Replying to a few Anon FI posts at once:
On 15/9/17 4:08 am, anonymous FI wrote:
>
> On Sep 14, 2017, at 3:58 AM, Max Kaye <
m...@xk.io> wrote:
>
> Do you think Che had some good ideas we should learn from? Some valuable
> knowledge? Or not?
I don't know whether he does. I just don't know enough about him. So
'no', but only by default.
> Why is Che a *good* example of this category? I can think of people who
> are morally repugnant but able to do some good work, have some good
> ideas. E.g. some of the best writers about Apple are really awful
> leftists (e.g. John Gruber and Daniel Eran Dilger).
He might not be. Lack of knowledge, etc, from my side.
> Even if Che is technically an example of this category (b/c you discuss
> *more than zero* knowledge, instead of a good amount of knowledge), he
> wouldn't be a *good* example unless he had something significant and
> valuable to his name, e.g. a good essay.
>
>> The *main* point I wanted to make was that the value of an explanation
>> can be independent of its context.
>
> "can be" is true but very weak. everyone knows a pearl "can" be found in
> the muck.
Fair.
-----------
> On Sep 14, 2017, at 3:53 AM, Max Kaye <
m...@xk.io> wrote:
>> [1]: the only thing I'd change is "deserving the treatment he gets
>> elsewhere (where they are considered high value" is more appropriately
>> put as "deserving of being taken seriously" - more like that I'm not
>> trying to waste anyone's time, I really do think there is good
>> rational knowledge in that video. I also don't put as much value on
>> the context something is presented in (not to say I disregard it,
>> though) as I infer ET to, and these in combination fed back into the
>> other feelings.
>
> i think you should view this discussion as your video recommendation
> being taken especially seriously.
>
> instead of glossing over aspects of it, people took it seriously enough
> to comment on details.
I hadn't considered that, and it's a good point. Thank you.
> the approach here is starting at the beginning and going really slow and
> discussing everything. compared to rushing to only discuss the main
> idea, this is a way of taking it much more seriously. this approach
> treats it as if it was actually thoroughly good and important.
This isn't a method I'm particularly familiar with - I definitely rush
into things usually. Will be sure to keep that in mind.
> if anything, people took the recommendation *more seriously* than you
> intended.
>
> you only meant you liked some unspecified parts of the video which you
> regard as the main ideas. that's basically what your recommendation
> would mean from a normal person on Facebook.
That's curious, and not something I've considered before (in any context).
> but people here thought the best of Max and optimistically treated the
> recommendation more like if Elliot had said it on FI. (this isn't just
> incorrect judgement, it's a reasonable thing to regardless of what Max
> intended. taking something extra seriously is generally more productive
> and revealing.)
>
> people thought: oh it's great? cool! something that should stand up to
> total scrutiny! but then it didn't.
>
> bothering with detail criticism, and trying to deal with the video
> discussion as a sequence of potentially 50 gradual steps, is a sign of
> respect.
So in future, how much weight should I give to context in this sort of
situation?
Is it something where I should take care to remove context to show only
(and exactly) what I intend to?
I think I'm asking because I don't quite understand this process (the 50
gradual steps) yet. I don't think I've seen it play out so far. Since I
don't quite understand it I can't use the model to inform how I should
prepare content to be best suited to that discussion.
The criticism of the context is still something that frustrates me, but
I am also starting to understand why it's useful / employed here. I
guess it's a difference in two points of view:
* I am looking to discuss one thing in particular: the selectorate
theory, but I didn't link to that, I linked to *more* than I intended
* ET (and FI) look at it in the usual way, which (my guess is) by
looking at it *as a whole*, and stepping in slowly.
My analogy to explain what I mean about "the usual way" is this (in the
context of a garden):
Instead of rushing to look at the central feature of the garden (roses)
slowly take a single step inside and examine the first rock, and the
first daisy, and as you come to each, understand it, and its purpose,
and once you have, continue moving on. If that process goes well
(resists criticism) then you know the roses are high quality. But if
that goes badly (is able to be refuted) then it's likely the roses
weren't as good as you had hoped anyway, so move on to a better garden
instead of persevering with this one.
Is that getting closer?
> also: of course you aren't trying to waste anyone's time, but those good
> intentions don't mean you have any real understanding of what would be a
> good use of various FI people's time.
That's true, and as ET mentioned before, I should be less presumptuous
about how he (and the FI community) *should* spent their time.
-------
On 15/9/17 5:54 am, anonymous FI wrote:
>
> On Sep 14, 2017, at 1:40 AM, Max Kaye <
m...@xk.io> wrote:
>> Most scientists have terrible philosophy, but they can still produce
>> new knowledge, and that knowledge still has value.
