, I'm beating them both by 10 points. I'm up to now 24% average in the battleground states, which puts me within 10 points of winning the electio., I can win the election, theoretically, with 34%. And I'm already at 24% in key states like Michigan, and I have almost a full year. And this with spending very, very little money compared to them. I'm leading with independent voters 36 with independent voters, and President Trump is at 27, I think and President Biden is at 31. We're essentially in a three way tie with Hispanic voters, I'm leading everybody with mothers who have children at home. The only group that I don't, I don't do well in are baby boomers. And I believe that reason that I'm not doing well with them is that they get their news from television, MSNBC, from CNN, and the New York Times The Washington Post.

I have seven kids. And I would believe that none of them have ever watched an evening news on TV, they get their news from other sources. They get it from the internet, they get it from podcasts, etc. And in that generation, I am dominating. So what we're seeing anecdotally is that people who watch my interviews and long form interviews, even Liberal Democrats have a very, very high conversion rate. So my strategy over the next 11 months, is to get as many of those people to be able to see interviews with me, to ask me questions. And, you know, to get to know, something about me that's outside this kind of stew of defamations and pejoratives that define me in the in the mainstream media.

Now, here are a few excerpts from Kennedy's book, Vax-Unvax:

Since the enactment of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which provides a liability shield for vaccine manufacturers, the vaccination schedule has multiplied considerably. Today, children following the CDC-recommended vaccination schedule receive a minimum of seventy-three shots for seventeen different diseases, with a whopping twenty-eight injections by their first birthday. . .

Long-Term Vaccine Safety Studies Are Lacking

Despite this huge increase in vaccination, researchers have done very little to study the health of these children, either in the short term or the long term. While medical authorities credit universal childhood vaccination programs with eradicating several deadly infectious diseases, these same experts show little interest in studying the acute and long-term adverse effects of vaccination, nor do safety studies focus on the health effects of the collective vaccination schedule. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingRFK Jr’s Challenge: The Stew of Defamation and Pejoratives

Vivek Ramaswamy Holds Up the Mirror to The Washington Post on the Topic of Racism

The conversation:

Washington Post Reporter: Do you condemn white supremacy and white nationalism?

Vivek Ramaswamy: I mean, what this? Who are you with? With the Washington Washington Post? Alright, so Potato Potato, okay.

Of course, I condemn any form of vicious racial discrimination in this country. But I think that the presumption of your question is fundamentally based on a falsehood, that that really is the main form of racial discrimination we see in this country today. Institutionalized racial discrimination that we see doesn't come from somehow discriminate against people on the basis of some tentative white supremacy. It's based on affirmative action. It's based on actually discriminating against people on the color of their skin in a way that's actually institutionalized today. Was there a point in our history, a point in our prior national history where there have been vicious forms of anti-black or anti-brown discrimination throughout this country after the Civil War and otherwise? Yes. But you're looking in the rearview mirror and using that to pose a question today that is so far removed from what the reality is in America today, this myth of white supremacy. The closest you can find is Jesse Smollet, where you were all were actually speaking of trust in the media jumping up and down over some false narrative. The best way you're able to find your best instance of white supremacy was a guy who was actually paying his other fellow people to be actually staging something that didn't happen.

And so stop picking on this farce of some figment that exists at some infinitesimally small fringe of the American public today to open our eyes to the actual real threats that we face. And I think that it's frankly questions and framings like that have caused the American public to lose all trust in the mainstream media, I'm sorry to say, for good reason.

Washington Post: Can you say that you condemn white supremacy?

Vivek Ramaswamy: I'm not going to recite some catechism for you. I'm against vicious racial discrimination in this country. So I'm not pledging allegiance to your new religion of modern wokeism, which actually fits fits the test. I'm not going to bend a knee to your religion. I'm sorry. I'm not asking you to bend the knee to mine. And I'm not going to bend the knee to yours. But do I condemn vicious racial discrimination? Yes, I do. Am I going to play your silly game of gotcha? No, I'm not.

Continue ReadingVivek Ramaswamy Holds Up the Mirror to The Washington Post on the Topic of Racism