3 ms·

> In my experience, once you give people the basic toolkit for introspection, it can kick off a positive feedback loop. No doubt it is an improvement over base

> In my experience, once you give people the basic toolkit for introspection, it can kick off a positive feedback loop. No doubt it is an improvement over baseline - but do you have any opinions on this specific notion that skills in abstract thinking mode may not successfully transfer to object level thinking, particularly when under pressure (ie: conversations)? I truly believe that this is a real phenomenon. > On the contrary I think those who see this as negative are few and far between. Democratic power in the western world has never been greater than today, so if this is something the people want, there is very little that can stand in their way. Oh, I think this is a very small group of people. I believe the general public has wanted a lot of things for a very long time (general welfare for all people, within reason, especially domestically), but improvements along these lines seem rather marginal, despite essentially unending productivity and GDP growth. Something seems rather imperfect here - the advertised benefits of democracy seem more impressive than the results, not unlike TV commercials for a Big Mac Meal versus what you actually get at the restaurant.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
>Oh, I think this is a very small group of people. I believe the general public has wanted a lot of things for a very long time (general welfare for all people, within reason, especially domestically), but improvements along these lines seem rather marginal, despite essentially unending productivity and GDP growth. Something seems rather imperfect here - the advertised benefits of democracy seem more impressive than the results, not unlike TV commercials for a Big Mac Meal versus what you actually get at the restaurant. I think the lack of progress is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracy functions and drives progress. Meaningful progress is only made when persuasion occurs. Living in political or philosophical silos then going to the voting booth only perpetuates the status quo. To drive forward, you have to change someone's mind. Just about anyone can double their political impact on an issue by going out and having a 1 hour conversation with someone who is indifferent on the topic. The biggest trick ever played on the public is telling them they are disenfranchised and that the system is rigged. If people spent 5% of the time and effort they spent lamenting corruption or political advertising on persuasion, change would advance at a rapid pace.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > I think the lack of progress is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracy functions and drives progress. I assume you mean people's perception of the lack of progress. Actual physical progress is independent of the public's perception of it, I would think. > Meaningful progress is only made when persuasion occurs. Makes sense. I pay fairly close attention to the variety and nature of political persuasion, and I find it rather....interesting. I think a fair argument can be made that it is often exerted in directions that seem inconsistent with the general well being of the population. > The biggest trick ever played on the public is telling them they are disenfranchised and that the system is rigged. I agree that that is "a" trick, but I don't agree that it is the biggest one, by a long shot. Actually, I think there's more than a little evidence that suggests there's a fair amount of truth to it. > If people spent 5% of the time and effort they spent lamenting corruption or political advertising on persuasion, change would advance at a rapid pace. I can't imagine how this could be true. Who would be the parties being persuaded in this scenario, and how would that exert influence on the amount of change? And then looking at it from another perspective: compare the change in well being of the average person in China versus the USA over the last 10 to 20 years - does the above explain the entirety of the differential? Or, might there be some other variables in play here?
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    >> I think the lack of progress is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracy functions and drives progress. >I assume you mean people's perception of the lack of progress. Actual physical progress is independent of the public's perception of it, I would think. I totally agree. >> Meaningful progress is only made when persuasion occurs. >Makes sense. I pay fairly close attention to the variety and nature of political persuasion, and I find it rather....interesting. I think a fair argument can be made that it is often exerted in directions that seem inconsistent with the general well being of the population. I think it depends on what you count as political persuasion. I think it is more than adds and media. It includes conversations at dinner tables and in lunchrooms. It includes school curriculum, protesters, and door to door political canvasing. I would agree that political advertising and media is often inconsistent with general well being. I think that it is disingenuous and often exerted to benefit a small subset of the population, either corporate shareholders or individual politicians. That said, in my opinion, the influence of advertising and media is relatively small in comparison to the other factors. Sometimes, like a swing voter, it might sway the public a critical 1%, but collectively, the other forces are far more influential. >> The biggest trick ever played on the public is telling them they are disenfranchised and that the system is rigged. >I agree that that is "a" trick, but I don't agree that it is the biggest one, by a long shot. Actually, I think there's more than a little evidence that suggests there's a fair amount of truth to it. See above >> If people spent 5% of the time and effort they spent lamenting corruption or political advertising on persuasion, change would advance at a rapid pace. >I can't imagine how this could be true. Who would be the parties being persuaded in this scenario, and how would that exert influence on the amount of change? The ideal parties to persuade are those with weakly held views. 40% of Americans don't vote. Most of those who do vote have very little information and opinion on down ballot positions and propositions. If someone wanted to, I think they could persuade an indifferent or marginal neighbor or coworker to vote on a topic with an hour of face-to-face conversation. For context, the average american spends 4,000 hours a year consuming TV and digital media. Anecdotally, I too am part of the problem because I easily spend dozens of hours a year listening or complaining about politics, or reading articles to "stay informed". >And then looking at it from another perspective: compare the change in well being of the average person in China versus the USA over the last 10 to 20 years - does the above explain the entirety of the differential? Or, might there be some other variables in play here? This is a such a huge an interesting question, I'm not sure we could even define the scope or definitions on HN. I would be happy to follow up via email if you are interested.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

