4 ms·

>> since these activists have no special power to distinguish change from regression OK. That may be true. but demand is also a poor signal of distinguishing p

by petra 8y ago

>> since these activists have no special power to distinguish change from regression OK. That may be true. but demand is also a poor signal of distinguishing progress from regression. So let's work on that. On a better method for doing so. It seems possible to do so, using the knowledge we gained in the many sciences dealing with human/eco welfare. >> Let's duke it out in the process of government. ... You will lose, badly, because your position is wildly unpopular with the vast body of the population. Leaving aside the many failures of democracy, people not always know or prefer the thing that is good for them in the long term. I'm not saying that totalitarinsm is OK, but most people do benefit from living in an environment that guides them well, surrounds them with good things, and makes it hard for them to choose the wrong choices.

quotemstr 8y ago
Do you have any idea how much evil and misery throughout history has been perpetuated by people who believed that the masses don't know what's good for them? And "knowledge"? What knowledge? The social sciences largely do not reproduce. For the past few decades, the social sciences have been a mystic cult with political aspirations. We knew more in 1990 than we "know" now.
- kolpa 8y ago
  What did we know in 1990?
- petra 8y ago
  Sure, extreme totalitarianism is bad. But isn't there a middle ground ? In the grand parent post, we talked about "YT and FB could fix these social issues overnight, if they wanted to: turn off autoplay, turn off recommendations, restore chronological timelines, and dial down the ads.". It is quite different from the great evils of history. And sure, we should work on reproducing social sciences. it's a big problem. But i would guess that if you'd describe something like the internet that is today in very general terms(possible to predict once you know that attention/engagement is the lead driver) to psychologists, a decade ago, they would have told you that it may hold some serious potential problems. Does it mean we need to stop progress ? maybe not, but slowing "progress" in the name of caution may not be a bad trade-off. and once we see the dangers, rolling it back(even against the addicted population's wishes) may also be a decent option.
  - quotemstr 8y ago
    > Sure, extreme totalitarianism is bad. But isn't there a middle ground ? So mild totalitarianism is be okay? No, there is no acceptable "middle ground" in which a bunch of Twitter gets in the way of consenting business and consumers and tells people how to run their lives.
- srean 8y ago
  > by people who believed that the masses don't know what's good for them? The idea of a republic is not that different. Acoording to its tenets, the masses are still not to be trusted to make the decisions because they dont know whats good for them. Instead, they are supposed to choose a small fraction of people who not only are supposed to know whats good for them but would also make decisions that is good for them. It is not a whole lot less patronizing than 'masses don't know what's good for them'

by petra 8y ago

quotemstr 8y ago

Do you have any idea how much evil and misery throughout history has been perpetuated by people who believed that the masses don't know what's good for them? And "knowledge"? What knowledge? The social sciences largely do not reproduce. For the past few decades, the social sciences have been a mystic cult with political aspirations. We knew more in 1990 than we "know" now.

kolpa 8y ago
What did we know in 1990?
petra 8y ago
Sure, extreme totalitarianism is bad. But isn't there a middle ground ? In the grand parent post, we talked about "YT and FB could fix these social issues overnight, if they wanted to: turn off autoplay, turn off recommendations, restore chronological timelines, and dial down the ads.". It is quite different from the great evils of history. And sure, we should work on reproducing social sciences. it's a big problem. But i would guess that if you'd describe something like the internet that is today in very general terms(possible to predict once you know that attention/engagement is the lead driver) to psychologists, a decade ago, they would have told you that it may hold some serious potential problems. Does it mean we need to stop progress ? maybe not, but slowing "progress" in the name of caution may not be a bad trade-off. and once we see the dangers, rolling it back(even against the addicted population's wishes) may also be a decent option.
- quotemstr 8y ago
  > Sure, extreme totalitarianism is bad. But isn't there a middle ground ? So mild totalitarianism is be okay? No, there is no acceptable "middle ground" in which a bunch of Twitter gets in the way of consenting business and consumers and tells people how to run their lives.
srean 8y ago
> by people who believed that the masses don't know what's good for them? The idea of a republic is not that different. Acoording to its tenets, the masses are still not to be trusted to make the decisions because they dont know whats good for them. Instead, they are supposed to choose a small fraction of people who not only are supposed to know whats good for them but would also make decisions that is good for them. It is not a whole lot less patronizing than 'masses don't know what's good for them'