This was a really interesting convo about Sullivan! I wasn’t expecting so much discussion of the Bell curve, but maybe that’s my ignorance. I see the argument for having a public debate, but I do probably still think running a conversation that is going to be read by the general public as “IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THEY REALLY *ARE* INFERIOR TO THE REST OF US?” in your marquee publication probably is a *little* irresponsible. That being said, I think you guys are on the money about people like Sullivan not seeing the humanity of some of these they lash out at, woke or trans or whatever. A lot of gender critical types struggle to see trans people as anything other than a synecdoche for everything onerous or annoying or just aesthetically in bad taste about late modernity, and I commend both of you for seeing that as a blinder.
Thank you! I haven't read Freddie de Boer's The Cult of Smart, but I agree with the basic argument that intellectuals and technocrats often unconsciously equate intelligence with moral virtue and that a just society needs to create room for people of different intellectual abilities to have a good life. Whether in good faith or not, Murray has tended to downplay the racial aspects of his arguments and I agree it was especially incendiary to publish the one chapter in the Bell Curve which specifically deals with race. But on this, like other things, I feel progressives have overreacted with the whole "there is no biological basis for race".
I think in a value neutral sense there’s probably something to that argument of DeBoer’s although I haven’t read his book either. That being said we live in the world we live in, and it seems like the people who are very interested in IQ and “biological differences” always seem to think the way to deal with them is either eugenics, segregation, or both.
There are those who still try to treat it like a scientific question (I don't think Scott Alexander is a secret segregationist: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-to-stop-worrying-and-learn-to). I realise this research has been used to argue against affirmative action and other attempts at economic reparations for the descendants of slaves, but such policies have always been an awkward fit in a constitutional framework based on individual rights. This is not to argue that such policies shouldn't be pursued, but I think it is hard to sustain them politically if there isn't a genuine sense among citizens that what they owe each other goes beyond economic reciprocity (which as Perry Anderson has observed, only happened in Europe as response to the horrors of the two world wars).
We all fall victim to that tendency, right? The best remedy is actually engaging with real people who fit under that category that you otherwise dismiss, and I do fear Andrew is somewhat isolated from that. It's partially his fault, but I also think that he's been excluded and rejected in ways that aren't his fault, and that ultimately are a self-own on the part of people who disagree with him. He's open to persuasion, and certainly to moderation, and it's a waste not to do the work of trying to affect his (very influential) position.
Enjoyed this! And have a few comments, first of all a technical one: while you are both super handsome you also have pleasant voices, and the substack video function lacks the very helpful plus/minus 30/15 second buttons, so please let me cast one vote in favor of podcast over videocast.
Second, on the question, discussed shortly after the hour mark, of whether 'greatest threats' or whatever come from the left and the right (or for that matter from the 'radical center'), I appreciate your points and have no interest in weighing in on the specific issues, but just generally speaking, at any given moment/place we can't know what's more malevolent or threatening, which extreme and seemingly dangerous ideas/movements will fizzle out into nothing and which will be hegemonic in twenty years. So I'd like to argue against 'asymmetry' accusations. Provided that AS's case against X is coherent and persuasive, it's not a problem that in your view Y is the greater danger--you can talk about Y, let him have X.
Finally, on the subject of trans men on Grindr, I'm not a Sullivan reader, so I'm unfamiliar with his complaints except insofar as MJE describes them. I'm also unfamiliar with Grindr, but I guess what I'd want to ask is, are the profiles he objects to specified as belonging to trans men? If so, I agree with MJE, he should relax. But if he has to guess, he would at least have a case to make--various straight apps handle these matters in different ways.
Trying to remember what the nuances of our asymmetry discussion were, but my memory is that my point (or at least the point I was trying to make) wasn't that he shouldn't talk about x because y is the greater danger, but rather that his case against x is in fact not entirely persuasive because he is analytically overestimating its threat.
So he talks a lot, e.g., about the equity policies coming from the Biden administration, and characterizes them in such a way that it seems he believes they represented an important set of policies and programs. My beef isn't with his general criticism of those policies, but rather with his assessment of their import.
Does that make sense? I agree with you that we don't need to justify our critiques by proving that the target is as important as other targets, and that in fact that calculation is a lot harder to make than most people think anyway.
I see what you mean, I guess I think it's hard to assess the import of most things, even in the short run. Like, it's easy to come down one way or another on 'Biden equity policies' -- easy to make a clear case (according to inclination) that they were nefarious or great.
But to judge how pervasive they were during his term (for better or for worse), how pervasive they are now with Trump running things, how durable they'll be in the long run--such questions tend to be argued on instinct or (at best) on anecdotal evidence.
