Nancy did identify a serious problem with your comment, but I’m not sure modulo that issue that your comment should be downvoted as much as it is. To some extent, the point that we have politics as a way of resolving issues without bloodshed is valid: modern politics in many ways is an improvement over the alternatives. But that doesn’t by itself make politics a good thing or make politics less of a mind-killer. To some extent, much political interaction resembles ritualized combat that occurs in many mammalian species (and sometimes in groups)- fatality is minimized, but the level of actual rational discourse is clearly still pretty low.
To some extent, it may help to see politics as the mindkiller as a statement about how political discourse can be improved. In most of the West, politics doesn’t result in people being killed often, but it still isn’t a rational way of examining disagreements and resolving them in a way that appropriately balances conflicting goals. And it is very very easy for it to become outright tribalism that doesn’t devolve into violence primarily because we have strong anti-violence taboos and respect taboos more than anything connected to the political process.
but I’m not sure modulo that issue that your comment should be downvoted as much as it is
It should be. The comment fundamentally missed the point and made an irrelevant challenge to the alternative forms of competition as though it was some kind of insightful counterpoint rather than a naive trivialization.
Wedrifid, I was disappointed that Eliezer so succinctly identified the problem then mostly left it hanging.
Now, your comment fundamentally missed the point I was making, furthermore you seem to be acting out a common politician’s caricature, I don’t see you making an actual argument here & tbh I’m slightly surprised as you usually do much better than that.
Either way. in the interest of preserving the sanity waterline I’ll stop here.
Wedrifid, I was disappointed that Eliezer so succinctly identified the problem then mostly left it hanging.
“Politics” is not the problem Eliezer identified and nor is “the thing that is the alternative to raiding and pillaging”. (Never mind that the ‘politics’ that corrupts thinking applies just as much—or more—to the tribes who go around raiding and pillaging. It’s about the internal politics within the tribe and the external conflicts come in to it as just more things the individuals can argue about in order to achieve personal gain, preferably at the expense of rivals.)
Thanks for the clear reply, and I agree with your points.
IMO the fact that Politics is a moderately functional substitute for direct bloodshed means that the ‘rational’ in any ‘rational alternative’ has little to do the masses becoming more rational, as opposed to careful grooming by an informed clique capable of long term planning.
That doesn’t necessarily imply a shadowy cabal of super secret rationalists deftly maneuvering the public for it’s own good. Rather, something as simple as spreading basic rationality skills is sufficient if we emphasize ‘long term’, as we should.
But that good work has to come with a working theory of capital r ‘Rational Politics’ or LW’s knowledge base has a huge chunk missing under the ‘Practical knowledge’ heading, say an LWer of high karma by some twist or other became adviser to the Archduke of Wallachia, will the people be better off or not?
In other words, if despite the impressive body of knowledge created here the preferred way for dealing with politics is either:
a. Outright tabooing the subject
or
b. Denouncing the masses as prone to being insane...
Then surely as a community can do better than that?
Admittedly I’m not that well versed in political studies myself, and I’m not calling for Eliezer or anyone else for that matter to focus on this, rather I believe the community is mature enough to have a theoretical discussion about politics -and yes, that includes discussion of parties, partisan positions etc- without devolving into mudslinging or shouting matches.
A curated area in LW with strict rules -default set to anonymous posting, no more than 5 posts per day etc- should solve most potential issues, the hullabaloo that happened during say, the feminist war is not impossible to contain.
To some extent, the point that we have politics as a way of resolving issues without bloodshed is valid: modern politics in many ways is an improvement over the alternatives. But that doesn’t by itself make politics a good thing or make politics less of a mind-killer.
The point is, it’s not at all clear whether we can do any better. The “politics as a way of managing conflict” POV elucidates several features that do set apart politics from ordinary deliberation, which is the domain LW-style rationality is most directly applicable to. (Such as concerns about fairness in political processes, a focus on adversarial argumentation even in factual matters, a need for compromise and creative open-mindedness in order to mitigate value conflicts etc.) For the record, I think that this—“can political discourse be improved along rationalist lines?”—is very much an open question; however, LW is most likely not the best forum for addressing it, given that such a focus would conflict with its well-defined goal of refining the art of rationality.
