Causing Me To Reconsider Haidt

Astral Codex Ten is having a fun contest with solicited book reviews. The reviewers are kept anonymous to keep their identities (presumably quite recognisable to the group) from biasing the voting. They are long, and this may take a while.  But ACX has very good commenters in addition to Dr. Siskind, and I think it will be worth it.  

The first one I am reading is a review of Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind, and while the reviewer finds many good things in the book, he is generally negative, finding it inadequate and weak rather than wrong.  I am a fan of Haidt, and have written about him with approval a couple of dozen times over the years, including that book in specific.  Yet as I read along I found myself agreeing with the criticisms and wondering how much to reevaluate. 

In particular, I agreed with how inadequate Haidt's understanding of the psychology of conservatives is. The reviewer grew up in a Fundamentalist/Pentecostal culture and now seems to be a liberal with New Atheist sympathies. He claims he could give a much better description of what the motivations are than Haidt does in this book - and I think he succeeds. Perhaps I have been grateful that a liberal (now centrist) social psychologist had any reasonable words for conservatives and religious people at all when I first encountered him.

Update:  For example

As a result, he engages with neither rank-and-file God’n’guns religious conservatism nor the intellectual conservative tradition of “what is good for the masses to believe is not identical to what’s fundamentally true, please consult my 60,000 word essay on decision theory, game theory, computational load, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire for details, therefore Catholicism”. He doesn’t really seem to realise that either of these positions exists, and “steel-mans” conservatism into some sort of superposition across “group selection informs us as to normative ethics” and “group selection is teleological towards utilitarian human flourishing”, both of which are utterly insane positions that I think almost nobody actually holds.

It's a good take, and good writing.

Democrats Bankrolling Fringe Republicans

Republicans that they consider fringe, anyway.  Easier to beat in the general election. Claire McAskill has used it before, which I missed when it happened. NPR and WaPo are both reporting on the phenomenon.

It seems dishonest and anti-democratic in the extreme. I don't like the idea of pretending to be undeclared in order to vote in the other primary either, though I hear it has been done. Tactical voting makes me uncomfortable in general.  Parties should nominate who they want without interference. I don't want the Democrats to nominate a crazy-bad candidate, but one that I think would be least damaging. One of these days it's going to go badly wrong, such as if a candidate dies before the election or has some major scandal knock them out.

Also, imagine the extension of this if it is successful even just a bit, of both parties putting money into opponents they think they can paint as dangerous - sometimes with good reason. Heck, you could hire stealth members of your own party who are actors and give them lots of money to run.  In a primary with several candidates you start to get some real wild-card outcomes. 

I can't see any way to forbid it that isn't even more anti-democratic.

Stay

 Did I post this already a few months ago?  I've been singing it since winter.

Lest We Forget

Posted in April 2006. It was on the car of a coworker, a socially graceful MSW who now lives down in Asheville. Sorry, Grim. We haven't always sent our best, I'm afraid. Imagine it with Hillary or Obama instead, what the outcry would be.

Robot Birthday

On August 5th, 100,000 robotic lawn mowers can sing Happy Birthday to the loneliest robot in the universe.

 

Husqvarna is offering an add-on so the lawn mowers can sing Happy Birthday to Curiosity on Mars.  My son has one of these (Hank may be my favorite grandchild) and is planning to sign on.

Etiology and Treatment of Childhood

I posted this years ago, and send it to friends from time-to-time. The Etiology and Treatment of Childhood.

Popular Governors

 It is worth noting the left-hand side of the graph, where a few governors are not greatly disliked, even if they are not particularly liked.

AI Error

I mentioned my daughter-in-law's TikTok account Pinay Sa Alaska (Filipina in Alaska) which has become very popular in the Philippines. The account was suddenly blocked, and they couldn't figure out why.  She appealed, and some sites suggested that it might be weeks or even months  before a determination was made.  She was reinstated in four days, and the report included the offending footage, which was determined to not violate community guidelines after all.

It was a video closeup of my son cleaning a salmon.  Big knife.  Blood. She had been shut down while she was still talking in the background, so the thinking is that the AI cannot distinguish between human and fish being cut by a big knife, with blood, and just shut her down automatically.

Fall of the Roman Empire

Just a few notes based on what I have been picking up from reading and podcasts.  The information isn't new, but it had not fully penetrated my thinking until recently.  There is debate about how much the empire actually fell, as opposed to merely changing, and different times are assigned to different "falls." 476 AD is fine, it just relies on a number of assumptions, and people could and have picked earlier and later times. 

