I only write controversial books. For multiple reasons: I want to advance human knowledge. While I have many conventional views, multiple books ably defending these conventional views almost always already exist. I want to excel in my writing. My greatest intellectual strengths - imagination and iconoclasm - help me create high-quality controversial works. They wouldn’t help me craft conventional works. Probably the opposite, really.
"Sharing your angry feelings is an effective way to dominate the social world, but a terrible way to discover the truth or sincerely convince others."
If a tactic allows you to dominate the social world, why on earth would you care whether it allows you to discover the truth or sincerely convince others? Especially if the "you" in question is a social movement? Most any movement already thinks they have the truth about whatever their movement is about. So, discovery of the truth has already been taken care of. And sincerely convincing others isn't as important as getting them to change their behavior, regardless of what they think.
BTW, I think discovering the truth is important and sincerely convincing others is important, but I'm not confident enough in most any of my own beliefs to join a movement.
I think you pretty much nail it here. Dominance is the point. Being feared is exactly what they have in mind, because in their mind it is better to be feared than loved. As Machiavelli pointed out, if you are trying to take over and rule a hostile nation you pretty much are required to behave like that. (Not that he claims it is good to act like that, but it is a requirement to achieve your goal, which itself probably isn't a good one.)
For many people, truth is a distant goal compared to getting what they want, when they want it. For political movement leaders, truth might not even make the list of priorities.
I don't think many people would say "I don't care about what's true as long as I get what I want", though some certainly would (I've taught them, and they said that!). I think they think they already have the truth, so, *given that*, dominance is at least as important as sincerely convincing people. And that's a defensible enough view!
I should also mention that almost everyone only cares about the truth insofar as it is related to them getting what they want, and that makes perfect sense and is reasonable! Who cares what the dark side of the moon looks like? Only wierdos who are into that sort of thing for the sake of knowing it.
The trouble with most humans is that they are really bad at recognizing when truth is really important and when it is moot. We try to get by on dominance and getting people to shut up and agree with us when we really need to be careful about truth. We are biased towards that because it is generally cognitively easier than rebuilding our conception of the world.
I agree, most people won't say that, but they don't ask themselves "I am I really right? Is this the truth?" if they can possibly avoid it, either. I think that is evidence that people want what they currently believe to be the truth rather than wanting to believe the truth itself.
Plus there is all the stuff around people discounting evidence that doesn't confirm what they believe while over estimating the value of evidence that does support what they believe, etc.
In both academic teaching and industry I find people, to quote Quintillion, much prefer to have learned rather than to learn now.
I have to give you points for consistency, in that feminists are about as likely to give up on the anger they use to control their turf as are countries to give up their borders.
The same arguments that apply to feminism should apply to you: if your books cause such strong reactions among your friends, shouldn't this trouble your consciousness as well? Shouldn't you question yourself whether you are coming off as friendly?
Writing against feminism, whatever rational arguments you have for it, *seems* like expressing your angry feelings, and a great man once said, "Sharing your angry feelings is an effective way to dominate the social world, but a terrible way to discover the truth or sincerely convince others."
A great man also said: "If you want to combat error, critique your in-group. You speak their language and they trust you, so you might persuade someone. If you want to raise your status, critique your out-group. They won't listen, but your in-group will love it." I took these ideas to heart and it has been a guide to my writing ever since. It inspires me to write controversial things, but mostly to my in-group. I don't see you convincing anyone with a book entitled "Don't be a feminist".
> The same arguments that apply to feminism should apply to you: if your books cause such strong reactions among your friends, shouldn't this trouble your consciousness as well?
His friends aren't taking him aside and saying "Bryan, you seem really angry and you have a reputation for being someone that lashes out when people criticize you".
They're taking him aside and saying "Bryan, those feminists are worse than you realize, and their unjustified reaction is going to hurt your career, if not jeopardize your safety."
You're obviously correct that there will be people that dismiss it out of hand because of the title. But, frankly, I suspect if the title was gentler, the same set of people would dismiss it for a different (equally spurious) reason. Maybe not exactly the same set of people, but close enough.
Either way, this wouldn't be a question if he was writing a book called "Don't Be a Communist", "Don't Be a Utilitarian", "Don't Be A Vegan", "Don't Be A Libertarian" or "Don't Be A Dentist".
