“On Priesthoods” by Scott Alexander & “Instructing Animosity” by NCRI & Rutgers Social Perception Lab

post by Michael Michalchik (michael-michalchik) · 2025-01-11T01:30:04.631Z · ? · GW · 0 comments

Contents

  OC ACXLW Meetup 83
    “On Priesthoods” by Scott Alexander & “Instructing Animosity” by NCRI & Rutgers Social Perception Lab
    Conversation Starter 1
      Topic: “On Priesthoods” by Scott Alexander
      Extended Summary (Detailed)
      Deep Discussion Questions
    Conversation Starter 2
      Topic: “Instructing Animosity”
      Presented by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) & Rutgers University Social Perception Lab
      Extended Summary (Detailed)
      Deep Discussion Questions
    Walk & Talk
    Share a Surprise
    Looking Ahead
None
No comments

OC ACXLW Meetup 83

“On Priesthoods” by Scott Alexander & “Instructing Animosity” by NCRI & Rutgers Social Perception Lab

Date: Saturday, January 11, 2025
Time: 2:00 PM
Location: 1970 Port Laurent Place, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Host: Michael Michalchik
Contact: michaelmichalchik@gmail.com | (949) 375-2045

We look forward to diving deeply into how insular “epistemic communities” function as “priesthoods,” and into research suggesting that certain anti-oppression trainings could inadvertently foster greater animosity rather than genuine inclusion. Below, you’ll find extended summaries and discussion questions for each reading.

 

 

Conversation Starter 1

Topic: “On Priesthoods” by Scott Alexander

Extended Summary (Detailed)

In “On Priesthoods,” Scott Alexander uses the metaphor of a priesthood to describe communities of experts (e.g., doctors, architects, academic departments, journalists) that isolate themselves from broader public influences in order to preserve high standards of discourse and epistemic rigor. Alexander’s core premise is that these specialized groups benefit society by filtering out the “noise” of popular trends and misinformation—but at the risk of groupthink, ideological capture, and a kind of elitist insularity.

  1. Origins and Purpose of Priesthoods
    • Shared Expertise & Convergent Standards: A “priesthood” provides a forum where well-trained specialists can quickly debate and refine ideas within a consistent set of norms (e.g., peer review for physicians). Because these communities demand intensive training or credentials, their insulation from lay opinions can help maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio.
    • Counterbalance to the Marketplace of Ideas: Whereas society at large might reward catchy slogans or sensational stunts (like Dr. Oz peddling miracle cures), a priesthood imposes internal penalties for superficial or fraudulent claims, preserving what Alexander sees as a “purer” channel for complex truths.
  2. Boundaries and Protective Norms
    • Against the Public (and Against Capitalism): Alexander argues that these specialized communities create robust social norms that discourage members from chasing popularity or money at the expense of professional integrity—doctors might scorn a colleague who sells dubious supplements, for instance.
    • Ritual Purity in Communication: In science or medicine, formal journal publication is the equivalent of a priestly “mass.” By maintaining slow, careful processes, they avoid the chaotic swirl of Twitter or talk shows. This can help preserve quality but may alienate public sentiment.
  3. Potential Failures and Dark Sides
    • Ideological Capture & Groupthink: Priesthoods can converge on positions that are incorrect or heavily politicized. Once a false dogma becomes entrenched, the same norms that once fostered excellence can collectively resist external correction.
    • Systematic Biases Are Correlated: Because priesthoods act in near-unison, their errors aren’t random but highly coordinated—leading to entire fields adopting faddish or extreme viewpoints.
    • Erosion of Public Trust: When priesthood recommendations become interwoven with political agendas (as Alexander observes in some modern professional associations), outsiders begin to question whether these experts are still engaged in genuine inquiry or mere ideological gatekeeping.
  4. Contrasts with “Alternative Media”
    • Alexander acknowledges that while non-priestly channels (e.g., popular bloggers, YouTubers) might be more flexible or innovative, they also produce more chaotic disinformation. By contrast, official experts rarely tell blatant lies but may uniformly tilt in a flawed direction, creating a single large “systematic bias.”
    • Tragedy of Credibility: The public can be harmed either way: trust the priesthood entirely (risk adopting correlated errors) or reject it entirely (risk chaos from charlatans and misinformation).
  5. Key Questions Going Forward
    • Reform vs. Replacement: Alexander asks whether we can fix existing structures, or if society is moving toward decentralized “citizen expertise.”
    • When to Trust Experts: The essay doesn’t advocate cynicism but encourages a nuanced approach: “bounded skepticism” toward official consensus, balanced by an appreciation of these communities’ real merits.

