3 ms·

Hmm, I wonder why the post-war era was generally less trusting of institutions? Besides the non-sequitur section about individuals acting stupidly for plot rea

Hmm, I wonder why the post-war era was generally less trusting of institutions? Besides the non-sequitur section about individuals acting stupidly for plot reasons in horror movies, this shift also fits another pattern. One of people being more educated and more able to communicate and discarding some of the ideology of: those who rule us must be our honourable betters. I personally feel the evidence is more on my side than Brin's. Especially the ethical behaviour of humans when layers of abstraction are added in between their choices and the consequences. Perhaps he can write another piece about how modern propaganda has implanted the ridiculous cliche in our heads that Kings don't actually rule by divine right and that time spent as a serf who always submits to authority won't be repaid in the next world. That cliche is even more widespread!

matt4077 10y ago
> I personally feel the evidence is more on my side than Brin's. Sometimes the evidence is so obvious, we don't even see it. I – and most people frequenting HN – have the fortune to be living in a time and place of 70+ years of peace. That's a "black swan" event when viewed from history, and institutions & political leaders quite possibly have contributed to it. The same could be said about the economy, civil rights and science. But even if you disagree with that, there's a difference between "they're all corrupt and idiots" and "they failed". It's quite unlikely that we manage to systematically elect people with a below-average IQ, or below-average moral standards. Therefore, it'd be more constructive to assume good faith and consider that some of the problems are actually hard to solve. Fundamentally (in discussions such as this), this would require a bit of ethical behavior itself. First among them: Consider the best possible version of your opponent's argument. I. e. nobody is suggesting a return to a King <-> serf relationship model.
- freshhawk 10y ago
  I'm not really following, I agree that it's a very peaceful time, that's not at issue is it? It's also less individually corrupt now than in the past I'd say. The argument in the essay is that the idea that leadership and the masses are stupid and corrupt compared to intelligent individuals (not the average person, but a cliche heroic individual) is propaganda, which wasn't present in the past. I think that's ridiculous and it's much more likely that the idea of there ever being benevolent and intelligent rulers (compared to this intelligent and ethical individual) was the propaganda, which is working less effectively now. Hence the King/Serf jab, obviously we now know more than those in the past did, and reject the propaganda that the King rules by divine right and is superior to the rest. This is similar to what I'm saying is happening now.
tedunangst 10y ago
Theory: widespread fast communication inverts perception. Past: the cops in that town over there are probably good because the cops here are good. Present: the cops here are probably bad because the cops over there are bad.
tpeo 10y ago
It took me a while to get what you're at, but I think you're up the wrong tree. Because when Brin used the word "institution", what I understood was something like "layers of abstraction" that you're referring to. Because that's what institution means in economics (or at that's least one it's senses, since it's an incredibly wide concept). That is, rational organized collective behavior. And not some arbitrary top-down bureaucratic structure.

matt4077 10y ago

> I personally feel the evidence is more on my side than Brin's. Sometimes the evidence is so obvious, we don't even see it. I – and most people frequenting HN – have the fortune to be living in a time and place of 70+ years of peace. That's a "black swan" event when viewed from history, and institutions & political leaders quite possibly have contributed to it. The same could be said about the economy, civil rights and science. But even if you disagree with that, there's a difference between "they're all corrupt and idiots" and "they failed". It's quite unlikely that we manage to systematically elect people with a below-average IQ, or below-average moral standards. Therefore, it'd be more constructive to assume good faith and consider that some of the problems are actually hard to solve. Fundamentally (in discussions such as this), this would require a bit of ethical behavior itself. First among them: Consider the best possible version of your opponent's argument. I. e. nobody is suggesting a return to a King <-> serf relationship model.

freshhawk 10y ago
I'm not really following, I agree that it's a very peaceful time, that's not at issue is it? It's also less individually corrupt now than in the past I'd say. The argument in the essay is that the idea that leadership and the masses are stupid and corrupt compared to intelligent individuals (not the average person, but a cliche heroic individual) is propaganda, which wasn't present in the past. I think that's ridiculous and it's much more likely that the idea of there ever being benevolent and intelligent rulers (compared to this intelligent and ethical individual) was the propaganda, which is working less effectively now. Hence the King/Serf jab, obviously we now know more than those in the past did, and reject the propaganda that the King rules by divine right and is superior to the rest. This is similar to what I'm saying is happening now.

tedunangst 10y ago

Theory: widespread fast communication inverts perception. Past: the cops in that town over there are probably good because the cops here are good. Present: the cops here are probably bad because the cops over there are bad.

tpeo 10y ago

It took me a while to get what you're at, but I think you're up the wrong tree. Because when Brin used the word "institution", what I understood was something like "layers of abstraction" that you're referring to. Because that's what institution means in economics (or at that's least one it's senses, since it's an incredibly wide concept). That is, rational organized collective behavior. And not some arbitrary top-down bureaucratic structure.