Luke Smillie and others write,

intellectually curious people–those who are motivated to explore and reflect upon abstract ideas–are more inclined to judge the morality of behaviors according to the consequences they produce. . .

individuals who are more curious, respectful, and adherent to salient social norms, tend to judge the morality of an action not by its consequences, but rather by its alignment with particular moral rules, duties, or rights.

Pointer from Tyler Cowen.

I attach a lot of importance to the distinction between intentions and consequences, and my natural inclination is to focus on the latter. Some more comments:

1. Focus on intentions, and you blame the baker for “greed.” Focus on consequences, as Adam Smith does, and you enjoy your bread.

2. Good intentions motivate the rabbi and most congregants at our synagogue to support Black Lives Matter. For now, let us assume that everyone involved in BLM has good intentions (although obviously that is never completely true of any movement). But I cannot stop there. As I see it, the consequences of BLM thus far are bad, and they will be worse. I don’t think this is fixable within BLM. The assumption that racism is the most important factor (indeed, the only factor) in police killings of young black men is false.

I disapprove of racism. I disapprove of police killing young black men. But I also disapprove of overstating the link between the two.

3. In How Humans Judge Machines, Cesar Hidalgo finds that humans judge machines more by their consequences and humans more by their intentions.

In a complex society, I think we are better often better off looking at outcomes as if they came from a disinterested machine rather than as coming from an intentional human.

For example, I believe that social media has harmful consequences. However, these consequences were not the intentions of the people involved in creating smart phones, Facebook, Twitter, etc. They are the result of human action, but not the execution of any human design

One of the points made in the Stanovich piece I referred to yesterday is

Identity politics advocates have succeeded in making certain research conclusions within the university verboten. They have made it very hard for any university professor (particularly the junior and untenured ones) to publish and publicly promote any conclusions that these advocates dislike.

As an example, consider another article on Quillette, by Zachary Robert Caverly.

Back in March 2020, a University of Pittsburgh physician by the name of Norman C. Wang published an article in the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) about the use of race and ethnicity considerations when recruiting for the US cardiology workforce. Wang argued that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity offices are ultimately unhelpful in promoting minorities in cardiology practice. He also pointed out that these offices may be unconstitutional and that they often make claims that may be unsupported by the relevant empirical evidence. Towards the end, he advocated race-neutral admissions and hiring practices as an alternative to the current model. . . .

After other professionals joined the outcry on social media, the American Heart Association (AHA) announced on its Twitter feed that Wang’s paper did not represent the organization’s values and assured its followers that, “We’ll investigate. We’ll do better. We’re invested in helping to build a diverse healthcare and research community.” A subsequent statement released on August 6th stated that the article would be retracted, and claimed that it “contains many misconceptions and misquotes and that together those inaccuracies, misstatements, and selective misreading of source materials strip the paper of its scientific validity.” Wang did not agree to the retraction and the AHA announced that it would be publishing a rebuttal.

Keith E. Stanovich writes,

one particular bias—myside bias—sets a trap for the cognitively sophisticated. Regarding most biases, they are used to thinking—rightly—that they are less biased. However, myside thinking about your political beliefs represents an outlier bias where this is not true. This may lead to a particularly intense bias blind spot among certain cognitive elites. If you are a person of high intelligence, if you are highly educated, and if you are strongly committed to an ideological viewpoint, you will be highly likely to think you have thought your way to your viewpoint. And you will be even less likely than the average person to realize that you have derived your beliefs from the social groups you belong to and because they fit with your temperament and your innate psychological propensities.

Interesting essay throughout. It was difficult to excerpt.

Our synagogue had a virtual showing of the movie Stay Woke, a documentary made in 2016 about the Black Lives Matter movement. Many in our congregation are much more fervent in their leftism than in their Judaism, and everyone else had only positive things to say afterward about the film and about Black Lives Matter.

The documentary depicted BLM in a very positive light Those who spoke for BLM were very energized by the movement. Critics were depicted as unfair and embedded in Fox News.

In the discussion that we had afterward, I pointed out that the movie did not include even one specific proposal or policy change. I did not mention Martin Gurri, but I was thinking about him.

Other congregants pointed out how sad they were that nothing seemed to have changed between 2016 and 2020. One person typed into the Zoom chat that things had gotten worse.

No one else saw a connection between the absence of policy ideas in the movie and the absence of any change. But it strikes me that is you aren’t behind a program, that makes it unlikely that you will effect change.

Continuing to channel Gurri, I would say that social media is not a tool suited to creating a movement. Instead, it is suited to instigating a mob. A movement requires thought and long-term planning. A mob just requires stimulating rage and the narcissistic satisfaction that comes these days from appearing in viral videos and having one’s tweets widely circulated.

Mobs tend to seek scapegoats, such as Fox News personalities. But another scapegoat in the movie was Reverend Al Sharpton. He was canceled by the younger activists, not for his past anti-Semitism, but because he spoke against rioting.

I can see why so many organizations want to support BLM. People who are sad about the deaths of young black men inspire sympathy. But there is also the more cynical reason that when a mob is coming for scapegoats, it’s natural to try and seek shelter.

Mike Gonzalez sees BLM as organized Marxists. But I think that protests that emerge from social media are more child-like than that. The “leaders” are more like Andy Warhol leaders, enjoying their 15 minutes of fame on Twitter or CNN, but not providing what leaders provide. They do not “speak to the troops,” articulate clear goals, formulate a strategy for achieving those goals, assign tasks, etc.

Recently, I was asked what I thought were the most successful movements of the 21st century. I came up with the gay marriage movement, which preceded the emergence of social media. That movement achieved something tangible. As far as I can tell, BLM has only exacerbated the bad relationships between police and young black men, with adverse consequences. There are potential solutions out there, but BLM is instead part of the problem.

Molly Martin writes,

Black Americans have no evidence that they can trust the people who benefit from historically and predominantly white institutions. Banks. Schools. Courts. Bureaucracies. Housing providers. Nonprofits and charities. All were built within a racist system and, intentionally or unintentionally, have in their DNA measures and barriers—from redlining to school segregation—meant to keep Black and Brown people out.

This is from the New America Foundation. This is the point of view that I do not share.