>Oh, I think this is a very small group of people. I believe the general public has wanted a lot of things for a very long time (general welfare for all people, within reason, especially domestically), but improvements along these lines seem rather marginal, despite essentially unending productivity and GDP growth. Something seems rather imperfect here - the advertised benefits of democracy seem more impressive than the results, not unlike TV commercials for a Big Mac Meal versus what you actually get at the restaurant. I think the lack of progress is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracy functions and drives progress. Meaningful progress is only made when persuasion occurs. Living in political or philosophical silos then going to the voting booth only perpetuates the status quo. To drive forward, you have to change someone's mind. Just about anyone can double their political impact on an issue by going out and having a 1 hour conversation with someone who is indifferent on the topic. The biggest trick ever played on the public is telling them they are disenfranchised and that the system is rigged. If people spent 5% of the time and effort they spent lamenting corruption or political advertising on persuasion, change would advance at a rapid pace.

mistermann 6y ago
> I think the lack of progress is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracy functions and drives progress. I assume you mean people's perception of the lack of progress. Actual physical progress is independent of the public's perception of it, I would think. > Meaningful progress is only made when persuasion occurs. Makes sense. I pay fairly close attention to the variety and nature of political persuasion, and I find it rather....interesting. I think a fair argument can be made that it is often exerted in directions that seem inconsistent with the general well being of the population. > The biggest trick ever played on the public is telling them they are disenfranchised and that the system is rigged. I agree that that is "a" trick, but I don't agree that it is the biggest one, by a long shot. Actually, I think there's more than a little evidence that suggests there's a fair amount of truth to it. > If people spent 5% of the time and effort they spent lamenting corruption or political advertising on persuasion, change would advance at a rapid pace. I can't imagine how this could be true. Who would be the parties being persuaded in this scenario, and how would that exert influence on the amount of change? And then looking at it from another perspective: compare the change in well being of the average person in China versus the USA over the last 10 to 20 years - does the above explain the entirety of the differential? Or, might there be some other variables in play here?
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  >> I think the lack of progress is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracy functions and drives progress. >I assume you mean people's perception of the lack of progress. Actual physical progress is independent of the public's perception of it, I would think. I totally agree. >> Meaningful progress is only made when persuasion occurs. >Makes sense. I pay fairly close attention to the variety and nature of political persuasion, and I find it rather....interesting. I think a fair argument can be made that it is often exerted in directions that seem inconsistent with the general well being of the population. I think it depends on what you count as political persuasion. I think it is more than adds and media. It includes conversations at dinner tables and in lunchrooms. It includes school curriculum, protesters, and door to door political canvasing. I would agree that political advertising and media is often inconsistent with general well being. I think that it is disingenuous and often exerted to benefit a small subset of the population, either corporate shareholders or individual politicians. That said, in my opinion, the influence of advertising and media is relatively small in comparison to the other factors. Sometimes, like a swing voter, it might sway the public a critical 1%, but collectively, the other forces are far more influential. >> The biggest trick ever played on the public is telling them they are disenfranchised and that the system is rigged. >I agree that that is "a" trick, but I don't agree that it is the biggest one, by a long shot. Actually, I think there's more than a little evidence that suggests there's a fair amount of truth to it. See above >> If people spent 5% of the time and effort they spent lamenting corruption or political advertising on persuasion, change would advance at a rapid pace. >I can't imagine how this could be true. Who would be the parties being persuaded in this scenario, and how would that exert influence on the amount of change? The ideal parties to persuade are those with weakly held views. 40% of Americans don't vote. Most of those who do vote have very little information and opinion on down ballot positions and propositions. If someone wanted to, I think they could persuade an indifferent or marginal neighbor or coworker to vote on a topic with an hour of face-to-face conversation. For context, the average american spends 4,000 hours a year consuming TV and digital media. Anecdotally, I too am part of the problem because I easily spend dozens of hours a year listening or complaining about politics, or reading articles to "stay informed". >And then looking at it from another perspective: compare the change in well being of the average person in China versus the USA over the last 10 to 20 years - does the above explain the entirety of the differential? Or, might there be some other variables in play here? This is a such a huge an interesting question, I'm not sure we could even define the scope or definitions on HN. I would be happy to follow up via email if you are interested.