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.

Lumifer comments on What subjects are important to rationality, but not covered in Less Wrong? - Less Wrong Discussion

20 Post author: casebash 27 February 2015 11:57AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (66)

Comments (66)

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

Comment author: Lumifer 05 March 2015 09:19:09PM *  0 points [-]

the actual process of politics is mostly about convincing people, making impressions, et cetera.

We may have different things in mind. What you described I would call "electioneering in a democracy". The actual politics I would define as "acquisition and exercise of power in a society".

a successful politician will be dishonest, will come to believe their own lies, will try to manipulate others instead of convincing them, and will be antagonistic instead of truth-seeking in debate.

I kinda agree, but would like to point out that being a cynical manipulator is likely to make you a more successful politician.

If someone doesn't do any of that, they may be engaging in a political process, but they aren't engaging in primate politics in the sociological sense of the word.

That looks awfully similar to a No True Scotsman argument :-/

Comment author: DanArmak 05 March 2015 09:42:05PM 0 points [-]

What you described I would call "electioneering in a democracy". The actual politics I would define as "acquisition and exercise of power in a society".

That's true, I described things involved in convincing or performing for non-politicians. Private negotiations between politicians are different. But still manipulative, dishonest, and performative.

being a cynical manipulator is likely to make you a more successful politician.

Yes it does: I listed 'manipulation instead of [honest] convincing' as one of the four characteristics of politicians.

That looks awfully similar to a No True Scotsman argument

No, it's merely stressing the narrow meaning of 'politics' I was using. Like I said, let's not argue over definitions.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit