Steve needs to develop a way of talking to the media that does not involve the short hand/severely on-line references that can only really be understand by someone who reads him regularly.
I doubt that the media has the capacity to understand what “Noticing”, book or concept is all about no matter how Steve explains it. This interview and the hit piece that followed is just another example of the progressive circle jerk that we call journalism.
Totes disagree. They use you as a clown and a target, and you're supporting misinformation. In today's day and age, with the interwebs and alt-media, they are unnecessary.
E.g. Not a single guest on Bill Maher's propaganda show has ever moved the needle right. But they have made mincing fools for Maher's audience to mock and jab when they need a whipping boy. Don't be their whipping boy.
Steve's short hand jargon is not technical in the least but is a reflection of his very on-line persona. Many on-line influencers use way too much insider jargon when talking to outsiders.
Too many of my recent conversations follow this form…a factual observation…perhaps one I know is contentious, is met not with fact, but instead countered with reference to an authority trusted by my conversation partner. “NPR says”; “the Times says”.
They call this “fact-checking”. They don’t recognize its’ shortcomings.
No matter how facts are documented and verified there will always be high sounding “scientific “ groups who will call them bogus with no evidence to support that claim.
I'm not sure it's worth giving an interview to a guy like Wilson, even if it is appearing in a widely read publication. Seems to me that it just lends legitimacy to the inevitable smears.
Honestly, Steve, I think you're too accommodating to these people. At this point they need you more than you need them. And keep in mind that they would use force to shut you up if they could get away with it.
All ink is good ink. As Steve says, the important thing is to get his name and ideas out there, however poorly wrapped and labeled "DANGER - DO NOT OPEN!"
“the mediocrities and committeemen who flee into Science Denialism lest they be canceled for crimethink.”
This is absolutely superb Steve.
I see this too in my own professional life (orthogonal to anything on your blog) where bright-but-conformist people end up with the institutional power.
Steve, as a paid subscriber, how do I tell if this particular Substack piece of yours is fully, partially, or not at all available to non-paid subscribers?
Depending, this looks to be an excellent piece to link back to in our various comments in various and sundry venues to begin or increase curious users' exposure to Steve at his most calmly rational and convincing and in his wonderfully engaging style. Spread the word, people!
> Steve, as a paid subscriber, how do I tell if this particular Substack piece of yours is fully, partially, or not at all available to non-paid subscribers?
Using another browser, you can see which posts are available only to paid subscribers by the use of a lock icon. To save you the trouble, this particular post is open to all.
Good question. I guess as Scarlett says, you can open an incognito browser, but, really, Substack should make it easier for its paying subscribers to know what's behind a paywall or not. Maybe I should put in a note saying "Paywall starts here"?
Wow--I can't believe he fell into your trap! It's almost cringe-inducing to read you roasting him (and, by extension, the "intelligentsia") point by point. He clearly had no idea who he was dealing with.
I’ve recently come around to the reality of human biodiversity in IQ, thanks mostly to Steve Sailer. The thing is (and this seems to be true of Sailer too), it doesn’t give me glee that my racial group is smarter and less violence-prone on average than blacks. I live in a big city, and I like most black people I meet (while still avoiding the obviously dangerous ones). I do wonder if, in the event these findings are accepted into the mainstream (unlikely as it is), people can remain levelheaded and realize that these genetic differences aren’t an excuse to violate people’s basic human rights.
On the right, especially lately, I see a lot of open animus towards blacks. I think it’s mostly a reaction to the racial reckoning after George Floyd that made it almost illegal to offend blacks. I understand that it’s unfair that whites are basically punished for being the norm in this country. But black people live here too, and whatever else may be true of them, they’re human beings and citizens of this country.
What made it especially egregious was he had just recovered from a life threatening addiction to psych meds. Her characterizations were nasty (especially the cracks about his daughter).
