LESSWRONG
LW

All of grabbag's Comments + Replies

4the gears to ascension
then I don't think we meaningfully disagree on what there is to protect self and community from - malice incentivizes divide and conquer, so if you're seeking to protect, unite and aid. my only objections to conspiracy theorism is that it can cause one to mismodel the coordination patterns that cause the behaviors one notices. in general, I don't think the media as a whole tries to convince people of things; as a whole, mostly they try to get people to click on things. subgroups of media do have specific agendas, but for the most part the shared directions in behavior space do not result in reliable coordination. I also agree with Scott Alexander's take about how the media usually lies: by omission. I don't think it's an awful idea to occasionally read or watch stuff produced by media companies, it's just important to do citation tracing. don't be a crackpot; there are always many possible causal hypotheses.
Somewhat-Brief thoughts on reasonableness of conspiracy
grabbag10

There's almost no secret masterminds or shadowy cabals behind it, just selfish short-sighted power-seeking behavior.

How do you know this?

1.5 is "think tank is publicly incorporated, takes funding in mostly-public ways, and publishes position papers with it's name (and the name of members) on it", right?  I'd classify that as "normal, if imperfect, power relationships", not "conspiracy.

Yeah, I think this is usually how it works. However I also think the way these are written makes them almost impossible for people not in the know to understand them or ... (read more)

Reply
Somewhat-Brief thoughts on reasonableness of conspiracy
grabbag10

While I don't disagree that "incentive systems causing corruption" is similar to what I would call conspiracy there seems to be a problem of the mundanity of evil. "Everyone knows" "capitalism" is unfair and corrupt, "everyone" doesn't have a very specific understanding of how it is corrupt nor do they really think it can be addressed. It's one of these unsolvable problems of "the system".

Compare that to conspiracy people who for example actively distrust the media, actively resist the idea of large corporations running important parts of their lives such ... (read more)

Reply
2the gears to ascension
key question that will guide how I answer: is fox mainstream media in your view?
Somewhat-Brief thoughts on reasonableness of conspiracy
grabbag10

J. Edgar Hoover used blackmail on presidents to be in control of one important lever of power. If there was a conspiracy that did not have J. Edgar Hoover as part, why would they let Hoover get away with that?

I can't speak to this because I know very little about J. Edgar Hoover.

I'm not sure what you mean with group. Of how many groups are you a member yourself? Is this forum a group?

I think groups should be seen more as a spectrum than as clearly defined entities, even more so when they are not formal, yet I would say that groups definitely exist and iden... (read more)

Reply
Somewhat-Brief thoughts on reasonableness of conspiracy
grabbag10

I can't speak to J. Edgar Hoover or Robert Moses (don't know enough about them). The argument that they should be included in any conspiracy because they held two seemingly high positions of power and since they didn't get their way there can be no conspiracy seems like a suspect argument.

If I would have to make it more clear what I mean by conspiracy theory I'd probably define it in terms of a small group of people that have:

  1. Systematic control or large influence over media and other important levers of power
  2. This group is not known to the general public
  3. Thi
... (read more)
Reply
8ChristianKl
That sounds like you don't never wanted to do the actual work of understanding how power works as those two are important characters.  That's not the argument. J. Edgar Hoover successfully blackmailed US presidents to do what he wanted. If you are conspiracy-minded, you might also blame him for covering up the Kennedy assassination.  J. Edgar Hoover used blackmail on presidents to be in control of one important lever of power. If there was a conspiracy that did not have J. Edgar Hoover as part, why would they let Hoover get away with that? Moses power was more complex and it's well worth understanding if you want to understand how power gets wielded outside of public knowledge.  I'm not sure what you mean with group. Of how many groups are you a member yourself? Is this forum a group?  
Somewhat-Brief thoughts on reasonableness of conspiracy
grabbag10

I feel like you expect this to be obviously true, but I'm at least a little well-read and plenty cynical about society, and I'm not seeing what this refers to 

You are correct, I expect this to be true but I don't have a more specific example in mind more than intelligence services such as the CIA seeming to have a thought-out structure which is good at combating leaks and betrayal in different ways.

If you are well read on this, do you remember some resource that makes you think this is not the case? Are you saying conspiracies are really difficult to ... (read more)

Reply
2Dagon
This seems likely to me.  Unpleasant equilibria and semi-organized feedback loops are very common.  There's almost no secret masterminds or shadowy cabals behind it, just selfish short-sighted power-seeking behavior.  Calling it "conspiracy" without clarifying the mechanisms and motivations is misleading. 1.5 is "think tank is publicly incorporated, takes funding in mostly-public ways, and publishes position papers with it's name (and the name of members) on it", right?  I'd classify that as "normal, if imperfect, power relationships", not "conspiracy. If you put a more direct path from think tank's non-public motives and recommendations to/from powerful individuals in government, especially if it contradicts public statements from the think tank and government, you have a conspiracy.  If there are hidden paybacks or agendas in the media, those are conspiracies. I suspect you've found our crux: "conspiracy" implies "intentionally and explicitly secret" to me, not just selective information and power-seeking, or even fairly pervasive corruption.  The reason the distinction matters is that if one sees hidden competent conspiracies where there are none, the obvious bad equilibria use that against you.  
Somewhat-Brief thoughts on reasonableness of conspiracy
grabbag10

It's just that there are pretty few very-long-running, hidden, effective organizational conspiracies.  They get eaten in their infancy by the banal inter-conspirator conspiracies against each other.  I can't guarantee none, but it's certainly a lot less than hucksters would have you believe.

 

Why do you think the long-running and hidden conspiracies get eaten by inter-conspirator conspiracies? I'm interpreting this claim as the idea that ruling elites only cooperate for short amounts of time and then try to screw each other over.

Here are my o... (read more)

Reply
4Dagon
I suspect our crux is about whether alliances are hidden.  There are LOTS of ways where groups coordinate against other groups, and "elites" are probably better at it than most, both because they're successful at it, and able to use their coalitions effectively. As far as I can tell, these alliances aren't particularly well hidden, and are not "secret conspiracies".  They're just partnerships, support, and shared goals.  Their goals are often different than publicized, but that's hypocrisy, not conspiracy - the true goals are pretty easily inferred from the actions.  The internal competition and infighting makes it lots harder when secrets are involved, as a secret is a value to some and a weakness to others, and CAN be used to shift the split of rewards of the alliance. I'm interested in your last point: "there exists an entire science for how you would organize in a stable and hidden way". I feel like you expect this to be obviously true, but I'm at least a little well-read and plenty cynical about society, and I'm not seeing what this refers to.   edit to add: I do think there's a whole lot of implicit collusion and non-explicit cooperation against other coalitions.  This isn't conspiracy, because it's not organized and overt.  It's not "secret" in that there are no extraordinary measures taken to silence the snitches, but it is "hidden" in that there's no actual conspiracy to expose, just unpleasant (to me) world models and shared goals.