And since it's possible for me to imagine two versions of the USA in 2040, one where no one has uttered the word equity in a dozen years, and another where 'Biden equity policies' have been become unassailable, I'm inclined to let him carry on as he pleases.
I do think the overestimation of threats is a big political problem, both between nations, increasing the risk of open conflict, and domestically, resulting in all-or-nothing polarisation on a whole host of issues. It's obvious why politicians would want to exaggerate the threat from the other side, but I think the role of public intellectuals like Andrew Sullivan should be to help their readers evaluate these matters in a more objective fashion.
With regards to Grindr, Sullivan is objecting to the fact that he can't automatically filter out anyone who identifies as a "trans man", but there is no way to force someone to disclose that information in the first place. If you put in such a filter, people are probably going to be less likely to use the label, leading to less transparency. This is a good example of where Sullivan's request is not objectionable by itself, but accusing Grindr of being "homophobic" for not giving him the option is I think an insult to those whose lives have been impacted by actual anti-gay attitudes.
ok now that you’ve explained the Grindr issue in a bit more detail I’m comfortable taking your side, what you’ve said about transparency corresponds with my experience using straight apps, the more the better (on a range of questions not only this one), and for him to call the app ‘homophobic’ over this is just silly
as for the problem of overestimating threats, it’s tricky because I would largely defend our public intellectuals, across the spectrum, from accusations of ‘grifting’ because I think they’re sincere, no matter how hysterical they sound
but I admit it’s also true that everyone is hustling for influence, there’s an incentive to turn it up half a notch to keep people reading/listening, probably many do this without being conscious of it (and then sometimes end up being vindicated when their exaggerated fears come to pass)
I'm not suggesting that Sullivan is insincere in his hysteria. But I think he sometimes lacks judgement in distinguishing between the kinds of things he should be complaining to his friends about vs broadcasting it to the whole world (and as you say, the Internet offers plenty of incentives to all of us to err on the side of the latter). That's why I find Dan's psychological perspective on the contemporary intellectual scene valuable (although one can also overdo the psychologising!)
I’ll watch with interest. Just finished the Dishcast with Sam Tannenhaus — Daniel I’m certain you’ll find it engaging. (And I can’t wait to dive into the bio.)
This was a really interesting convo about Sullivan! I wasn’t expecting so much discussion of the Bell curve, but maybe that’s my ignorance. I see the argument for having a public debate, but I do probably still think running a conversation that is going to be read by the general public as “IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THEY REALLY *ARE* INFERIOR TO THE REST OF US?” in your marquee publication probably is a *little* irresponsible. That being said, I think you guys are on the money about people like Sullivan not seeing the humanity of some of these they lash out at, woke or trans or whatever. A lot of gender critical types struggle to see trans people as anything other than a synecdoche for everything onerous or annoying or just aesthetically in bad taste about late modernity, and I commend both of you for seeing that as a blinder.
Thank you! I haven't read Freddie de Boer's The Cult of Smart, but I agree with the basic argument that intellectuals and technocrats often unconsciously equate intelligence with moral virtue and that a just society needs to create room for people of different intellectual abilities to have a good life. Whether in good faith or not, Murray has tended to downplay the racial aspects of his arguments and I agree it was especially incendiary to publish the one chapter in the Bell Curve which specifically deals with race. But on this, like other things, I feel progressives have overreacted with the whole "there is no biological basis for race".
I think in a value neutral sense there’s probably something to that argument of DeBoer’s although I haven’t read his book either. That being said we live in the world we live in, and it seems like the people who are very interested in IQ and “biological differences” always seem to think the way to deal with them is either eugenics, segregation, or both.
There are those who still try to treat it like a scientific question (I don't think Scott Alexander is a secret segregationist: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-to-stop-worrying-and-learn-to). I realise this research has been used to argue against affirmative action and other attempts at economic reparations for the descendants of slaves, but such policies have always been an awkward fit in a constitutional framework based on individual rights. This is not to argue that such policies shouldn't be pursued, but I think it is hard to sustain them politically if there isn't a genuine sense among citizens that what they owe each other goes beyond economic reciprocity (which as Perry Anderson has observed, only happened in Europe as response to the horrors of the two world wars).
We all fall victim to that tendency, right? The best remedy is actually engaging with real people who fit under that category that you otherwise dismiss, and I do fear Andrew is somewhat isolated from that. It's partially his fault, but I also think that he's been excluded and rejected in ways that aren't his fault, and that ultimately are a self-own on the part of people who disagree with him. He's open to persuasion, and certainly to moderation, and it's a waste not to do the work of trying to affect his (very influential) position.
