The problem with this argument is that two professors are using a PMC-type of argument about "self-regulation" theory—a pop-psych fad since the 2010's—to psychologize a peer whose behavior is more simply explained as being a creation of the philosophical-industrial complex. In trying to warn prospective readers about Parfit's books/legacy, this essay inadvertently tells on itself, it is casting judgment instead of reflecting on the madnesses of philosophy itself.
It would save lay people a lot more time if they just said what was wrong with Parfit's works, rather than this thinly-veiled biographical ad hominem exercise.
> A common idea seems to be that the weirder one’s way of thinking, the more likely one is to get things right, for the truth could not possibly be publicly available. [...] This is to get things exactly the wrong way around.
So, this common idea, about common ideas being probably wrong, is wrong?
I mean, sometimes there's crowd wisdom, and then again sometimes there's popular misconceptions. Outliers are sometimes merely errors, but experts who think they know things others mostly don't know are often right. It's not exactly the wrong way around.
Related:
Nothing Personal: How ideas made Derek Parfit - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38494017 - Dec 2023 (26 comments)
Derek Parfit: The Perfectionist at All Souls - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35688300 - April 2023 (21 comments)
How to Be Good: The Philosopher Derek Parfit (2011) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22037240 - Jan 2020 (6 comments)
Why anything? Why this? (1998) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13315746 - Jan 2017 (77 comments)
Derek Parfit has died - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13304873 - Jan 2017 (38 comments)
How to Be Good: Derek Parfit's Moral Philosophy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11273495 - March 2016 (16 comments)
The problem with this argument is that two professors are using a PMC-type of argument about "self-regulation" theory—a pop-psych fad since the 2010's—to psychologize a peer whose behavior is more simply explained as being a creation of the philosophical-industrial complex. In trying to warn prospective readers about Parfit's books/legacy, this essay inadvertently tells on itself, it is casting judgment instead of reflecting on the madnesses of philosophy itself.
It would save lay people a lot more time if they just said what was wrong with Parfit's works, rather than this thinly-veiled biographical ad hominem exercise.
> the philosophical-industrial complex
what's this?
It's in the article.
> A common idea seems to be that the weirder one’s way of thinking, the more likely one is to get things right, for the truth could not possibly be publicly available. [...] This is to get things exactly the wrong way around.
So, this common idea, about common ideas being probably wrong, is wrong?
I mean, sometimes there's crowd wisdom, and then again sometimes there's popular misconceptions. Outliers are sometimes merely errors, but experts who think they know things others mostly don't know are often right. It's not exactly the wrong way around.
"Surprisingly popular" is a neat technique:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surprisingly_popular
Though I'm afraid this will select for conspiracy theorists and cranks along with experts.