Because I am more interested in what occurred in northern Europe, particularly Romano-Britain, I find it clearest to look at the whole enterprise regionally. While we can legitimately claim that Rome itself kept its institutions and mostly just got a new set of rulers, in Britain there was an unquestionable collapse of empire. On the far frontier such as Hadrian's Wall, there was loss of money, then population in the market towns supporting the wall forts as the pay for the garrison soldiers became more irregular, and then in a very few years around the year 400 the forts themselves were abandoned, and no fresh money comes to the frontier at all. There might be over 1000 living in the fort, all requiring food, drink, clothing, animals and repairs - a solid market for the locals, and in a decade, nothing. One after another the garrisons were abandoned, beginning with the Antonine Wall long before in 150AD, the last expansion to the north and unwise from the start. 

Just a bit further east in the borders with the various Germans the collapse was similar, but much of this was because of the local tribes, which had invariably been described as fractious and undisciplined before this, learned to bad together at least temporarily and throw the Romans out. It highlights the difficulty of separating what is an internal cause and which is external.  The unity of the tribes against them looks like an entirely external force.  Yet they only grew up and grew together because so many of the tribes had members who had worked in the Roman military for part of their lives.  Individuals, clans, or whole tribes would hire themselves out to the Romans, who always needed a steady supply. While it is true that Rome still hoped to send new recruits to other regions to specifically avoid the conflict of interest and temptations of corruption and desertion, this became increasingly impractical. Some might still be sent to Palmyra or Spain, but others were temporary and never left the frontier.  They absorbed Roman discipline and practice and could therefore meld more easily with other tribes with similar experience. 

A second bit recently learned is that the earliest archaeology in England was often less concerned with learning what earlier peoples had been like than with simply exposing the ruins to view as much as possible.  This was a teaching tool so that everyone would have some idea what things looked like, and also something of a mood piece or decoration, an illustration of the past. Locales were proud of having their very own ruin to display. Because sites that were in agricultural settings had often been plowed over numerous times, there wouldn't be much to find, or even identify what had been there.  This gave primacy to more remote places where the agriculture was pastoral, disturbing the ruins less. Such remoteness also discouraged raiding the structures for usable stone over the centuries. The archaeology of Newcastle, just as an example, is under lots of other archaeology of Newcastle. Romantic hilltop views suitable for postcards are thus overrepresented, both in the landscape and in our imaginations.

Cognitive Distortions

James points out the new Quillette article about IQ research.  I hadn't realised the deception had risen to that level of power, but this is the common pattern, yes. Lump unconnected people together to create an association, then refute only a few of them, pretending that the work of the others is no better. Refuse to address the science and data and just say that it's scientific racism and shouldn't be listened to. Once that is in place then you don't even have to report on any "controversy," you can just decline to acknowledge the topic altogether. 

I wonder if Quillette will have any effect.

SPAM

 My email spam has switched to power tools, cryptocurrency, IMF disbursements, and YETI coolers. Interesting how these things turn over, like a kaleidoscope.

I Stopped Reading

There is an essay over at Quillette about the ACT. The author has been a university professor in both biology and psychology for decades, and has worked at an ACT prep center as a tutor, usually with individual students, often nonstandard.  He has taken the ACT himself numerous times.  It sounds ideal. Yet what it shows most clearly is how thoroughly assumptions and preconceptions affect the evidence before out eyes. 

Students who take the ACT are asked to racially self-identify (not all do). These are the average composite scores for the five largest racial categories, followed (in parentheses) by the composite scores for those students who took four or more years of English and three or more years each of math, social studies, and natural sciences: Black = 16.3 (17.9), Hispanic/Latino = 18.3 (20.3), White = 21.7 (23.3), Asian = 24.9 (26.7), Two or More Races = 20.6 (22.5), and No Response = 19.2 (23.7). Clearly, taking a more rigorous high school curriculum helps everyone. (Italics mine. I stopped reading after that.)

No, you fool, how often do we have to go over this?  The people who took the more rigorous high school curriculum were already smarter.  They were already going to do better on the ACT. How much better?  We don't know from this data.  This data tells us precisely nothing about it. We do know from other sources how much prep classes help (Answer, it depends on what you are measuring, but it is mixed.  Basically, if you are getting your first shot at a kid who has not figured out until recently that these tests are important, you can get some increase, teaching them the things that the competitive [whether against other children or against the test] children figured out years ago, usually gradually. Everyone else, they will show a natural improvement by being a year older.)

