Helen Pluckrose...why?

She's blocked me on Twitter

Yup, I was blocked when I dared to argue back against her & her buddies, to disagree about the sex-pay gap. It was not a measured nor a pleasant exchange on her part.

I think that it was done to expose the absolutely piss-poor state of academia where standards and evidence don't matter so long as you say the woke thing. And they did expose that.

There are so many generalising and inaccurate sweeping statements there.

What they exposed, if "expose" is the word you want to keep on using - is that in scholarly work, arguments, ideas, and lots of them, are what we feed on, and learn from.

Although I still think that unresearched material, written in bad faith to try to "catch people out" is unethical and should be called out. For me, as a serious scholar, whose currency is careful detailed argument based in research, the "Grievance Studies" people reveal far more about themselves, than the state of humanities scholarship.

Scholarly argument is not to "decide" what is "wrong" and what is "right." It's about debate and collaboration.

She's blocked me on Twitter, presumably because I'm one of those nasty TERF types. Ah well.

I've heard people talk a lot about how secularism has created a kind of moral gap

There's a huge field of philosophical writing about this. You might like the work of Emmanuel Levinas - he offers a very doable way of thinking ethically without a god. Or John Stuart Mill. Both write very accessibly for the non-specialist, although their writing is rigorous.

It's also worth reading Nietzsche. In English, his writing has an energy and drive which is exhilirating.

I wrote this last time I had a discussion with Helen Pluckrose hiyamaya.net/2020/05/13/3632/

I think if she were to follow her liberal ethics to its logical end point she would end up at the conclusion that the only practical thing is to say "no" to all adult males in any women's single sex space, and in jobs where a woman is required etc... she almost gets there, but something stops her going to the logical conclusion (presumably personal relationships 'not my Nigel' etc..), and she doesn't want to say that the feminists are right on this.

Goosefoot that sounds like a fascinating article. I've heard people talk a lot about how secularism has created a kind of moral gap. I'm not religious at all but I do see a role for some kind of religious structure in society - even on a practical level, the church was a way of distributing resources and providing community, which we no longer have. Christianity is quite a 'good' religion (in its more liberal versions) that emphasises the idea of our human connection to one another and our responsibilities. Instead we now have a moral vacuum which opportunists are taking full advantage of.

To be fair to Helen she doesn’t describe herself as a feminist. She wrote an essay called why I am not a feminist. I have not read cynical theories but I have listened to a couple of podcasts with her on. I think she is an interesting voice.

She developed a form of OCD called scruplulosity (I really can’t spell) which is an extreme form of religious observance. I think that has left her understandably wary of anyone who was very fixed in their beliefs. She does see social justice warriors as being very similar to religious fundamentalists.

She said she thought some of her papers should have been rejected on ethical grounds because they were too unkind to men. I think she respects the GC perspective doesn’t believe in it herself but thinks it is a perspective that should be discussed.

It was talking about the idea in the late Enlightenment, from people like Nietzche, and later through psychology in Freud, that the death of God was supposed to free people from guilt - supposedly the product of religion. So we would no longer have religion telling us our natural urges were bad and we could use psychoanalysis to get rid of whatever hang-ups we had, and we'd all be free to become supermen and so forth. All the social ills supposedly caused by widespread oppression would be gone.

Instead we've seen almost the opposite. We now feel guilt with, and are increasingly required to rehearse our collective sins over and over, with no mechanism for forgiveness or redemption. It's not only our own sins that we need to atone for either, but the sins of our fathers, something that had been out of fashion in western religion for some time.

It makes the project of secularisation begin to seem as if it was being led by people whose insight into human psychology wasn't really all that robust after all.

A bit about the Grievance Studies hoax for those who are unfamiliar: www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/

I don't agree. It was a juvenile hoax, and done with malicious intent (confirmation bias can work both ways). Unethical.

Why is it unethical to expose the unethical workings of certain areas of academia? Do you say the same about the Sokal hoax?