>
> over 99% of the time, they DO NOT do good work BECAUSE they have
> terrible philosophy. huge problem!!!!
>
> most "science" is really, really, really bad.
>
> when you find an exception – a scientist doing good work – you will
> usually find he has much better philosophy than the others (even if it
> superficially looks similar).
I agree that scientific output is better with good philosophy.
Intuitively this seems more true in "more emergent" sciences (e.g.
psychology) than things like physics. However, I do acknowledge they
play a role in both.
> i bet if you posted a few examples of what you think is bad philosophy
> plus good science, we could point out you're mistaken about every one of
> them. either the science isn't actually so good, or the philosophy isn't
> so bad.
>
> (please don't instead reply by saying you meant "more than zero new
> knowledge with more than zero value" – i'm trying to reply to the
> substantive idea instead of the weak, hedged wording.)
I appreciate you trying to engage more with the substance. I don't doubt
that any example of "bad philosophy good science" would be able to be
criticised. The premise implies that is possible.
I guess I do believe there's a middle ground. Stephen Hawking doesn't
seem to have good philosophy (based on his ideas on climate change, AI,
non-human civilizations, etc), but he definitely has contributed to
physics: hawking radiation, firewalls around black holes, holography, etc.
That's more what I'm aiming for - there's definitely near-zero knowledge
creation with very bad philosophy, and I'm less interested in that.
>> Same here - don't watch the video for the memes, watch it for the
>> knowledge, and decide whether it was worth it based on that.
>>
>> I disagree (now) with a lot of the stuff Grey has said/produced [1],
>> but I still think this is a video that's definitely worth watching,
>> partly because it's entertaining, but mostly because this is the only
>> theory of power I've encountered that has deep explanatory potential.
>
> you're mistaken to expect FI veterans to share that taste in
entertainment.
>
> also wrong to expect them to be as impressed by the content as you are.
>
> just going by the book's amazon page, i can see that the material is in
> categories where we already have views. some details may be new, but as
> a whole it's not new to us. and it's stuff we disagree with and dislike.
I've seen a bunch of views on here about politics in general (or at
least in ET / JM's writing), but not on the nature of political power in
general.
DD sort of engages with this in BoI (optimism / choices), but I don't
think his understanding of power goes far enough. I agree with him _on
the whole_ but also think that he doesn't engage with a bunch of the new
ideas since Popper. Granted, most of them are terrible, but things like
the selectorate theory give us a better insight (IMO).
One example is DD's criticism of PR and defence of Pluralism. Reading
that was the first time I actually held an explanation for why pluralism
might be okay, and why PR can do evil via what I used to think was a
feature, not a bug (compromise).
However, the selectorate theory gives us enough insight to understand
that _the same sort of compromise_ can easily occur within a ruling
party since _their administration is no longer based on a consistent
explanation / framework_. This arises from a leader's need to satisfy
keys supporters and their diverse interests.
Thus authority is misused in pluralism in the same way as PR - though
perhaps to different extents.
Moreover, it shows that regardless of the framework you use, if you have
(what I call) static majoritarianism you necessarily require the misuse
of authority in this way. **Corruption is a tool** and refusing to use
that tool means you are more easily replaced (since the voter base / key
supporters are more ready to change team).
We saw this with the *rise* of Trump (existing key supporters switching
teams), and we're seeing it with supports now leaving him.
E.g. Ann Coulter recently retweeted:
https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/908176374074155009
> If he does not build the wall, he simply will not get reelected. If
he does build it, he will win 2020 by a landslide. It is that simple.
Whether _he should or shouldn't build the wall_ is besides the point
here; this is *corruption as a tool* in action.
> you may not be emotionally or intellectually ready to face this – that
> the ideas you value are actually deeply incompatible with BoI,
> Objectivism, etc. and it'd be hard to explain it to you due to your lack
> of background knowledge.
Well I definitely believe that *most* of the ideas I value are
compatible with BoI - it's been a very integral part of my life since
reading it (have read most chapters a 2+ times), and I try to filter
_everything_ through the lessons I've picked up.
I've also abandoned many views I *used* to have.
Now, that doesn't mean I don't have a long way to go, but **I'm very
committed to fallibilsm**. BoI gave me the tools to reject (and
understand why I should reject) all other competing philosophies, so
between a choice of the ideas (outside fallibilism) and fallibilism,
I'll take the latter. That also doesn't mean that journey will be easy.
