Robin Hanson denied the truth of the parable of the talents later in the interview, which made me think of him as either less religious or less self aware (I find it bizarre when economists deny the importance of that parable, c.f. Noah Smith); contrast that to Tyler Cowen who is consciously puritan about his work ethic, without denying the role of inherent motivation.
Yeah that was really interesting how he kind of dismissed that connection! I think your points were spot on.
My more general view is that religious thinking can still deeply inform someone's views even if they don't accept every facet of the argument or take a different interpretation of it. Part of the value in scripture is that it presents a lot of deep concepts in tension with one another and it's largely up to the reader to figure out how it applies to any particular situation. In that way your thinking still comes away improved by wrestling against these deep concepts regardless of what you ultimately choose to believe about God or anyone else's claims about ultimate truth.
Also relevant to note that given Robin's theories about signalling and the importance of unconscious motivations, religion may play a bigger role in many people's thinking than they themselves realize. I believe he makes a similar point later in your conversation.
Yes he does and he admitted it might be true of him to his credit. Interesting point about scripture. I think the wear off rates are quite high but agree that there’s an educational benefit. I think the benefit is more cultural stuff like a general sense of being good, fearing death, and working hard .
In my experience, intelligent individuals who once held deep religious convictions do not part with them lightly. I suspect Robin has wrestled with these things in a way that never quite wears off.
That said, I agree that the cultural things are the most sticky.
I don't remember for certain but think it had something to do with how the Lord of the vineyard is always asking if there was anything more he could have done to help the trees. That's not something I highlight in the post, but it recurs over and over throughout the chapter.
The word is perfect in some respects (I do refer to what happened as a separating equilibrium), but I don't think the connotation of shibboleth does full justice here.
The allegory has importance and meaning to me such that I would still think about it and care about it even if no one else in the world existed to talk with me about it in the sense of invoking a specific code word for my tribe to recognize. Deep roots theory suggests that this is true more generally in some sense, as the people who carry a particular cultural heritage are often not even fully aware of it.
I'm sorry, but I'm hoping for more substantive comments than this. Feel free to challenge any of Tyler's (or anyone else's) specific viewpoints, but I will delete this comment and others like it in the future.
I mean, I wonder if you could expand on Tyler's "deceptively cryptic phrases," because that's a hallmark of his, such that he can never be held to an affirmative position, but constantly distract from (almost) any conclusion.
But it's also because of Tyler's rather opportunistic interpretation of faith-based principles, ala Max Weber, like you discussed in your post.
It's a bit of a double entendre, but either interpretation is fine. As you wish.
Sure! I think this is actually a really good question.
In my opinion Tyler's vague, esoteric style of saying things is less about being deceptive than it is an encouragement for the curious and open-minded to dig a little deeper. If you put in the work to understand his phrases, it's often quite intellectually rewarding.
I wrote about this in "Context is that which is scarce" and frequently revisit the theme in both direct and indirect ways. For instance, I think my latest post on generative AI shows that humans' comparative advantage over machines will increasingly be an understanding of context rather than writing raw words on a page yourself. If you understand the context of something you can achieve some pretty incredible things, in other words.
Certainly there are problems with it in some *contexts*... but on the whole I think Straussianism is an important conceptual framework to understand, and Tyler does a beautiful job of teaching it. There exists some set of very important things that I don't think are possible for many people to truly learn without esotericism.
Dude, honestly, I get what you're saying, but you're reinforcing the intellectual problem, while exhibiting the intellectual appeal.
If you want to understand the issues of liberalism, relativism, and *contexts* you'd be far better served dabbling in the post-modern school. If you were more aware of both frameworks, you'd be able to see the way Tyler uses "Straussian" rhetoric, to get around post-modern problems, appearing to drive to a conclusion, but never intending to get there. Which is why I suggested the deception and cryptic phrasing was bad faith.
It gets even worse once you get a firsthand handle on Strauss's own politics, and how his own "straussian" rhetoric got him to those conclusions.
The irony here is that coming from upstate NY, it seems they would have known that nobody grafts wild branches to save domestic roots. Rather, the branches determine the fruit, and one grafts domestic branches onto wild rootstock, which is hardy and disease tolerant, but usually produces poor fruit.
When my wife and I were traveling we met a white couple from South Africa and they told us that we have a wrong idea of South Africa and that they were doing great. Also Bermuda is 52% black and median family income is high. Decedents of Europeans mostly do fine anywhere, and as far as I know South Africa is still fairly creative. So why not allow people to come from those countries?
Robin Hanson denied the truth of the parable of the talents later in the interview, which made me think of him as either less religious or less self aware (I find it bizarre when economists deny the importance of that parable, c.f. Noah Smith); contrast that to Tyler Cowen who is consciously puritan about his work ethic, without denying the role of inherent motivation.
