The real edginess of The Edge and John Brockman

The Edge Foundation is well known to science and philosophy fanbois and fangrrlz, including myself, with its big "annual question" that founder and proprietor John Brockman asks leading philosophers and scientists.

But, there's also a private version.

And there's plenty of story behind that.

Evgeny Morozov calls it "an elaborate massage of the ego (and apparently much else) for the rich, the smart, and the powerful."

Turns out there's a horrible pun of sorts in that material in parentheses.

In the article, Morozov drops the reveal on just how much of a "FOJ" Brockman is. That would be as in "Friend of Jeffrey," with the Jeffrey being Jeffrey Epstein. And there's your horrible, and horribly true, in all likelihood, pun.

Brockman is also a heavy hitter in the book agency world for science authors. THAT now explains, I think, the Lawrence Krauss connection with Epstein.

Morozov explains:

Epstein participated in the Edge Foundation’s annual questions, and attended its “billionaires’ dinners.” Brockman may also be the reason why so many prominent academics—from Steven Pinker to Daniel Dennett—have found themselves answering awkward questions about their associations with Epstein; they are clients of Brockman. Marvin Minsky, the prominent MIT scientist who surfaced as one of Epstein’s island buddies? A client of Brockman’s. Joi Ito, the director of the elite research facility MIT Media Lab, who has recently acknowledged extensive ties to Epstein? Also, a client of Brockman’s.

So, Krauss, infamous for his own Epstein connections, was either an imperial playtoy at one of these dinners, a Brockman agency client, or both. (That "prominent academics" link makes clear Krauss was invited to one of the shindigs, if nothing else.)

This, in turn leads to further issues.

Krauss was also the recipient of one of Epstein's grants to theoretically creative scientists.

And, the Slate piece that Morozov links in that pull-quote above points up more of the Epstein problem. He has almost exclusively courted male scientists with his grant funding. That, in turn, beyond its relationship to sexual procurement, is a clear promotion of sexism in science. That may not be on Brockman, but even it kind of is, even if he didn't know about Epstein's hideous sexual abuse. That said, people whom Brockman invited to participate on the public version of The Edge were almost all men, too.

Speaking of, I've long considered Ev Psych sexist, what with its bragging about man (the male) as the "noble hunter gatherer," ignoring aeons of the male as the less noble, and female assisted, scavenger gatherer, along with the pseudoscience of the EEA and other things.

Well, re Epstein, and re many of the writers in Brockman's stable, somebody's nailed the coonskin to the wall on Epstein's love of Ev Psychers.  Robert Trivers and Steve Pinker are among the name checked, but here's the money quote:

Of all academic disciplines, evolutionary psychology has the most to do with pussy.

And, I'm reminded that the douche, Pinker, defended the indefensible, and pseudoscience squared, "A Natural History of Rape." Alexandra Walling also notes Pinker's comments about rapists elsewhere, as in criminal rape cases today, and how they don't square with him defending Thornhill let alone dodging Epstein's connections with silence.

And, puhleeze, ev psych fanbois AND fangrllz, don't send me names of women in ev psych, make claims about it that aren't true or are scientism based, etc.

Beyond that, I thought the "great question" on the public version of The Edge often bordered on pretentiousness. Many of them recycled themselves. And, a number of them were at least partially connected to ... ev psych.

It seems that John Brockman's greatest sales job has been selling himself.

And, maybe, by silence, he's trying to sell scientists and philosopher clients, or at least the fans, that he's not connected to Epstein.

Morozov said he'd like to believe otherwise himself:

When the Epstein-Brockman connection first surfaced in the news, I wanted to give Brockman the benefit of the doubt. ... In the last few weeks, such a charitable interpretation has become very hard to sustain, especially as other details ... became public. John Brockman has not said a word publicly about his connection to Epstein since the latest scandal broke, preferring to maintain silence on the matter. That I have found quite infuriating.

Morozov then personalizes why he finds this infuriating. He said he got an email from Brockman in 2013, intended for somebody else. They had a back and forth and Morozov makes this observation, aided to some degree by hindsight, as he says that, years ago, he didn't know who Epstein was (born in Belarus, I have no doubt on that):

In that old email, it seems clear that Brockman was acting as Epstein’s PR man.

There you go. And, 2013 was after Epstein's original conviction, of course. He expands:

(N)ow that I’ve found that old email he sent me, I cannot believe that he knew absolutely nothing of Epstein’s wild sexual escapades—in fact, his email suggests he was trying to capitalize on them to recruit yet another useful idiot into Epstein’s network.

OK, that's that.

Morozov has decided to act.

I’m just one of the many authors in Brockman’s agency; my departure wouldn’t affect anything. I am also the last one to complain: His agency sold two of my books, and I have two more underway, also sold by them. 

Yet, I am ready to pull the plug on my association with Brockman’s agency—and would encourage other authors to consider doing the same—until and unless he clarifies the relationship between him, the Edge Foundation, and Epstein. If such an explanation is not forthcoming, many of us will have to decide whether we would like to be part of this odd intellectual club located on the dubious continuum between the seminar room and a sex-trafficking ring.

