Thread
1/

Seems like the political economy of standpoint epistemology is really important.

High quality quantitative or empiric knowledge is really expensive to create.
2/

Standpoint knowledge is really cheap.

It can be mass produced and then given an imprimatur by whatever astroturfed marginal group for the rounding error.
3/

To create high quality knowledge you need a lot of things at the same time: resources, a functional institutional environment, talented personnel properly oriented and incentivized, etc.
4/

Sense making on COVID was of existential importance to the CDC, a premier public health instruction.

The CDCs authority and legitimacy depended wholly on this task and it still failed iteratively.
5/

Standpoint knowledge, on the other hand, is irrefutable and sacrosanct.

And so it’s both cheap and reliable.

It relies on begging the question of course:

‘Standpoint knowledge is valuable because standpoint epistemology provides important insights.’
6/

So, it makes sense that sickly institution, like a legacy media property, will turn to it in its death throes.

But more functional and well capitalized institutions may also be incentivized to turn to it as well.
7/

The predictable thing that will happen is that people will be unhappy with the gibberish.

An institution that serves up the copy pasta in lieu of something else is by definition shirking its responsibilities- and almost always out of naked self interest.
8/

Standpoint knowledge requires an enforcement arm:

‘No actually this is what you wanted, as all good people do.’

‘This is the best way of thinking, as all competent people can agree.’

‘This is the agreed upon solution, and saying otherwise is disinformation.’
9/

An institution abrogating its responsibility on these terms will need a bunch of cops and commissars.

Some of that work can be crowd sourced, but bureaucracies with formal courts and judges will have to be established.
10/

The institution is changed because it is no longer fulfilling its mission.

And it is also changed by integrating the enforcement mechanisms.
11/

The institution can change further still:

Are there other healthy parts of the institution still functioning and doing hard work with unpredictable rewards?

They may see this corruption and be tempted.

‘Why not take a little break and astroturf some nonsense?’
12/

With the guard rails down and the corruption reaching to the top, what can be done when the chaos and madness ensue?

I think many businesses can find their way back because financial incentives.
13/

But government, academia, and high prestige/ low pay industries like journalism may be lost and irredeemable.

A lot of creatives are lost too: making good art seems like hard, expensive, and unpredictable work, so there are major temptations.
14/

So, yes there are the zealots and yes it’s an explicit intergenerational ideological project.

But there’s also a clear business model related to cheap *knowledge* production that is a persistent temptation.

And it usually takes a few years to realize the consequences.
Mentions
See All