I don't think it was done with malicious intent. I think that it was done to expose the absolutely piss-poor state of academia where standards and evidence don't matter so long as you say the woke thing. And they did expose that. Don't shoot the messengers.

I get that you don't like Helen Pluckrose and don't agree with her but she's not a 'malicious whiner'. She's a decent person who has a different point of view to you.

Therefore, we need the best GC feminists putting across the case for strong protections of women's spaces & sports & the best trans activists putting across the case for protections of trans people's rights to identify as a sex without harassment or impediment

What a peculiar sentence for an intelligent person to come out with. Can she not see that the words "without impediment" mean that the second half directly contradicts the first half?

They exposed a huge problem in academia especially in the humanities where if you use the correct language you can pretty much come to any conclusion you like and get your work published

This is just not true. I doubt they'd get published in Past and Present or Victorian Studies or Notes and Queries or PMLA just to name some of the internationally highest ranked Humanities journals.

James Lindsay has also talked a lot about wokery as a religion and the idea that there's sin and guilt but no forgiveness or redemption. There's been quite a bit of discussion about the role the ideology plays as either religion or cult, and whether the fact that religion has become less influential in Western society is a factor in the rise of wokery. I heard Murray recently describing a video where white people in the streets were literally flogging themselves while black people begged them to please stop! There is an extremeness to the 'faith' which is extremely worrying. It's one of the reasons why this movement is impervious to logic and reasoned arguments: it's very much a faith to its devoted adherents.

It also gave them a deep insight into the workings of academia and the affect it's having on critical thinking, freedom of speech, and other issues

I don't agree. It was a juvenile hoax, and done with malicious intent (confirmation bias can work both ways). Unethical.

And Pluckrose has talked whined quite a bit about being "shut out" of academia, as if it's a conspiracy against her.

As an Humanities academic and a proper scholar, I think that these sorts of pranks do very little more than demonstrate that we don't deal in arguments which can be decided in a black & white way. (And as a side note we should remember that scientists are always changing & adapting & adjusting arguments to account for new or changed data).

It's a rather puerile form of "Gotcha" that undermines the slow careful work of argument from research and ethically based deep thinking.

It's easy to slag off "postmodernism" but most people haven't read what they think they're undermining. I use Judith Butler's work precisely to argue for a gender critical approach - again it's not, Butler=bad; other people=good. It's never so black & white as that.

I was fascinated by Jane Clare Jones' paragraph by paragraph close reading of Cynical Theories on Twitter. It's worth a read.

She sounds like she is libertarian or at least leans that way. The thing I've found with libertarian politics is they generally sound good as a big picture type thing but arguments fall apart quite quickly when you start trying to apply the ideals to real life, nuanced situations.

She got to know James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian through an athiest web forum which was captured by woke ideologists

You know, that is interesting given the quasi religious intensity which defines 'woke' ideology. Douglas Murray has described it as a religion with original sin, but no possible redemption. Its liturgies, its chants, its Manichean certainties. Its heretics.

Bovary No problem. I spent my entire lockdown listening to political podcasts from absolutely everyone who looked remotely interesting!

She is clearly a person of some intelligence so it seems unlikely she is just saying that to excuse poor performance. The point is she would excel in academia if she would just go along with the narrative.

I watched an interview with Helen where she talked about her background. She worked with people as a home carer for several years, and specialised in dealing with difficult, sometimes violent, dementia sufferers. Unfortunately she became ill and was unable to continue that work, so she took up an MA in medieval women's writing, religious writing in particular. She got to know James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian through an athiest web forum which was captured by woke ideologists. She's also said it was hard to complete her MA because of her illness. I think she just didn't get the same opportunity as some to go into academia, but she has this incredible background as a carer which I think is really great. A lot of academics are very disconnected from the real world. Helen Pluckrose is definitely a hands on kind of a woman.