If that seems odd, remember that actual abstract reasoning does not start until around age 13, even in the brightest students.  Children can follow logical reasoning and give some of it back before then, but don't start doing it on their own until then, and often unevenly.  The brightest students may actually have the dumbest ideas, as they spread their wings earlier. So taking standardised tests at 16, 17, 18 is more different than one might think, Memorised vocabulary and what math or science has been taken can be force-fed, but doing analogies or figuring out what type of math is going to bring you to a solution involves real thinking. SAT/ACT prep courses make their basic living on the natural increase in scores for students that have three years of abstract thinking versus two under their belt.  The classes take credit for that and convince the parents that the children did better mostly because of the expensive course they signed up for.

And as I said the good student who treated testing as a sideline her whole career who now sees that her PSAT projections aren't going to get her into the schools she wants is suddenly motivated to understand what is this test and how do I get more points.  They can crash course and grab a goodly gain.

Once.

Which is also great word-of-mouth for the prep course.  If they do good work with learning-disabled or decently intelligent but basically clueless students, I am glad to hear it. But be careful before shelling out big money for these.  They work great in limited circumstances.

Yet here we are, with a clear expert making assertions that fail the basic logic tests that actually are part of some of the standard testing questions.  And BTW, how is this person not getting perfects scores on these tests at this point?  Are you kidding me? Only the occasional slip-up should be keeping them off the top scores now. 

This person knows much more about the tests than I do at this point, much, much more. Yet he does not know some deeply important overall information about the tests.  I think this is an example for a dozen other varieties of expert.  The Russia team of the CIA in the 1980s knew incomparably more than I did about the USSR. If I had challenged one at a gathering (my parents did know one well who had retired to Wolfeboro, but no, I did not challenge him) I would have been quickly humiliated.  Yet they had it badly wrong, not because they were stupid, or didn't work hard, or had bad training or even that they didn't think hard about the deep puzzles.  They were wrong because of their assumptions, a hundred unquestioned assumptions they mostly shared. 

I'm not sure it works that much better when experts disagree.  I got to see mental health up close, and there was some tendency for the various schools of thought to double and triple down on pet ideas. I'm not sure experts changed their minds much. "Well, I was always taught that the first thing you ask a borderline is..." which carried the loaded implication that this is elementary, basic knowledge you fool, you fool. For years I said that the people who had experience and those who had education made equal, but different errors, and did not listen to each other well.  But I just made that up from sitting at tables of people jockeying for position and watching what decisions got made. I guess it is still a good first approximation, but I like that summary less than I did in 1992.

The difficulty is that unlearning is much more difficult than learning. I don't know how we would teach children unlearning in any way that was not merely comical and artificial, having no bearing on future understanding.

Sprinters

 US Sprinters doing well this year.

Hot Beverages

Stuart Ritchie reminds us that hot beverages don't actually cool us down.  The short version is there was one study in Canada of semi-nude participants sweating more during exercise because of the higher internal temperature.  Just a little bit. In highly limited circumstances.

Nine “semi-nude” men cycled non-strenuously on a stationary bike for 75 minutes in a warm-ish room (24°C), and had their temperatures measured in their oesophagus (via a probe in their nose) and rectally. They were linked up to a calorimeter, which calculated their heat production from the amount of oxygen they were using and the carbon dioxide they were breathing out. They were also weighed with a very sensitive scale to measure sweat loss.

Just before, and then a few times during, the exercise they were given a controlled amount of water, adding up to just under a litre across the whole experiment, at various temperatures: 1.5°C, 10°C, 37°C, and 50°C. Each participant did four sessions, one at each of the water temperatures.

To note a few things already: n = 9; only males; doing exercise for quite a long time; in a not-particularly-hot room; rapidly drinking water, not sipping a cup of tea. They also had a big fan pointed at them to help their sweat to evaporate away. These are just a few of the differences between this experiment and perhaps the average person’s situation in a heatwave - and I haven’t even mentioned the fact they were doing all this while they had a thermometer “inserted to a minimum of 12 cm past [their] anal sphincter”.

That's it.  It was in Smithsonian, so it got wide play, but that's the extent of the research.

Lost, Not Stolen

I am no expert on election law, but I trust Volokh Conspiracy over at Reason, who put out the report on the election "Lost, Not Stolen," written by a qualified and a believable cast of characters. I would add that identifying a vulnerability, though clearly a cause for great concern and rapid remedy, is not the same as identifying fraudulent votes.

