Scott instead of Richard Dawkins; how sure am I that this is the right path? Then I make a principled decision to avoid saying it – or say it only in a very careful way – in order to protect my reputation and ability to participate in society.Then when other people say it, I start looking down on them for being bad at public relations.
Pretty big coincidence that I was wrong then, but I’m right about everyone older than me now.
There’s one more possibility that bothers me even worse than the socialization or traumatization theory.
So, he set to work and read every book he could find, studied every teacher he could meet, and talked to every girl he could talk to to figure out dating.
They’re not obviously apparent when you’re missing them; if you’re not ready for them, they just sounds like platitudes and boring things you’ve already internalized.
I’m going to use science-y sounding terms just as an example, but I don’t actually think it’s this in particular – we know that the genes for liberal-conservative differences are mostly NMDA receptors in the brain.
And we know that NMDA receptor function changes with aging.Then I start looking down on them just for being low-status or cringeworthy.Finally the idea of “low-status” and “bad and wrong” have merged so fully in my mind that the idea seems terrible and ridiculous to me, and I only remember it’s true if I force myself to explicitly consider the question.But when I read Parable, there’s…nothing really wrong with it. But I can’t help noticing that eight years ago, New Atheism was really popular, and now it’s really unpopular.Or that eight years ago I was in a place where having Richard Dawkins style hyperrationalism was a useful brand, and now I’m (for some reason) in a place where having James C.I’m pretty embarassed by Parable On Obsolete Ideologies, which I wrote eight years ago.