I think you ask two questions with this framing (1) a descriptive question on whether or not this divide exists currently int the EA Community (2) a normative question on whether or not this divide should exist. I think it is useful to separate the two questions, as some of the comments seem to use responses to (2) as a response to (1). I don’t know if (1) is true. I don’t think I’ve noticed it in the EA Community but I’m willing to have my mind changed on this
On (2), I think this can be easily resolved. I don’t think we should (and I don’t think we can) have non-epistemic* reasons for belief. However, we can have non-epistemic reasons on why we would want to act on a certain proposition. I’m not really falling into either “camp” here, and I don’t think it necessitates us to fall into any “camp”. There’s a wide wealth of literature in Epistemology on this.
*I think sometimes EAs use the word “epistemic” differently then what I conventionally see in academic philosophy, but this comment is based on conventional interpretations of “epistemic” in Philosophy.
From my perspective (1) absolutely exists. I am on the social capital side of the debate, and have found many others share my view.
I don’t understand your point of number 2 - I agree that when people around here use the word “epistemic” they tend to really mean something more like “intelligence.”
I mean the real divide is probably SJW vs not SJW.
But the one reason that people became anti SJW was in part because speech restrictions are very damaging to epistemics at the individual level (how can you judge if something is true, if you aren’t allowed to hear both the arguments for and against it).
And the other reason is that the SJW model seems to strongly incentivize people to lie about their true beliefs if their true beliefs are not what they are supposed to be.
Not good for community epistemics.
In a community with good epistemics, everyone should feel comfortable to say what they truly believe without fearing that they will be excluded and banished due to that. And this is also what will create the context where they can actually learn that those beliefs are wrong. After all, the surface level arguments for the socially accepted belief clearly did not convince this person, but it is possible that they will be convinced that the socially accepted belief is true, if they are able to articulate their objections to intelligent people, and then hear thoughtful and considered answers to their true objections.
Simply being told to lie, or at least never, ever speak about what they believe is forcing them to repress a part of their personhood, and it will do nothing to lead them to move forward and improve their actual beliefs. This is destructive, toxic, unpleasant, and unkind.
Obviously this set of arguments does not at all interact with what I think is your core argument: Allowing people to be part of a community who openly express racist opinions (even if they are only doing so elsewhere) might drive off minorities, and it definitely will bring internet mobs. The cost of that might be very large in consequentialist terms.
IMO I feel like you’re sort of strawmanning SJWs as totally unreasonable. I get this impulse, especially on Twitter, but I do believe there are good reasons why SJWs exist.
I don’t think they are unreasonable either as individuals or in essays and conversations.
Further they are trying to do things to change the world in ways that we both agree would make it a better place. Possibly the movement is strongly net positive for the world.
But they also make people who are emotionally obsessed with the truth content of the things they say and believe feel excluded and unwelcome.
I think you ask two questions with this framing (1) a descriptive question on whether or not this divide exists currently int the EA Community (2) a normative question on whether or not this divide should exist. I think it is useful to separate the two questions, as some of the comments seem to use responses to (2) as a response to (1). I don’t know if (1) is true. I don’t think I’ve noticed it in the EA Community but I’m willing to have my mind changed on this
On (2), I think this can be easily resolved. I don’t think we should (and I don’t think we can) have non-epistemic* reasons for belief. However, we can have non-epistemic reasons on why we would want to act on a certain proposition. I’m not really falling into either “camp” here, and I don’t think it necessitates us to fall into any “camp”. There’s a wide wealth of literature in Epistemology on this.
*I think sometimes EAs use the word “epistemic” differently then what I conventionally see in academic philosophy, but this comment is based on conventional interpretations of “epistemic” in Philosophy.
From my perspective (1) absolutely exists. I am on the social capital side of the debate, and have found many others share my view.
I don’t understand your point of number 2 - I agree that when people around here use the word “epistemic” they tend to really mean something more like “intelligence.”
I mean the real divide is probably SJW vs not SJW.
But the one reason that people became anti SJW was in part because speech restrictions are very damaging to epistemics at the individual level (how can you judge if something is true, if you aren’t allowed to hear both the arguments for and against it).
And the other reason is that the SJW model seems to strongly incentivize people to lie about their true beliefs if their true beliefs are not what they are supposed to be.
Not good for community epistemics.
In a community with good epistemics, everyone should feel comfortable to say what they truly believe without fearing that they will be excluded and banished due to that. And this is also what will create the context where they can actually learn that those beliefs are wrong. After all, the surface level arguments for the socially accepted belief clearly did not convince this person, but it is possible that they will be convinced that the socially accepted belief is true, if they are able to articulate their objections to intelligent people, and then hear thoughtful and considered answers to their true objections.
Simply being told to lie, or at least never, ever speak about what they believe is forcing them to repress a part of their personhood, and it will do nothing to lead them to move forward and improve their actual beliefs. This is destructive, toxic, unpleasant, and unkind.
Obviously this set of arguments does not at all interact with what I think is your core argument: Allowing people to be part of a community who openly express racist opinions (even if they are only doing so elsewhere) might drive off minorities, and it definitely will bring internet mobs. The cost of that might be very large in consequentialist terms.
Strong downvote/disagreevote for uncharitable characterization of those who disagree with you as “SJW”s.
IMO I feel like you’re sort of strawmanning SJWs as totally unreasonable. I get this impulse, especially on Twitter, but I do believe there are good reasons why SJWs exist.
Yeah, I agree, there is a good reason they exist.
I don’t think they are unreasonable either as individuals or in essays and conversations.
Further they are trying to do things to change the world in ways that we both agree would make it a better place. Possibly the movement is strongly net positive for the world.
But they also make people who are emotionally obsessed with the truth content of the things they say and believe feel excluded and unwelcome.