There'll Always Be an England

We went to see the "The Mousetrap" tonight, and in the lead-up they played British from that era.  I had done the same thing myself on the way up, irritating the oldest granddaughter with "We'll Meet Again." Which they also played while we were waiting for the curtain to go up, which I pointed out triumphantly.

I had never heard this song, only only heard of it.  Once they played it I knew I had to share it with all of you.

James linked to Mark Steyn writing about it, including Julie Andrews singing it.  That might have been more fun.

Opioids Part Four

 Tim sends along some final thoughts - though I will bet you could keep him engaged if you wanted to.

Longer thoughts on scalability and political feasibility. Probably more than you bargained for but these were thoughts I had on my list of things to start writing out anyways. I know this will be too long for comments but let me know if I should break it up and add them. 

On political feasibility. In New Hampshire, it was a libertarian-leaning Republican member of the House who was also a physician that led the charge on legalizing syringe exchange programs. Governor Sununu has been a proponent of harm reduction and Manchester-based Democrats the biggest opposition while declaring that they support it in theory. So, I think your political read is spot on. The idea of a brave Republican president doing something on principle might be our best shot. The other possibility would be a convicted Democrat serving their last term. But, I'm not holding my breath on that option. 

The one thing that might make it easier is if it didn't need to happen legislatively. Doing anything with heroin is a huge task BUT, expanding what is considered a legitimate medical reason to prescribe substances like morphine and hydromorphone might be possible. Hydromorphone is closest in user experience to heroin and far easier to dose than fentanyl. The FDA and the DEA could allow for a change in prescribing standards and create a pathway to regulated access.  This doesn't answer all the questions of administration but, as Jonathan pointed out, it would allow different states to create models to test the effectiveness of different models and create systems of control. 

In Canada, they are piloting a system that sounds terrible at first but makes sense on further examination... hydromorphone vending machines. At an overdose prevention center, a registered user can receive a pre-selected dose available only through a biometric scan. By removing the human element of administration, you decrease the potential for conflict and increase controls. But the "drug vending machine" attack ads write themselves. 

Unfortunately, I don't see the political winds shifting quickly enough to implement these kinds of solutions before the overdose crisis begins to decline on its own through losing another 700,000 lives over the next 5 to 7 years. But, it's also something I am hoping to dedicate the next few decades of my life to working on. And, my hope is that the changing nature of the illicit drug market brings more costs and benefits into stark relief.

It was easier to pretend like our "supply" side strategies were working in the past. In part, because they worked sometimes. Heroin production and distribution are complex tasks that require significant financial and human capital. Break up the distribution network in a small town in NH and the supply might dry up. Work your way up to some big fish, seize assets and lock up the big bosses and you might be able to disrupt large regional distribution systems. 

And, it did "work" in Australia. An internationally coordinated effort led to a simultaneous dismantling of the three major criminal organizations bringing heroin into Australia. The price of heroin skyrocketed and the percentage of the population using heroin dropped. BUT, for the next few years overdoses, violent crime and property theft all went up. And, meth usage skyrocketed. In terms of decreased crime and overdoses, it was about 10 years of dramatically reduced heroin supply before it was determined there was a net benefit. 

We have no reason to believe something like that could be accomplished and sustained in the United States today. A 22-year-old can set up their own drug trafficking ring and start making big money with a little knowledge of the dark web and a few thousand in starting capital. And, it isn't just illicit fentanyl. If you were motivated, in about 30 minutes of internet searches and a credit card, you can find "research chemicals" that are close cousins to any major illicit substance online. When one substance gets scheduled, a few modifications and a new version is back on the market. And, this new one we know even less about. 

Big drug trafficking groups used to need to train people on how to process these drugs and pass along that knowledge from person to person. Now, you can legally order all the chemicals you need to make meth and learn how to do it in the microwave over the course of an afternoon. The difference between a home chemist and a cartel-trained one is that the cartel guy is less likely to poison you with their product or blow themselves up. 

There also used to be more of a divide between urban and suburban and rural. Creating regulated access to opioids might have benefits in an urban area where you are unlikely to get supply under control and population density makes profitability easy. But, in the past, there would have been downsides in areas where access was more difficult and supply reduction more feasible. For urban areas the switch would be from easily accessible dangerous drugs to accessible safer drugs. For rural areas it might be very limited access to dangerous drugs to expanded access to less dangerous drugs. The positive benefit is clear for urban areas but not clear at all for a rural area. 

