"We’re in an unprecedented epistemic ecosystem where people adopt ardent beliefs based on *half-remembered* tweets, ethereal wisps floating across their newsfeed pipeline..."
I wish more would highlight the "half-remembered" part. It only dawned on me recently just how much misinformation is born of commentators who are overconfident in their memory. Sometimes the deception isn't even intentional; most people have horrendously bad memory and get innocuous details wrong on a regular basis. The whole reason students have to put time into studying for tests is because retaining information is hard, yet a whole generation of commentators thinks they have flawless recall when it comes to obscure political trivia from 8 years ago. I would write a piece about this but then they would probably just forget what it said.
There's a sort of Laffer Curve argument you can make that the infinitely greater access to information through ubiquitous internet access actually stunted our ability to remember things accurately. Not only from becoming overly reliant on external repertoire, but also from growing overly cavalier about things we re-assert (wouldn't someone else correct us if we're wrong?).
It's very similar dynamic to how improving rescue capabilities for mountain climbers might cause more people to die in terms of raw numbers because 1) more people in total will try climbing that mountain and 2) the climbers will take more risks thinking they'll be rescued if anything goes wrong.
Oh, for sure. Also greater access to information means a greater denominator on the number of facts that are relevant to a politically engaged person. There's a whole cast of characters in politics that our attention was not trained on decades ago, and far more people participating in regular heated political disagreement than in the pre-digital age. Lots of opportunities for important details to get garbled by memory.
As a lurker more than an active consumer, I feel a bit out of place commenting this, but good luck and congratulations on your book. If I may make a confession, your post "Eleven Magic Words" was one of the few things that made me wonder if law school would have been a good idea. That I didn't go was probably for the best in the long-term interest of myself and the community at large, but it doesn't change the fact that you're a damn good writer.
>I’ve been too-online for so long that I just got used to how unhinged transgender activists, woke identitarians, and far leftists can get
You may want to check out bluesky sometime. Although in the interest of your mental health and your devotion to other life commitments, maybe not.
Thanks man, I really appreciate it. It was extremely gratifying (and very lucky) to have received such a spectacularly positive response to literally the first thing I've ever professionally written. Hopefully I can surpass the bar I set for myself.
I'm already on Bluesky (got an invite from the CEO herself in person!) but barely use it. Its primary purpose is to serve as an online book of contacts for all those people I previously connected with via Twitter. Losing that by deleting my Twitter account was definitely a huge bummer, but still it was the right decision.
Anecdotally, the writing of yours I enjoy the most are those that give me insight into how the legal system works that I could not easily obtain elsewhere, while also being entertaining to read. Your other writing is good too, but I think that's where you stand out. I have yet to find any other legal blog that's anywhere near as good.
The sports thing is so weird to me. I feel like that's one of the most *unobjectionable* parts of trans discourse. No one is harmed, it's entirely voluntary, none of the arguments against it make even cursory sense.
Your lawyering anecdotes are by far the best part of this blog. I'll preorder as soon as you let us know we can.
You're in for a treat! The main arc is going to involve some unbelievable shit, including how lawyering and personal life got hopelessly muddled.
"We’re in an unprecedented epistemic ecosystem where people adopt ardent beliefs based on *half-remembered* tweets, ethereal wisps floating across their newsfeed pipeline..."
I wish more would highlight the "half-remembered" part. It only dawned on me recently just how much misinformation is born of commentators who are overconfident in their memory. Sometimes the deception isn't even intentional; most people have horrendously bad memory and get innocuous details wrong on a regular basis. The whole reason students have to put time into studying for tests is because retaining information is hard, yet a whole generation of commentators thinks they have flawless recall when it comes to obscure political trivia from 8 years ago. I would write a piece about this but then they would probably just forget what it said.
There's a sort of Laffer Curve argument you can make that the infinitely greater access to information through ubiquitous internet access actually stunted our ability to remember things accurately. Not only from becoming overly reliant on external repertoire, but also from growing overly cavalier about things we re-assert (wouldn't someone else correct us if we're wrong?).
It's very similar dynamic to how improving rescue capabilities for mountain climbers might cause more people to die in terms of raw numbers because 1) more people in total will try climbing that mountain and 2) the climbers will take more risks thinking they'll be rescued if anything goes wrong.
Oh, for sure. Also greater access to information means a greater denominator on the number of facts that are relevant to a politically engaged person. There's a whole cast of characters in politics that our attention was not trained on decades ago, and far more people participating in regular heated political disagreement than in the pre-digital age. Lots of opportunities for important details to get garbled by memory.
All very true. If you come across any writing or commentary on this issue, please send it my way.
As a lurker more than an active consumer, I feel a bit out of place commenting this, but good luck and congratulations on your book. If I may make a confession, your post "Eleven Magic Words" was one of the few things that made me wonder if law school would have been a good idea. That I didn't go was probably for the best in the long-term interest of myself and the community at large, but it doesn't change the fact that you're a damn good writer.
>I’ve been too-online for so long that I just got used to how unhinged transgender activists, woke identitarians, and far leftists can get
You may want to check out bluesky sometime. Although in the interest of your mental health and your devotion to other life commitments, maybe not.
Thanks man, I really appreciate it. It was extremely gratifying (and very lucky) to have received such a spectacularly positive response to literally the first thing I've ever professionally written. Hopefully I can surpass the bar I set for myself.
I'm already on Bluesky (got an invite from the CEO herself in person!) but barely use it. Its primary purpose is to serve as an online book of contacts for all those people I previously connected with via Twitter. Losing that by deleting my Twitter account was definitely a huge bummer, but still it was the right decision.
Note to self to read later
👉👈🥺
Anecdotally, the writing of yours I enjoy the most are those that give me insight into how the legal system works that I could not easily obtain elsewhere, while also being entertaining to read. Your other writing is good too, but I think that's where you stand out. I have yet to find any other legal blog that's anywhere near as good.
The sports thing is so weird to me. I feel like that's one of the most *unobjectionable* parts of trans discourse. No one is harmed, it's entirely voluntary, none of the arguments against it make even cursory sense.