Isn't that SisterY of The View from Hell?

I recall a user by that name on Overcoming Bias.

especially with the armchair methods popular at the time

Thales was arguably the first Western philosopher, and despite the 'well' story, he was noted for being particularly observant and empirical. The primary distinction between Thales and earlier philosophers was that where other philosophers made explanations based on supernatural forces and agents, Thales preferred explanations referring to the natural properties of objects. Notably, he was the first recorded person to study electricity.

Exactly.... to me this is always a sign of a strawman argument..

Or if money were fungible.

all of the economic analysis I've seen indicates it is more efficient to maximize wealth and then buy what you value directly. Forgoing money because it would harm someone is probably less efficient than making money and donating to givewell.

A better phrasing might be: "If you're so smart why aren't you fulfilling your Goals/Utility Function"

The college wage premium is large and growing.

The problem is that "college" is not an atomic thing. If you break it down by major, some are very much not worth the money and time, while others are very much worth the money and time. I mean, check out Table 7: computer software engineers with a bachelor's degree have twice the lifetime earnings of teachers with a bachelor's degree, who themselves barely earn more than the average person with "some college."

And so when you hear that the number of people seeking journalism degrees is growing, you start to wonder if those people don't know that journalism is a collapsing field, or if they don't care.

I have long been of the opinion that much of that is a result of privilege more than actual benefit of college education. I myself was able to find my way to an income above the national average per individual (and at that on the lower end of average for my industry) without even an Associate's degree. (I've actually done this twice, in two different industries. After the housing market crashed I had to essentially start over from scratch. I made some economic strategy re-assessments after that external wrecking-ball destroyed the path I was then on, and am now once again on a track to an early retirement; it is my long-term goal to have sufficient capital reserves to be able to live comfortably off of 3% APY returns by the time I'm 55. The economic downturn delayed me from 50 to 55. And I will note that I'm doing this without engaging in entrepeneurship of any kind; my sole foray into that field demonstrated I do not have the necessary social skillset to succeed in that venue.)

And I have no student debt to pay off, at that.

My parenthetical is actually demonstrative of my point here: I have achieved all of these things not because I am especially gifted, or especially insightful, or especially privileged. I have started with little to no social safety net and have built/rebuilt myself a total of three times, once from personal failure which I assessed and acted upon to adjust as necessary, once from external failure.

The only thing I can claim to have is what Eliezer would call, I suspect, a "winning attitude". One of my primary supergoals is, simply: "do what works."

That's vastly richer than the average human being.

But still representative of somewhere between two-thirds and four-fifths of Americans. (The computer / webcam part anyhow). Especially with the advent of camera smartphones.

You're staring in the face of a giant availability bias.

We have, I suspect, a definition problem. When I state "99%" I am referring to those who describe themselves by that title.

Uh, no that's not what it's saying. It's railing against the top 1% of people that have huge capital. People who have webcams/cameras etc. are contained in the 99% of Americans. They aren't the "average" of the 99%. Each is one of the 99% who do not have huge capital and together they make up the 99%. In other words, in order for you to have a problem with their claims, you need to show that someone who says "We are the 99%" is actually part of the top 1%.

If you prefer, they could say "I am one of the 99%," but that's not as catchy.

I think the quibble is more to do with why anyone would accrue $60,000 of debt knowing they'd have limited means of repaying it.