Yet "Don't Be a Feminist" is unfriendly... is that just because we haven't been bathed in propaganda about how great and important utilitarianism is our whole lives?
> Writing against feminism, whatever rational arguments you have for it, *seems* like expressing your angry feelings, and a great man once said, "Sharing your angry feelings is an effective way to dominate the social world, but a terrible way to discover the truth or sincerely convince others."
I detect zero anger in Bryan's writing. He seems most of all *dispassionate*.
Hard disagree. Caplan in all his books and essays challenges dogmas by presenting empirical data and where appropriate using clear definitions and applying reason. Caplan never employs the tools of weak arguments: straw-men, intimidation, ridicule, etc. I would encourage you to watch him debate. Caplan never rolls his eyes or mocks his opponents. Bryan Caplan is a class act. His mind and his writing are threats to movements and ideologies that are fundamentally flawed.
I don’t think this is right. If a friend wanted to write a book called “Hitler made some good points” - not saying your book is comparable to that — I would tell him “don’t do that, you’ll ruin your reputation.” Not because the antifa or the Wiesenthal Center are all-powerful, but because many mainstream people would recoil. That’s what I fear here. But I hope I’m wrong.
Nothing exists in a vacuum. To be pointed, your friends' concern isn't about the content of the book but the title. Specifically, the title is unnecessarily flammable and will get you type casted. The title doesn't do you any favours and is easy to change, which is why people thought it would be easy to persuade you to modify it.
I feel the need to be very clear here because you seem oblivious to the relevant dynamics.
Jason Brennan wrote a book called Against Democracy; despite the inflammatory title, nobody was bothered. This is because there are relatively few edge-lords in the mainstream discourse writing against democracy. There are a large number of edge-lords sharing anti-feminist screeds as part of the mainstream discourse. It is common knowledge that many people will read the title of your book and associate you with the Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiros etc of the world.
Oh no!! God forbid anyone think he agrees with ThE bAd PeOpLe about anything!
MOST IMPORTANT, Bryan, is that you first of all be seen agreeing with the right people and ideologies. Once it's TOTALLY CLEAR that you're no threat to the current dogma of the day, THEN you can write whatever you want. As long as you're not seen criticizing feminism, of course. Because only BAD PEOPLE do that. And you know what we do to the bad people!
At the height of #METOO and the Woke TDS freakout, I think the title of your book might have been enough to get a freakout if anyone noticed it.
But in 2022, I think a takedown of feminism just isn't very controversial. Is anything in your book going to be all that more controversial that what you can find in a Jordan Peterson lecture on the topic? The guy is doing sell out tours to huge crowds.
"A book harshly criticizing voter rationality and democracy itself."
Congress has a 20% approval rating or whatever and everyone thinks voters are idiots already. We all know the famous Winston Churchill quip.
It would be more controversial if you followed up this point by proposing and end to democracy (like Moldbug), but if your just making fun of idiocracy its not controversial.
"A book defending hereditarianism and natalism."
If you don't talk about race, there are plenty of people who have done this before.
"A book that calls education “a waste of time and money.”"
Literally most of the country thinks that college is signaling at best and not even good at signaling at worst. Outside of a small academic cocoon, this is not controversial.
"A book defending unlimited immigration."
This is more or less the de facto position of the Democratic Party and most elites. They aren't going to outright come out in favor of Open Borders, but near complete non-enforcement is functionally the same.
Your books aren't "controversial", their mildly edgelord.
Have you ever considered writing a book on anarcho-capitalism or do you think the ones by Rothbard and Friendman pretty much have it covered? I'm curious if your ideas vary in much degree to theirs.
The problem of political authority by Michael Huemer. The first half is a philosophical refutation of various theories of authority. The second half is his vision of an ancap society. I found the first half very interesting. I skimmed the second half, as I’ve read Friedman and I don’t think such projections are likely to be accurate. Maybe society would change radically, or maybe historical lock-in would mean not that much would change.
I've seen Caplan criticize him, but he is definitely one of the biggest sources of ancap theory so I figured I would mention him.
