You know that line about judging people by their actions rather than their words? What about people whose only non-trivial output is words? (assume their actions are boringly uncontroversial, like say living basic middle class life funded by job at paper factory) Here’s a way.
-
-
Add another wrinkle. Call it the Incumbency Bias of Social Research Under Sloppiness. Other things being equal, sloppiness in research about humans is more likely to suffer errors that lead to conclusions that hurt the weak/validate the position of strong. Sewage flows downhill.
Show this thread -
Consider a caricature: 2 bad-faith researchers researching “racial bias in police shootings” with intent to find yes and no answers respectively by any means necessary. Are they really equally risky? When should we demand deeper rigor?
Show this thread -
There is a theory in complex systems called “normal accidents” about how complex systems like nuclear reactors inevitably (Ie “normally”) suffer failures via multiple failures interacting in unanticipated ways. This means some things are fundamentally more risky.
Show this thread -
The author, Charles Perrow, in fact takes the conservative view that sufficiently complex tech like nuclear reactors with sufficiently high negative failure costs should not be used at all. I’m not that radical, but he has a point. And the point applies to “complex thinking” too
Show this thread -
If you’re thinking about sufficiently complex topics full of tricky interactions (“Oh Roe vs. Wade led to crime wave ending 20y later...oh wait no, it was taking the lead out of pipes!”) *you WILL make unexpected normal errors*
Show this thread -
You may moreover be thinking under deep moral hazard of being nowhere near the reactor meltdown zones. In social research this might be: policing, criminal justice, public schooling, nutrition, education, war-making. Entire communities could be deeply screwed by your errors.
Show this thread -
And this shouldn’t need saying but apparently does. The more powerful you are, the more extreme care you need to take because your casual speculative tweeting could cascade into ill-considered action a few degrees away. Think longer per tweet the more powerful you are.
Show this thread -
I’m a random D-list blogger. If I tweet speculative dumb shit, very little happens, but there’s more potential for damage than with someone with no following. If you’re a famous academic who has the ear of impulsive CEOs more can happen. If you’re president, wars might start.
Show this thread -
If you transpose Perrow’s conclusions about nuclear reactors to social science, you would in fact conclude that some subjects should not be studied at all. Because the only people with the methodological competence to study it might be under unacceptably high moral hazard.
Show this thread -
This is why I’m fundamentally sympathetic to even (say) the most irrational sounding black activists who might want to object to (say) white men studying IQ. The researchers are safe in their nice university jobs. Any errors leading to social policy meltdowns, guess who suffers?
Show this thread -
There are two ways to bring these nuclear reactor “normal accident” topics into “safe study” zone. First: add more methodological rigor burdens in proportion to risk to others. IRB++. But this won’t be enough to bring more responsibility to say casual speculative tweeting.
Show this thread -
I like the second approach: increase direct risk exposure (or lower moral hazard). You want a million dollar research grant to study race and IQ? Go for it. We just ask that you live in a black inner city school district while doing so, that will be applying your findings.
Show this thread -
You want to speculate about sex markets? Great, do it in a sociology department where you have more female peers than male. Better still: include them in proposal. Get skin in the game in proportion to the accidental harm you might do to others.
Show this thread -
The common response to free-expression absolutism is “freedom of expression is not freedom from consequences”... as in don’t expect people to not yell at you or retaliate. If only it were that simple. The real messy problem is *others may not be free from consequences*
Show this thread -
To bring it back to the opening point, how do you judge a thinker? By topic, not method. How by topic? If a thinker routinely indulges in morally hazardous thinking where others are more likely to be hurt by erroneous conclusions, I do a double take.
Show this thread -
If they aren’t adding extra safety or taking on extra risk to compensate, I flip the bozobit. I’m doing this more quickly these days. There’s no excuse for putting others at risk with your bad thinking from relative safety.
Show this thread -
I’m fine with sloppy speculative spitballing and casual, loud, public thinking. That’s my own modus operandi after all. The trick is to then work on harmless topics and/or ones where you yourself are the one most at risk. If you want to move to meltdown topics, harden you methods
Show this thread
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.