
Seizing the Means of Knowledge Production - Reedx
https://heterodoxacademy.org/seizing-means-knowledge-production/
======
ralusek
It's always interesting to see Hayek's words, followed by a timestamp.
Similar, although less recent at nearly 25 years ago, is this Peter Thiel
video discussing the illusion of multiculturalism in 1996
[https://youtu.be/qTPOBEdc7OI?t=722](https://youtu.be/qTPOBEdc7OI?t=722).

The degree to which _radically_ far left ideology is taught in university is
one of the most prevalent contributors to the current political schism.
America has been primarily liberal since its inception, but there has been
this slow creep of an entirely new, wholly incompatible, and entirely
illiberal moral/economic framework.

The modern product of the American university is generally skeptical of
anything resembling a meritocracy, instead believing that the major forces
that will dictate the outcomes one will receive are mostly divorced from their
actions, and instead to be determined by the factions they belong to. Most
notably, one's racial and gender identity are brought to the foreground as bar
none _the_ primary contributors to the outcomes an individual will encounter.
Not too far behind is the usual suspect of economic class, where "boomers" and
"landlords" are the new bourgeois, and debt-laden millennial college graduate
is the proletariat class. The degree to which people are skeptical of markets
and a market value associated with their actions is so immense, that the idea
that someone with a CS degree having a vastly greater market value than an
individual with a degree in Critical Race theory is simply met with derision
akin to "but muh STEM."

~~~
slowswift
> The degree to which people are skeptical of markets and a market value
> associated with their actions is so immense

Similarly, the degree to which market advocates, themselves, exhibit
skepticism about the market mechanism vis-a-vis their own intellectual
products is so immense, in fact, that the idea that ideas achieving widespread
adoption within the marketplace of ideas do, indeed, have vastly greater value
than those with inferior adoption is simply met with comparably-inarticulate
derision.

~~~
roenxi
Ideas aren't a great place to push free market ideals; especially because so
many ideas are basically anti-freedom and anti-market. How often does anyone
come up with "let people sort it out themselves, bearing the costs and
consequences" as a new idea? When it is suggested it is rare to see someone
championing it with enthusiasm and to wide acclaim. Compare that to the "Lets
order people to [activity]" style ideas that are common and suggested in many
forms.

Using market forces to measure the value of an idea is not clever. Ideas that
are to be put into practice should be assessed primarily by whether they are
grounded in evidence or not, and secondarily by whether people are willing to
cope with the consequences of the idea going wrong.

An idea being popular or gaining popularity does not make it a valuable idea
(or indeed a good idea). That stands in stark contrast to economic forces
which measure resource creation and destruction with a cruel accuracy.

------
cwyers
> In short, literally none of this stuff is actually new. Indeed, as Oliver
> Traldi has pointed out, the entire contemporary debate around ‘free speech’
> and ‘political correctness’ bears an uncanny likeness to 1990s controversies
> on these same topics. Perhaps George Santayana was right when he declared
> that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Um, how far ago does the author think the 90s are? Yes, many of the same
arguments from the 90s are happening now. It's not because people who forget
the past are doomed to repeat it. It's because a large number of people were
alive in the 90s and now and are having the same debate still.

~~~
nerdponx
There are a lot of "regular people" out there interested in these issues who
were too young to have been involved in the '90s. Maybe the tone is off but I
certainly appreciated the history lesson.

------
js8
I don't disagree with the piece, but it is quite biased.

The institutionalization of non-scientific (that is, there is no clear
criteria of what constitutes the truth in knowledge) "crap" is much more wider
phenomenon, and not just some aberration of "the left". Nor is it confined to
universities.

Here are other examples:

\- Neoclassical economics, especially the macroeconomics. (It's ironic they
quote Hayek, who significantly contributed to its rise.) If you want a similar
article with this example, look at Steve Keen's Debunking Economics.

\- String theory in physics. This example shows that it doesn't have to be
related to politics and society at all.

\- Various project management methodologies, lately the Scrum and Agile craze.

The truth is probably that in many institutions, there is some atrophied
department that mostly lost its useful function in favor of defending some
internal dogma.

------
Nasrudith
That is an awful lot of words for "people who don't agree with me are part of
a vast conspiracy". Put aside the possibility that the reason elites disagree
is because they know something that the author doesn't. Even if one disagrees
with a prevailing philosophy or even if it is objectively wrong but the idea
catches on doesn't mean there is a conspiracy.

That a rant from the 70s sounds like one today says more about the source than
it does the target really - given ongoing processes one would expect the
complaints to differ more substantially as the changes either "succeed" and
are embraced as the norm or "fail" and are discredited. I use quotes because
it is a matter of perception more than if they are actually good ideas.

To be frank it seems to be pure projection of the "eauality feels like
oppression to the privledged" sort.

