Pianka's Normative Influence
by bipodNick Matzke of the NCSE has accused TelicThoughts of being just another wingnut blog because of our commentary on Pianka. Oh well. The truth is that both in public and behind the scenes, we have intentionally kept from strong judgement on this issue. In fact, many of us think that Mims report is probably sprinkled with a dose of sensationalism. And there's little doubt that Dembski's report to Homeland Security was nothing but an over-the-top publicity stunt).
Regarding the objectivity of TelicThoughts, I think our analysis speaks for itself. We are committed to uncovering the complex truth of the matter. Not showing that Mims report was 100% accurate (perhaps it was), nor showing that Pianka is an innocent victim of sensationalism (perhaps he is). Throughout, we have simply been pointing out that some of the facts in Mims report don't stand in lonely isolation, but are corraborated by independent comments from previous students and audience members. Those facts support, at the very least, that Pianka consistently presents himself as giving normative assent to the mass destruction of the human population. He thinks it "should" happen. He has made at least one student think that he "roots" for it to happen. The same student indicates that Pianka "advocates" for it to happen. And another person has given testimony to the fact that Pianka would be "pleased" for it to happen. Pianka can deny that he actually takes these views, but more than once, he's come off as actually taking them.
So, while it may be wrong to say that Pianka has a serious interest in destroying most of the human population, it is just as wrong to say that he's doing nothing but giving a "warning." Wouldn't it be an odd thing indeed to get into the habit of conflating the notion of a "warning" with the notion of "support". We might start walking around saying things like "I'm rooting for the hurricane that's coming to Florida" and actually mean "Let's get out of Florida, the hurricane is coming." Or, "I think the terrorist should fly a plane into the white house." and actually mean "I think the terrorists are still planning to target the White House. Let's do something about it." Or "I'd be pleased if the jihadists succeed in taking down the American Empire." might actually mean "Warning: the jihadists will not stop their terrorizing until they take down the American Empire."
As I see it, Pianka very well may be doing what a lot of people in Academia do: saying things they don't really believe. He may just be trying to get the attention of his listeners. But in doing so, he has certainly come off to at least a handful of individuals as *actually* believing what he says and *actually* lending normative support to the mass destruction of humanity. That's not insignificant. It's called normative influence.
April 4th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Another example of post-modern mumbo-jumbo from the motley crew at TT. Why should I spend my precious time reading the nonsense in blogs, not to mention post-modern blogs? Why am I letting a bunch of wingnuts consume the precious time that I have remaining.
I decree that I will no longer give the wingnut, post-modernists any more pixels on my screen or frames of my life and I call on all university professors (not just the ones in Iowa or Pennsylvania or Texas) to join with me. Let's regain control of our lives and let these whiney bastards rot in eternal cyber-hell.
Comment by bipod — April 4, 2006 @ 11:06 am
April 4th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Oops. I forgot to sign in as Art for that one.
Comment by bipod — April 4, 2006 @ 11:07 am
April 4th, 2006 at 11:10 am
It seems to me that what your "evidence" shows is that Pianka's presentation can be interpreted as "pro-genocide." At least by a small minority of attendees. But does your evidence show that a reasonable person would make that interpretation? Is your sample "statistically significant?" Are you taking into account all available evidence?
Comment by dogscratcher — April 4, 2006 @ 11:10 am
April 5th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
I guess then Pianka's public denials that he supports genocide would then remove normative support for the mass destruction of humanity, and would be much more significant than whatever he did say in his speech, since his denial has reached a much larger audience and is a matter of public record.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 5, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
April 5th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
It's amazing how, repeatedly, almost none of you are able to imagine any point in between genocidist and kindly old man trying to warn humanity before it's too late. Ham-handedness seems to be as contagious as airborne ebola around here.
Comment by Deuce — April 5, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
April 5th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Deuce, yeah. Spectrum is a word whose meaning I suspect will be lost from the English language as it applies to anything but wavelength
Comment by bipod — April 5, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
April 5th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Duece, Bipod, I read the link provided by Krauze in which Pianka denied promoting genocide, and he also gave no indication that he would be pleased by the death of most of humanity, either. What it says is:
The issue on this thread isn't whether Pianka really wants everyone to die, but whether his comments provide "normative support for the mass destruction of humanity". So I repeat, don't these public, on the record comments deny normative support to the mass destruction of humanity, and are they not, being public and on the record, more significant than what he said off the record, to a small audience, whatever it was?
Comment by Aagcobb — April 5, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
April 5th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Aagcobb,
Not sure it is so clear cut. You are right in some regards: that his public denial decreases normative support.
But let's step back for a second. Clearly someone who has been influenced by Pianka would not be so naive as to think that what he says in the midst of a media firestorm invalidates what he said to me in an intimate situation. Especially when he'd already told me that the public was not ready to hear this.
Regarding your quotes. He could deny wanting everyone dead and still believe that it would be a good thing if most people were to die. Also, I could bear ill-will towards Latino Episcopalians without bearing ill-will towards any particular person. Likewise, Pianka could bear general ill-will towards humanity while not bearing ill-will towards any particular individual (except, if I were him I would certainly bear ill-will towards Mims, Dembski and all the bloggers who took him from decades of insularity to the news show circuit).
Comment by bipod — April 5, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
April 5th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
hi bipod,
I wouldn't think so. If Pianka really wanted to increase normative support for some kind of campaign to significantly reduce the size of the human population, the media spotlight would give him the opportunity to do so. If he only expresses his population control opinions to small audiences on campus, the effect of that would be so miniscule that it really is insignificant.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 5, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
April 5th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Aagcobb,
Right. But as he said, the public isn't ready for his ideas. It's too early to take them public.
Anyway, I was just saying that I personally would have ill-will towards anyone who tried to demonize me and who shook me too hard from my comfortable academic slumber. I'm very impressed that Pianka bears ill-will towards no one. I certainly can't say that that is my own case. He's very impressive.
Comment by bipod — April 5, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
April 6th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
OK, let me say I'm not in favor of bio-terrorism or genocide or anything. But am I the only one who read Mims' report of the incident, and thought there was something funny about the way it started? I thought about it later, and it struck me as rather odd that Mims started out telling us about his wonderful idea for a research project, then switching and telling us about a guy who might be advocating wiping out 90% of the human population. A misplaced sense of priorities? I mean, it's almost like it went like this:
"Hi, let me tell you about this guy who might make Hitler look like Mother Theresa, but first…I had this really cool idea for a scientific research project."
Did it strike anyone else as a little odd?
Comment by Bilbo — April 6, 2006 @ 3:45 pm