I only write controversial books. For multiple reasons: I want to advance human knowledge. While I have many conventional views, multiple books ably defending these conventional views almost always already exist. I want to excel in my writing. My greatest intellectual strengths - imagination and iconoclasm - help me create high-quality controversial works. They wouldn’t help me craft conventional works. Probably the opposite, really.
"Sharing your angry feelings is an effective way to dominate the social world, but a terrible way to discover the truth or sincerely convince others."
If a tactic allows you to dominate the social world, why on earth would you care whether it allows you to discover the truth or sincerely convince others? Especially if the "you" in question is a social movement? Most any movement already thinks they have the truth about whatever their movement is about. So, discovery of the truth has already been taken care of. And sincerely convincing others isn't as important as getting them to change their behavior, regardless of what they think.
BTW, I think discovering the truth is important and sincerely convincing others is important, but I'm not confident enough in most any of my own beliefs to join a movement.
I have to give you points for consistency, in that feminists are about as likely to give up on the anger they use to control their turf as are countries to give up their borders.
I think Poverty: Who To Blame? will be your most controversial book if you include discussions of cognitive ability as you should. I think you’ll do the intellectually honest thing, but I think you’ll get attacked for it. I already respect your willingness to talk about controversial issues but I would be very impressed if you openly endorsed the other hereditarian view. You did something like this in your recent interview with Richard Hanania. I wonder if you’ll lose your bet against your university condemning you for this reason.
The same arguments that apply to feminism should apply to you: if your books cause such strong reactions among your friends, shouldn't this trouble your consciousness as well? Shouldn't you question yourself whether you are coming off as friendly?
Writing against feminism, whatever rational arguments you have for it, *seems* like expressing your angry feelings, and a great man once said, "Sharing your angry feelings is an effective way to dominate the social world, but a terrible way to discover the truth or sincerely convince others."
A great man also said: "If you want to combat error, critique your in-group. You speak their language and they trust you, so you might persuade someone. If you want to raise your status, critique your out-group. They won't listen, but your in-group will love it." I took these ideas to heart and it has been a guide to my writing ever since. It inspires me to write controversial things, but mostly to my in-group. I don't see you convincing anyone with a book entitled "Don't be a feminist".
I don’t think this is right. If a friend wanted to write a book called “Hitler made some good points” - not saying your book is comparable to that — I would tell him “don’t do that, you’ll ruin your reputation.” Not because the antifa or the Wiesenthal Center are all-powerful, but because many mainstream people would recoil. That’s what I fear here. But I hope I’m wrong.
Nothing exists in a vacuum. To be pointed, your friends' concern isn't about the content of the book but the title. Specifically, the title is unnecessarily flammable and will get you type casted. The title doesn't do you any favours and is easy to change, which is why people thought it would be easy to persuade you to modify it.
I feel the need to be very clear here because you seem oblivious to the relevant dynamics.
Jason Brennan wrote a book called Against Democracy; despite the inflammatory title, nobody was bothered. This is because there are relatively few edge-lords in the mainstream discourse writing against democracy. There are a large number of edge-lords sharing anti-feminist screeds as part of the mainstream discourse. It is common knowledge that many people will read the title of your book and associate you with the Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiros etc of the world.
At the height of #METOO and the Woke TDS freakout, I think the title of your book might have been enough to get a freakout if anyone noticed it.
But in 2022, I think a takedown of feminism just isn't very controversial. Is anything in your book going to be all that more controversial that what you can find in a Jordan Peterson lecture on the topic? The guy is doing sell out tours to huge crowds.
"A book harshly criticizing voter rationality and democracy itself."
Congress has a 20% approval rating or whatever and everyone thinks voters are idiots already. We all know the famous Winston Churchill quip.
It would be more controversial if you followed up this point by proposing and end to democracy (like Moldbug), but if your just making fun of idiocracy its not controversial.
"A book defending hereditarianism and natalism."
If you don't talk about race, there are plenty of people who have done this before.
"A book that calls education “a waste of time and money.”"
Literally most of the country thinks that college is signaling at best and not even good at signaling at worst. Outside of a small academic cocoon, this is not controversial.
"A book defending unlimited immigration."
This is more or less the de facto position of the Democratic Party and most elites. They aren't going to outright come out in favor of Open Borders, but near complete non-enforcement is functionally the same.
Your books aren't "controversial", their mildly edgelord.
Have you ever considered writing a book on anarcho-capitalism or do you think the ones by Rothbard and Friendman pretty much have it covered? I'm curious if your ideas vary in much degree to theirs.
I'm curious what the data are on whether writing controversial books changes minds more than writing books that are less contrarian...or at least appear so. I loved the Case Against Education, and the title hooked me, but I can imagine others would have a very different reaction.
I sometimes agree with you and sometimes not. But in this case, you are just attacking a strawman to be controversial (and show how "brave" you are).
I wonder what it would take for you to realize you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The loudest, most radical "feminists" being mean to you doesn't imply that there is equality in our society. Just because people *say* they believe in equality doesn't mean there is.
In neither your education nor your parenting book, however, did you go to a place that straightforwardly follows from your respective conclusions: advocating (voluntaryist, of course) eugenics. Achieve the education world's stated goals in the way the evidence sugests will actually work; improve future generations by encouraging all the marginally nurturant parents to raise the genetic progeny of the exceptional. I can only wonder what society's response would have been had you let your reasoning go there. :-D
Great books, read them all and I enjoyed reading them but they definitely aren't controversial, nothing within the Overton window is. And your books are definitely within that and not even at the edges trying to push it.