I'm not that big of a Rothbard fan either, though. He was too dogmatic and anything that didn't pass his purity test he went after with ad hominems. His disdain for Milton Friedman and writings about him are a good example. Friendman did more to spread the word about free markets than probably anyone at that time, and many of his policies were implemented. I can't understand attacking him on a personal level just because he has some policy views that don't pass the pure natural rights ancap litmus test. I personally find consequentialist arguments more convincing than natural rights ones anyway, but I know that's not true of everyone and gets criticized as being one of those "but does it work" people. I am indeed a "does it work" person though to a large degree. I care about the natural rights argument, but if past some level it brought about the destruction of civilization I'd not defend it in that case.
That also seems to be the case with Caplan based on what I've read of his, so a book addressing the major criticisms would be cool.
I agree, I think people in general respond better to demagoguery. Personally, I don't. I like to know the truth and the reason that something does or doesn't work.
That's certainly possible, but that would require discussing and addressing the topic. But they were saying to avoid addressing the topic. It would be a welcome surprise to read a critique of the substance of Bryan's argument.
I think it is telling when people like Tyler Cowen, Robin Hanson, and Scott Sumner have all plugged the book in terms that show a marked lack of enthusiasm for the claims. Not exactly a group of crazy radical feminists out to tear down Caplan…
Tyler went all in on Wokeness and COVID hysteria the last two years. There is a very long string of embarrassingly cringe writings from him that are essentially discrediting. When push came to shove, Tyler "read the room" and decided to completely capitulate his morals.
Scott Sumner has possibly the worst case of TDS I've seen in my life. Apparently he wants to criticize Bryan because questioning feminism is basically the same as war crimes in Ukraine because he's aligning with the Putler/Trumpullini axis of evil. As if Sumner could tell the difference between a Ukrainian conscript and a Russian conscript if you put them in a room and asked them both their opinions on women.
> I think it is telling when people like Tyler Cowen, Robin Hanson, and Scott Sumner have all plugged the book in terms that show a marked lack of enthusiasm for the claims.
What is it telling, exactly? Thanks for the pointers, BTW; I haven't read all of these. But based on your characterization, could that lack of enthusiasm be due to a chilling effect, or what TC might call mood affiliation?
> Not exactly a group of crazy radical feminists out to tear down Caplan…
That we have reasonable people making reasonable critiques does not preclude the existence of "a group of crazy radical feminists out to tear down Caplan". I believe: this group exists, and Caplan has heard from many of them, and Caplan is addressing this group with this post.
I'm curious what the data are on whether writing controversial books changes minds more than writing books that are less contrarian...or at least appear so. I loved the Case Against Education, and the title hooked me, but I can imagine others would have a very different reaction.
I sometimes agree with you and sometimes not. But in this case, you are just attacking a strawman to be controversial (and show how "brave" you are).
I wonder what it would take for you to realize you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The loudest, most radical "feminists" being mean to you doesn't imply that there is equality in our society. Just because people *say* they believe in equality doesn't mean there is.
Matt, I took a look at your blog and my reaction is that it is "not wrong" but - like most people today - you choose your facts selectively (and I'm sure I do too). You see injustices to women (many of them past injustices) and you're not wrong about them. Where you fall down is in falling into the "oppressor/oppressed" framework. In that framework, if women are "oppressed" then men must be the "oppressors" - and the oppressors cannot also be the oppressed.
This framework is wrong.
The original women's movement contained many women who saw that both men and women were being oppressed; that often men, as well as women, suffered under the gender conventions of the time. Although they called themselves "women's liberationists" many of them recognized that what they were really calling for was "gender liberation" for both sexes. Unfortunately, feminism is far from that today.
Indeed, women still face some disadvantages under today's gender conventions, but many of their historical disadvantages - on which you lean and which yes, I too remember and can describe vividly! - have been substantially addressed. Conversely, many of the disadvantages men faced have not been addressed at all; and some of them are arguably worse.
To pick a single example of an oddly narrow focus on your blog, you say that within your memory there were places where women could not use birth control. Indeed - and TO THIS DAY men do not have access to reliable reversible birth control AT ALL, anywhere in the world. To extend the point to recent news, there has been much excitement over threats to a woman's right to choose. Aside from abortion (which you may agree with or not), in most states women also have the right to drop off an unwanted baby, whether for adoption or just at a fire station, no questions asked. Contrast this to the moral panic of the 1990s about "deadbeat dads." To this day it is rarely noted that men have no "right to choose" whatsoever - and indeed are hunted down (complete with "wanted" posters in post offices) if they attempt to avoid being parents against their will or, as is quite common, simply cannot meet the obligations placed on them.