Another way of looking at that is that there's nowhere else for me to go
besides *through* that criticism.
> i think it'd be better to start with e.g. discussing FoR/BoI/FH/AS in
> detail.
I know FoR/BoI - is FH Hayek? Or (FH) the Fountainhead and (AS) atlas
shrugged?
> we could discuss those independently first, then apply to selectorate
> theory later.
Fair - though I guess my impatience wants me to push for the selectorate
theory earlier. Mostly that's a time constraint thing and that I expect
reading AS particularly would take too long.
> so what you should do is be more like: "ok i understand that FI
> disagrees with selectorate theory SO MUCH that they can reject it
> without even watching a video or reading a book. their principles say
> that much that they only need a tiny bit of evidence to know what's
> going on. that's really interesting, so i will start methodically
> studying FoR/BoI/FH/AS. their claim is rather amazing, but they do,
> reasonably, say it also takes a massive amount of knowledge to do it. i
> will start learning that knowledge unless/until i run into a problem in
> the part i've learned. step by step the steps will either be wonderful
> or i'll hit some part i disagree with and which is suitable for
> immediate discussion without such massive tangents to cover background
> knowledge."
Okay, so this seems like a reasonable plan. As I mentioned before,
though, I'm not aware of any writing (FI / ET / JM) that talks about
this sort of thing particularly, and if it's rejectable outright I'd
like to know why as soon as possible (at the very least this would free
up more time to read FH / AS).
If there are any essays out there on this I'd appreciate anyone pointing
me to them.
>>> The blurb says:
>>>
>>>> They start from a single assertion: Leaders do whatever keeps them
>>>> in power.
>>>
>>> So the book, by its own account, starts by assuming something I
>>> consider false, then builds on that.
>>
>> I don't think it's an assertion (even if the blurb says so) since it's
>> actually quite well explained.
>
> so you think the book is contradicting itself? doesn't that mistake
> matter? or you deny it responsibility for its own self-summary?
I am not sure the author's wrote that blurb. It's on Amazon, and I found
it at [1] too, but from my understanding it doesn't sound like something
the authors would say.
[1] :
http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/book?isbn=9781610390453
>> Essentially the explanation goes: power dynamics have an evolutionary
>> nature that means *in order to acquire and hold power* you don't get
>> to choose all your actions (power acts upon you to force your hand
>> sometimes). You might have options in which path to choose, but many
>> paths are eliminated simply by being in a position of power. The
>> result is that those able to acquire power are already accepting on
>> the premise that they'll need to do things they don't like to maintain
>> power. Moreover if they don't do what needs to be done, there will be
>> someone else willing to, and this can very quickly lead to a situation
>> where it's within key supporters' interest to replace the ruler. Thus,
>> rulers have to do whatever it takes to stay in power. That doesn't
>> mean they lose all autonomy though.
>
> Yeah we already know the parts of this which are true, e.g. that rulers
> face *logic of the situation* (as DD would call it, following Popper)
> pressures.
Is there a reason to believe that the *logic of the situation* does not
lead to the conclusion that *rulers must do whatever it takes to stay in
power or risk losing power*?
>> I go into a bit more detail in the talk I link at the top - happy to
>> discuss further if you still think it's incorrect.
>>
>>> Does the book have any advocates who will publicly, rationally
>>> discuss the issues to a conclusion? Fully, without limits? Because I
>>> don't see the value in reading something I think is bad which also
>>> has no advocates offering valuable discussion.
>>
>> Unsure. I'm interested in debating it, but I'm more (proportionally)
>> interested in running my business, the Flux movement, etc. Maybe that
>> doesn't fulfil the "to a conclusion? Fully, without limits?" part.
>
> Ideas rule the world. (Which is somewhat opposite to the Dictator's
> Handbook perspective.) So your priorities are mistaken.
Why isn't BoI more popular then?
Certainly various meme-plexes are deeply ingrained in our culture, but
is there a reason there aren't *laws of power* like their are *laws of
physics*, or *laws of economics*?
(Granted, all knowledge is fallible, so *laws* might be too strong a
word, but you can replace it with *theory*, *misconception*, etc if you
like)
>>> btw there were a variety of other prior indications to me that the
>>> Rules for Rulers video is bad, and that it'd be expensive to engage
>>> with. i brought up Che because it's clearer and easier to point out
>>> than the other issues.
>>
>> What indicators do you have *that the explanation in the video* is
>> refuted?
>
> that it's totally in conflict with Objectivism and BoI b/c it
> fundamentally downplays the power of ideas, creativity and persuasion,
> and downplays the importance of morality, and downplays the complexity
> of the human condition.