"Sharing your angry feelings is an effective way to dominate the social world, but a terrible way to discover the truth or sincerely convince others."
If a tactic allows you to dominate the social world, why on earth would you care whether it allows you to discover the truth or sincerely convince others? Especially if the "you" in question is a social movement? Most any movement already thinks they have the truth about whatever their movement is about. So, discovery of the truth has already been taken care of. And sincerely convincing others isn't as important as getting them to change their behavior, regardless of what they think.
BTW, I think discovering the truth is important and sincerely convincing others is important, but I'm not confident enough in most any of my own beliefs to join a movement.
I have to give you points for consistency, in that feminists are about as likely to give up on the anger they use to control their turf as are countries to give up their borders.
I think Poverty: Who To Blame? will be your most controversial book if you include discussions of cognitive ability as you should. I think you’ll do the intellectually honest thing, but I think you’ll get attacked for it. I already respect your willingness to talk about controversial issues but I would be very impressed if you openly endorsed the other hereditarian view. You did something like this in your recent interview with Richard Hanania. I wonder if you’ll lose your bet against your university condemning you for this reason.
The same arguments that apply to feminism should apply to you: if your books cause such strong reactions among your friends, shouldn't this trouble your consciousness as well? Shouldn't you question yourself whether you are coming off as friendly?
Writing against feminism, whatever rational arguments you have for it, *seems* like expressing your angry feelings, and a great man once said, "Sharing your angry feelings is an effective way to dominate the social world, but a terrible way to discover the truth or sincerely convince others."
A great man also said: "If you want to combat error, critique your in-group. You speak their language and they trust you, so you might persuade someone. If you want to raise your status, critique your out-group. They won't listen, but your in-group will love it." I took these ideas to heart and it has been a guide to my writing ever since. It inspires me to write controversial things, but mostly to my in-group. I don't see you convincing anyone with a book entitled "Don't be a feminist".
I don’t think this is right. If a friend wanted to write a book called “Hitler made some good points” - not saying your book is comparable to that — I would tell him “don’t do that, you’ll ruin your reputation.” Not because the antifa or the Wiesenthal Center are all-powerful, but because many mainstream people would recoil. That’s what I fear here. But I hope I’m wrong.
I'm confused by your confusion Bryan.
Nothing exists in a vacuum. To be pointed, your friends' concern isn't about the content of the book but the title. Specifically, the title is unnecessarily flammable and will get you type casted. The title doesn't do you any favours and is easy to change, which is why people thought it would be easy to persuade you to modify it.
I feel the need to be very clear here because you seem oblivious to the relevant dynamics.
Jason Brennan wrote a book called Against Democracy; despite the inflammatory title, nobody was bothered. This is because there are relatively few edge-lords in the mainstream discourse writing against democracy. There are a large number of edge-lords sharing anti-feminist screeds as part of the mainstream discourse. It is common knowledge that many people will read the title of your book and associate you with the Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiros etc of the world.
"in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless"-Robespierre
At the height of #METOO and the Woke TDS freakout, I think the title of your book might have been enough to get a freakout if anyone noticed it.
But in 2022, I think a takedown of feminism just isn't very controversial. Is anything in your book going to be all that more controversial that what you can find in a Jordan Peterson lecture on the topic? The guy is doing sell out tours to huge crowds.
Are these controversial:
"A book harshly criticizing voter rationality and democracy itself."
Congress has a 20% approval rating or whatever and everyone thinks voters are idiots already. We all know the famous Winston Churchill quip.
It would be more controversial if you followed up this point by proposing and end to democracy (like Moldbug), but if your just making fun of idiocracy its not controversial.
"A book defending hereditarianism and natalism."
If you don't talk about race, there are plenty of people who have done this before.
"A book that calls education “a waste of time and money.”"
Literally most of the country thinks that college is signaling at best and not even good at signaling at worst. Outside of a small academic cocoon, this is not controversial.
"A book defending unlimited immigration."
This is more or less the de facto position of the Democratic Party and most elites. They aren't going to outright come out in favor of Open Borders, but near complete non-enforcement is functionally the same.
Your books aren't "controversial", their mildly edgelord.
"But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid."
Have you ever considered writing a book on anarcho-capitalism or do you think the ones by Rothbard and Friendman pretty much have it covered? I'm curious if your ideas vary in much degree to theirs.
"The underlying premise, naturally, was that the feminist movement is at once terribly powerful and horribly bad-tempered."
Is it also possible that the persons giving you counsel believed that your argument wasn't very strong?
I'm curious what the data are on whether writing controversial books changes minds more than writing books that are less contrarian...or at least appear so. I loved the Case Against Education, and the title hooked me, but I can imagine others would have a very different reaction.
I sometimes agree with you and sometimes not. But in this case, you are just attacking a strawman to be controversial (and show how "brave" you are).
I wonder what it would take for you to realize you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The loudest, most radical "feminists" being mean to you doesn't imply that there is equality in our society. Just because people *say* they believe in equality doesn't mean there is.
More:
https://www.mattball.org/2022/09/equality-repost.html
In neither your education nor your parenting book, however, did you go to a place that straightforwardly follows from your respective conclusions: advocating (voluntaryist, of course) eugenics. Achieve the education world's stated goals in the way the evidence sugests will actually work; improve future generations by encouraging all the marginally nurturant parents to raise the genetic progeny of the exceptional. I can only wonder what society's response would have been had you let your reasoning go there. :-D
Great books, read them all and I enjoyed reading them but they definitely aren't controversial, nothing within the Overton window is. And your books are definitely within that and not even at the edges trying to push it.