Motte: It's fine to not associate with people you find objectionable
Bailey: If you find that someone has said something objectionable, it is right and proper to proactively reach out to their friends, employers, etc. and encourage/threaten consequences on *those* people (who have not said or done anything objectionable) if they do not also choose to not interact with this person.
Yes, freedom of association is always fine and it's always fine to choose not to associate with someone who does or says or acts in an objectionable way. It's also not a problem if a large number of people make a similar choice. The problem has _always_ been not when people make this individual choice but rather when they (often with the help of an online mob) try to make sure that everyone else makes the same choice, often under further threat if they do not.
1. You should read literary criticism. Like other fields, there's rubbish, but some of it brilliant. The humanities in general are in good shape. It's some parts of social science that give humanities a bad name.
2. Some concrete examples of bad incentives: one, medical doctors are incentivized to publish research so they can put [prof.] in front of their name, despite having no proper training – or interest – in doing research. Two, there is a shift in colleges here, both top-down and bottom-up, to produce research. Some institutions should specialize in teaching only. The demand for teaching should not be 100% coupled to demand for research.
3. I don't know why you go to Plato (or Aristotle), when we have clearer models today. All evolutionary models of cooperation are cyclical in the way you describe. The most basic model, which is a good metaphor (as you've probably heard me argue in the past) is the repeated Prisoner's Dilemma Game. Reciprocators (read: reasoned liberal democracies) can take over the population. Once they do, Unconditional Cooperators (read: hollow elitists, woke, what have you) enter by drift. With enough of those around, the defectors (populists, authoritarians) can take over and the cycle restarts.
I like the evolution of cooperation model in general, but I think it can be too abstract here. Is populism just an epidemic of individual selfishness? After all, all political action involves solving collective action problems.
But everything has micro-foundations. I think that in this case, the rise of populism is rooted in the lack of collective action. All those supporting the authoritarian figure get some personal gain. They are not doing it to promote the collective good. The collective action is required to overcome the web of interests.
Sure, but do you think that they believe that they are making a sacrifice?
I was thinking more of the people with actual power. People who are on record saying that Trump is despicable and a danger to America, and are now supporting him. Many examples here.
Every political movement and party relies in part on selfish motivations. And I agree that populism thrives in a low-trust environment. But I don't think a good shorthand for it is "people started defecting more in PDs".
This is the motte-and-bailey of cancel culture:
Motte: It's fine to not associate with people you find objectionable
Bailey: If you find that someone has said something objectionable, it is right and proper to proactively reach out to their friends, employers, etc. and encourage/threaten consequences on *those* people (who have not said or done anything objectionable) if they do not also choose to not interact with this person.
Yes, freedom of association is always fine and it's always fine to choose not to associate with someone who does or says or acts in an objectionable way. It's also not a problem if a large number of people make a similar choice. The problem has _always_ been not when people make this individual choice but rather when they (often with the help of an online mob) try to make sure that everyone else makes the same choice, often under further threat if they do not.
1. You should read literary criticism. Like other fields, there's rubbish, but some of it brilliant. The humanities in general are in good shape. It's some parts of social science that give humanities a bad name.
2. Some concrete examples of bad incentives: one, medical doctors are incentivized to publish research so they can put [prof.] in front of their name, despite having no proper training – or interest – in doing research. Two, there is a shift in colleges here, both top-down and bottom-up, to produce research. Some institutions should specialize in teaching only. The demand for teaching should not be 100% coupled to demand for research.
3. I don't know why you go to Plato (or Aristotle), when we have clearer models today. All evolutionary models of cooperation are cyclical in the way you describe. The most basic model, which is a good metaphor (as you've probably heard me argue in the past) is the repeated Prisoner's Dilemma Game. Reciprocators (read: reasoned liberal democracies) can take over the population. Once they do, Unconditional Cooperators (read: hollow elitists, woke, what have you) enter by drift. With enough of those around, the defectors (populists, authoritarians) can take over and the cycle restarts.
I like the evolution of cooperation model in general, but I think it can be too abstract here. Is populism just an epidemic of individual selfishness? After all, all political action involves solving collective action problems.
It's a metaphor.
But everything has micro-foundations. I think that in this case, the rise of populism is rooted in the lack of collective action. All those supporting the authoritarian figure get some personal gain. They are not doing it to promote the collective good. The collective action is required to overcome the web of interests.
Many Trump supporters are absolutely serious idealists! Of course, that does not make it better…
Sure, but do you think that they believe that they are making a sacrifice?
I was thinking more of the people with actual power. People who are on record saying that Trump is despicable and a danger to America, and are now supporting him. Many examples here.
Every political movement and party relies in part on selfish motivations. And I agree that populism thrives in a low-trust environment. But I don't think a good shorthand for it is "people started defecting more in PDs".
I would say that, based on the abstract, the “I’m a Survivor” paper might have some salience, even if the T-word doesn’t appear in it.
It isn't Plato in The Republic who enunciates a theory of government moving from oligarchy to democracy to tyranny -- it's Aristotle, in Politics.
Plato does it too. See Book VIII.