I don't see it like that. Ideas play a big role in the selectorate theory:
* Which key supporters do you adopt?
* Which keys do you eliminate?
* What compromises do you make to stay in power?
* How do you distribute the treasure?
* How do you satisfy your voter base and *their* ideas?
All of these things require explanations, and staying in power requires
*good* explanations that that. Granted they're often used for evil, but
part of rising to that position is being able to better create and
instantiate those explanations.
It's also not a theory that explains *how to improve the world*, it
tries to explain *why we see the behaviour we do*. And given that
morality / fallibilism / creativity are not things that are explicitly
expressed in historical power dynamics is it a surprise that explaining
those past dynamics doesn't involve them?
Most importantly, when I try to apply *my* understanding of it the ideas
I generate seem to be resistant to criticism and seem to persist (at
this preliminary level).
I haven't encountered any criticisms yet that I'm convinced by.
>>>> let's ignore any possible information/knowledge here, regardless of
>>>> the content, because of the memes this guy uses to sell a shirt.
>>>
>>> Ignoring would look like: [silence]
>>>
>>> Expressing an objection, so that it may be addressed/discussed, is a
>>> Path Forward.
>>>
>>> Expressing objections *early*, instead of building up an undiscussed
>>> pile of objections/misunderstandings/criticisms/etc, is *rational*.
>>
>> Well, you were silent on the video - not on the other stuff. I agree
>> that expressing objections early is good, but you didn't express any
>> objections to the selectorate theory (the theory expressed in the
>> video) - you did express objections to watching the video at all.
>> Maybe the balance there is just taste.
>
> the context of material is relevant to interpreting the material (e.g.
> figuring out what the author meant by a statement). so it can be a good
> thing to discuss early.
>
> in this case, the Che shirt is evidence of the author's unseriousness.
> whether the author is a serious intellectual or an unserious panderer is
> relevant to interpreting his content statements. e.g. if you spot a
> detail mistake, is that because the material is mistaken, or is it
> because he's kind of person who isn't paying attention to details (a
> different kind of mistake) and so he just inserts lots of random detail
> errors into whatever he says?
Is it also possible that he's just mistaken about Che and the badness of
the shirt? Given we haven't delved into his video much yet, I don't
think we have enough information to figure out which mistake it is, and
that is very important here.
It's possible to be mistaken about Che's badness without being mistaken
about an abstract theory. I was definitely mistaken about Che (still
have to go educate myself on that)
>>>> Nobody's going to force you to watch it.
>>>
>>> I know that. Why say this? You should try to state what you mean
>>> clearly.
>>
>> Sure, I meant that I felt like your original post ultimately had very
>> little value
>
> do you think the entire discussion spawned from it has very little value?
>
> i think the discussion has lots of value, and this indicates you were
> wrong about the post which led to that value. the initial post leading
> to interesting discussion was no accident!
I think this conversion definitely has value **to me**. But that's also
because of *my* mistakes in my first reply.
I am not sure it has value to anyone else, though I do appreciate the
discussion and learning.
>> Why say it? Because I was frustrated (and a little insulted) that
>> you'd so quickly dismiss something I perceive to be *very* useful when
>> it comes to understanding power dynamics and systems of authority.
>> Maybe that's because I want your approval, or maybe that's because I
>> think you're sometimes a bit self-righteous and it irks me.
>
> what's bad about being self-righteous?
The google definition again:
> having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one,
that one is totally correct or morally superior.
The "unfounded" part is definitely bad. However, that's
self-righteousness in general, and particularly excluded that section
before.
Here are some ways it might cause mistakes:
* Tainting what you say in the eyes of someone else - essentially extra
information that might distract from the point
* An unwillingness to reconsider one's opinion (though this is FI so I
don't think it'll happen here)
Other than that, I don't really know. I suppose this was a bias in me
that this is a negative thing, maybe because I associate it with undue
arrogance or the like.
> btw this is the kind of issue which is hard to discuss because of your
> lack of background knowledge. it really immediately and directly leads
> to tangents about Objectivism which, if you want to go into detail and
> seriously get this right – lead to reading *and studying and discussing*
> books, as part of the tangent, before returning to the original issue.
>
> it's possible to try to give you short summaries that work for people
> missing background knowledge, but it's much harder and they'll be
> considerably worse than what Objectivism has to offer.
Fair enough. Will have to check out FH / AS.
> similarly, FI already has a sophisticated understanding of authority,
> power, etc. the ideas you're bringing up wouldn't fill a void for FI,
> they would contradict ideas which have been extensively debated already
> and which have hundreds of connections to other parts of FI philosophy.