Of course, of course there are lots of "but... but..." responses possible. Again, I'm just trying to make the point that, even if women face very real challenges, it does not mean that the world is not biased in their favor. It could well be and, in the west - but not in other parts of the world! - there's a tenable argument that in many ways it is.
Ironically, to me it seems that you are attacking strawmen. For example, Damore's argument was not "no women can enjoy coding" but rather "women are statistically less likely than men to enjoy coding". Less likely = still possible, just... less likely.
Similarly, "how can we know something is inherited, what if it's a stereotype?" False dilemma; it can be both. A small natural difference, exaggerated by culture.
> Also, one whiney white dude came out of the woodwork to complain about my takedown of Bryan Caplan's attack on his "feminism" strawman. (And didn't put his name on his rant.) Not to be ad hominem, but doesn't he read like someone who couldn't get a date in high school and resents that anyone other than straight white dudes has any say in anything?
In neither your education nor your parenting book, however, did you go to a place that straightforwardly follows from your respective conclusions: advocating (voluntaryist, of course) eugenics. Achieve the education world's stated goals in the way the evidence sugests will actually work; improve future generations by encouraging all the marginally nurturant parents to raise the genetic progeny of the exceptional. I can only wonder what society's response would have been had you let your reasoning go there. :-D
Great books, read them all and I enjoyed reading them but they definitely aren't controversial, nothing within the Overton window is. And your books are definitely within that and not even at the edges trying to push it.
"Sharing your angry feelings is an effective way to dominate the social world, but a terrible way to discover the truth or sincerely convince others."
If a tactic allows you to dominate the social world, why on earth would you care whether it allows you to discover the truth or sincerely convince others? Especially if the "you" in question is a social movement? Most any movement already thinks they have the truth about whatever their movement is about. So, discovery of the truth has already been taken care of. And sincerely convincing others isn't as important as getting them to change their behavior, regardless of what they think.
BTW, I think discovering the truth is important and sincerely convincing others is important, but I'm not confident enough in most any of my own beliefs to join a movement.
I think you pretty much nail it here. Dominance is the point. Being feared is exactly what they have in mind, because in their mind it is better to be feared than loved. As Machiavelli pointed out, if you are trying to take over and rule a hostile nation you pretty much are required to behave like that. (Not that he claims it is good to act like that, but it is a requirement to achieve your goal, which itself probably isn't a good one.)
For many people, truth is a distant goal compared to getting what they want, when they want it. For political movement leaders, truth might not even make the list of priorities.
I don't think many people would say "I don't care about what's true as long as I get what I want", though some certainly would (I've taught them, and they said that!). I think they think they already have the truth, so, *given that*, dominance is at least as important as sincerely convincing people. And that's a defensible enough view!
I should also mention that almost everyone only cares about the truth insofar as it is related to them getting what they want, and that makes perfect sense and is reasonable! Who cares what the dark side of the moon looks like? Only wierdos who are into that sort of thing for the sake of knowing it.
The trouble with most humans is that they are really bad at recognizing when truth is really important and when it is moot. We try to get by on dominance and getting people to shut up and agree with us when we really need to be careful about truth. We are biased towards that because it is generally cognitively easier than rebuilding our conception of the world.
I agree, most people won't say that, but they don't ask themselves "I am I really right? Is this the truth?" if they can possibly avoid it, either. I think that is evidence that people want what they currently believe to be the truth rather than wanting to believe the truth itself.
Plus there is all the stuff around people discounting evidence that doesn't confirm what they believe while over estimating the value of evidence that does support what they believe, etc.
In both academic teaching and industry I find people, to quote Quintillion, much prefer to have learned rather than to learn now.
I have to give you points for consistency, in that feminists are about as likely to give up on the anger they use to control their turf as are countries to give up their borders.
The same arguments that apply to feminism should apply to you: if your books cause such strong reactions among your friends, shouldn't this trouble your consciousness as well? Shouldn't you question yourself whether you are coming off as friendly?