Enjoyed this! And have a few comments, first of all a technical one: while you are both super handsome you also have pleasant voices, and the substack video function lacks the very helpful plus/minus 30/15 second buttons, so please let me cast one vote in favor of podcast over videocast.
Second, on the question, discussed shortly after the hour mark, of whether 'greatest threats' or whatever come from the left and the right (or for that matter from the 'radical center'), I appreciate your points and have no interest in weighing in on the specific issues, but just generally speaking, at any given moment/place we can't know what's more malevolent or threatening, which extreme and seemingly dangerous ideas/movements will fizzle out into nothing and which will be hegemonic in twenty years. So I'd like to argue against 'asymmetry' accusations. Provided that AS's case against X is coherent and persuasive, it's not a problem that in your view Y is the greater danger--you can talk about Y, let him have X.
Finally, on the subject of trans men on Grindr, I'm not a Sullivan reader, so I'm unfamiliar with his complaints except insofar as MJE describes them. I'm also unfamiliar with Grindr, but I guess what I'd want to ask is, are the profiles he objects to specified as belonging to trans men? If so, I agree with MJE, he should relax. But if he has to guess, he would at least have a case to make--various straight apps handle these matters in different ways.
Trying to remember what the nuances of our asymmetry discussion were, but my memory is that my point (or at least the point I was trying to make) wasn't that he shouldn't talk about x because y is the greater danger, but rather that his case against x is in fact not entirely persuasive because he is analytically overestimating its threat.
So he talks a lot, e.g., about the equity policies coming from the Biden administration, and characterizes them in such a way that it seems he believes they represented an important set of policies and programs. My beef isn't with his general criticism of those policies, but rather with his assessment of their import.
Does that make sense? I agree with you that we don't need to justify our critiques by proving that the target is as important as other targets, and that in fact that calculation is a lot harder to make than most people think anyway.
I see what you mean, I guess I think it's hard to assess the import of most things, even in the short run. Like, it's easy to come down one way or another on 'Biden equity policies' -- easy to make a clear case (according to inclination) that they were nefarious or great.
But to judge how pervasive they were during his term (for better or for worse), how pervasive they are now with Trump running things, how durable they'll be in the long run--such questions tend to be argued on instinct or (at best) on anecdotal evidence.
And since it's possible for me to imagine two versions of the USA in 2040, one where no one has uttered the word equity in a dozen years, and another where 'Biden equity policies' have been become unassailable, I'm inclined to let him carry on as he pleases.
I do think the overestimation of threats is a big political problem, both between nations, increasing the risk of open conflict, and domestically, resulting in all-or-nothing polarisation on a whole host of issues. It's obvious why politicians would want to exaggerate the threat from the other side, but I think the role of public intellectuals like Andrew Sullivan should be to help their readers evaluate these matters in a more objective fashion.
With regards to Grindr, Sullivan is objecting to the fact that he can't automatically filter out anyone who identifies as a "trans man", but there is no way to force someone to disclose that information in the first place. If you put in such a filter, people are probably going to be less likely to use the label, leading to less transparency. This is a good example of where Sullivan's request is not objectionable by itself, but accusing Grindr of being "homophobic" for not giving him the option is I think an insult to those whose lives have been impacted by actual anti-gay attitudes.
ok now that you’ve explained the Grindr issue in a bit more detail I’m comfortable taking your side, what you’ve said about transparency corresponds with my experience using straight apps, the more the better (on a range of questions not only this one), and for him to call the app ‘homophobic’ over this is just silly
as for the problem of overestimating threats, it’s tricky because I would largely defend our public intellectuals, across the spectrum, from accusations of ‘grifting’ because I think they’re sincere, no matter how hysterical they sound
but I admit it’s also true that everyone is hustling for influence, there’s an incentive to turn it up half a notch to keep people reading/listening, probably many do this without being conscious of it (and then sometimes end up being vindicated when their exaggerated fears come to pass)
I'm not suggesting that Sullivan is insincere in his hysteria. But I think he sometimes lacks judgement in distinguishing between the kinds of things he should be complaining to his friends about vs broadcasting it to the whole world (and as you say, the Internet offers plenty of incentives to all of us to err on the side of the latter). That's why I find Dan's psychological perspective on the contemporary intellectual scene valuable (although one can also overdo the psychologising!)
I’ll watch with interest. Just finished the Dishcast with Sam Tannenhaus — Daniel I’m certain you’ll find it engaging. (And I can’t wait to dive into the bio.)
Listening to it right now!
Sound quality on this one is particularly bad, FYI. Don’t know if it can be fixed, but for future reference in any case.
Yeah I think that's just an artifact of doing the live thing on our phones. Trying to up my game with the recorded ones.