Ok, cool. Thanks for the references. Not to belabor the point, but I don't think there can be a question about resource allocation between changing epistemic virtues (etc) and changing social identity (broadly understood). They're two sides of the same coin.

Nice, thanks, will check this out. Fwiw, good talk today at PPE!

Might have. What did I miss?

For more on labor unions and how to be both/and about this stuff, check out Ch. 5 of my book with @madva.bsky.social and @dryan149.bsky.social

And not for nothing: lots of unions suck. Think police unions, or the many trade unions that have fought against climate action. Unions aren’t magic either. They can be great sources of progressive power . . . when their members believe just and true things.

There’s no magic end-around the hard work of persuasion. What Bagg should say is that directly persuading people to adopt new epistemic habits doesn’t offer the best ROI (if that’s true). But then the question just becomes: what OTHER forms of persuasion should we try instead?

Maybe Bagg would say that social structures like segregation are a bigger barrier. Maybe! So how do we deal with that? Government policies could help, which would require people to vote for those policies, which would require . . . changing beliefs about who to vote for (or whether to vote).

But what prevents people from wanting to do these things? Might it have at least something to do with their (false) beliefs about each other? Do MAGA people’s beliefs about labor unions have nothing to do with their rejection of them?