Nancy did identify a serious problem with your comment, but I’m not sure modulo that issue that your comment should be downvoted as much as it is. To some extent, the point that we have politics as a way of resolving issues without bloodshed is valid: modern politics in many ways is an improvement over the alternatives. But that doesn’t by itself make politics a good thing or make politics less of a mind-killer. To some extent, much political interaction resembles ritualized combat that occurs in many mammalian species (and sometimes in groups)- fatality is minimized, but the level of actual rational discourse is clearly still pretty low.
To some extent, it may help to see politics as the mindkiller as a statement about how political discourse can be improved. In most of the West, politics doesn’t result in people being killed often, but it still isn’t a rational way of examining disagreements and resolving them in a way that appropriately balances conflicting goals. And it is very very easy for it to become outright tribalism that doesn’t devolve into violence primarily because we have strong anti-violence taboos and respect taboos more than anything connected to the political process.
It should be. The comment fundamentally missed the point and made an irrelevant challenge to the alternative forms of competition as though it was some kind of insightful counterpoint rather than a naive trivialization.
Wedrifid, I was disappointed that Eliezer so succinctly identified the problem then mostly left it hanging.
Now, your comment fundamentally missed the point I was making, furthermore you seem to be acting out a common politician’s caricature, I don’t see you making an actual argument here & tbh I’m slightly surprised as you usually do much better than that.
Either way. in the interest of preserving the sanity waterline I’ll stop here.
“Politics” is not the problem Eliezer identified and nor is “the thing that is the alternative to raiding and pillaging”. (Never mind that the ‘politics’ that corrupts thinking applies just as much—or more—to the tribes who go around raiding and pillaging. It’s about the internal politics within the tribe and the external conflicts come in to it as just more things the individuals can argue about in order to achieve personal gain, preferably at the expense of rivals.)
Thanks for the clear reply, and I agree with your points.
IMO the fact that Politics is a moderately functional substitute for direct bloodshed means that the ‘rational’ in any ‘rational alternative’ has little to do the masses becoming more rational, as opposed to careful grooming by an informed clique capable of long term planning.
That doesn’t necessarily imply a shadowy cabal of super secret rationalists deftly maneuvering the public for it’s own good. Rather, something as simple as spreading basic rationality skills is sufficient if we emphasize ‘long term’, as we should.
But that good work has to come with a working theory of capital r ‘Rational Politics’ or LW’s knowledge base has a huge chunk missing under the ‘Practical knowledge’ heading, say an LWer of high karma by some twist or other became adviser to the Archduke of Wallachia, will the people be better off or not?
In other words, if despite the impressive body of knowledge created here the preferred way for dealing with politics is either: a. Outright tabooing the subject or b. Denouncing the masses as prone to being insane...
Then surely as a community can do better than that?
Admittedly I’m not that well versed in political studies myself, and I’m not calling for Eliezer or anyone else for that matter to focus on this, rather I believe the community is mature enough to have a theoretical discussion about politics -and yes, that includes discussion of parties, partisan positions etc- without devolving into mudslinging or shouting matches.
A curated area in LW with strict rules -default set to anonymous posting, no more than 5 posts per day etc- should solve most potential issues, the hullabaloo that happened during say, the feminist war is not impossible to contain.
The point is, it’s not at all clear whether we can do any better. The “politics as a way of managing conflict” POV elucidates several features that do set apart politics from ordinary deliberation, which is the domain LW-style rationality is most directly applicable to. (Such as concerns about fairness in political processes, a focus on adversarial argumentation even in factual matters, a need for compromise and creative open-mindedness in order to mitigate value conflicts etc.) For the record, I think that this—“can political discourse be improved along rationalist lines?”—is very much an open question; however, LW is most likely not the best forum for addressing it, given that such a focus would conflict with its well-defined goal of refining the art of rationality.