Now, that distinction doesn't exist in the same way. So, my hope is that in the coming years, we will have more previously competing interests find some alignment and a clearer sense of the futility of our current system. 

The final shift (that I hope to be a part of) is articulating these ideas in a way that resonates with a broader swath of the public. In continuing with the theme of Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory, arguments concerning "freedom" will fail to beat arguments that appeal to "purity." A counter-culture or libertarian style ethic just won't pass the smell test for most people. 

On to scalability. Again, we don't know the best model but various versions have been tried in the UK, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. But, the American context is still unique and we are just dealing with a whole lot more people. But a helpful thought experiment is to think through what it would look like for this model to go "wrong" and determine whether or not that is likely to be better or worse than our current reality. 

We know, for example, that drugs would get diverted out of this system and end up being used by people we would otherwise hope to protect. But, we know when that happens likelihood of overdose will be less likely. And, do we have reason to believe there more of these drugs will be available in a diverted "gray market" than in the current black market?

A few areas of concern for me and how I would respond...

Teens: We want to limit access to alcohol and other drugs for teens in general. Behavioral risks are high and long-term issues for developing a substance use disorder are a concern as well. It is possible that this system would increase the availability of diverted opioids to this population. And, if they believe the substances are "safe" they are more likely to use them as kids are more likely to pop an oxy pill than just straight to IV drug use. So, even if we decrease teen overdoses in the short term by making sure the diverted supply is safer, are we creating a larger population who will have severe problems by the time they are 22? 

I couldn't say with confidence that this won't increase diverted drugs to teens. But, we have seen lessons with cannabis that teen use has dropped even as states have legalized it. The worst I have read is a study that argues that legalization has slowed the rate of declining cannabis use among teens. Overall, I think this shows that legality may be a factor but is not THE driving force for trends in teen drug use. The most successful anti-teen smoking campaign was the one that framed smoking as the thing the "establishment" wanted you to do. Then vaping became a fad and has already dropped down again dramatically.

I imagine two different kinds of teens at risk. The first is the risk taking teen highly motivated to purchase and use drugs. They are likely to live in unstable situations, probably around parents, guardians or siblings who are already using. They are the kind of teens that might know an actual drug dealer, buy from them, and sell at school or through social events. The second is the casual teen who goes to some parties and experiments with drinking and drug use.

It's possible that this system grows the pool of the second kind of teen as access to a regulated supply decreases risk to a level that more teens would be interested in trying. But, probably wouldn't have much of an effect on the first kind of teen as it doesn't take much motivation or know how to source under the current system. 

But, the potential benefit is removing the user/dealer population. Who is the kind of person that sells drugs knowingly to teenagers? Someone slightly older who really needs the money and is in a situation where they feel they have nothing to lose. Put that person into a system where they have regulated access to their own supply of opioids and suddenly they do have something to lose for diverting a portion of their supply. Or, the employees administering the program have the possibility of losing a good job, license or career. 

I think it is highly likely a regulated system reduces the population willing to sell to teenagers. 

Cultural Capital: Another risk is widespread cultural shifts in the role of a particular drug in building cultural capital. I'm thinking about smoking cigarettes in the 50's and 60's, cocaine in the 70's, heroin in the 90's or alcohol at pretty much anytime in the past 100 years. If using opioids had the same cultural cache as using alcohol, I think we'd have a huge issue. 

But, I don't see a lot of evidence that this is happening with opioids or stimulants. Feel free to correct me if you see evidence otherwise. The one area that I think could be problematic in the coming years is teenage experimentation with psychedelics. These are substances that are gaining cultural cache. While I'm personally very positive on potential therapeutic use of psychedelics, there are lots of ways that can go wrong for teens and adults. 

I think this will be trickier to address. Teen participants in the old DARE program were shown to be more likely to use drugs than their counterparts and use of psychedelics drove those shifts. This is a potential downside and trickier to address. But, ultimately, I don't think legality is what will really make an effect on this trend. There are currently multiple kinds of powerful psychedelics that are widely available like the San Pedro cactus, salvia divinorum, morning glory seeds and... nutmeg. Nutmeg, believe it or not, was big in the Jazz scene in the 40's and 50s. 

Recovery: Another concern would be people in some kind of recovery. Would people who had a long fight to find their own sobriety be more likely to begin using again if there was a means of regulated legal access to opioids? 