~~~
bloaf
Here is another statement which you can characterize as "people who don't
agree with me are part of a vast conspiracy."

> Republicans have been making concerted efforts to stack US courts with
> conservative judges.

Accusing someone of promoting a conspiracy theory is to accuse someone of
making creating an unfalsifiable story, which does not seem to be the case in
either my example statement or the original post. Specifically, there are no
claims that "evidence to the contrary is fabricated" or "lack of key evidence
is due to deliberate suppression." Now it may be the case that the author
would respond in this way when presented with contrary evidence, or when
pressed for some key supporting evidence, but as it stands there is no cause
to levy the "mere conspiracy theory" charge at the author.

~~~
paganel
I’m not an American so I’m not directly involved in the US political process,
but my question is why shouldn’t US Republicans appoint conservative judges?
Why is this seen as a conspiracy? Isn’t this the reason why they were elected?
Should they appoint liberal judges? But then what type of judges should the
Democrats appoint? And in today’s political climate it doesn’t look like
there’s truly a “neutral” judge, so to speak, one is either liberal or
conservative.

------
booleandilemma
Can anyone provide the tl;dr on this?

~~~
jonbronson
The spontaneous social justice movements of the past 10 years were not
actually spontaneous, their origins have clear lineage back to the 60s and
70s, and the mechanism used to affect this social change helps to partially
explain both why it has come about in the form it has, and why some of its
less savory elements were not filtered out by the usual process.

------
Der_Einzige
I've never understood where the criticism was for American Universities having
a somewhat more "Leftist" culture among social sciences is coming from. Once
you learn how to speak the "leftist" language, it's extremely easy to get high
grades. Read and understand a Foucault and De Beuvoir work, coast on easy A's
through these "grievance" studies courses. I did 1/10th the amount of work for
a graduate level gender studies course as I did in a graduate level
programming class.

I certainly don't like the idea of not knowing the political orientation of a
professor before I write an essay (as it is eminently important for my grade,
no matter how impartial one pretends to be), and a radical left cannon means
that I can write like I'm Marx and get a free pass into the Academy. The
people on HN who don't like this simply don't know how to play the game.

~~~
Smithalicious
Or perhaps people have standards that make them dislike some harmful things
that benefit themselves personally.

------
throwaway57023
I came here expecting a report on the (very real) issues with the current
publication system in academia, such as a few publishing houses extorting
enormous amounts of money off researchers and ultimately taxpayers, the flaws
of the traditional peer review system, the over-reliance on impact factor and
other such metrics, _publish or perish_ , etc. Instead it's just yet another
giant rant about the evil essjaydoubleus. But then I shouldn't have expected
any better from a website whose pitch is "scientists are too left-wing so we
made our own science".

------
mikelyons
The rise of social justice is the evolution of our society from red/orange
through high orange to a green society on the Spiral Dynamics model of
psychological / spiritual evolution.

We're seeing the limits and the ugliness of unhealthy/low orange in the
environment, politics, culture, et al.

The transition to green will be painful and violently resisted by orange/red
portions of our society, but it is necessary for our survival and for rescuing
the ecology of the Earth from the excesses of unbridled stage orange
capitalism.

I'm so curious what our economic systems and culture will look like in stage
green, but it'll likely not happen in my lifetime, which I just have to accept
...

~~~
rubbingalcohol
Did you recently get laid off from the TSA? The only purpose your "threat
level" categorization of social issues serves is to marginalize viewpoints you
disagree with under the brush stroke of "progress at any cost." There are
conservative values that are deeply necessary for a free society to function
and that afford people the privilege* of criticizing their freedoms in the
first place. (*well actually a right but rejecting civil rights in favor of
'wokeness' is so hot right now)

~~~
dang
Hey, please don't cross into personal attack in HN comments. It lowers
discussion quality, evokes worse from others, and discredits your argument.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

