3 ms·

Part of the problem is it's not the "same elites" with the level of consistency that phrasing implies. A group of people with some vaguely common perceived sta

Part of the problem is it's not the "same elites" with the level of consistency that phrasing implies. A group of people with some vaguely common perceived status are lumped together as "elites". Some of them have lied, obfuscated, concealed so many times. Others are trying to do good things in the world, and are consistent about that to the best of their ability in a difficult world. But we reason about them all as if they are single unit. Same problem as any other kind of lumping people together into a named group - men, woman, white, black, etc. It leads to false conclusions. But we love doing it, because it's a simpler model of the world than reasoning about the complex interplay of individuals.

recursivedoubts 6y ago
True, but we can't expect the average person to keep track of all of this. This is why the elites in general need to act in the interest of the public frequently enough for trust in the system to remain. It's easy to blame "stupid people" and "the internet" but it seems perfectly rational to me for the average person to view anything coming from elite institutions with scepticism, at best.
- jlokier 6y ago
  Generally I agree with you, but I think it's useful and important to keep highlighting there's no such single unit as "the elites", so that people might take that into account when applying their skeptical thinking. There is no need for people to keep track of "all this" in detail with individuals and so forth. It's already a big skeptical improvement just to take on board the idea that vaguely labelled groups are a misleading simplification, and to think in terms of the interplay of very different individuals as taking place. For a start, that results in applauding good works (for whatever you consider good) when you see them, rather than applauding which party a person is aligned with. The result would be more sensible politics, imho. Another thing which comes from that, is you then don't blame person A for person B's misdeeds just because A and B are both inside some labelled group you have defined by convenience. That way lies blaming all "X people" for some "X people"'s behaviour, and that's not as effective as focusing on the actual bad behaviour, as well as being arguably unjust. I personally don't blame "stupid people" or call people that often, mainly because I think a lot of people who are not stupid still commit the cardinal error of hashing things out in public with vague group labels. Sometimes people could never agree on which actual people are part of those vague groups, but gloss over that as though it's irrelevant, and still reason about the vague group itself as if it's an object in the world with a coordinated intention. Sometimes it is, often it isn't. I do slightly blame some aspects of "the internet" a bit these days, because, like a lot of people, I'm seeing indications that the social media process appears to be amplifying a polarisation feedback process that is independent of the actual issues, and might be becoming more powerful than our evolved human instincts for a healthy balance of group harmony vs conflict. As an internet idealist from the old days, though, I'd rather we study that and learn ways to improve on it.

recursivedoubts 6y ago

True, but we can't expect the average person to keep track of all of this. This is why the elites in general need to act in the interest of the public frequently enough for trust in the system to remain. It's easy to blame "stupid people" and "the internet" but it seems perfectly rational to me for the average person to view anything coming from elite institutions with scepticism, at best.

jlokier 6y ago
Generally I agree with you, but I think it's useful and important to keep highlighting there's no such single unit as "the elites", so that people might take that into account when applying their skeptical thinking. There is no need for people to keep track of "all this" in detail with individuals and so forth. It's already a big skeptical improvement just to take on board the idea that vaguely labelled groups are a misleading simplification, and to think in terms of the interplay of very different individuals as taking place. For a start, that results in applauding good works (for whatever you consider good) when you see them, rather than applauding which party a person is aligned with. The result would be more sensible politics, imho. Another thing which comes from that, is you then don't blame person A for person B's misdeeds just because A and B are both inside some labelled group you have defined by convenience. That way lies blaming all "X people" for some "X people"'s behaviour, and that's not as effective as focusing on the actual bad behaviour, as well as being arguably unjust. I personally don't blame "stupid people" or call people that often, mainly because I think a lot of people who are not stupid still commit the cardinal error of hashing things out in public with vague group labels. Sometimes people could never agree on which actual people are part of those vague groups, but gloss over that as though it's irrelevant, and still reason about the vague group itself as if it's an object in the world with a coordinated intention. Sometimes it is, often it isn't. I do slightly blame some aspects of "the internet" a bit these days, because, like a lot of people, I'm seeing indications that the social media process appears to be amplifying a polarisation feedback process that is independent of the actual issues, and might be becoming more powerful than our evolved human instincts for a healthy balance of group harmony vs conflict. As an internet idealist from the old days, though, I'd rather we study that and learn ways to improve on it.