Update: Eric wrote a response on his blog here. For the record, I have never blocked anyone from posting on this blog except the spambots that get blocked by the filter. I’m not sure why Eric wasn’t able to post on here, but it wasn’t my doing.
Yesterday, on Twitter…
Me: @ericddixon RT @ModeledBehavior Arnold Kling: a conservative economist against teacher merit pay [http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/10/06/economic-weakness-merit-pay-teachers]
Eric: @arhanson Kling doesn’t oppose merit pay at all; he thinks test scores are a lousy measure. And whaddaya know, I’ve always thought that too
Me: @ericddixon seems to oppose merit-pay systems based on test scores, e.g., NY and DC. Do you oppose them as well?
….
Eric: @arhanson seems to think it’s OK to put words in others’ mouths in a public forum w/ faint qualification, pretending it’s all friendly convo
Arnold Kling on EconLog:
Against Merit Pay for Teachers (title)
That would be my position.
I guess me retweeting Modeled Behavior representing Kling as “a conservative economist against merit pay” whose self-titled blogpost is Against Merit Pay and says that’s his position counts as “putting words in others’ mouths”.
At least in the strange world of Internet arguments.
So, now that I’ve seen this blog entry, and Justin’s comment on Facebook explaining an alternate interpretation of your comment that I had not previously considered, I think that I should make myself perfectly clear.
The Heartland article that you originally Tweeted at me had Arnold Kling arguing against a very specific type of merit pay — based on test scores within public schools. He says in that same piece that “I believe good teachers should be rewarded,” a view that would entail support for some form of merit compensation, if not in public schools, and if not based on test scores. Hence my contention that “Kling doesn’t oppose merit pay at all; he thinks test scores are a lousy measure.”
So, later, you pointed to another post at a different location titled “Against Merit Pay for Teachers,” stating that this is, indeed, his position. But he also follows that statement with additional text placing his position in a very specific context — merit pay based on test scores in public schools. Although the title of this post elides his opinion that “I believe good teachers should be rewarded,” the entry itself doesn’t contradict his view that he would favor merit compensation of some form in something other than public schools.
You also didn’t mention Kling’s full conclusion, which includes his suggestion that the public school system should be discontinued in order to achieve real student gains.
When you Tweeted this follow-up, leaving out the word “Kling” before the word “seems,” I assumed you were disingenuously trying to sum up my own unstated opinion to score unearned rhetorical points:
@ericddixon seems to oppose merit-pay systems based on test scores, e.g., NY and DC. Do you oppose them as well?
I see now that I was incorrect, but I still think it’s a reasonable reading of what you wrote — the obvious reading, even — so I objected to you putting words in my mouth.
This brings me back to my own Tweet from the other day, which most accurately sums up my take on this mess:
Why do people have conversations via Twitter? #pointless
As I told Justin’s friend Billy, I don’t really have any interest in discussing politics or philosophy with someone who can’t do it civilly without throwing out personal insults. For the record, I wasn’t looking for an argument, I just read the piece and remembered you and I had discussed merit pay earlier and that you respect Arnold Kling, so I tagged you on the retweet. I’ve had many discussions via Twitter with libertarians and other adversaries and never had an issue with someone insulting my personal integrity, let alone people I know and have hung out with.
Agreed, which is why I was so stunned to see from you what appeared to be clear, shameless trolling designed to provoke.
I also missed the part where I insulted your “personal integrity.”
Dude, get over it. Not everything is as dramatic as you seem to think. You’ve written your nine-paragraph essay. Move on. I won’t send you hyperlinks in the future. Lesson learned.
[...] other day, Andrew Hanson posted a blog entry recounting a series of Tweets between us. I would have been happy to make additional conversational [...]
Knowing what you know now, Andrew, doesn’t this post warrant a correction? Or at least an explanation?
Do you think so? Did I say something that was untrue?
Your original post still implies that you don’t know what the confusion was about. Without reading the comments, it appears that you are a bit incredulous that Eric missed the point. You now know that it was a simple misunderstanding between two parties.
So, no, you didn’t say anything that was untrue, but the entire original event was a misunderstanding between two people, regardless of the aftermath. It still reads that way.
