I’m trying to understand why people want to believe that the quote is true. One thought is that it is emotional and there are good reasons for emotions. For example, it makes no sense for any individual to agree to fight in a war against another country but it might be desirable for the society as a whole. In some ways emotion could be a way to harness collective efforts that might allow a group to outcompete but be illogical for the individual. The cost is fountains.
The "no hope" and "all" parts are hyperbole, shorn of flourishes it's stating a theory that society would benefit from developing human capital all through the bell curve. Implying, as you noticed, that heretofore resources were inefficiently concentrated in developing the best and the brightest.
Now that theory may not be *correct*, but isn't it obvious that GMU's existence is an application of that theory, given the institutional history? That's why it's on the fountain.
I'm sorry but isn't it clear that "all our people" means "all races"? As you note, this is a quote from Roger Wilkins, a civil rights leader. The quote mentions diversity. So the question should be is the statement literally true that "our problems" cannot be solved without the help of people from all races? I guess it depends what the problems were he was referencing. If the problems are race relations, then I think the answer is likely that it is factually true; one race cannot solve discrimination and race relations problems alone. While you might not require a person from every race to be involved in finding a solution, you do likely need significant input from people of a number of different races. If the problems are discrete chemistry problems, I guess you could certainly imagine that some of those problems could be solved by a single person of one race.
Late to the party on this one, but if you don’t attend you miss the possibility of an interesting conversation. So, Bryan, are you still here? Because I have to say, as much as I respect your reasoning in general, I think you are literally being too literal.
Is Wilkins’ statement literally false? Absolutely, for all the reasons you stated. However, is it also inspirational in a positive sense? Absolutely. Why? Because even on a casual reading (the kind of reading you seem to think is wrong?) the statement evokes a disposition to, at the very least, consider that the solution to our problems could come from the contributions of a diverse set of people. On the margin, it makes one feel like, “Hey, maybe I should listen to what this person has to say, rather than writing them off completely, because of their race, gender, educational attainment, <fill in your favorite other category of discrimination here>.” Want to write people off anyway? Ok, fine. But as for myself, and I suspect many others, we will follow the spirit of Wilkins’ statement. And I suspect the reason for that is, because even though it is not literally true, Wilkins’ statement is “in the ballpark” true. What does that mean? It means that it is true, in general, if you relax the constraints put upon it by a literal interpretation of the meaning of the words that comprise it. Specifically, if you relax the constraints put upon by ‘no hope’, ‘our problems’ and ‘all our people’, and you make the statement specific to yourself, you get something like: ‘I have a better chance of solving some of my problems by taking advantage of the diversity, the energy, and the creativity of some of the people around me.” Is that revised statement literally true? Again, maybe not literally, but it is pretty close. If you don’t think so, then I would be very surprised, since the revised statement, touches on some core economic concepts such the benefits of trade, the division of labor and the distributed nature of human knowledge and expertise. Notice that the revised statement, although it is perhaps closer to being literally true than Wilkins’ original, is not very inspiring. Not going to rally very many people with that one. But loosen the constraints and generalize and you get Wilkins’ much more inspiring statement. Why that should be the case is beyond my current pay grade. (However, if I were to speculate, it probably has something to do with the degree to which the statement engenders strong positive emotions. Again, how that happens is beyond me.)
Which brings me to another observation, literal truth rarely inspires. Here’s another statement that is positively inspirational but not literally true: “all men are created equal.” Literally false. Even if you take ‘men’ to mean male humans instead of humans in general, it is still literally false. But, boy, is it positively inspirational. Let’s go through the exercise again and relax the constraints put upon by the words. What you end up with is something like: “I should treat people with some basic respect and any rules that I think are fair should be applied equally to myself and others.” Again, the revised statement is not very inspirational. In fact, it is so mundane as to be boring.
