Probably very true. But, I wonder how you'd go about proving to someone that they have respectability disease.
Speaking for myself, my views on some topics has changed quite markedly over time. There's no clear pattern here - some of my recently developed views especially on expertise, the reliability of science etc might be considered extreme, whereas in other areas my views have become more closer to mainstream respectability with time. The cause of the latter wasn't some newfound influence or need for respect but rather, seeing what happens when those views were put into practice by others and/or hearing the 'other side of the story', so to speak.
The man on the gallows can indeed speak "truth" to the King, but he can also say things that aren't all that helpful like "down with the King!" without worrying about details like who or what would replace that king. And as such when the man on the gallows has in the past avoided the gallows and successfully done a Cromwell or a Lenin, they sometimes discovered that their ideas weren't quite as refined or internally consistent as they thought. Now they replaced the 'respectable' people life didn't really get better.
This is definitely something I struggle with - where to find the right balance between criticism of the current system and sweep it all away type radicalism, vs more moderate respectability. One of the problems is that when the Overton Window is in the wrong place, respectable radicalism is required to move it. Some people have to say the unsayable. But then if the window moves and the question becomes not "what is true" but rather "what should we do about it?" then the world suddenly needs pragmatists who are willing to compromise in some way. The latter people are often the same as the former, and are perhaps not suffering from respectability disease but merely changing their approach in response to changing needs.
I think you point your finger on the problem quite well, in that detecting the change and distinguishing it from evolving thought is very difficult. That is probably why the brain is so able to self deceive on this count.
My sense is that you can't really prove to someone they have respectability disease, rather they have to have the habits of self reflection to see that they are becoming someone they don't really like. Perhaps they find themselves betraying someone or something terribly important to them, or have a movie cliché "pointing the submachine gun at a child" moment. Maybe someone within the inner ring accidentally lets slip that they are just a useful idiot and will be purged tomorrow.
Maybe it takes them getting purged... that seems to be the case for many modern leftists who suddenly found they needed to speak up against "hurtful language" censorship and the like. Many people held their tongues and went along when it was the other side getting canceled, fired, bullied for speech, only to rediscover their commitments when it happened to them or someone they knew.
What makes the diagnosis more difficult is that most people don't have principles, and many seem born with congenital respectability disease. I see many people seem to believe in "free speech, so long as no one says anything I don't like." Without principles creating a line you don't cross, there is little to throw up a mental red flag. Fortunately most people are born with a line that says "don't kill children," but that might be just about it. If they don't have to pull the trigger themselves, it might not even be enough.
With regards to the gallows, sure, you can say stupid stuff. What you don't find is people saying "No, actually this is pretty much fine. I must deserve this. Long live the king!" Not unless they actually believed it before. The man on the gallows might not be able to work out a plan for replacement of the king, but the men in the court won't be able to bring themselves to work out the plan even though they could, and possibly recognize that they should.
That's the real crux of the problem. Respectability disease works from your brain's tendency to prioritize the expedient social gains and position over the more abstract philosophical integrity. It tells you your important friends (whom you really don't like much), your important job (which you find distasteful), your steady comforts (which you don't enjoy much) are far more important than doing what you would think is right if either you were assured of those things or you didn't have them at all. Is the wealthy and respectable man happier now than he was before he had all those new important friends, positions, etc.? Would he be better off being true to himself and surrounding himself with people who were likewise true, even if it means giving up some fame, some influence?
Most philosophers point to yes.
Anyway, I highly recommend CS Lewis' Space Trilogy on the matter. The last book in particular is all about this, and he says it far better than I can.
Probably very true. But, I wonder how you'd go about proving to someone that they have respectability disease.
Speaking for myself, my views on some topics has changed quite markedly over time. There's no clear pattern here - some of my recently developed views especially on expertise, the reliability of science etc might be considered extreme, whereas in other areas my views have become more closer to mainstream respectability with time. The cause of the latter wasn't some newfound influence or need for respect but rather, seeing what happens when those views were put into practice by others and/or hearing the 'other side of the story', so to speak.
The man on the gallows can indeed speak "truth" to the King, but he can also say things that aren't all that helpful like "down with the King!" without worrying about details like who or what would replace that king. And as such when the man on the gallows has in the past avoided the gallows and successfully done a Cromwell or a Lenin, they sometimes discovered that their ideas weren't quite as refined or internally consistent as they thought. Now they replaced the 'respectable' people life didn't really get better.
This is definitely something I struggle with - where to find the right balance between criticism of the current system and sweep it all away type radicalism, vs more moderate respectability. One of the problems is that when the Overton Window is in the wrong place, respectable radicalism is required to move it. Some people have to say the unsayable. But then if the window moves and the question becomes not "what is true" but rather "what should we do about it?" then the world suddenly needs pragmatists who are willing to compromise in some way. The latter people are often the same as the former, and are perhaps not suffering from respectability disease but merely changing their approach in response to changing needs.
I think you point your finger on the problem quite well, in that detecting the change and distinguishing it from evolving thought is very difficult. That is probably why the brain is so able to self deceive on this count.
My sense is that you can't really prove to someone they have respectability disease, rather they have to have the habits of self reflection to see that they are becoming someone they don't really like. Perhaps they find themselves betraying someone or something terribly important to them, or have a movie cliché "pointing the submachine gun at a child" moment. Maybe someone within the inner ring accidentally lets slip that they are just a useful idiot and will be purged tomorrow.
Maybe it takes them getting purged... that seems to be the case for many modern leftists who suddenly found they needed to speak up against "hurtful language" censorship and the like. Many people held their tongues and went along when it was the other side getting canceled, fired, bullied for speech, only to rediscover their commitments when it happened to them or someone they knew.
What makes the diagnosis more difficult is that most people don't have principles, and many seem born with congenital respectability disease. I see many people seem to believe in "free speech, so long as no one says anything I don't like." Without principles creating a line you don't cross, there is little to throw up a mental red flag. Fortunately most people are born with a line that says "don't kill children," but that might be just about it. If they don't have to pull the trigger themselves, it might not even be enough.
With regards to the gallows, sure, you can say stupid stuff. What you don't find is people saying "No, actually this is pretty much fine. I must deserve this. Long live the king!" Not unless they actually believed it before. The man on the gallows might not be able to work out a plan for replacement of the king, but the men in the court won't be able to bring themselves to work out the plan even though they could, and possibly recognize that they should.
That's the real crux of the problem. Respectability disease works from your brain's tendency to prioritize the expedient social gains and position over the more abstract philosophical integrity. It tells you your important friends (whom you really don't like much), your important job (which you find distasteful), your steady comforts (which you don't enjoy much) are far more important than doing what you would think is right if either you were assured of those things or you didn't have them at all. Is the wealthy and respectable man happier now than he was before he had all those new important friends, positions, etc.? Would he be better off being true to himself and surrounding himself with people who were likewise true, even if it means giving up some fame, some influence?
Most philosophers point to yes.
Anyway, I highly recommend CS Lewis' Space Trilogy on the matter. The last book in particular is all about this, and he says it far better than I can.