Rather, it still reads as if it weren’t a simple misunderstanding.
I don’t really think it was just a simple misunderstanding.
I don’t think the aftermath was a simple misunderstanding, and that’s between Eric and yourself. The original Twitter discussion as summarized in this post was a simple misunderstanding, however. Or, am I missing something here?
I think you are. I’d be happy to discuss it with you further, but I don’t really have much interest in continuing this thread. Suffice it to say that I don’t think Eric’s incivility is justified even if he misunderstood, but I don’t really see how he could have misunderstood. If he did, it’s more willful ignorance than a simple misunderstanding.
I won’t comment on it further, Andrew, apart from this one parting shot, with your permission.
If Eric says it was a misunderstanding, that’s what it was. I’ve known him for 23 years and I’ve never met a more intellectually honest person in my life. I’m not saying that because we are good friends. He and I have disagreed very strongly on points, and I have certainly been angry with him regarding those points, but I’ve never once questioned his honesty.
You can take that as you wish.
Telling someone they have terrible ideas is not incivility, in my estimation. That seems like a comment that intelligent people interested in the concept of ideas can put aside. Eric has told me to my face that I have terrible ideas regarding certain subjects. He’s wrong, of course, but I didn’t take it personally.
It seems to me that you are treading very closely to at least insinuating that Eric was dishonest in his proclamation of being confused.
Allow me to say, it was a misunderstanding to me, as well. Like I said on your Facebook thread, I had to re-read the conversation 5 times before I realized what happened.
I understand his frustration at the perception of having words attributed to him that he did not utter. That’s an incredibly serious matter to some, including myself.
Misunderstandings like this are easy to put to rest. Why carry on the drama when a simple correction will do? It would be very simple to clarify your original post. That does not obligate you to agree with Eric on the points that followed.
You said the exact same thing about Billy Beck, who also could not have a discussion without insulting me personally. I don’t view Eric or Billy as intellectually honest. Both seem unwilling to engage others’ ideas or give compelling representations of objections to their views. I don’t see how personal insults and snark are civil in your view. But you seemed to think Billy was being civil as well, despite him insulting my education, cursing, spitting, and calling me “son” and “sonny” and repeatedly calling me a “flatworm.” We must have different standards for civility.
It has nothing to do with Eric saying I have “terrible ideas.” I, too, think his ideas are stupid, naive, and morally bankrupt. But I don’t bring those things up because it doesn’t advance the discussion and saying “You have terrible ideas” is quite low-level. I try to keep the discussion focused on ideas and arguments, not the individuals holding them. But I don’t think there’s anything offensive about saying “You have terrible ideas”. I have no idea where that came from.
I’m not saying that Eric didn’t misunderstand, but, as you can tell from his response and the entire Twitter feed, he is entirely focused on me as a person and my character, not the things I say or the arguments I advance, which is why I know it’s pointless to have a discussion with him. But, this is willful ignorance in my view.
I did not attribute anything to him that he did not utter. But I will post a link to his response as an update. I hope it is enough to end the drama.
I said I didn’t know Billy personally, but I found him to be one of the more intellectually honest people I’ve ever come across. Which is true. I’ve never caught him in a lie or a mistruth. But, then again, I haven’t really engaged him in much conversation. He’s nothing more than an internet acquaintance. I also told you that I would not or did not defend how he spoke to you. I believe I actually apologized to you for the way he spoke to you and went on to assure you that, as far as I was concerned, it changed nothing between the two of us.
Look, I’m not trying to fight Eric’s battles, here. Eric is quite capable of doing that himself. I happen to think, in this case, he’s completely in the right. I would correct him if I thought otherwise, and he knows it. Whether you meant to or not (I don’t believe you did, because I take you at your word), you attributed words to Eric that not only did he not utter, it is an idea to which he is opposed. The Twitter back and forth clearly reads that way.
Now, if it were myself, I would have asked for clarification. But, I don’t have the debating history between the two of us that you two have. I sense there is a bit of tension between the two of you that may have lead to this, but that’s just speculation.