If you want literal truth, then mathematics and logic are your friends. If you want not quite literal truth, but at least something that is empirically tethered, then science is your friend. But if you want to inspire people to act in positive, pro-social ways, then rhetoric, poetry, literature and the performing arts are your best bets. All you need to do, is not be so literal.
Regarding your points #2 and #4: why can't "solve our problems" mean what most English-speakers would take it to mean? Few would interpret it as "all problems" or "some problems" (which makes it sound arbitrary). To me it sounds like "make progress towards finding solutions to our problems in some order, starting with the most pressing ones."
Regarding #5, doesn't the law of Comparative Advantage tell us this is false? Even the best and the brightest are better off if the rest of us in the other end of the ability spectrum also produce, as long as we can trade or find other means to share.
I both agree with Bryan's point about neurotypical folk being able to be just as critical and open minded as folks on the spectrum, but im gonna be honest. I operate and work in a very liberal and social desirability driven space (I'm a non-binary therapist in a blue city with an active progressive agenda within therapy spaces) and generally the only people I find who are capable of discussing the ideas on this blog (and ones similar to it) without falling into an emotional tantrum are fellow autistics.
Hark, hark, neurotypicals: "Neurotypicals are fully capable of setting aside sugar-coated slogans and seeing the world clearly." But just as drug addicts are fully capable of getting clean, yet our expectations for them are low, so we expect the neurotypicals to continue to wallow in treacle.
These sorts of slogans are annoying. If you criticize them, you get accused of autism or maybe some underlying motive. Don't we need the creativity and energy of autistic people anyway?
I think you could also take the quote to mean that all our people in a university setting is not all people. It is only the people allowed in the institution who have been selected to help and if you don't allow everyone the opportunity to help then problems will not be solved.
The statement is the kind of pabulum one would expect from someone trying to win over the mindless and emotionally driven. Meaningless drivel and essentially dangerous when taken literally.
I’m trying to understand why people want to believe that the quote is true. One thought is that it is emotional and there are good reasons for emotions. For example, it makes no sense for any individual to agree to fight in a war against another country but it might be desirable for the society as a whole. In some ways emotion could be a way to harness collective efforts that might allow a group to outcompete but be illogical for the individual. The cost is fountains.
The "no hope" and "all" parts are hyperbole, shorn of flourishes it's stating a theory that society would benefit from developing human capital all through the bell curve. Implying, as you noticed, that heretofore resources were inefficiently concentrated in developing the best and the brightest.
Now that theory may not be *correct*, but isn't it obvious that GMU's existence is an application of that theory, given the institutional history? That's why it's on the fountain.
Why not try steel-manning this statement? You'd get better answers to your questions.
I'm sorry but isn't it clear that "all our people" means "all races"? As you note, this is a quote from Roger Wilkins, a civil rights leader. The quote mentions diversity. So the question should be is the statement literally true that "our problems" cannot be solved without the help of people from all races? I guess it depends what the problems were he was referencing. If the problems are race relations, then I think the answer is likely that it is factually true; one race cannot solve discrimination and race relations problems alone. While you might not require a person from every race to be involved in finding a solution, you do likely need significant input from people of a number of different races. If the problems are discrete chemistry problems, I guess you could certainly imagine that some of those problems could be solved by a single person of one race.
Late to the party on this one, but if you don’t attend you miss the possibility of an interesting conversation. So, Bryan, are you still here? Because I have to say, as much as I respect your reasoning in general, I think you are literally being too literal.
