4 ms·

This is a very interesting thread and I personally think that you are both right. The big problem is that any of these things that need fixed are really complic

by snarf21 10y ago

This is a very interesting thread and I personally think that you are both right. The big problem is that any of these things that need fixed are really complicated. The most successful approaches have to have a multi-prong plan. You do partially need to be a realist. You aren't going to be able to convince all people to ride a bicycle because it is good for the environment. You also need to be pragmatic. Take a targeted approach to go after the low hanging fruit, get the biggest bang for your buck. However, there are times when you will have to break free from the status quo and that won't be easy. Sometimes people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a new future, but this is so hard. People like MLK understood that it was possible and put in the work (and was willing to pay the many costs) to force change. Very few causes have the leader with a simple plan and the charisma to inspire others and the fortitude to see it through no matter the cost. Take a look at how quickly Occupy Wall Street faded into nothing. People will always fear change and getting them to become a more selfless actor is no trivial matter.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
An important thing to consider is people cant act on abstractions. They need specifics that are easy to understand and act on. MLK's was to pass legislation banning discrimination. To this day, I still havent seen a plan of action when someone pushes Occupy. In this case, they need pre-packaged solution ready to go to lawmakers second popular support shows up. Here's a subset of what r a alists might do in this topic: 1. All taxpayer-funded research goes into public domain. All existing copyrights for such research goes into public domain. 2. Since it matters to academics, the articles can be published in specific journals for visibility or prestige. However, they must provide online access to them for a flat, cheap rate applied monthly or annually. That's for unlimited articles. 3. Private research can be copywritte to generate revenue for authors. Might put a limit on what they can charge or for how long. All that codified into a law called Taxpayers Get Their Research Act. Has a website, premade letters, and so on. Low friction. One or more celebrities reference it in the media promoting it. Make sure personas for major demographics justifying it from their viewpoints. Swarms of people start emailing or writting letters that might lead to some or all of it passing. Optionally rich people throwing cash at lobbyists for the same bill. That is how realists go for open access. Personally, I do my part by digging up linkz to key, paywalled papers from Wayback machine or other odd sources. Then send it to people that might use it.
- RodericDay 10y ago
  > An important thing to consider is people cant act on abstractions > "they need pre-packaged solution ready to go to lawmakers second popular support shows up" Again, I don't know how to describe this other than ahistorical. I would say people actually love acting on abstractions, like the pursuit of liberty or happiness, trusting they can figure out details as they go along. It's certainly the advice given to most startup founders ("hash things out a little so they make sense, figure the rest out as you go along, for you can't predict everything"). I just wrapped up Hamilton's biography not long ago, and the process was certainly nothing like people buying into a solid policy proposal. Aaron Swartz doesn't need to be a one-man-revolution. He can do some radical inspiring acts, and then let Lawrence Lessig hash out some technical implementation details. This is how things actually work. You don't just inspire "popular" support, like the people are some thing to be manipulated for votes. The technocrats and administrators are just as vulnerable and in need of inspiration and new possibilities. Dividing the world neatly into idealists and realists is like that quote "conservative at 20? heartless. liberal at 40? clueless." Sounds like an even assessment to both parts, but it's actually conservative propaganda saying that one is the tough true conclusion. Same with a history of world progress that pretends that the only people ever worth following presented unchallenged, obvious avenues for change that everyone sensible agreed upon at once. Things that seem sensible now, like women voting, were not only met by vitriol by misogynists, but also with "lack of realism" by moderates.
  - snarf21 10y ago
    I think he did need to be a one-man-revolution, at least somewhat. From the article: “Because he moved from thing to thing fairly rapidly, that actually ended up imposing a cost, so that people were wary about starting a really big project with him because they worried he wouldn’t stick around,” said Ben Wikler. “That was a reasonable concern to have.” Human nature is fickle. If he didn't focus, then why would any followers. When everything is most important, nothing is. This is true in business, activism and most things in life. Things need time to bake, be refined, find what resonates, find easier paths, etc. This is why I still believe you need to be part realist, part pramatist and part rebel and likely at different ratios through the project's life.

by snarf21 10y ago

nickpsecurity 10y ago

An important thing to consider is people cant act on abstractions. They need specifics that are easy to understand and act on. MLK's was to pass legislation banning discrimination. To this day, I still havent seen a plan of action when someone pushes Occupy. In this case, they need pre-packaged solution ready to go to lawmakers second popular support shows up. Here's a subset of what r a alists might do in this topic: 1. All taxpayer-funded research goes into public domain. All existing copyrights for such research goes into public domain. 2. Since it matters to academics, the articles can be published in specific journals for visibility or prestige. However, they must provide online access to them for a flat, cheap rate applied monthly or annually. That's for unlimited articles. 3. Private research can be copywritte to generate revenue for authors. Might put a limit on what they can charge or for how long. All that codified into a law called Taxpayers Get Their Research Act. Has a website, premade letters, and so on. Low friction. One or more celebrities reference it in the media promoting it. Make sure personas for major demographics justifying it from their viewpoints. Swarms of people start emailing or writting letters that might lead to some or all of it passing. Optionally rich people throwing cash at lobbyists for the same bill. That is how realists go for open access. Personally, I do my part by digging up linkz to key, paywalled papers from Wayback machine or other odd sources. Then send it to people that might use it.

RodericDay 10y ago
> An important thing to consider is people cant act on abstractions > "they need pre-packaged solution ready to go to lawmakers second popular support shows up" Again, I don't know how to describe this other than ahistorical. I would say people actually love acting on abstractions, like the pursuit of liberty or happiness, trusting they can figure out details as they go along. It's certainly the advice given to most startup founders ("hash things out a little so they make sense, figure the rest out as you go along, for you can't predict everything"). I just wrapped up Hamilton's biography not long ago, and the process was certainly nothing like people buying into a solid policy proposal. Aaron Swartz doesn't need to be a one-man-revolution. He can do some radical inspiring acts, and then let Lawrence Lessig hash out some technical implementation details. This is how things actually work. You don't just inspire "popular" support, like the people are some thing to be manipulated for votes. The technocrats and administrators are just as vulnerable and in need of inspiration and new possibilities. Dividing the world neatly into idealists and realists is like that quote "conservative at 20? heartless. liberal at 40? clueless." Sounds like an even assessment to both parts, but it's actually conservative propaganda saying that one is the tough true conclusion. Same with a history of world progress that pretends that the only people ever worth following presented unchallenged, obvious avenues for change that everyone sensible agreed upon at once. Things that seem sensible now, like women voting, were not only met by vitriol by misogynists, but also with "lack of realism" by moderates.
- snarf21 10y ago
  I think he did need to be a one-man-revolution, at least somewhat. From the article: “Because he moved from thing to thing fairly rapidly, that actually ended up imposing a cost, so that people were wary about starting a really big project with him because they worried he wouldn’t stick around,” said Ben Wikler. “That was a reasonable concern to have.” Human nature is fickle. If he didn't focus, then why would any followers. When everything is most important, nothing is. This is true in business, activism and most things in life. Things need time to bake, be refined, find what resonates, find easier paths, etc. This is why I still believe you need to be part realist, part pramatist and part rebel and likely at different ratios through the project's life.