More on 2 + 2. Whether you want to make it add up to 4 is, indeed, "a choice," as we are hearing from Woke-land. That choice, however, has the vast power Dan Dennett ascribed to his concept of "universal acid." That power can be either constructive or destructive. To the extent that we choose to teach (in classrooms and elsewhere) that 2 +2 ≠ 4, this creative choice would permeate everything. not only math. This fanciful and proudly rebellious choice would keep spreading to encompass everything else we believe too, because the explosive power of knowledge depends upon compounding. Our big impressive truths are exapted from our simplest of truths, even truths so simple that we verify them by counting fingers. This ability to compound our know-how from little grounded truths to much bigger truths allows us to discover vaccines and to design aircraft.
--
Yes, it's a choice, but it's a choice with ramifications. We can fuck around, acting like we can individually conjure up entirely new inert mental axioms willy-nilly each day, intentionally oblivious to verifiability, and oblivious to what anyone else is doing. Or we can collaborate in a mentally disciplined way using principles hard-gained from Enlightenment thinkers and others, such that there are correct and incorrect answers to many things based on A) whether those things actually function in predictable and meaningful ways and B) whether they further human flourishing.
I tend to see morality in terms of a personal aesthetic deeply tied to my vision for human flourishing. What does your personal sense of aesthetics (or morality) demand? A world where 2 + 2 equals 4? Or a world unhinged from any ability to collaborate with other sentient beings, a world where we pass the time organizing under rival warlords and throwing rocks at each other?
"When asked whether they want the police to spend more time, the same amount of time or less time than they currently do in their area, most Black Americans -- 61% -- want the police presence to remain the same. This is similar to the 67% of all U.S. adults preferring the status quo, including 71% of White Americans. Meanwhile, nearly equal proportions of Black Americans say they would like the police to spend more time in their area (20%) as say they'd like them to spend less time there (19%). . . . However, that exposure comes with more trepidation for Black than White or Hispanic Americans about what they might experience in a police encounter.
BBC Woman’s Hour has reported that much of the language on the NHS website referring to gender dysphoria was removed or entirely reworded last week, so as to more accurately reflect science instead of ideology. Crucially, the NHS no longer repeats the fiction that puberty blockers such as Lupron are “reversible,” since there are few studies on the physical or psychological effects. (It has been known since 2017 that trials of peripubertal GnRHa-treatment, i.e., hormone blockers, in sheep reveal “permanent changes in brain development [and] raises particular concerns about the cognitive changes associated with the prolonged use of GnRHa-treatment in children and adolescents.”) Also removed from the NHS site: Emotionally loaded references to suicide, which had previously served to terrify parents into seeking rapid treatment, lest any delay lead a child to end their lives. The association of “gender identity” with regressive stereotypes also is gone. And the website no longer suggests that sex itself can be changed. Instead, we get more accurate language to the effect that “some people may decide to have surgery to permanently alter body parts associated with their biological sex.” That the NHS now uses the term “biological sex” at all is itself a huge win, even if such language is obviously appropriate on the level of science and medicine. . . .
As with so many other things, the campaign for trans rights began with good intentions. For some people, dysphoria is very real—the feeling of being in the wrong body. It’s a problem that has to be managed, and people who suffer from this condition should get the help they need. But rather than urge that dysphoria be treated in a humane and realistic way, many activists prefer to cast it as a vestige of an invented inner spirit called “gender identity,” which universally suffuses us all, like a spark of the divine.
Such fantasies are the basis of religion, and it is fine for people to believe in them. But over the last decade, this particular fantasy has been encoded into law—which is very much not fine. And it was only a matter of time before ordinary people realized that a fraud had been perpetrated on them under cover of human rights. . .
Of course, it’s taken too long, and much damage has been done in the interim. But for the sake of the many women and children who remain at risk, better late than never.
I've followed Diana Fleischman's work for many months. She's smart and funny, but takes her evolutionary psychology seriously every step of the way. Diana has started writing a column on Psychology Today titled, "How to Train Your Boyfriend." Here an excerpt from her opening post:
You have two grandmothers, four great grandmothers, 512 great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmothers and millions of grandmas further in your past, before the word grandma even existed. These grandmas that scraped by, suffered, and survived long enough to reproduce, are only a fraction of all the women that existed. One important characteristic that set grandmas apart from the millions of non-grandmas was their ability to shape the behavior of others, especially children and grandpas. You probably have grandmas who lived on farms trying to get multiple children to cooperate with (and not kill) one another and in villages where they had to manage their reputations for the good of their families. But you definitely have grandmas who convinced men to take care of them and their children. Without any one of them, and their abilities you wouldn’t exist to read this blog. We evolved to be able to get other people to do what we want.
But, how do people get other people to do what they want?
I have two questions about the many recently vocal people who are questioning that 2 + 2 = 4:
A) Are they insincere? If they are pranksters or math anarchists, why are they spending all of this time and effort digging in? Thus, it seems unlikely that they are consciously being disruptive for the hell of it.
B) If they are sincere, the analysis becomes far more interesting, but also dangerous to society at large. 2 + 2 = 5 is not the sort of math that cures viruses or puts sophisticated robotic probes on the surface of Mars. Consider this overwhelming push back to the claim that "2+2 = 4," where many of these by people pushing back claim to be mathematicians or math teachers:
1/
This is a screenshot of people saying 2+2=5. You read that right...2+2=5.
Among them are teachers, educators, and professors who plan on teaching this stuff to your children. So let's talk about what's going on here, why they're doing this, and how we can stop it.
A thread: pic.twitter.com/3CY2IcsahY
— Wokal Distance (@wokal_distance) August 4, 2020
If they are sincerely concerned that 2 + 2 = 4, they might be A) Consciously motivated to pull down math standards in order that low performing students pass even though these students lack math proficiency. If that is the case, they should confess up that this is their motive and we can then have an open debate about whether this is a good idea. But consider option B) Their motives might be unconscious, which means that they are infected by social conflagration (the power of which was demonstrated in 1956 by Soloman Asch), and their math gymnastics are being driven by what Jonathan Haidt terms social intuitionism:
Haidt distrusts the reasons people give for their moral decisions. See, for example, his article: “The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment.”
Intuitionism in philosophy refers to the view that there are moral truths, and that when people grasp these truths they do so not by a process of ratiocination and reflection, but rather by a process more akin to perception, in which one just sees without argument that they are and must be true . . . Moral reasoning is usually an ex-post facto process used to influence the intuitions (and hence judgments) of other people . . . [In sum], 1) the reasoning process has been overemphasized; 2) reasoning is often motivated; 3) the reasoning process constructs post-hoc justifications, yet we experience the illusion of objective reasoning.
Does 2 + 2 = 4? It's too bad that we distrust each other so much that we need to meticulously lock down the parameters before proceeding. Apparently we need to argue about whether "2" = 2, and whether "+" means simple addition and then we need to decide whether "=" means equals exactly, more or less or "in some worlds." And the real shame is that these math protesters are clearly hypocritical. When they stand up and walk away from their toxic keyboards, they might walk into a grocery store where they put two apples on the counter, then go back and get two more apples. Then, when they are charged for FIVE apples (by a math-challenged store clerk or, perhaps, a mathematically Woke clerk), they will speak up with moral-mathematical clarity that they should be charged for only FOUR apples, because 2 + 2 = [drum roll . . . ] 4.
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.
