Social Media Spotlight: James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose - July 13 2020

Written By Casey Steele

Twitter is like coronavirus. It’s important to track and study its mutations but also advisable to maintain distance to avoid contraction and attentional atrophy. Over the coming weeks, a Test Pattern library of twitter profiles and hot-takes will expand, offering you a kind of filter for the Twitter content you ingest. Yes, this is a form of delegating, to some extent, the curation of information to the Test Pattern blog, and we hope you contribute to public discourse with less friction as a result.  

  • Who: 

    • James Lindsay & Helen Pluckrose

  • Educational Background(s): 

    • Mathematics/Physics and English Literature (respectively) 

  • Summary of Position(s) and Controversy:

    • Emerging critics of progressive, post-modern academia and its relationship to woke/cancel culture.

    • Designers of the “grievance studies affair” hoax in which they successfully pushed fabricated, unscientific articles through peer review, to the embarrassment of the publishing journals.

    • Proponents of the Western/Enlightenment method of discovering “truth” through science and reason, as opposed to the increasingly common post-modern belief that “truth” is a social construct in which science and language are tools of oppression. Largely as a consequence of this intellectual framework, James in particular has been accused of misogyny as well as complicity with so called structural racism. 

  • Key Observations/Takeaways:

    • Hard science practitioners resisting admittance of sociological forces into their domains is understandable. By and large, it is unfair to deem this kind of resistance “racist,” but the scientists’ frustration may expose, ironically, a certain fragility about those who swear by the discovery of unemotional, numerical truths. In other words:

      • Do not disturb a scientist’s lab!

      • Do not shatter the dreams of a precocious third grader who just got his first science kit and microscope for Christmas and whose new goal in life is to stoically uncover objective numerical truths whose discovery will over time [FILL IN THER BLANK LATER?].

    • In some sense, these are indeed fundamental issues of science vs. art/religion.

      • The scientists want their labs left undisturbed, while those experiencing oppression want to know why the lab and the experiments were designed to test particular outcome variables in the first place.

        • Studies produce headlines, and headlines frame consciousness. Kids read headlines and develop unconscious assumptions about reality.

        • The scientific method may be some kind of divine, but the frame of consciousness toward which it tunnels is the greater truth. And that frame is fueled by a feeling – call it what you want: love, oneness, selflessness, nirvana. Or call it the dream of running away from home and uploading your consciousness to a supercomputer on Mars – what could go wrong with that dream?  

  • Broader Questions Unanswered:

    • What is the nature of reality when “science”—its data and methods—loses public trust? 

      • Reality construction with and without emotion

        • Stoic science as religion

      • Reality construction with and without ego

        • Similitude/collectivism vs. Diversity/Individualism.   (See end of Track 2.)

      • Subscribing to science but pre-defining its purpose.  

        • Is human emotion/psychology relevant? Yes, if you agree the act of measurement affects the measured and that frame of consciousness is the ultimate endgame. 

        • Science is about admitting what we don't know.

    • Content of Argument vs. Manner/Medium of Attack (Substance vs. Method)

      • Substance rises to the top unless the method of delivery is poisonous.

      • Twitter peeps gotta chill, true - emotions running high often manipulate. But there is something inescapable about the subjectivity of attention management over a lifetime and its emotional correlates.

      • What scientists shielding themselves from emotional attack on the Twitter debate stage often fail to appreciate is that they’re selling a way of being, not just an idea. Each debater represents a figurehead through which others may vicariously experience the debate process. The method and style of debate is the true source of tension, not the ideas themselves.

        • Human beings, perhaps now more than ever in this world of reality-TV politics, are in search of a figurehead through which one may experience the debate of all debates. And that, friends, is emotional; and entirely subjective.  (See Live Trax – “You feel the speaker bass rumble . . .”)

  • Behavioral Assessment:

    • Helen – here at Test Pattern, we are huge fans of Helen Pluckrose (possibly the best last name ever). She engages in civil discussion without emitting vulnerability to attack. And, at least from our limited vantage point, she seems to be the more mature of the two and the chiller person to hang out with (which at the end of the day is what changes people’s minds/behaviors for the better). This is true leadership potential.

    • James – smart; not racist; poor leader. People should be kinder to James and admire his hard work. Similarly, James would do well to improve his composure even though he may resent that suggestion. The grim (and likely more financially attractive) alternative for him would be to continue building out a Ben Shapiro-style brand through which the adrenaline associated with snark and ridicule becomes the marketed product. Like junk food for people distracting themselves from their own vulnerability, that’s not good for anyone.

      • We conjecture that James internalizes the shame (See Track 10 – Feeling Shame) associated with social and religious “authorities” more intensely than average, which fuels intellectual fencing fetishes and the instinct to ridicule counterparts. This feeds into a Twitter subculture that—again, ironically—feels victimized and compelled to fight back with childish ridicule.

        • “Am I ridiculing? Absolutely.” (this tweet reply may have been deleted – can’t find it anymore)

        • “And they were yelling at me” (were they?)

        • Also notable: an apparent fear of smiling, and a style of eye contact that trembles with defensiveness atop a writhing emotional core.

      • Ending on a positive note – James has a lot of insight to share, and people should listen. We, however, recommend channeling your attention more to this type of content.

Casey Steele