If I believed in reincarnation I would guess that in a past life these reporters worked at Pravda in the Stalin years or the Volkischer Beobachter
Young black men (15-34) are just 2% of the nation’s population but commit about half of our annual homicides. A rate an astounding 49 times higher than the average American. Most of their victims are other young black men. Address this problem through means such as stop and frisk and making the carrying of an illegal firearm a felony and you would essentially solve the country’s gun violence problem. This, of course, is impossible because the ACLU and Black Lives Matter would rather promote woke ideology than save thousands of black lives each year.
Don't forget the political calculus. The Democratic party has positioned itself for decades as the defenders of blacks against a system and public that wants to oppress them. It's been in place so long I would guess the overwhelming majority of blacks haven't lived a day in their lives where this was not the default assumption. It has delivered numerous victories to the Democratic party at the local, state and national level.
To accept that blacks are, and will largely remain, an outsized problem for society as a result of their own biology and culture is to admit a) the world is not necessarily stacked against them by design, and b) negative perceptions of blacks have a real basis in fact. I wouldn't say it's impossible the party will throw a loyal constituency like this overboard - although they did do so with working class whites - but highly unlikely because I do not see a group of voters large enough to change allegiances to replace the losses from blacks.
Anyway, kudos for not swallowing any of the baited hooks he kept casting to you.
Evidently, he had to have something to show the Guardian from his fishing expedition, so he ended up publishing several outtakes that sounded reasonable to normal people if not to him.
I wonder how the spectacular mediocrity that is Jason Wilson is going to spin this.
He, his fellow reports, his editors, and the owner of his publication have already strategized this.
By moving to Wakanda?
Steve needs to develop a way of talking to the media that does not involve the short hand/severely on-line references that can only really be understand by someone who reads him regularly.
I doubt that the media has the capacity to understand what “Noticing”, book or concept is all about no matter how Steve explains it. This interview and the hit piece that followed is just another example of the progressive circle jerk that we call journalism.
They are not out to understand. Their marching orders are to destroy.
Steve needs to stop talking to media that is not 100% friendly. Vox Day was right about this.
Talk to any media that will talk to you. That is how one gets one's message out.
Totes disagree. They use you as a clown and a target, and you're supporting misinformation. In today's day and age, with the interwebs and alt-media, they are unnecessary.
E.g. Not a single guest on Bill Maher's propaganda show has ever moved the needle right. But they have made mincing fools for Maher's audience to mock and jab when they need a whipping boy. Don't be their whipping boy.
He can’t answer the questions without getting a bit technical.
Steve's short hand jargon is not technical in the least but is a reflection of his very on-line persona. Many on-line influencers use way too much insider jargon when talking to outsiders.
Thanks for posting this.
Too many of my recent conversations follow this form…a factual observation…perhaps one I know is contentious, is met not with fact, but instead countered with reference to an authority trusted by my conversation partner. “NPR says”; “the Times says”.
They call this “fact-checking”. They don’t recognize its’ shortcomings.
You're a mensch, Steve. I don't know how you do it, but keep on keeping on!
No matter how facts are documented and verified there will always be high sounding “scientific “ groups who will call them bogus with no evidence to support that claim.
I'm not sure it's worth giving an interview to a guy like Wilson, even if it is appearing in a widely read publication. Seems to me that it just lends legitimacy to the inevitable smears.
Honestly, Steve, I think you're too accommodating to these people. At this point they need you more than you need them. And keep in mind that they would use force to shut you up if they could get away with it.
All ink is good ink. As Steve says, the important thing is to get his name and ideas out there, however poorly wrapped and labeled "DANGER - DO NOT OPEN!"
True, and it's a sad reflection of our times when a thinker like Steve is ignored while charlatans like Kendi, Coates, and DeAngelo are celebrated. 😞
What does he have to lose? He was designated a white supremicist years ago.
“the mediocrities and committeemen who flee into Science Denialism lest they be canceled for crimethink.”
This is absolutely superb Steve.
I see this too in my own professional life (orthogonal to anything on your blog) where bright-but-conformist people end up with the institutional power.
General question and comment:
Steve, as a paid subscriber, how do I tell if this particular Substack piece of yours is fully, partially, or not at all available to non-paid subscribers?
