19 ms·

That most countries employ various mixes of policies generally fits with my thinking about how things should work. Bugs in the systems should be addressed thro

by chwahoo 16y ago

That most countries employ various mixes of policies generally fits with my thinking about how things should work. Bugs in the systems should be addressed through incremental changes. While I think countries shouldn't be run by strict adherence to the rules of an -ism, people who subscribe to an -ism are useful because they help frame and suggest solutions to the bugs in the current organization of society. The problem with the -ism folks is that they are hard to disprove because society will never reflect a pure enough implementation of their ideas. Where things get dicey is when politicians buy too strongly into a particular -ism and aren't able to employ other tools when necessary.

kiba 16y ago
That most countries employ various mixes of policies generally fits with my thinking about how things should work. Bugs in the systems should be addressed through incremental changes Why not radical changes? Where things get dicey is when politicians buy too strongly into a particular -ism and aren't able to employ other tools when necessary. How do we know what kind of idealism that politicians are employing? Why not think that they're just a bunch of self-interested politicians who wants the vote? How do you know which tools are suited to which problems? How do you know if they're suited to any problems at all?
- chwahoo 16y ago
  > Why not radical changes? I think the motivation for radical changes is based on the idea that we are stuck in a "local maxima" (of some "goodness of society" function) that gradual change can only optimize to some limited degree and that large change is required to put us on a different part of the curve that can be maximized to a greater degree. But I've never seen a proposed (or implemented) radical reorganization that I believed would put us on a path some global maxima (or better local maxima). Taken a step further, I don't believe that we are stuck in a local maxima and think we can make significant positive change using gradual reform.
tkahn6 16y ago
I think you have some good points but whose to say an -ism isn't the correct philosophy? You assume that -isms are inherently wrong. Why?
- chwahoo 16y ago
  That's a fair question. I think most -isms simplify complex systemic issues by applying a particular framing. Since this abstracts away aspects of the issue that don't fit frame but might still be important, -isms may fail to address the critical problems (or even acknowledge problems that some people care about). This isn't a very specific argument, but it's hard to argue against -isms as a general idea.
  - tkahn6 16y ago
    I can see what you are talking about. But I think your opinions on -isms preclude the idea that there truly is an objectively best way to view the world (which optimizes fairness without making exceptions for specific cases). I'm not convinced that one doesn't exist but I definitely agree with what you are saying.

by chwahoo 16y ago

kiba 16y ago

That most countries employ various mixes of policies generally fits with my thinking about how things should work. Bugs in the systems should be addressed through incremental changes Why not radical changes? Where things get dicey is when politicians buy too strongly into a particular -ism and aren't able to employ other tools when necessary. How do we know what kind of idealism that politicians are employing? Why not think that they're just a bunch of self-interested politicians who wants the vote? How do you know which tools are suited to which problems? How do you know if they're suited to any problems at all?

chwahoo 16y ago
> Why not radical changes? I think the motivation for radical changes is based on the idea that we are stuck in a "local maxima" (of some "goodness of society" function) that gradual change can only optimize to some limited degree and that large change is required to put us on a different part of the curve that can be maximized to a greater degree. But I've never seen a proposed (or implemented) radical reorganization that I believed would put us on a path some global maxima (or better local maxima). Taken a step further, I don't believe that we are stuck in a local maxima and think we can make significant positive change using gradual reform.

tkahn6 16y ago

I think you have some good points but whose to say an -ism isn't the correct philosophy? You assume that -isms are inherently wrong. Why?

chwahoo 16y ago
That's a fair question. I think most -isms simplify complex systemic issues by applying a particular framing. Since this abstracts away aspects of the issue that don't fit frame but might still be important, -isms may fail to address the critical problems (or even acknowledge problems that some people care about). This isn't a very specific argument, but it's hard to argue against -isms as a general idea.
- tkahn6 16y ago
  I can see what you are talking about. But I think your opinions on -isms preclude the idea that there truly is an objectively best way to view the world (which optimizes fairness without making exceptions for specific cases). I'm not convinced that one doesn't exist but I definitely agree with what you are saying.