> that pre-existing FI knowledge is background knowledge informing some
> people's contributions to the discussion, but not Max's, so it creates a
> big perspective gap.
From my perspective thus far I don't think it contradicts ideas of
authority put forward in BoI - I think it looks at selective application
of authority to some cases, and more importantly *how that acts on the
wielder* as opposed to the philosophical implications. I don't think
they're opposed to one another - though maybe I need some more training
in objectivism.
> Regarding wanting approval, that issue is one of the themes of _The
> Fountainhead_.
Noted.
>>> If it was Hitler instead of Che, would you see my point? Stalin? Mao?
>>> Castro?
>>
>> *That* point is valid. Maybe add Putin to the list.
>
> then are you conceding more or less everything? or are you denying that
> Che is similar to them? (Putin is like them, but Che isn't!? Nah. So I
> guess it's the conceding? But you don't try to talk about what you're
> conceding and what it changes. So your current position is unclear.)
I'm conceding. I've come around.
>>>> The video is self contained, the description is for selling things
>>>> to fans.
>>>>
>>>>> otherwise, no, i'm out, i have better things to do than watch
>>>>> pro-Che material.
>>>>
>>>> Didn't realise your "initial comments" would be so "initial".
>>>
>>> Why state this?
>>
>> Two reasons: sarcasm (as before, and not something I'm proud of [2]),
>> and to point out that I thought you didn't give it any serious thought
>> - which I think goes against what you advocate most of the time.
>
> Did Elliot make a statement/claim which was inadequately thought out?
> Which one?
No, it was the *focus* of his statements that I took issue with.
>> While not equivalent, it's similar to me going to
curi.us and saying
>> "this guy has a post about Bitcoin sucking, or about Trump, so I'm not
>> going to put in the effort until *some condition*"
>
> That'd be *absolutely reasonable*. E.g.: "I think Trump sucks, and I've
> written about it here, here, and here. I know of no refutations of my
> views. I'm not interested in this Trump booster unless he will either
> put up or shut up – that is, drop the unargued pro-Trump claims so we
> can focus on something else, or else provide serious arguments for them."
Okay, I previously considered it unreasonable. My reasoning is:
* We're all fallible
* So we all hold some ideas that are wrong and some that are right
* And so I shouldn't focus on the wrong ideas as much as the right ideas
if I'm interested in maximising learning over time
Perhaps my mistake there is **to head straight to things I agree with**.
> If you challenge a Trump supporter with the example quote above, and
> they reply, "What are you, a Mexican? Why don't you self-deport?" then
> that was productive, you quickly and clearly found out there wasn't
> going to be a worthwhile discussion. It's better to raise issues like
> this – and see if people are reasonable or not – instead of try to
> ignore them. (In the alternative, the Trump supporter might say, "Sure,
> here are 3 of my favorite books with arguments. I skimmed your writing
> on the matter and see no mention of these well known books. Please
> address them or endorse something which addresses them." Then, again,
> you quickly learn something important about the potential for the
> conversation, in addition to learning about your broad judgement [1]
> that Trump supporters should be dismissed.)
>
> [1] the judgement of the person in the scenario who challenged the Trump
> supporter that way, not Max's judgement.
This is a good point, and something I haven't internalised well enough yet.
>>> And you're being too presumptive about how I should spend my time.
>>> You're presuming something like: you know that some activities are
>>> cheap, easy and harmless for me. Therefore (you wouldn't put it this
>>> bluntly or strongly, but it's along these lines) I must be resisting
>>> doing them out of malice, stupidity, irrationality or some such.
>>> You're mistaken.
>>
>> Maybe I am being presumptuous. But given the time you spent going to
>> yotube, clicking links, typing up what you did, etc, I would have
>> hoped you'd at least watch the first few minutes of the video.
>>
>> I do think claiming the video is *wrong* based on the Che thing would
>> be irrational, but you didn't do that. I think you were a bit
>> dismissive though, and in this case I think that's a mistake.
>
> i don't recall Elliot stating he *didn't* watch the beginning of the
video.
>
> i bet you he knows what it says adequately to judge it.
Fair, I hadn't considered that.
>> but I definitely think there are a few reactions I've seen on this
>> list that aren't super rational / tainted with a bit of emotion.
>
> which reactions? why don't you quote them and state your criticism,
> rather than silently forming a potentially-overly-negative view of FI
> without the possibility of rebuttal?
Fair. I will start trying to note them, and that will either show me
they don't exist or give me something to post about.
Max