Is Wilkins’ statement literally false? Absolutely, for all the reasons you stated. However, is it also inspirational in a positive sense? Absolutely. Why? Because even on a casual reading (the kind of reading you seem to think is wrong?) the statement evokes a disposition to, at the very least, consider that the solution to our problems could come from the contributions of a diverse set of people. On the margin, it makes one feel like, “Hey, maybe I should listen to what this person has to say, rather than writing them off completely, because of their race, gender, educational attainment, <fill in your favorite other category of discrimination here>.” Want to write people off anyway? Ok, fine. But as for myself, and I suspect many others, we will follow the spirit of Wilkins’ statement. And I suspect the reason for that is, because even though it is not literally true, Wilkins’ statement is “in the ballpark” true. What does that mean? It means that it is true, in general, if you relax the constraints put upon it by a literal interpretation of the meaning of the words that comprise it. Specifically, if you relax the constraints put upon by ‘no hope’, ‘our problems’ and ‘all our people’, and you make the statement specific to yourself, you get something like: ‘I have a better chance of solving some of my problems by taking advantage of the diversity, the energy, and the creativity of some of the people around me.” Is that revised statement literally true? Again, maybe not literally, but it is pretty close. If you don’t think so, then I would be very surprised, since the revised statement, touches on some core economic concepts such the benefits of trade, the division of labor and the distributed nature of human knowledge and expertise. Notice that the revised statement, although it is perhaps closer to being literally true than Wilkins’ original, is not very inspiring. Not going to rally very many people with that one. But loosen the constraints and generalize and you get Wilkins’ much more inspiring statement. Why that should be the case is beyond my current pay grade. (However, if I were to speculate, it probably has something to do with the degree to which the statement engenders strong positive emotions. Again, how that happens is beyond me.)
Which brings me to another observation, literal truth rarely inspires. Here’s another statement that is positively inspirational but not literally true: “all men are created equal.” Literally false. Even if you take ‘men’ to mean male humans instead of humans in general, it is still literally false. But, boy, is it positively inspirational. Let’s go through the exercise again and relax the constraints put upon by the words. What you end up with is something like: “I should treat people with some basic respect and any rules that I think are fair should be applied equally to myself and others.” Again, the revised statement is not very inspirational. In fact, it is so mundane as to be boring.
If you want literal truth, then mathematics and logic are your friends. If you want not quite literal truth, but at least something that is empirically tethered, then science is your friend. But if you want to inspire people to act in positive, pro-social ways, then rhetoric, poetry, literature and the performing arts are your best bets. All you need to do, is not be so literal.
Did Wilkens every say anything noteworthy? Is this just a case of picking the least dull thing he ever said?
I agree with MikeDC. Here are my questions.
Regarding your points #2 and #4: why can't "solve our problems" mean what most English-speakers would take it to mean? Few would interpret it as "all problems" or "some problems" (which makes it sound arbitrary). To me it sounds like "make progress towards finding solutions to our problems in some order, starting with the most pressing ones."
Regarding #5, doesn't the law of Comparative Advantage tell us this is false? Even the best and the brightest are better off if the rest of us in the other end of the ability spectrum also produce, as long as we can trade or find other means to share.
I both agree with Bryan's point about neurotypical folk being able to be just as critical and open minded as folks on the spectrum, but im gonna be honest. I operate and work in a very liberal and social desirability driven space (I'm a non-binary therapist in a blue city with an active progressive agenda within therapy spaces) and generally the only people I find who are capable of discussing the ideas on this blog (and ones similar to it) without falling into an emotional tantrum are fellow autistics.
Hark, hark, neurotypicals: "Neurotypicals are fully capable of setting aside sugar-coated slogans and seeing the world clearly." But just as drug addicts are fully capable of getting clean, yet our expectations for them are low, so we expect the neurotypicals to continue to wallow in treacle.
Bryan Caplan’s War on Cliches!
These sorts of slogans are annoying. If you criticize them, you get accused of autism or maybe some underlying motive. Don't we need the creativity and energy of autistic people anyway?
I think you could also take the quote to mean that all our people in a university setting is not all people. It is only the people allowed in the institution who have been selected to help and if you don't allow everyone the opportunity to help then problems will not be solved.
The statement is the kind of pabulum one would expect from someone trying to win over the mindless and emotionally driven. Meaningless drivel and essentially dangerous when taken literally.
I agree! Signed - a creationist ;)