正统特权

Paul Graham 2020-07-01

正统特权

2020年7月

“很少有人能够平静地表达与他们的社会环境偏见不同的意见。大多数人甚至无法形成这样的意见。“——爱因斯坦

最近有很多关于特权的讨论。虽然这个概念被过度使用,但其中确实有道理,特别是特权会让你盲目这个观点——你无法看到那些生活与你非常不同的人能够看到的事情。

但这种盲目性最普遍的例子之一是我没有看到被明确提到的。我称之为正统特权:一个人的思想越传统,他们就越觉得每个人都表达自己的意见是安全的。

他们表达意见是安全的,因为他们意见的来源是目前可以接受的信念。所以在他们看来,对每个人都必须是安全的。他们真的无法想象会有真实的陈述会让你陷入麻烦。

然而,在历史的每一个时刻,都有真实的事情说出来会让你陷入麻烦。我们是第一个不是这样的时代吗?那将是多么令人惊讶的巧合。

当然,至少应该默认假设我们的时代并不独特,现在有你不能说真实的事情,就像一直以来一样。你会这么想。但即使面对如此压倒性的历史证据,大多数人还是会在这个问题上凭直觉行事。

在最极端的情况下,患有正统特权的人不仅否认有任何你不能说真实的事情,而且仅仅因为你这样说就会指责你为异端。虽然如果你的时代有不止一个异端,这些指控会奇怪地不确定:你要么是x主义者,要么是y主义者。

与这些人打交道令人沮丧,但重要的是要意识到他们是认真的。他们不是假装认为一个想法既不正统又真实是不可能的。世界在他们看来确实是这样。

事实上,这是一种特别顽固的特权形式。人们可以通过更多地了解他们所不了解的东西来克服大多数形式特权引起的盲目性。但他们不能仅仅通过学习更多来克服正统特权。他们必须变得更加独立思考。如果这真的发生,也不会在一次对话的时间范围内发生。

也许有可能说服一些人相信正统特权必须存在,即使他们感觉不到,就像一个人可以说暗物质一样。也许有些人可以说服,例如,认为这是历史上第一个没有什么你不能说真实的事情的时点是非常不可能的,即使他们无法想象具体的例子。

但总的来说,我认为对这种特权说”检查你的特权”是行不通的,因为处于这种特权人口中的人没有意识到他们处于其中。在传统思想的人看来,他们并不是传统思想的人。在他们看来,他们只是对的。事实上,他们往往特别确定这一点。

也许解决方案是诉诸礼貌。如果有人说他们能听到你听不到的高音噪音,相信他们的话才是礼貌的,而不是要求不可能产生的证据,或者干脆否认他们听到任何东西。想象那会显得多么无礼。同样,如果有人说他们能想到真实但不能说的事情,即使你自己想不出任何例子,相信他们的话才是礼貌的。

感谢Sam Altman、Trevor Blackwell、Patrick Collison、Antonio Garcia-Martinez、Jessica Livingston、Robert Morris、Michael Nielsen、Geoff Ralston、Max Roser和Harj Taggar阅读本文草稿。

Orthodox Privilege

July 2020

“Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.”— Einstein

There has been a lot of talk about privilege lately. Although the concept is overused, there is something to it, and in particular to the idea that privilege makes you blind — that you can’t see things that are visible to someone whose life is very different from yours.

But one of the most pervasive examples of this kind of blindness is one that I haven’t seen mentioned explicitly. I’m going to call it orthodox privilege: The more conventional-minded someone is, the more it seems to them that it’s safe for everyone to express their opinions.

It’s safe for them to express their opinions, because the source of their opinions is whatever it’s currently acceptable to believe. So it seems to them that it must be safe for everyone. They literally can’t imagine a true statement that would get you in trouble.

And yet at every point in history, there were true things that would get you in trouble to say. Is ours the first where this isn’t so? What an amazing coincidence that would be.

Surely it should at least be the default assumption that our time is not unique, and that there are true things you can’t say now, just as there have always been. You would think. But even in the face of such overwhelming historical evidence, most people will go with their gut on this one.

In the most extreme cases, people suffering from orthodox privilege will not only deny that there’s anything true that you can’t say, but will accuse you of heresy merely for saying there is. Though if there’s more than one heresy current in your time, these accusations will be weirdly non-deterministic: you must either be an xist or a yist.

Frustrating as it is to deal with these people, it’s important to realize that they’re in earnest. They’re not pretending they think it’s impossible for an idea to be both unorthodox and true. The world really looks that way to them.

Indeed, this is a uniquely tenacious form of privilege. People can overcome the blindness induced by most forms of privilege by learning more about whatever they’re not. But they can’t overcome orthodox privilege just by learning more. They’d have to become more independent-minded. If that happens at all, it doesn’t happen on the time scale of one conversation.

It may be possible to convince some people that orthodox privilege must exist even though they can’t sense it, just as one can with, say, dark matter. There may be some who could be convinced, for example, that it’s very unlikely that this is the first point in history at which there’s nothing true you can’t say, even if they can’t imagine specific examples.

But in general I don’t think it will work to say “check your privilege” about this type of privilege, because those in its demographic don’t realize they’re in it. It doesn’t seem to conventional-minded people that they’re conventional-minded. It just seems to them that they’re right. Indeed, they tend to be particularly sure of it.

Perhaps the solution is to appeal to politeness. If someone says they can hear a high-pitched noise that you can’t, it’s only polite to take them at their word, instead of demanding evidence that’s impossible to produce, or simply denying that they hear anything. Imagine how rude that would seem. Similarly, if someone says they can think of things that are true but that cannot be said, it’s only polite to take them at their word, even if you can’t think of any yourself.

Thanks to Sam Altman, Trevor Blackwell, Patrick Collison, Antonio Garcia-Martinez, Jessica Livingston, Robert Morris, Michael Nielsen, Geoff Ralston, Max Roser, and Harj Taggar for reading drafts of this.