Public intellectuals are constitutionally incapable of considering that maybe drastic shifts in their substantive views imply their decisional processes are defective. Were they capable of such humility, they'd not be public intellectuals.https://twitter.com/bryan_caplan/status/1058907832635006976 …
-
-
1/In litigation there's a distinction between people who are good at writing briefs and developing arguments (and assessing settlements, etc.) and people who are good at arguing before a court or a jury. The latter draws from a skill more akin to acting than legal reasoning;
-
2/yet due to the Quiz Show effect & self-delusion spectators & members of the latter group oft think themselves capable of surfacing the points they evince with such conviction. So too with public intellectuals: it is their confidence, not their reasoning, which wins acclaim.
-
perhaps too with less-than-fully-publicized intellectuals. the replication crisis is driven by a variant of this effect. nobody gets far in their career publishing papers saying "effect size was borderline insignificant, p value too high, we need to think of a better experiment"
-
Yep. "[T]he best lack all conviction," et cetera.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.