They didn't just send the articles, they were peer reviewed, accepted and in some cases published. They exposed a huge problem in academia especially in the humanities where if you use the correct language you can pretty much come to any conclusion you like and get your work published

Signal

Great post. This pernicious doctrine originated in the US academy; from the debris of the collapse of communism; became America's most successful export and has now colonised the English speaking Western world. It is authoritarian, Manichean, incoherent and embraced with fanaticism by some of the palest, most privileged 0.0001 percenters on the planet. Its rapid capture of both the private and public sectors on both sides of the Atlantic is incredible to behold.

I think James Lindsay is great. There was an entire Twitter exchange with him during which the intersectionalists tried to argue 2+2=5. Sometimes. I find it surprising that Helen Pluckrose does not seem to see the institutional/regulatory capture issue given that this entire paradigm is a US academy export. Thanks for posting the letters. That was a useful introduction for me because I didn't know anything much about Helen Pluckrose.

Bovary I really like James Lindsay too and think he has a brilliant way of explaining what critical theory is and where it comes from. He is a very transparent thinker and speaker. Helen Pluckrose on the other hand is quite opaque and even with her letters and tweets it's not always easy to understand exactly what her position is. I suspect that she just really doesn't have much time for feminism, thinks it is all just identity politics, and maybe that feminists are paranoid and inflating risks and threats that aren't really there. I do think she's maybe a bit stuck in her position as she seems to find it hard to articulate and she comes across as a bit dogmatic. I wonder if there's a missing link somewhere - an unquestioned/invisible premise, maybe. I don't know really but I do think that James Lindsay gets a lot of credit for his work on social justice/critical theory while Helen's contribution is often overlooked and she gets a load of flak for not agreeing with feminists while James mostly gets a pass for that.

She was involved with a group who thought they were v clever for sending articles which they made up (not real research) to scholarly journals

They didn't just send the articles, they were peer reviewed, accepted and in some cases published. They exposed a huge problem in academia especially in the humanities where if you use the correct language you can pretty much come to any conclusion you like and get your work published.

She and her pals (all with chips on their shoulders about not getting academic jobs)

HP's account is that she wanted to continue her post graduate studies but that because she does not hold the "correct" opinions in relation to race/gender/intersectionality etc. she would not do very well. She is clearly a person of some intelligence so it seems unlikely she is just saying that to excuse poor performance. The point is she would excel in academia if she would just go along with the narrative.

Peter Boghossian already worked in academia but is now under investigation following the "hoax" papers. He has basically put his academic career at risk in order to expose how corrupt the system is. I think this was brave. He must've had some idea about what could happen to him.

I think it’s largely unhelpful to get too caught up in the disagreements between other women, although on occasion the exchange can be quite interesting. I’ve seen Maya & Helen’s tweets and found Maya to be extremely polite and just really having a normal chat about the issues, whereas Helen wasn’t overly interested in having it at all and very quickly I found her replies to be pointless and passive aggressive. Maya is incredibly interesting to read though, so that was at least beneficial.

One tweet stuck out to me from Helen:
Therefore, we need the best GC feminists putting across the case for strong protections of women's spaces & sports & the best trans activists putting across the case for protections of trans people's rights to identify as a sex without harassment or impediment

I really don’t understand the point of the ‘right to identify as a sex’ except with women’s spaces and sports. And we can’t ever challenge a man insisting on being called a women outside of our spaces and sports? Why? I don’t see a good argument from Helen on this. I’m not going to pretend ridiculous things like a man is of the female sex, anywhere tbh. I find it an incredible imposition to have to pretend something that’s so obviously false. Are we being asked to pretend the men taking women’s positions in political parties are women too? I think that’s her position- although it’s so wishy washy it’s hard to tell & she seems irritated when asked to clarify or even consider other positions and reconsider her own.

I think James Lindsay is great. There was an entire Twitter exchange with him during which the intersectionalists tried to argue 2+2=5. Sometimes. I find it surprising that Helen Pluckrose does not seem to see the institutional/regulatory capture issue given that this entire paradigm is a US academy export. Thanks for posting the letters. That was a useful introduction for me because I didn't know anything much about Helen Pluckrose.