Writing against feminism, whatever rational arguments you have for it, *seems* like expressing your angry feelings, and a great man once said, "Sharing your angry feelings is an effective way to dominate the social world, but a terrible way to discover the truth or sincerely convince others."
A great man also said: "If you want to combat error, critique your in-group. You speak their language and they trust you, so you might persuade someone. If you want to raise your status, critique your out-group. They won't listen, but your in-group will love it." I took these ideas to heart and it has been a guide to my writing ever since. It inspires me to write controversial things, but mostly to my in-group. I don't see you convincing anyone with a book entitled "Don't be a feminist".
> The same arguments that apply to feminism should apply to you: if your books cause such strong reactions among your friends, shouldn't this trouble your consciousness as well?
His friends aren't taking him aside and saying "Bryan, you seem really angry and you have a reputation for being someone that lashes out when people criticize you".
They're taking him aside and saying "Bryan, those feminists are worse than you realize, and their unjustified reaction is going to hurt your career, if not jeopardize your safety."
So... no, it doesn't apply.
You are right. Let me correct myself:
Maybe the argument his friends are making is not the same, but the argument *I'm* making is:
Feminists should worry about not convincing anyone because they don't seem friendly.
So should Bryan.
You're obviously correct that there will be people that dismiss it out of hand because of the title. But, frankly, I suspect if the title was gentler, the same set of people would dismiss it for a different (equally spurious) reason. Maybe not exactly the same set of people, but close enough.
Either way, this wouldn't be a question if he was writing a book called "Don't Be a Communist", "Don't Be a Utilitarian", "Don't Be A Vegan", "Don't Be A Libertarian" or "Don't Be A Dentist".
Yet "Don't Be a Feminist" is unfriendly... is that just because we haven't been bathed in propaganda about how great and important utilitarianism is our whole lives?
> Writing against feminism, whatever rational arguments you have for it, *seems* like expressing your angry feelings, and a great man once said, "Sharing your angry feelings is an effective way to dominate the social world, but a terrible way to discover the truth or sincerely convince others."
I detect zero anger in Bryan's writing. He seems most of all *dispassionate*.
Hard disagree. Caplan in all his books and essays challenges dogmas by presenting empirical data and where appropriate using clear definitions and applying reason. Caplan never employs the tools of weak arguments: straw-men, intimidation, ridicule, etc. I would encourage you to watch him debate. Caplan never rolls his eyes or mocks his opponents. Bryan Caplan is a class act. His mind and his writing are threats to movements and ideologies that are fundamentally flawed.
I don’t think this is right. If a friend wanted to write a book called “Hitler made some good points” - not saying your book is comparable to that — I would tell him “don’t do that, you’ll ruin your reputation.” Not because the antifa or the Wiesenthal Center are all-powerful, but because many mainstream people would recoil. That’s what I fear here. But I hope I’m wrong.
I'm confused by your confusion Bryan.
Nothing exists in a vacuum. To be pointed, your friends' concern isn't about the content of the book but the title. Specifically, the title is unnecessarily flammable and will get you type casted. The title doesn't do you any favours and is easy to change, which is why people thought it would be easy to persuade you to modify it.
I feel the need to be very clear here because you seem oblivious to the relevant dynamics.
Jason Brennan wrote a book called Against Democracy; despite the inflammatory title, nobody was bothered. This is because there are relatively few edge-lords in the mainstream discourse writing against democracy. There are a large number of edge-lords sharing anti-feminist screeds as part of the mainstream discourse. It is common knowledge that many people will read the title of your book and associate you with the Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiros etc of the world.
Oh no!! God forbid anyone think he agrees with ThE bAd PeOpLe about anything!
MOST IMPORTANT, Bryan, is that you first of all be seen agreeing with the right people and ideologies. Once it's TOTALLY CLEAR that you're no threat to the current dogma of the day, THEN you can write whatever you want. As long as you're not seen criticizing feminism, of course. Because only BAD PEOPLE do that. And you know what we do to the bad people!
"in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless"-Robespierre
At the height of #METOO and the Woke TDS freakout, I think the title of your book might have been enough to get a freakout if anyone noticed it.
