Kyle Thomas

Tweet about Social Science + Tech + Philosophy. Building Bell Labs of Social Science: social science on online data. Chief Scientist at MotiveMetrics.

[Kyle Thomas @surfkt]

@ben_golub It’s because he is explaining the psychology that maps to CK built by natural selection in a phenotype.

Natural selection does not care about the formalism, it cares about the nature of the adaptive problem - these are different things.

[SeanPlusPlus @SeanPlusPlus]

My buddy @surfkt told me and @kevinrocci embeddings are just fancy factor analysis from 1904. This was news to me. I went and wrote some code. He was right.

new post: https://t.co/bqxLS1ZmIg

[Kyle Thomas @surfkt]

@SeanPlusPlus @kevinrocci Great post! You captured that much better than I could explain it (surely the IPAs weren’t helping).

Looking forward to that beer you owe me :)

[Dan Williams @danwilliamsphil]

New post! Drawing on a wide range of sources, evidence, and arguments, I argue for a social model of motivated reasoning.
Put simply, the primary reason we convince ourselves of falsehoods in domains like politics, religion, and conspiracy theorising is not that we can’t handle the truth. It’s that holding accurate beliefs is often a losing move in social games involving advocacy, reputation management, and status competition.
I also argue that the “you can’t handle the truth!” model of human psychology is not just mistaken; it is pernicious. It encourages the view that when people accept “harsh” beliefs that they don’t want to be true, they are being rational and truth-seeking—even heroic. In reality, people are often motivated to convince themselves of negative, pessimistic beliefs, and it often takes courage and intellectual virtue to confront positive truths. https://t.co/o90BuoiH9i

[Kyle Thomas @surfkt]

Seems to me like safetyism is a significantly bigger X-risk for multiple reasons than what X-risk folks wring their hands about in their hypotheticals. I’m curious what @gmiller take on this is…

[Tobias Huber @TobiasAHuber]

@ByrneHobart and I just published "Against Safetyism" in @PirateWires — a new piece that makes the case that safetyism — and not climate change or artificial intelligence — has become one of the biggest existential risks facing humanity: https://t.co/gXIrheUXgw

[Tobias Huber @TobiasAHuber]

@ByrneHobart and I just published "Against Safetyism" in @PirateWires — a new piece that makes the case that safetyism — and not climate change or artificial intelligence — has become one of the biggest existential risks facing humanity: https://t.co/gXIrheUXgw

[Kyle Thomas @surfkt]

New paper out on indirect speech and punishment. Love to see this finally make it to light of day! https://t.co/UUlT9z9Osi

[Kyle Thomas @surfkt]

@SpeciesTypical Great thread!

[Kyle Thomas @surfkt]

@RobbWiller @alexolegimas Yamagishi GOAT of behavioral economics

[Kyle Thomas @surfkt]

Love the focus on coordination and common knowledge but of course I’m biased.

[Kyle Thomas @surfkt]

Always love opening my pod app to find a new episode of @EPthepod by @DavidPinsof & @DavePietrasz. Great stuff, highly recommend!

[Kyle Thomas @surfkt]

@HSB_Lab Good to make this common knowledge here in addition to the email. Bravo.

[Kyle Thomas @surfkt]

Great TED talk by @sapinker on my PhD research: https://t.co/RJN1O09Ygo

[Steven Pinker @sapinker]

I've been thinking about common knowledge for years. It's the topic of my new book: https://t.co/YYHh1TytKR

[Kyle Thomas @surfkt]

@SeanPlusPlus @kevinrocci Loved tracking the whole thing through your tweets. I believe we both owe you $1.50 if my math is correct lolol

[Kyle Thomas @surfkt]

This is great!

[Eric Kaufmann @epkaufm]

The Buckingham Manifesto for a Post-Progressive Social Science

A growing recognition of the excesses of the cultural left has created an opening in contemporary intellectual life. This moment requires a new research agenda, a post-progressive movement in the social sciences and humanities.

The ideals of progress and social justice had noble origins. By the 1960s, the exclusionary nature of western institutions, including universities, had become apparent. There was a need to overturn practices that had marginalized women and racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities.

The left-wing movement that came to be known as progressivism played a vital role in rectifying this exclusion. Yet as it began to achieve its goals, it shifted to new ones: from equality of opportunity to equality of outcomes, from greater inclusiveness to a hypersensitivity to ever-more-elusive forms of emotional harm, from the opening of new perspectives to the enforcement of rigid orthodoxies.

These shifts became institutionalized in policies such as racial and sexual preferences, mandatory diversity training, speech codes, and editorial policies that privilege the avoidance of perceived harm over scholarly and scientific rigour. And they were accompanied by a change in the norms of academic discourse, from vigorous debate to censorship, deplatforming, mobbing, and moralistic denunciation.

