4 ms·

> Interestingly, just as the word "nerd" implies earnestness even when used as a metaphor, the word "politics" implies the opposite. It's not only in actual pol

> Interestingly, just as the word "nerd" implies earnestness even when used as a metaphor, the word "politics" implies the opposite. It's not only in actual politics that earnestness seems to be a handicap, but also in office politics and academic politics. I don't think this is always the case. I've found that no matter the size of the business, they are made up of people, and people have bullshit detectors. When you are able to speak truth and find meaning in an earnest way, people will follow you, peers will respect you, and executives will listen.

throwaway2245 6y ago
In politics, the word "technocrat" is used to try to carve out a divide between specific intellectual talent and political leadership talent, with a heavy implication that these are mutually exclusive. I think that's how PG is using "earnest" here. He presents it first as a compliment but goes on to suggest that it is exclusive from understanding other people's motivations, and by extension, exclusive from business leadership. I take it as an underhanded compliment.
- voidhorse 6y ago
  And on the other side, “politics” is anathema to “nerds” and technocrats because good technocrats typically have a nice mix of the old school sociopathic qualities required to succeed in business along with technical chops. They don’t like politics because they typically lack emotional intelligence, don’t comprehend the need for empathy, and think their experience is the only experience that matters. They likewise usually have a regressive ultra-utilitarian philosophy. This doesn’t apply to everyone or any actual human beings of course, but since we’re talking about abstract made up nonsense character types, might as well go along with it.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > In politics, the word "technocrat" is used to try to carve out a divide between specific intellectual talent and political leadership talent, implication being that these are exclusive. No, in politics, “technocrat” describes an advocate of rule by an elite of technical experts. When applied to a candidate for office, it often more specifically designates someone who sees their own self-evaluated membership in such an elite as their primary qualification for office. It does not designate actual talent, nor does it imply anything about the separation between different types of talent.
  - throwaway2245 6y ago
    > No, in politics, “technocrat” describes an advocate of rule by an elite of technical experts. I've never seen that usage - in my experience, a technocrat is always the (supposed) expert, not the advocate for expert rule. Wikipedia commonly uses "advocate for technocracy" on the relevant biography pages.
wombatmobile 6y ago
PG seems to have a cynical conception of what "politics" is, since he seems to be saying that practising it is anathema to earnestness. I understand what he means if by "politics" he means self-interest and hoodwinking voters. And that may be his experience of politicians, but it doesn't define the field any more than Mulligans define golf. Champion golfers don't take Mulligans, don't kick their ball closer to the hole, and don't miscount strokes. They are all far too earnest, and have been since they started in the sport. Likewise with politics. MLK did what he did because he cared for the rights of people. So did Thomas Jefferson, They're not the only ones, though it is difficult to come up with examples that are universally admired because when it comes to politics, we all have different opinions, because we all have different interests. But what is politics? When I studied it at university, we learned on the first day that politics is just who gets what, where, when, and how, in a society. Anyone who fights for the rights of other people in society, whether for left or right, for rich or for poor, may be earnest, and virtuous in the eyes of their peers.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  But I kinda feel like your example proves the point, because I've never seen MLK described as a "politician" or "political figure". Politics as most people understand it is the process of deciding who ought to run the government, and King specifically avoided discussing this (https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/statement-presidential-endorsement https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/sta...) because he felt that doing so would undercut his mission of social change.
  - wombatmobile 6y ago
    > Politics as most people understand it is the process of deciding who ought to run the government That's a narrow definition, sometimes known as "party politics". And that well might be what PG was referring to. The limitation of party politics in America, and other places, is that to become an elected representative you need money for advertising, which you have to get from somewhere, e.g. donations. These usually come with the expectation of a quid pro quo; oil companies want pipelines across the commons and lax pollution laws. They get these by buying politicians. And so there is a contradiction in a "democracy" like the USA whereby votes are in the hands of the people, but the ability to stand for office is in the hands of the financiers. It leads to a duplicity, which is possibly why PG describes "politics" as anathema to earnestness. But politics is more than that. Politics is who gets what, when where and how. It exists in classrooms and workplaces, and cars full of screaming kids on a hot day. It most certainly exists in the competition to have ideas funded by VC. So, in fact, PG is a skilful politician. He just practises his craft outside of party politics.
BlueTemplar 6y ago
Politics might be the hardest to be earnest in... and yet we must, for the future's sake !