Depending, this looks to be an excellent piece to link back to in our various comments in various and sundry venues to begin or increase curious users' exposure to Steve at his most calmly rational and convincing and in his wonderfully engaging style. Spread the word, people!
> Steve, as a paid subscriber, how do I tell if this particular Substack piece of yours is fully, partially, or not at all available to non-paid subscribers?
Using another browser, you can see which posts are available only to paid subscribers by the use of a lock icon. To save you the trouble, this particular post is open to all.
Thanks, I was hoping there was something a bit more convenient (for future use), but the browser switch worked just fine.
Good question. I guess as Scarlett says, you can open an incognito browser, but, really, Substack should make it easier for its paying subscribers to know what's behind a paywall or not. Maybe I should put in a note saying "Paywall starts here"?
Wow--I can't believe he fell into your trap! It's almost cringe-inducing to read you roasting him (and, by extension, the "intelligentsia") point by point. He clearly had no idea who he was dealing with.
Nice. Did the Guardian publish the whole thing too?
No.
As a college football fan I have to correct you on that Oregon State are the Beavers, not the Ducks.
And I think he also meant Bill Enyart, not Steve
https://osubeavers.com/honors/hall-of-fame/bill-enyart/169
Steve needs a fact checkers or maybe an editor to make sure he checks his facts.
I’ve recently come around to the reality of human biodiversity in IQ, thanks mostly to Steve Sailer. The thing is (and this seems to be true of Sailer too), it doesn’t give me glee that my racial group is smarter and less violence-prone on average than blacks. I live in a big city, and I like most black people I meet (while still avoiding the obviously dangerous ones). I do wonder if, in the event these findings are accepted into the mainstream (unlikely as it is), people can remain levelheaded and realize that these genetic differences aren’t an excuse to violate people’s basic human rights.
On the right, especially lately, I see a lot of open animus towards blacks. I think it’s mostly a reaction to the racial reckoning after George Floyd that made it almost illegal to offend blacks. I understand that it’s unfair that whites are basically punished for being the norm in this country. But black people live here too, and whatever else may be true of them, they’re human beings and citizens of this country.
This is similar to what happened to Jordan Peterson when he got ambushed by Decca Aitkenhead of the Sunday Times. Here is the link to the interview
https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/blog/sunday-times-unedited-interview-transcript-2/
What made it especially egregious was he had just recovered from a life threatening addiction to psych meds. Her characterizations were nasty (especially the cracks about his daughter).
If I believed in reincarnation I would guess that in a past life these reporters worked at Pravda in the Stalin years or the Volkischer Beobachter
Guardian is center-left? Firsr I've heard.
I’d say far left.
Young black men (15-34) are just 2% of the nation’s population but commit about half of our annual homicides. A rate an astounding 49 times higher than the average American. Most of their victims are other young black men. Address this problem through means such as stop and frisk and making the carrying of an illegal firearm a felony and you would essentially solve the country’s gun violence problem. This, of course, is impossible because the ACLU and Black Lives Matter would rather promote woke ideology than save thousands of black lives each year.
Don't forget the political calculus. The Democratic party has positioned itself for decades as the defenders of blacks against a system and public that wants to oppress them. It's been in place so long I would guess the overwhelming majority of blacks haven't lived a day in their lives where this was not the default assumption. It has delivered numerous victories to the Democratic party at the local, state and national level.
To accept that blacks are, and will largely remain, an outsized problem for society as a result of their own biology and culture is to admit a) the world is not necessarily stacked against them by design, and b) negative perceptions of blacks have a real basis in fact. I wouldn't say it's impossible the party will throw a loyal constituency like this overboard - although they did do so with working class whites - but highly unlikely because I do not see a group of voters large enough to change allegiances to replace the losses from blacks.
Was this originally an ongoing email exchange?
Anyway, kudos for not swallowing any of the baited hooks he kept casting to you.
Evidently, he had to have something to show the Guardian from his fishing expedition, so he ended up publishing several outtakes that sounded reasonable to normal people if not to him.