The unfortunate result of this progressivist overreach has been a decline of trust in cultural and academic institutions and growing political polarization, including a populist backlash.

These problems have prompted a rethink among many scholars. The challengers, who include conservatives, classical leftists and liberals, and eclectic pragmatists, retain the ideals of social progress, but yearn for a new glasnost—an intellectual openness—in the production and transmission of knowledge.

Accordingly, a group of concerned scholars and writers recently met at the University of Buckingham to advance new thinking about the humanities and social sciences. We call for an intellectual agenda with two thrusts.

Heterodox Social Science. Progressive dogmas have increasingly constricted the social sciences, including an obsession with race, gender, sexual orientation and identity, and an insistence that bias and oppression are the only acceptable explanations (to the exclusion of culture, history, and demographics). At the same time, deeper questions about human nature, and explanations that are consilient with the natural sciences, have been marginalized. We call for a new social science to free up inquiry, fill in blind spots, and render a richer and more accurate account of our social world. This does not require that every conceivable question be researched, only that those that are researched be treated with scientific objectivity and openness to multiple hypotheses.

Critical Woke Studies. In the second two decades of the 21st century, academic and cultural institutions were suddenly seized by a radical ideology known as Critical Social Justice, Intersectionality, the Identity Synthesis, the Successor Ideology, or most commonly, Wokeness. This takeover took many by surprise and remains unexplained. We hold that the wokeness  revolution was not compelled by new discoveries or moral imperatives but is a contingent historical episode that needs to be studied, just as scholars have sought to explain the rise of nationalism, communism, neoliberalism, and populism.

Many questions have already been raised. Is wokeness a unique development of the 2010s, or do its roots lie earlier, in the 1960s or 1970s? Is it a recurring historical phenomenon, appearing in many periods, or something new? Do people adopt it out of self-interest and status competition, or from true belief and quasi-religious conviction? Did it emerge spontaneously, or was it the goal of a campaign of deliberate infiltration? Was it downstream of law, or of culture? We call for a range of scholars and scientists, diverse in methods and viewpoints, to shed light on this consequential development.

A post-progressive social science could be pursued in new universities and centres, among dissident scholars in the academic mainstream, in think tanks, or, best of all, in a future academia rededicated to open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and civil discourse. We hope that sympathetic scholars, publishers, editors, funders, and professional associations will join us in forging a new, intellectually and politically inclusive social science.

Eric Kaufmann, University of Buckingham, conference organizer

Jonathan Anomaly, researcher
April Bleske-Rechek, University of Wisconsin
Cory Clark, University of Pennsylvania
Luke Conway, Grove City College
Frank Furedi, University of Kent (Emeritus)
Zach Goldberg, Florida State University
Matthew Goodwin, University of Buckingham
Jamin Haberstadt, University of Otago
J.D. Haltigan, University of Buckingham
Joshua Katz, American Enterprise Institute
Lee Jussim, Rutgers University
Lawrence Krauss, Origins Project Foundation
Claire Lehmann, Quillette Magazine
Robert Maranto, University of Arkansas
Kevin McCaffree, University of North Texas and Theory and Society journal
Richard McNally, Harvard University
Francesca Minerva, Journal of Controversial Ideas
Pamela Paresky, Harvard University
Neema Parvini, University of Buckingham
Lawrence Patihis, University of Portsmouth
Zachary Patterson, Concordia University
Steven Pinker, Harvard University
Wilfred Reilly, Kentucky State University
Christopher Rufo, Manhattan Institute
Gad Saad, Concordia University
Sally Satel, American Enterprise Institute
Jukka Savolainen, Wayne State University
Zvi Shalem, researcher
Michael Shermer, Skeptic Magazine
James Tooley, Vice Chancellor, University of Buckingham
Jan van de Beek, University of Buckingham
Colin Wright, Manhattan Institute
Wesley Yang, writer

Note: The above does not imply endorsement by an individual’s institution, apart from the University of Buckingham.

To sign, go to link in next slide

[Kelsey Piper @KelseyTuoc]

Usually when I see someone saying something awful is capitalism they are describing something that 1) is genuinely awful 2) is a consequence of material scarcity and 3) has gotten much much less bad under capitalism

[Crémieux @cremieuxrecueil]

My latest article is about a common concern for many young people today:

Whether they should avoid having kids to help the climate.

A new study suggests the answer is a firm "no"🧵

Go ahead and have those kids.

[Kyle Thomas @surfkt]

@Evolving_Moloch There’s some great psychophysics data on snake detection. Do you not find this convincing? Eg https://t.co/x69YCVB1Ab

[Kyle Thomas @surfkt]

Someone needs to write a paper about how traveling used to be weird but now it’s WEIRD.

Like going across many countries in b Europe 600 years ago must’ve been super weird. But now it’s normal for WEIRD folks.