Sounds reasonable enough and straightforward enough.

So, after reading this, I Tweeted the link to two online friends of mine, philosopher and philosopher of science Massimo Pigliucci, and science journalism professor John Horgan.

Let's just say I found Horgan's response "interesting":

Brockman ceased being my agent a decade ago, but I'm not going to speak ill of him. And Morozov is a rat jumping off a ship he thinks is sinking.

— John Horgan (@Horganism) August 22, 2019

I don't think I'm at "infuriating," but beyond the scare-quoted, not reference-quoted, "interesting," I find his response more than "interesting." 

"Defensive" was the first word that came to my mind.

I've followed Morozov semi-regularly for several years, ever since the late Leo Lincourt turned me on to him. His "solutionism," the idea that modern technology, including and usually above all the social media world, claims to have "the answer" for social problems of all sorts, is mirrored in my blog label "salvific technologism."

Morozov was born in Belarus. I think that, having seen bits of the communist cum state capitalism version of Brockman's hedonic capitalism may be part of what put Morozov off. Maybe what he saw as pretentiousness was an additional factor — and pretentiousness among Brockman's Roman Senate lackeys at the court of Caligula (with Brockman kind of a Wizard of Oz behind Epstein's Caligula, to complete the analogy).

And his answer to his rhetorical question is no:

In Brockman’s world, billionaires, scientists, artists, novelists, journalists, and musicians all blend together to produce enormous value — for each other and, of course, for Brockman. This mingling of clients doesn’t happen in other literary agencies, at least not to this extent. Nor does this happen at Brockman Inc., as all such interactions that we know of took place under the umbrella of the Edge Foundation, a sibling organization, with Brockman as its president. Would Brockman Inc. exist without the Edge Foundation? Possibly—and it did, at the outset. Would it be as powerful, trading on Brockman’s ability to rub shoulders with academics and billionaires alike? Probably not. Still, I can attest that Brockman’s authors face no pressure to get involved with Edge: I, for example, diligently responded to their annual questions between 2010 and 2013—and then stopped, as I was put off by Brockman’s insistence that people responding to the annual question should keep away from politics.

So ... Dennett, Pinker and many others, even if, unlike Krauss, they have never had anything besides their egos massaged, have been at least partial accomplices in having Brockman's ego massaged through silence. That's Morozov's take. 

I personally found the Edge big questions, even before it dawned on me now that they were largely repetitive and recycled, to be pretentious in the answering thereof. That partially dovetails with Morozov's take. There was a degree of scientism in some answers, too, and maybe even philosophism from a few philosophers.

The final issue is Morozov's call for action.

Whether the ship is sinking or not, I don't think he's a rat, if there's any pejorative angle to John saying that.

Rather, the ship seems to be captained by a rat. Whether or not Morozov has Brockman as his agent at this time, which Horgan does not, he has an ethically honest stance. It's basically a call to boycott Brockman, at least as an agent.

I just think Morozov should go further. I think that, until Brockman not only clarifies those relationships, but to the degree needed, offers an apology, any remnants of The Edge ought to be boycotted, not just Brockman's agency. (The Edge is in a sort of limbo, or something; it had no 2019 Big Question.)

Also going beyond Morozov, I think Brockman needs to address the issue of sexism in being a science book agent, as I noted above.

And, turns out many science foundations, research agencies, etc., not just individual scientists, all got money from Epstein and many are refusing to comment.

GIVE THE MONEY TO CHARITY! Like an anti-sexual trafficking organization!

===

Via Twitter, Morozov also reminds me of pseudoskeptic grifter Al Seckel's connection to Epstein.

Still surprised by how little attention the Epstein-chasing media have paid to Al Seckel - a top-notch charlatan, a one-time TED Talker, a member of the Edge community, an ex-husband of Ghislaine Maxwell's sister, and a co-organizer (with Epstein) of the Mindshift conference.

— Evgeny Morozov (@evgenymorozov) September 6, 2019

Jim Lippard years ago noted this.

Lippard and Tom McIver, via Tweets, reinforce that Brockman was an enabler for Epstein.

John Brockman knew. Here he is with one of Jeffrey Epstein’s rape victims on one side, and alleged abuse coordinator, at an https://t.co/oEYOr4yISa billionaire’s dinner in the early 2000s. pic.twitter.com/dwm6UJhe9r

— Xeni Jardin (@xeni) August 24, 2019

And, to complete the circle, Seckel was an Edge member.

There's also this:

Why is Jeffrey Epstein's association with John Brockman's Edge Group touted in numerous spam blogs?

— Jim Lippard (@lippard) January 5, 2011

That would seem to be answered here.

This all said, while movement skepticism, or Skeptics™, doesn't have a sexual assault problem, as anybody who knows the history of skepticism organizations, conferences and events knows, like Center for Inquiry, it's got a HUGE past history of sexual harassment. Are there other connections to at least Brockman, if not Epstein?

Respectful note to John Horgan — I think you need to rethink your attitude toward Morozov and the "rats." There's only one (still-living) rat in this equation.