throwaway2245 6y ago

In politics, the word "technocrat" is used to try to carve out a divide between specific intellectual talent and political leadership talent, with a heavy implication that these are mutually exclusive. I think that's how PG is using "earnest" here. He presents it first as a compliment but goes on to suggest that it is exclusive from understanding other people's motivations, and by extension, exclusive from business leadership. I take it as an underhanded compliment.

voidhorse 6y ago
And on the other side, “politics” is anathema to “nerds” and technocrats because good technocrats typically have a nice mix of the old school sociopathic qualities required to succeed in business along with technical chops. They don’t like politics because they typically lack emotional intelligence, don’t comprehend the need for empathy, and think their experience is the only experience that matters. They likewise usually have a regressive ultra-utilitarian philosophy. This doesn’t apply to everyone or any actual human beings of course, but since we’re talking about abstract made up nonsense character types, might as well go along with it.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> In politics, the word "technocrat" is used to try to carve out a divide between specific intellectual talent and political leadership talent, implication being that these are exclusive. No, in politics, “technocrat” describes an advocate of rule by an elite of technical experts. When applied to a candidate for office, it often more specifically designates someone who sees their own self-evaluated membership in such an elite as their primary qualification for office. It does not designate actual talent, nor does it imply anything about the separation between different types of talent.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  > No, in politics, “technocrat” describes an advocate of rule by an elite of technical experts. I've never seen that usage - in my experience, a technocrat is always the (supposed) expert, not the advocate for expert rule. Wikipedia commonly uses "advocate for technocracy" on the relevant biography pages.

wombatmobile 6y ago

PG seems to have a cynical conception of what "politics" is, since he seems to be saying that practising it is anathema to earnestness. I understand what he means if by "politics" he means self-interest and hoodwinking voters. And that may be his experience of politicians, but it doesn't define the field any more than Mulligans define golf. Champion golfers don't take Mulligans, don't kick their ball closer to the hole, and don't miscount strokes. They are all far too earnest, and have been since they started in the sport. Likewise with politics. MLK did what he did because he cared for the rights of people. So did Thomas Jefferson, They're not the only ones, though it is difficult to come up with examples that are universally admired because when it comes to politics, we all have different opinions, because we all have different interests. But what is politics? When I studied it at university, we learned on the first day that politics is just who gets what, where, when, and how, in a society. Anyone who fights for the rights of other people in society, whether for left or right, for rich or for poor, may be earnest, and virtuous in the eyes of their peers.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
But I kinda feel like your example proves the point, because I've never seen MLK described as a "politician" or "political figure". Politics as most people understand it is the process of deciding who ought to run the government, and King specifically avoided discussing this (https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/statement-presidential-endorsement https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/sta...) because he felt that doing so would undercut his mission of social change.
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  > Politics as most people understand it is the process of deciding who ought to run the government That's a narrow definition, sometimes known as "party politics". And that well might be what PG was referring to. The limitation of party politics in America, and other places, is that to become an elected representative you need money for advertising, which you have to get from somewhere, e.g. donations. These usually come with the expectation of a quid pro quo; oil companies want pipelines across the commons and lax pollution laws. They get these by buying politicians. And so there is a contradiction in a "democracy" like the USA whereby votes are in the hands of the people, but the ability to stand for office is in the hands of the financiers. It leads to a duplicity, which is possibly why PG describes "politics" as anathema to earnestness. But politics is more than that. Politics is who gets what, when where and how. It exists in classrooms and workplaces, and cars full of screaming kids on a hot day. It most certainly exists in the competition to have ideas funded by VC. So, in fact, PG is a skilful politician. He just practises his craft outside of party politics.

BlueTemplar 6y ago

Politics might be the hardest to be earnest in... and yet we must, for the future's sake !