= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
GabrielDuquette comments on Why is Mencius Moldbug so popular on Less Wrong? [Answer: He's not.] - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (259)
Whether something is real or not, is independent on whether it is "good" or "bad". So in the first place, MM says that this is what happens: that people in democracies on average vote for more political power for the average Joe, which consequently means more power to those who form Joe's opinions -- the schools and the media.
True or false?
To me it seems essentially correct, with the addition that we should go further and examine who owns the schools and who owns the media, how much those owners influence the content of the message, and what are the incentives for the owners. As I understand MM, he says that successful journalists get their ideas from the schools, the whole school system gets their opinions from university professors, and the university professors are almost independent... except for their dependence on money from government. Which motivates them to descibe the world in a manner that calls for more money from the government to university professors.
Then, as a specific consequence, the university professors have an incentive to promote central planning over free market, because in central planning the government will pay them for research about how to plan things better. This is almost like paying them for saying: "central planning is the correct answer". On the other hand, promoting free market or other forms of citizens deciding independently of government (and professors) is almost like saying: "my job is superfluous, please fire me". Professors will have bias against that.
Only after we decide whether something is true or false, we should look at the consequences. MM says that the consequence of biased government decisions is ineffectivity in general, and specifically higher crime rates. (I did not check his numbers.)
I would say that the "more power" which people get, is mostly illusory for most people. It can make you feel good to have a right to vote for Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians or Greens, but so what? Either way Libertarians and Greens will lose, and both Republicans and Democrats will continue doing the things you hate, such as war, taxes and spying on citizens. On the other hand, the higher crime has more impact on you. So maybe... having more of this "power" is actually a net loss for the average Joe.
I know Moldbug thinks it's true -- as much as anyone can know what that guy really thinks. I just think it's a facile argument in fancy clothes.
What's preferable to letting people feel powerful, even if it's illusory? How opposed to the free market are professors, really? If your summary is faithful, it seems like he's overstating the entrenchment of bad ideas in academia, or at the very least understating the feedback between disciplines where bad ideas are stickier and disciplines where bad ideas are quickly revealed as such. And are there many reasons to believe that application of central planning isn't getting more and more precise over time?
MM does not oppose central planning. His idea of a good state is to hire Steve Jobs and make him a dictator (or dictator's minister). Supposedly Steve Jobs is smart enough to prescribe central planning where central planning works better, and prescribe free market where free market works better, and measure the efficiency of both.
On the other hand, a democratic government decides between central planning and free market based on the popular opinion, which is based on professors' advice, which is driven by their desire to get more grant money. This leads to a choosing a policy not because it gives the best results, but because it is the best topic for writing papers about. For example: nobody really understands Keynesian economics, probably because it does not really work, which allows professors to publish many papers about it, which makes it popular among professors, and journalists (with some hyperbole here).
Essentially: Central planning as done in democracy is imprecise because academia introduces systematic biases into central planning. A non-democratic ruler could avoid this bias.
Whilst imposing plenty of their own, eg Grab The Money and Run, Impose My Religion on Everyone, Trees Are More Interesting to Talk to than People, etc, etc.
The whole thing seems to hinge on the arbitrariness of professors' intellectual leanings. How do we know they are so arbitrary? If you polled all the economics professors of major universities in the US, would their outlook confirm MM's argument? Or is his data obsolete, based on a stereotype?
Perhaps some journalists get some wrong ideas from some professors. I don't know why I should believe that it's an irretrievably bad situation, however.
This sounds to me like burning down the house to get rid of termites.
I don't model academia as having a single bias. In my experience, it is a bunch of subcultures -- for instance, economics professors tend to love libertarianism, and sociology professors tend to hate it. I have been "informed" from time to time that my university education was nothing but left-wing propaganda, although I don't recall much mention of politics on my physics course.
Another thing that is peculiar about this argument is the relative lack of emphasis on the influence of familt, church, etc on people's thinking. If the tertiary education sector is so influential on the US, why aren't most US citizens believers in evolution?
By some metrics a slight majority of people in the US accept evolution, but your basic point is sound.