Deep Discussion Questions

  1. When do insular expert communities serve the public best, and when do they become “in-group echo chambers” prone to groupthink?
  2. How do professional norms keep members honest, and what internal dynamics risk freezing out legitimate dissent (e.g., younger academics challenging senior orthodoxy)?
  3. Alexander highlights the tension between “big lies” in chaotic spaces vs. subtle, correlated biases in priesthoods. Which threat looms larger in shaping public policy and beliefs?
  4. Is it possible (or even desirable) to reconfigure these elite networks to be more transparent, or would that dilute their epistemic rigor?

 

 

Conversation Starter 2

Topic: “Instructing Animosity”

Presented by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) & Rutgers University Social Perception Lab

Extended Summary (Detailed)

Authored by researchers from the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) and Rutgers University’s Social Perception Lab, Instructing Animosity delves into whether certain Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs meant to address bias might ironically amplify suspicion, antagonism, or “hostile attribution” among participants. Through a series of methodologically rigorous experiments, the article illustrates a paradox: “anti-oppressive” rhetoric may spur people to see oppression where none exists, sometimes leading to punitive responses rather than inclusive understanding.

  1. Core Premise & Theoretical Background
    • DEI as Moral Imperative: Many institutions mandate anti-oppression or anti-racism training, aiming to reduce discrimination.
    • Hostile Attribution Bias: The authors focus on whether strong moral framing of oppression primes participants to interpret ambiguous interactions as maliciously motivated. They cite research in social psychology indicating that repeated exposure to “everyone is complicit in oppression” narratives can cause over-detection of prejudice.
  2. Multi-Study Design
    • The authors conducted multiple experiments, each with randomized groups reading either (a) an “anti-oppressive” text highlighting structural racism, Islamophobia, or caste-based bias, or (b) a neutral control text on unrelated content (e.g., agriculture).
    • Scenarios with Ambiguous Cues: Participants then evaluated hypotheticals—like a job rejection without explicit mention of race or caste—and rated how likely it was that bias was involved, plus how strongly the purported perpetrator should be punished.
  3. Key Findings
    • Increased Suspicions of Discrimination: In each domain (race, religion, caste), those primed with the anti-oppressive material interpreted neutral or ambiguous cases as evidence of prejudice more often than the control group.
    • Heightened Support for Punishment: Exposure to strongly moralistic DEI framing correlated with endorsing stricter disciplinary actions (e.g., demanding firings or apologies) even where no concrete proof of bias was present.
    • Link to Authoritarian Mindsets: Participants reporting higher “left-authoritarian” leanings were especially prone to endorsing harsh penalties, suggesting a synergy between certain personality tendencies and the anti-oppressive narrative.
  4. Implications for DEI Programs
    • Self-Reinforcing Cycle: When people see oppression everywhere, they also feel justified in aggressive or authoritarian policies to root it out, further fracturing social trust and fueling more intense DEI efforts—a feedback loop that may ironically intensify polarization.
    • Cautions on Implementation: The authors are careful not to dismiss the entire DEI landscape; rather, they caution that specific “combative” or “victim vs. oppressor” frameworks can prime fear and animosity, overshadowing potential empathy or constructive bridge-building.
  5. Recommendations & Ethical Considerations
    • Call for Evidence-Based DEI: The researchers advocate thorough, data-driven evaluations before deploying large-scale anti-oppressive trainings. They challenge the assumption that all well-intentioned DEI interventions necessarily reduce prejudice.
    • Nuanced Communication of Power & Oppression: They highlight a need for balanced, less accusatory approaches that still acknowledge real systemic injustices but avoid fueling scapegoating or hypervigilance for bias.

Deep Discussion Questions

  1. Are there important distinctions between heightening awareness of existing prejudice and teaching participants to suspect prejudice in every ambiguous case?
  2. When moral language paints entire groups as “oppressors,” could that create a self-fulfilling prophecy—further alienating the labeled group and feeding resentment?
  3. How do these findings intersect with Alexander’s “priesthoods”? Might DEI trainers themselves become a kind of “insular epistemic community” that prizes ideological purity over measured evaluations?
  4. What design principles or counterexamples exist for DEI initiatives that successfully reduce bias without igniting backlash or authoritarian impulses?

 

 

Walk & Talk

After the main discussion, we’ll do our usual one-hour walk around the neighborhood. Feel free to grab takeout at Gelson’s or Pavilions beforehand if you like.

Share a Surprise

We’ll also have an open-floor segment for anyone who wants to share something that shifted their perspective—a thought-provoking article, a personal anecdote, or even a puzzling question.

Looking Ahead

As always, we encourage ideas for future sessions, alternative formats, and potential guest speakers. If you’d like to host or propose a new theme, let us know!

 

 

We look forward to seeing you on January 11 for another deep and engaging ACXLW meetup!
For questions or logistical concerns, please email or call Michael Michalchik. See you soon!

0 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.