= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
John_Maxwell_IV comments on Political ideas meant to provoke thought - 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 (141)
As something which provokes the worst impulses, I consider it good training as well.
But they can be trusted to make decisions for others if they're smart? Intelligence doesn't give one knowledge or shared values.
Much of your discussion is flawed because you ignore values. Clippy may be smarter than all of us, but I'm not going to be his sheep because I don't want the universe converted to paper clips. Values matter.
Actually, accelerated returns mean we get more bang for increased innovation each year. This year is always the worst year ever to hinder innovation.
As for giving up on Capitalism, not gonna happen. While you focus on Capitalism, many who support it are focused on a Free Market. We like the Free part, not just the mountains of stuff it helps produce.
Fair. I think this can be solved for the "be a sheep" idea, just find someone who shares your values in addition to the other stuff. But it's trickier for the paternalists idea.
Hmm. Economic growth historically has looked like an exponential. And traditionally it's recommended to make your utility function logarithmic with respect to your net worth. Take the logarithm of an exponential and the effects cancel each other out. So there may not be a general-purpose principle here. (This analysis assumes that everyone's welfare is growing at the same exponential rate as the economy as a whole.)
It seems to me that modern day politics consists of people sheepily cheering for their values team without looking into whether their team's proposed policies actually further their values - which largely seems to be the proposition here.
I see some glimmer of sense in wanting a less ideological leader in creating a system to further a set of values, but it doesn't seem likely that the least ideological will win a competition for leadership in ideological organizations, or that they would be the best choice as the head of the group if they were, as furthering the ideology seems more effective for gaining and keeping power than efficiently putting the ideology into practice.
As long as there is a war to be fought for power, you want someone good at war. When the war is won, then you want the guy who can win the peace.
Also, could you taboo "ideological". I suspect in practice it tends to mean some combination of "disagrees with me" and "contrarian".
Yes, in practice, the usage of "ideological" is ideological.
But I think there is a meaningful sense to it. We are all acting out of our motivation to further our values, but some of us, more than others, can and will still recognize and be honest about reality, even when it is inconvenient to making our case. The inability or unwillingness to do this is being ideological.
Yo dawg, I heard you like some ideology in your ideology
It's probably used that way in practice, but it does seem likely to me that there's a useful concept lurking around here. I've definitely noticed that some people are much more inclined to stick with their guns in an attempt to save face during disagreements than others, and I think I've observed long-term changes in that personality characteristic in myself over the years.
So what you're talking about is susceptibility to peer pressure?
Not according to the traditional usage of "peer pressure".