You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ChristianKl comments on First(?) Rationalist elected to state government - Less Wrong Discussion

63 Post author: Eneasz 07 November 2014 02:30AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (54)

Comments (54)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: sixes_and_sevens 07 November 2014 02:58:42PM 23 points [-]

Well, since that whole mind-killer business is already way over the horizon...

It can't be uncommon for people on here to look at their elected representatives and think "that doesn't seem like a very high bar to clear". It may be that I'm missing something, but the one elected official I personally know is, to put it bluntly, an uncharismatic tool with no relevant background. I wouldn't trust him as a stooge. Even if it was the safest seat in the country, it's bewildering to me that no-one else is there in his place.

Why don't more people like us (for some conception of "us" that may or may not be coherent) stand for public office? Here are some hypotheses:

  • They do, and I'm misinformed
  • STEM backgrounds are anti-correlated with public office because:
    • they have higher earning potential in the private sector
    • they systematically lack relevant skills, or the ability to recognise these skills
    • they are systematically located in large centres of industry, which attract more dedicated and competent competition in political spheres
  • They're too cynical to be politically active
  • There is a secret undercurrent of heavily politically-active people on Less Wrong who don't discuss it because of prevailing mind-killer social norms

Other suggestions (or counter-assertions, or gentle mockery) welcome.

Comment author: ChristianKl 07 November 2014 09:56:13PM 5 points [-]

I think there a case to be made for more people of this community to run for office.

On the other hand there things are often harder than they appear from the outside.

There is a secret undercurrent of heavily politically-active people on Less Wrong who don't discuss it because of prevailing mind-killer social norms

Or who participate on LW under a nickname and don't want their LW account to read by their political enemies when an election comes up. To the extend that might be the case there's nothing to be gained by outing individuals. Attendance lists of LW events also shouldn't be public to get such a hypothetical person into trouble.

Comment author: bogus 07 November 2014 10:50:39PM *  5 points [-]

Yup, people who are seriously politically active in online venues are disproportionately likely to be using nicknames, and this can only become more likely if they aim to actually run for office. This is one key reason why anonymity/pseudonymity is seen as an important free-speech issue. And sites like Facebook, which try to enforce the use of real names, are widely distrusted as places for some political discussions, for much the same reason.

(Of course all of this is very much context dependent. A Real Names policy will benefit other political contexts, which are less related to the roughness of deliberating and negotiating about political ideas, and more about things like expressing support for firmly established proposals by publicly taking a stand about them. You can see this very clearly with "Neoreaction" at its current stage - how many people would be willing to sign their name under a petition asking for a king to rule them, and for "shares" of the country to be distributed to a new aristocracy?)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit