What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known? Russell Conjugation - Eric Weinstein

What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known?

I came across a reference to something called the Russell Conjugation, an idea created by the philosopher Bertrand Russell. (It’s also called an emotive conjugation.) It consists of three statements that describe the same behavior from different perspectives. Here is an example from an article by Eric Weinstein.

I am firm. [Positive empathy]

You are obstinate. [Neutral to mildly negative empathy]

He/She/It is pigheaded. [Very negative empathy]

As Weinstein explains:

In order to understand the concept properly you have to appreciate that most words and phrases are actually defined not by a single dictionary description, but rather two distinct attributes:

I) The factual content of the word or phrase.

II) The emotional content of the construction.

How would this apply to political disagreements? Would it be the following? “I am right (because I have the correct principles). You are mistaken (because your principles are wrong). They are evil (because they have no principles, or their principles are evil).” In this case, “I” refers to yourself. “You” refers to a friend who disagrees with you. “They” refers to a politician or pundit who is on the other side.

I pose it this way because I think we are not likely to label a friend as evil. If we believe a friend is evil, why are we friends? But it is much easier for us to call someone we don’t know evil precisely because we don’t have a personal connection. As philosophers like Jonathan Haidt (The Righteous Mind) remind us, our psychology has deep tribal roots. Many experiments run by researchers show that they can get participants form us vs. them groups based on superficial qualities such as eye color or sports team affiliation. (See more at this You Are Not So Smart episode.)

I know that my observation on how we label friends versus people we don’t know doesn’t hold up all the time. I know friends who have disowned family members or have terminated friendships over political disagreements such as which presidential candidate to for. But I also know people who haven’t done this.

No Winners - by Matthew Willis - The Racquet: The Plague of Either-Or Thinking

No Winners - by Matthew Willis - The Racquet

As a tennis player I've been following the drama with Novak Djokovic trying to play in the 2022 Australian Open while not being vaccinated from COVID. Ultimately, his visa was rejected and he was deported from Australia. The article linked above explains how Djokovic and his team tried to justify letting him play in the Open without being vaccinated. (I don't know if you need to subscribe to Willis's Substack to read it.)

I agree with this statement in the linked article: "I’ve been amazed over the last week or so watching how simple, or black and white, many people (journalists, fans, players et al) seem to think this saga is. Good vs evil." I call it the plague of either-or thinking. While I question whether the approach Australia has taken in dealing with the pandemic has been effective, I also have little sympathy for anyone who tries to enter the country knowing the stand the Australian government has taken.

It also doesn't help that people either love or hate Djokovic so it's easy for them to use him to reinforce their previous conclusions about the pandemic. To those who question the safety of the vaccines and/or whether the government has the right to mandate to get the vaccine, to wear masks or to self-isolate, Novak is a hero. To those who believe the government does have the right to mandate getting the "jab," require masks in public, and shut down restaurants, bars and other businesses, Novak is seen as an "anti-vaxxer" who puts his preferences before public safety. I'm not a mind reader so I can't say what Novak's motivation was but I'm sure some people think he was trying to "game the system."

To me Novak had three choices: 1. get the vaccinations needed to enter, 2. submit valid paperwork to justify why you can't get a vaccine, or 3. don't go. 

Djokovic has a lot at stake given that the Australian Open is one of the four major tennis tournaments that count toward a “Grand Slam.” Djokovic has 20 Grand Slam titles, tied with Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. If Djokovic had won the Australian Open he would have had the most Grand Slam titles in men’s tennis history. His choice on he handled this situation threatens his quest to have the most slams. Instead, Nadal could end up with this honor. (Federer won’t be playing due to an injury.) Considering what is at stake I question the wisdom of Djokovic’s decision. I wonder if he does too.

Elon Musk Thinks Every Child Should Learn About These 50 Cognitive Biases | Inc.com

Elon Musk Thinks Every Child Should Learn About These 50 Cognitive Biases | Inc.com

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1472647410568642564?s=20

The article in Inc. lists the 50 cognitive biases that Elon Musk thinks kids should be taught about in school. The second link takes you to the tweet Musk posted that shows these biases in an infographic. Given the number of these biases covering them would require a course dedicated to them. (This list, by the way, isn't comprehensive.)

Understanding the Divide Between Social Justice Advocates and the Left-Leaning "Anti-Woke" Community

Understanding the Divide Between Social Justice Advocates and the Left-Leaning "Anti-Woke" Community

The article at this link on the Clearer Thinking website does a nice job describing the positions of the "woke" left versus the "anti-woke" left. They use steelmanning to outline the positions both sides take on a variety of issues. (Steelmanning involves trying to strengthen the argument of the opposing side before trying to refute it.)

It would have been nice if they would have included libertarians and conservatives in this exercise! Of course if had done this the article would be twice as long.