As far as that goes, that’s between you two. I don’t feel any need to defend it or address it. I am troubled, however (or, at least I was) that you would allow an untruth (specifically, your last paragraph) to perpetuate itself on your blog.
If this has nothing to do with Eric’s statements after the fact, and you acknowledge the original Twitter conversation was a misunderstanding, what’s going on, here?
That’s troublesome to me.
We also have different concepts of intellectual honesty.
Eric said AK wasn’t against merit pay and that I was putting words in others’ mouths. Both aren’t true. He said that elsewhere: “Arnold Kling doesn’t support merit pay at all”. This is a very strange assertion considering Kling’s own words on the matter.
I’m not sure why you’re not holding Eric to the same standard. He put words in my mouth, suggesting that I was concluding something about Kling’s piece that I never did. I never mentioned my specific opinion on the piece, but he repeatedly asserted that I did in the feed as well as his comments and post. Why the double standard?
Parenthetically, it’s easy to tell the difference on Twitter between mentions and replies. When you “reply”, the other person is automatically tagged and the email notification says “So and so replied to one of your tweets.” When you simply tag someone, the email notification reads “So and so mentioned you in one of their tweets.” It’s also unclear who the “you” is referring to in “Do you oppose them as well” and “Doesn’t really answer whether you agree with Kling”. How do you make sense of all the other tweets in the feed?
It’s fine you agree with Eric. I expected as much. I don’t and no one I’ve discussed it with does, so I have a feeling this is just tribalism. However, I put a link up to his post where he explains his actions. What else do you want?
There was no tension between us on my part. In fact, he just stayed at my apartment last week; we broke bread and saw a few movies…which is why I was confused as to why he didn’t assume positive intent.
Andrew, you’ve completely lost me.
How is a simple disagreement about what Kling concluded or did not conclude a matter of “putting words in your mouth.”
Also, is it not obvious that Eric does not engage in conversations via Twitter and may not have as much of a nuanced understanding of its inner workings as yourself?
“It’s fine you agree with Eric. I expected as much. I don’t and no one I’ve discussed it with does, so I have a feeling this is just tribalism. However, I put a link up to his post where he explains his actions. What else do you want?”
You would do very poorly indeed if you ever decided to wager a bet on what Eric and I agree or disagree about. He and I have the same basic ideas about many things, but I’ve had no problem telling him he’s been wrong about issues in the past. That relationship goes both ways with us.
You have a very bad habit of assuming things that do not warrant said assumption, Andrew. You’ve done it with your accusations of religiosity and dogmatism, and now you’re assuming “tribalism”.
Your “feeling” of “tribalism” is not only baseless and dismissive, it’s intellectually offensive. Are you stating, for the record, that consensus on the matter is an indication that you are correct? Or, are you insinuating that I’m unable to formulate my own line of argument because I’m utterly blinded by tribalistic bias?
Color me unimpressed on both counts.
You either take my word that my opinion on the matter is independent, or you don’t. If you don’t, we are at a complete impasse and have nothing else to say to each other.
What else do I want? Nothing. I am in no position to want or demand anything from you. This is your blog and you may conduct yourself as you wish.
I am heartened that you provided said link with accompanied commentary, however.
No, I just meant that you’re assuming positive intent on Eric’s part just as my friends are assuming positive intent on my part. It’s kind of like when a couple breaks up and you have to take sides, so you take the side of the person you’re closest with.
I don’t think your opinion is completely unbiased, to be honest. There’s nothing wrong with that; it’s hard to overcome our priors. I’m just saying I don’t read too much into the fact that you think Eric’s right about this. I’m not saying you and Eric agree on everything philosophically.
Your views on the Pinker thing did seem to be driven by ideology, but we can discuss that some other time.
Eric put words in my mouth when he said that I was trying to draw some lesson from the Kling post, something I never did, and that I was wrong about that lesson. All I did was tag him with a hyperlink and ask him for his thoughts. As I mentioned in my last comment, I didn’t offer any opinion on the Kling piece. You seem to have a double standard for when it’s appropriate to attribute views to people they don’t have.
We’ve all said how we feel about this, so it may be time to move on. No hard feelings between us, sir. You’ve always shown me respect and kept the conversation focused on ideas.