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.

There's a lot of talk about privilege lately. The concept is overused, but there's something to the idea that it makes you blind — you can't see what's visible to someone whose life is very different.

The concept of privilege is overused, but there's something to the idea that it makes you blind — you can't see what's 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.

I'll name one pervasive example orthodox privilege: the more conventional-minded you are, the more it seems safe for everyone to speak. It's safe for you, because your opinions are whatever's currently acceptable — so you can't imagine a true statement that gets you in trouble.

I'll call one pervasive form orthodox privilege: the more conventional-minded you are, the more it seems safe for everyone to speak, because your own opinions are simply whatever it's acceptable to believe.

And yet at every point in history, there were [blocked] 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.

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

Our time surely isn't unique. But against the evidence, people go with their gut.

In extreme cases they don't just deny it; they accuse you of heresy for saying so — and non-deterministically: you must be an xist or a yist.

At every point in history there were true things that got you in trouble to say; assuming ours is the first exception is absurd, yet most people deny it and some will call you a heretic merely for raising it.

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.

These people are in earnest, not pretending an idea can't be both unorthodox and true.

The world really looks that way to them.

And it's uniquely tenacious. Most privilege you overcome by learning more; not this. You'd have to become more independent-minded, which won't happen in one conversation.

They're in earnest, not pretending — and this privilege is uniquely tenacious, because you can't escape it by learning more, only by becoming more independent-minded, which won't happen in 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.

You might convince some that orthodox privilege exists though they can't sense it — like dark matter.

But "check your privilege" won't work, because 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.

Perhaps the solution is politeness. If someone says they hear a high-pitched noise you can't, you take them at their word.

Imagine how rude that would seem.

Likewise for someone who says they can think of true things that cannot be said: take them at their word, even if you can't think of any yourself.

Some can be convinced orthodox privilege exists, like dark matter, but "check your privilege" won't land on people who don't know they're in it. Perhaps the answer is politeness: take them at their word.

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.

Thanks to the friends who read drafts.

Thanks to the friends who read drafts.