Yeah that was really interesting how he kind of dismissed that connection! I think your points were spot on.
My more general view is that religious thinking can still deeply inform someone's views even if they don't accept every facet of the argument or take a different interpretation of it. Part of the value in scripture is that it presents a lot of deep concepts in tension with one another and it's largely up to the reader to figure out how it applies to any particular situation. In that way your thinking still comes away improved by wrestling against these deep concepts regardless of what you ultimately choose to believe about God or anyone else's claims about ultimate truth.
Also relevant to note that given Robin's theories about signalling and the importance of unconscious motivations, religion may play a bigger role in many people's thinking than they themselves realize. I believe he makes a similar point later in your conversation.
Yes he does and he admitted it might be true of him to his credit. Interesting point about scripture. I think the wear off rates are quite high but agree that there’s an educational benefit. I think the benefit is more cultural stuff like a general sense of being good, fearing death, and working hard .
In my experience, intelligent individuals who once held deep religious convictions do not part with them lightly. I suspect Robin has wrestled with these things in a way that never quite wears off.
That said, I agree that the cultural things are the most sticky.
I can see why The Culture transplant reminds you of the parable of the olive tree, but not why your evening under the stars did.
Neither did she! At least, not until after I explained it and the moment was dead.
I don't remember for certain but think it had something to do with how the Lord of the vineyard is always asking if there was anything more he could have done to help the trees. That's not something I highlight in the post, but it recurs over and over throughout the chapter.
It was a shibboleth.
The word is perfect in some respects (I do refer to what happened as a separating equilibrium), but I don't think the connotation of shibboleth does full justice here.
The allegory has importance and meaning to me such that I would still think about it and care about it even if no one else in the world existed to talk with me about it in the sense of invoking a specific code word for my tribe to recognize. Deep roots theory suggests that this is true more generally in some sense, as the people who carry a particular cultural heritage are often not even fully aware of it.
https://twitter.com/GarettJones/status/1598388730087329795
They don't call him Tyler "The Bad Faith" Cowen for nothing.
I'm sorry, but I'm hoping for more substantive comments than this. Feel free to challenge any of Tyler's (or anyone else's) specific viewpoints, but I will delete this comment and others like it in the future.
I mean, I wonder if you could expand on Tyler's "deceptively cryptic phrases," because that's a hallmark of his, such that he can never be held to an affirmative position, but constantly distract from (almost) any conclusion.
But it's also because of Tyler's rather opportunistic interpretation of faith-based principles, ala Max Weber, like you discussed in your post.
It's a bit of a double entendre, but either interpretation is fine. As you wish.
Sure! I think this is actually a really good question.
In my opinion Tyler's vague, esoteric style of saying things is less about being deceptive than it is an encouragement for the curious and open-minded to dig a little deeper. If you put in the work to understand his phrases, it's often quite intellectually rewarding.
I wrote about this in "Context is that which is scarce" and frequently revisit the theme in both direct and indirect ways. For instance, I think my latest post on generative AI shows that humans' comparative advantage over machines will increasingly be an understanding of context rather than writing raw words on a page yourself. If you understand the context of something you can achieve some pretty incredible things, in other words.
https://infovores.substack.com/p/i-taught-chatgpt-to-play-overratedunderrated
Do you not see the intellectual problem with that, despite the intellectual appeal?
Certainly there are problems with it in some *contexts*... but on the whole I think Straussianism is an important conceptual framework to understand, and Tyler does a beautiful job of teaching it. There exists some set of very important things that I don't think are possible for many people to truly learn without esotericism.
Dude, honestly, I get what you're saying, but you're reinforcing the intellectual problem, while exhibiting the intellectual appeal.
If you want to understand the issues of liberalism, relativism, and *contexts* you'd be far better served dabbling in the post-modern school. If you were more aware of both frameworks, you'd be able to see the way Tyler uses "Straussian" rhetoric, to get around post-modern problems, appearing to drive to a conclusion, but never intending to get there. Which is why I suggested the deception and cryptic phrasing was bad faith.
It gets even worse once you get a firsthand handle on Strauss's own politics, and how his own "straussian" rhetoric got him to those conclusions.
The irony here is that coming from upstate NY, it seems they would have known that nobody grafts wild branches to save domestic roots. Rather, the branches determine the fruit, and one grafts domestic branches onto wild rootstock, which is hardy and disease tolerant, but usually produces poor fruit.
What is the source of your exposure to the LDS church? It must be pretty deep for you to appreciate the parable of the olive tree.
My Question for Garrett Jones would be:
When my wife and I were traveling we met a white couple from South Africa and they told us that we have a wrong idea of South Africa and that they were doing great. Also Bermuda is 52% black and median family income is high. Decedents of Europeans mostly do fine anywhere, and as far as I know South Africa is still fairly creative. So why not allow people to come from those countries?