Kill Or Be Killed. It is argued that this was once a pressing concern and that it has shaped us. Politics is the Mind-Killer.

People go funny in the head when talking about politics. The evolutionary reasons for this are so obvious as to be worth belaboring: In the ancestral environment, politics was a matter of life and death. And sex, and wealth, and allies, and reputation... When, today, you get into an argument about whether "we" ought to raise the minimum wage, you're executing adaptations for an ancestral environment where being on the wrong side of the argument could get you killed. Being on the right side of the argument could let you kill your hated rival!

Life, sex, status, and wealth depended on proto-human pack politics? OK, but what has changed? Not much I say. We don't kill quite so quickly and freely in some places as we once did, but for the majority of humans - and even for minorities within otherwise less murderous regions - it is still much the same.

Politics is an extension of war by other means. Arguments are soldiers. Once you know which side you're on, you must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side; otherwise it's like stabbing your soldiers in the back - providing aid and comfort to the enemy. People who would be level-headed about evenhandedly weighing all sides of an issue in their professional life as scientists, can suddenly turn into slogan-chanting zombies when there's a Blue or Green position on an issue.

I see the point, but don't think it is well stated. Politics is war, period, no other means about it. Arguments aren't soldiers, they're rocks hurled at opponents. Assuming attack and defense formation (mental image of a phalanx), and holding against pressure, isn't so much a duty to your side as your own self defense. Once you raise your spear the only way home is through the enemy; carrying your shield or being carried on it. The last sentence, my emphasis, is partly true. But, when there is something at stake professionalism goes by the board. Academic noogie wars are no more sensible than any other type of politics.

But, let's just consider non-academic politics and its insidious effects on academia.

In Artificial Intelligence, and particularly in the domain of nonmonotonic reasoning, there's a standard problem: "All Quakers are pacifists. All Republicans are not pacifists. Nixon is a Quaker and a Republican. Is Nixon a pacifist?"

What on Earth was the point of choosing this as an example? To rouse the political emotions of the readers and distract them from the main question? To make Republicans feel unwelcome in courses on Artificial Intelligence and discourage them from entering the field? (And no, before anyone asks, I am not a Republican. Or a Democrat.)

Why would anyone pick such a distracting example to illustrate nonmonotonic reasoning? Probably because the author just couldn't resist getting in a good, solid dig at those hated Greens. It feels so good to get in a hearty punch, y'know, it's like trying to resist a chocolate cookie.

N.B. The Greens in this example refer to the equivalent of modern football hooligans in Justinian's Rome.

Yudkowsky's point was mainly in support of his views about how posts at the the weblog Overcoming Bias should be written. Given the mission of the weblog this makes good sense.

But I think it is worth expanding the scope a bit to consider the implications of his example from AI. This type of bias seems pervasive in academia as well as many other institutions. It is dead common to see posts by academics that have the same biased form, taking every opportunity to show colors and gang sign, just to make their opponents writhe a bit and hopefully drop dead, or at least go away so that they can enjoy the echoes in their chambers. Many students complain of this in their classes as well.

What good can come of this "mind-killing"? Like Yudkowsky I'm not on either team, and so don't often feel personally attacked by this behavior except when it is a litmus test - with us or agin us. Still, I see the effects on others and note how this is socially destructive as well as intellectually, ethically and aesthetically bankrupt. It speaks volumes about academia and its pretensions.