I enjoyed the associated bloggingheads episode and this extract, but …
I was unable to understand fully either Professor Loury’s ‘the bluffing equilibrium’, or Professor McWhorter’s response. I think this is because I do not know who the agents are in this discussion, the ‘they’. To me, both Professors seem to move between leaders/activists/representatives/voices of groups and individual members of groups.
Is the bluffing equilibrium based on the voices of two groups (black et al/white et al, middle class/working class, progressive/conservative, anti-racist/non-antiracist … ) of a debate? For example in a simple 2-by-2 matrix, each group (the voices) has one of two strategies, either ‘On Message’ or ‘On Issue’, the bluffing equilibrium is when both sides choose ‘On Message’. The preferred equilibrium would be both groups ‘On Issue’. Does Professor Loury argue that if the voices of one group would move from ‘On Message’ towards ‘On Issue’ this would enable the other side to do the same? Is it tacit agreement between the voices of one group and the voices of the other group not to move, or is the tacit agreement between each of voices representing one group not to move – who are the tacit agreements between? When Professor Loury suggests “everybody starts breaking it”, does this now refer to individuals rather than voices, so that if many individuals talk about the issues, use prohibited vocabulary freely etc., then this would leave the voices with “no cards” to play and they would have to change strategy?
When Professor McWhorter suggests “these people” are not as cynical, and discusses the warm feelings of group membership, or the euphoria from negotiating victimhood etc., I really struggle to see whether there is a delineation between voices and individuals, perhaps it is not needed; but is it really cynical to think that the voices and individuals have different motivations?
So, if I could more clearly see when the conversation is about voices of groups, and when it is more about individuals within the groups, I might follow the argument better. Does Professor Loury argue that individuals need to change, so that voices change? Does Professor McWhorter argue that one needs to recognise the origin of payoffs to intervene better?
[Professor Loury, apologies for not getting it, I am in the U.K. so might have a different experience, or I might not have read it closely enough.]
I enjoyed the associated bloggingheads episode and this extract, but …
I was unable to understand fully either Professor Loury’s ‘the bluffing equilibrium’, or Professor McWhorter’s response. I think this is because I do not know who the agents are in this discussion, the ‘they’. To me, both Professors seem to move between leaders/activists/representatives/voices of groups and individual members of groups.
Is the bluffing equilibrium based on the voices of two groups (black et al/white et al, middle class/working class, progressive/conservative, anti-racist/non-antiracist … ) of a debate? For example in a simple 2-by-2 matrix, each group (the voices) has one of two strategies, either ‘On Message’ or ‘On Issue’, the bluffing equilibrium is when both sides choose ‘On Message’. The preferred equilibrium would be both groups ‘On Issue’. Does Professor Loury argue that if the voices of one group would move from ‘On Message’ towards ‘On Issue’ this would enable the other side to do the same? Is it tacit agreement between the voices of one group and the voices of the other group not to move, or is the tacit agreement between each of voices representing one group not to move – who are the tacit agreements between? When Professor Loury suggests “everybody starts breaking it”, does this now refer to individuals rather than voices, so that if many individuals talk about the issues, use prohibited vocabulary freely etc., then this would leave the voices with “no cards” to play and they would have to change strategy?
When Professor McWhorter suggests “these people” are not as cynical, and discusses the warm feelings of group membership, or the euphoria from negotiating victimhood etc., I really struggle to see whether there is a delineation between voices and individuals, perhaps it is not needed; but is it really cynical to think that the voices and individuals have different motivations?
So, if I could more clearly see when the conversation is about voices of groups, and when it is more about individuals within the groups, I might follow the argument better. Does Professor Loury argue that individuals need to change, so that voices change? Does Professor McWhorter argue that one needs to recognise the origin of payoffs to intervene better?
[Professor Loury, apologies for not getting it, I am in the U.K. so might have a different experience, or I might not have read it closely enough.]