I don't think so. Right now one of the big issues are people coming out of rehab and immediately getting text messages from their old friends/dealers. They face incredible social pressures from existing peer networks so much so that I hear a lot of stories of people moving across country to remove those temptations. In a system of regulated access, people would need to jump through some hoops to get in. And, it would be possible to voluntarily place yourself on a restricted list that won't allow you to do that. 

Low-income neighborhoods: One possible concern is that services like overdose prevention centers tend to get located in service heavy and resource poor neighborhoods. This can attract the populations dependent on those resources and increase crime and add fuel to the fire of a cycle of poverty. 

This is another very real concern and one that I could see going wrong. This certainly happens in Manchester and is a big reason why Manchester Dems have been so resistant to harm reduction. Folks from across the state get sent to a recovery program in Manchester and end up on the streets afterwards. As someone who owns a home in downtown Manchester about 75 yards from the primary homeless shelter, I have "skin in the game" on this one. In all likelihood, a program like this would be located within half a mile of where I live, if not a few hundred yards. 

But, I know from experience, I stopped having to pick up syringes as regularly after the local syringe exchange program went it. But, I still see people injecting drugs directly around my house multiple times per week. And, the behavioral and mental health issues from bad methamphetamines keep getting worse. In my neighborhood, at least, I'd see it as a net benefit to set up regulated access and an overdose prevention center. 

There are other neighborhoods where people might legitimately feel differently than I do. Overall, it will be crucial for these solutions to be implemented with state or region wide plans in order to mitigate these sorts of concerns.

Are there any other major areas of concern you'd list?

Mild Confirming Evidence

A man at Bible-Study last night made the observation that he had been briefly involved in the prophecy understandings of Scripture years ago, and even had some belief in the conspiracy theories of Illuminati or other groups controlling a great deal behind the scenes.  As he is an engineer (like most of my friends in retirement, it seems) I half-expected him to offer some numbers-based or probability-based reason why he thought these explanations unlikely now.  I should know better.

His actual reason was "Even if these things are true, God is still in control." I have only a slight problem with that. When someone says that to mean the large spiritual overview, that It Is Well With My Soul, or "this world is not my home" they are quite correct, and no matter how bad things get here we can trust God for the ultimate outcome.  I think another idea does creep in a bit, with many Christians, including my friend. Terrible things happen in many places, and we cannot count on it all coming right in the end in this world just because it will do so in the next.  When presented with that distinction I think most Christians excepting the committed Kenneth Copeland, Oral Roberts, Benny Hinn sorts would get the theologically solid answer.  Yet I think some of the Christian Victory teaching does color the emotional approach of many believers.  And they get it from the pulpit, more often than not. If we do live into the last days it is likely to be very unpleasant.

But what really struck me was that his personality would not sustain the paranoid interpretation. He considered these ideas, he had cultural support for believing them, they provided an explanation for some of the evil in the world, but in less than a year he no longer believed them.  It fits my frequent reminder here that paranoia (or depression, or anxiety) precedes our explanations and rationalisations of them.

Compost Into Fuel

 Something over at "I Don't Know But..." reminded me of this video, so I thought I'd put it up.

Woke Ain't Woke

Listening to Stanley McChrystal talking about the multiple definitions of woke, and the difference between being an extremist who is reflexively accusing, versus being a person who is alert to the racial, sexual, and ethnic aspects of issues, it occurred to me that the woke have become insensitive to these nuances.  I should say some of the woke, and perhaps the noisiest of them. If you have made up your mind what you are going to find regardless of the data, you cannot be said to be sensitive, alert, or awake to those issues. You have in fact gone to sleep. The usual irony.

The idea immediately resonated with me, because we see this in so many other places. Schools move gradually to noneducation and even anti-education (see JMSmith at The Orthosphere for that one), Christian churches empower Pharisees, social science research strives to report only what it thinks it already knows, militaries become increasingly able to win battles but lose wars. It is Conquest's Third Law of Politics in action. (Isegoria's whole essay on that is fun.) The movement is being taken over by those who want something other than the original goals.

The woke have had a considerable victory on their initial goal, then.  We have an America where people do consider these nuances pretty regularly. Not everyone and not always, yet it is clearly part of American life now. That they have doubled down on the anger after having won at least a partial victory is revealing, suggesting that they had some other motive for entering into advocacy - virtue signalling, personal guilt, desire to punish, lack of constructive skills, something. We know that these are present in the group, along with some nobler motives, but it is pure guesswork when it comes to individuals, so I advise you not to fall into that trap.