3 ms·

I take a third option. Viewing the world in terms of first principles. Evaluate events not in terms of what is said, but only by what you know to be undeniably

I take a third option. Viewing the world in terms of first principles. Evaluate events not in terms of what is said, but only by what you know to be undeniably and absolutely true and then those principles' logical connection to other events. To take a very controversial example, let's consider Assad gassing his people. I know for a fact that there was an attack of some sort - this is not in dispute by any party. I also know that Assad had been steadily regaining complete control of his nation - again something that's not really in dispute. I also know that Assad and his forces are capable of highly effective conventional attacks with minimal international issue. And finally I know, and I know that he knows, that chemical weapons would likely spur international outrage and risk dragging outside players (such as the US) into his conflict, which could turn everything upside down. The conclusion I draw is controversial, but makes infinitely more sense than what my trusted third parties tell me I should believe. And maybe most importantly, I also accept that I could be wrong. There may be evidence or information, that would qualify as first principles, that I'm not aware of. It's also possible that somebody acted in a completely irrational and self destructive way for no apparent benefit. And as new information comes to light, I'm happy to change my views. I find that people who rely on third parties are generally not all that well informed on what they're talking about as pundits tend to focus on pathos over logos. And I think this ignorance is what drives people to double down on their views as a sort of defensive mechanism - this is probably playing a major role in our antagonism towards each other on controversial topics.

AlexandrB 8y ago
> And finally I know, and I know that he knows, that chemical weapons would likely spur international outrage and risk dragging outside players (such as the US) into his conflict, which could turn everything upside down. You're making the same mistake that a lot of economic analysis makes and assuming that Assad (and people, in general) will always act in their own best interest without bias or emotion clouding their judgement. This is the same reasoning that Stalin probably applied to his treaty with Hitler before WWII. Hitler invaded Russia anyways, even though bringing Russia into the war was a huge blunder for Germany. People don't always make the right - or even rational - decision. Trying to infer the truth based on what a "rational actor" would do is utter nonsense.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  People don't always make rational decisions? I'd agree with you, but the times they don't make up a minuscule fraction of all times. When we have incomplete information we're left to make probabilistic approximations about how likely each possibility is the real explanation for something. Operation Barbarossa is great example - I really enjoy WW2 history! You seemingly think this was an arbitrary act of a mad man. In reality it was a rational and calculated decision. The Red Army was amassing on Germany's border and it was later revealed that Red Army generals had already been requesting permission to begin their attack, but Stalin was waiting for a more strategic opportunity. In particular he wanted England and Germany to go to war and for his army to march over the remains. By contrast England in the west was wanting the exact same thing with the USSR and Germany. America was also looking more and more like it might take a more direct role in the war. Germany basically had two substantial powers on either side of it, waiting to pounce. It had even offered peace to England, who rejected the offer, in an effort to avoid fighting a war on both sides. And both sides were also massively ramping up their forces. It was during this era that millions went without under Stalin as he dedicated massive and unprecedented resources to a military buildup. And England, as mentioned, was also receiving increasing support from America. In other words, his enemies were getting stronger faster than he was. His invasion was what he saw as the best of many bad options. When there is an explanation that follows logically and clearly for something, and another explanation that simply relies extensively on illogical events and turning 'bad guys' into caricatures, I tend to go with logic. Could I be wrong? Like I said, absolutely. And I'm fine with this because history shows time and again that logic tends to be far more accurate than a one-sided perspective on events.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    As a sort of edit here, to clarify - I am not equating rational with 'good' decisions. But only that decisions are generally driven by a reason. These reasons can be good, bad, flawed, or flawless. But there is a reason that generally can be empathized with, which is not to say agreed with.

AlexandrB 8y ago

> And finally I know, and I know that he knows, that chemical weapons would likely spur international outrage and risk dragging outside players (such as the US) into his conflict, which could turn everything upside down. You're making the same mistake that a lot of economic analysis makes and assuming that Assad (and people, in general) will always act in their own best interest without bias or emotion clouding their judgement. This is the same reasoning that Stalin probably applied to his treaty with Hitler before WWII. Hitler invaded Russia anyways, even though bringing Russia into the war was a huge blunder for Germany. People don't always make the right - or even rational - decision. Trying to infer the truth based on what a "rational actor" would do is utter nonsense.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
People don't always make rational decisions? I'd agree with you, but the times they don't make up a minuscule fraction of all times. When we have incomplete information we're left to make probabilistic approximations about how likely each possibility is the real explanation for something. Operation Barbarossa is great example - I really enjoy WW2 history! You seemingly think this was an arbitrary act of a mad man. In reality it was a rational and calculated decision. The Red Army was amassing on Germany's border and it was later revealed that Red Army generals had already been requesting permission to begin their attack, but Stalin was waiting for a more strategic opportunity. In particular he wanted England and Germany to go to war and for his army to march over the remains. By contrast England in the west was wanting the exact same thing with the USSR and Germany. America was also looking more and more like it might take a more direct role in the war. Germany basically had two substantial powers on either side of it, waiting to pounce. It had even offered peace to England, who rejected the offer, in an effort to avoid fighting a war on both sides. And both sides were also massively ramping up their forces. It was during this era that millions went without under Stalin as he dedicated massive and unprecedented resources to a military buildup. And England, as mentioned, was also receiving increasing support from America. In other words, his enemies were getting stronger faster than he was. His invasion was what he saw as the best of many bad options. When there is an explanation that follows logically and clearly for something, and another explanation that simply relies extensively on illogical events and turning 'bad guys' into caricatures, I tend to go with logic. Could I be wrong? Like I said, absolutely. And I'm fine with this because history shows time and again that logic tends to be far more accurate than a one-sided perspective on events.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  As a sort of edit here, to clarify - I am not equating rational with 'good' decisions. But only that decisions are generally driven by a reason. These reasons can be good, bad, flawed, or flawless. But there is a reason that generally can be empathized with, which is not to say agreed with.