But in 2022, I think a takedown of feminism just isn't very controversial. Is anything in your book going to be all that more controversial that what you can find in a Jordan Peterson lecture on the topic? The guy is doing sell out tours to huge crowds.
Are these controversial:
"A book harshly criticizing voter rationality and democracy itself."
Congress has a 20% approval rating or whatever and everyone thinks voters are idiots already. We all know the famous Winston Churchill quip.
It would be more controversial if you followed up this point by proposing and end to democracy (like Moldbug), but if your just making fun of idiocracy its not controversial.
"A book defending hereditarianism and natalism."
If you don't talk about race, there are plenty of people who have done this before.
"A book that calls education “a waste of time and money.”"
Literally most of the country thinks that college is signaling at best and not even good at signaling at worst. Outside of a small academic cocoon, this is not controversial.
"A book defending unlimited immigration."
This is more or less the de facto position of the Democratic Party and most elites. They aren't going to outright come out in favor of Open Borders, but near complete non-enforcement is functionally the same.
Your books aren't "controversial", their mildly edgelord.
"But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid."
Have you ever considered writing a book on anarcho-capitalism or do you think the ones by Rothbard and Friendman pretty much have it covered? I'm curious if your ideas vary in much degree to theirs.
Huemer too.
I've never heard of him actually. I'll need to take a look, thanks!
The problem of political authority by Michael Huemer. The first half is a philosophical refutation of various theories of authority. The second half is his vision of an ancap society. I found the first half very interesting. I skimmed the second half, as I’ve read Friedman and I don’t think such projections are likely to be accurate. Maybe society would change radically, or maybe historical lock-in would mean not that much would change.
Rothbard? Caplan is not a big Rothbard fan.
I've seen Caplan criticize him, but he is definitely one of the biggest sources of ancap theory so I figured I would mention him.
I'm not that big of a Rothbard fan either, though. He was too dogmatic and anything that didn't pass his purity test he went after with ad hominems. His disdain for Milton Friedman and writings about him are a good example. Friendman did more to spread the word about free markets than probably anyone at that time, and many of his policies were implemented. I can't understand attacking him on a personal level just because he has some policy views that don't pass the pure natural rights ancap litmus test. I personally find consequentialist arguments more convincing than natural rights ones anyway, but I know that's not true of everyone and gets criticized as being one of those "but does it work" people. I am indeed a "does it work" person though to a large degree. I care about the natural rights argument, but if past some level it brought about the destruction of civilization I'd not defend it in that case.
That also seems to be the case with Caplan based on what I've read of his, so a book addressing the major criticisms would be cool.
I agree, I think people in general respond better to demagoguery. Personally, I don't. I like to know the truth and the reason that something does or doesn't work.
"The underlying premise, naturally, was that the feminist movement is at once terribly powerful and horribly bad-tempered."
Is it also possible that the persons giving you counsel believed that your argument wasn't very strong?
That's certainly possible, but that would require discussing and addressing the topic. But they were saying to avoid addressing the topic. It would be a welcome surprise to read a critique of the substance of Bryan's argument.
I think it is telling when people like Tyler Cowen, Robin Hanson, and Scott Sumner have all plugged the book in terms that show a marked lack of enthusiasm for the claims. Not exactly a group of crazy radical feminists out to tear down Caplan…
Tyler went all in on Wokeness and COVID hysteria the last two years. There is a very long string of embarrassingly cringe writings from him that are essentially discrediting. When push came to shove, Tyler "read the room" and decided to completely capitulate his morals.
Scott Sumner has possibly the worst case of TDS I've seen in my life. Apparently he wants to criticize Bryan because questioning feminism is basically the same as war crimes in Ukraine because he's aligning with the Putler/Trumpullini axis of evil. As if Sumner could tell the difference between a Ukrainian conscript and a Russian conscript if you put them in a room and asked them both their opinions on women.
> I think it is telling when people like Tyler Cowen, Robin Hanson, and Scott Sumner have all plugged the book in terms that show a marked lack of enthusiasm for the claims.
What is it telling, exactly? Thanks for the pointers, BTW; I haven't read all of these. But based on your characterization, could that lack of enthusiasm be due to a chilling effect, or what TC might call mood affiliation?
> Not exactly a group of crazy radical feminists out to tear down Caplan…
That we have reasonable people making reasonable critiques does not preclude the existence of "a group of crazy radical feminists out to tear down Caplan". I believe: this group exists, and Caplan has heard from many of them, and Caplan is addressing this group with this post.
I'm curious what the data are on whether writing controversial books changes minds more than writing books that are less contrarian...or at least appear so. I loved the Case Against Education, and the title hooked me, but I can imagine others would have a very different reaction.
I sometimes agree with you and sometimes not. But in this case, you are just attacking a strawman to be controversial (and show how "brave" you are).
I wonder what it would take for you to realize you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The loudest, most radical "feminists" being mean to you doesn't imply that there is equality in our society. Just because people *say* they believe in equality doesn't mean there is.
More:
https://www.mattball.org/2022/09/equality-repost.html
Matt, I took a look at your blog and my reaction is that it is "not wrong" but - like most people today - you choose your facts selectively (and I'm sure I do too). You see injustices to women (many of them past injustices) and you're not wrong about them. Where you fall down is in falling into the "oppressor/oppressed" framework. In that framework, if women are "oppressed" then men must be the "oppressors" - and the oppressors cannot also be the oppressed.
This framework is wrong.
The original women's movement contained many women who saw that both men and women were being oppressed; that often men, as well as women, suffered under the gender conventions of the time. Although they called themselves "women's liberationists" many of them recognized that what they were really calling for was "gender liberation" for both sexes. Unfortunately, feminism is far from that today.
Indeed, women still face some disadvantages under today's gender conventions, but many of their historical disadvantages - on which you lean and which yes, I too remember and can describe vividly! - have been substantially addressed. Conversely, many of the disadvantages men faced have not been addressed at all; and some of them are arguably worse.
To pick a single example of an oddly narrow focus on your blog, you say that within your memory there were places where women could not use birth control. Indeed - and TO THIS DAY men do not have access to reliable reversible birth control AT ALL, anywhere in the world. To extend the point to recent news, there has been much excitement over threats to a woman's right to choose. Aside from abortion (which you may agree with or not), in most states women also have the right to drop off an unwanted baby, whether for adoption or just at a fire station, no questions asked. Contrast this to the moral panic of the 1990s about "deadbeat dads." To this day it is rarely noted that men have no "right to choose" whatsoever - and indeed are hunted down (complete with "wanted" posters in post offices) if they attempt to avoid being parents against their will or, as is quite common, simply cannot meet the obligations placed on them.
Of course, of course there are lots of "but... but..." responses possible. Again, I'm just trying to make the point that, even if women face very real challenges, it does not mean that the world is not biased in their favor. It could well be and, in the west - but not in other parts of the world! - there's a tenable argument that in many ways it is.
Ironically, to me it seems that you are attacking strawmen. For example, Damore's argument was not "no women can enjoy coding" but rather "women are statistically less likely than men to enjoy coding". Less likely = still possible, just... less likely.
Similarly, "how can we know something is inherited, what if it's a stereotype?" False dilemma; it can be both. A small natural difference, exaggerated by culture.
> Also, one whiney white dude came out of the woodwork to complain about my takedown of Bryan Caplan's attack on his "feminism" strawman. (And didn't put his name on his rant.) Not to be ad hominem, but doesn't he read like someone who couldn't get a date in high school and resents that anyone other than straight white dudes has any say in anything?
Wow, great stuff, Matt
> But in this case, you are just attacking a strawman to be controversial (and show how "brave" you are).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
Projecting a bit with the straw man accusation. None of your points address his actual argument.
In neither your education nor your parenting book, however, did you go to a place that straightforwardly follows from your respective conclusions: advocating (voluntaryist, of course) eugenics. Achieve the education world's stated goals in the way the evidence sugests will actually work; improve future generations by encouraging all the marginally nurturant parents to raise the genetic progeny of the exceptional. I can only wonder what society's response would have been had you let your reasoning go there. :-D
Great books, read them all and I enjoyed reading them but they definitely aren't controversial, nothing within the Overton window is. And your books are definitely within that and not even at the edges trying to push it.
Thanks Bryan, can’t afford to be a paid subscriber but just bought two of your books via Amazon.au - Labour Econ essays and Don’t be a Feminist. Pete