4 ms·

This can be compared to the basic distinction between precision and bias. While noisy and variegated individual biases pitted against each other in good-faith d

by leot 15y ago

This can be compared to the basic distinction between precision and bias. While noisy and variegated individual biases pitted against each other in good-faith debate can have low "precision", the more pernicious problem is bias, which is what emerges where there is a consistent organizing influence pushing people in a particular direction. Indeed, it's amazing that the same people who tout most strongly the power of the invisible hand immediately believe that there are other things "far more effective" when the hand's unchecked subtle and consistent influence has negative consequences. Lastly, the stories of horrendous atrocities caused by misguided-do-gooders are the exceptions that prove the rule -- throughout history, truly horrendous has been the cascade of constant repeated atrocities big and small perpetrated worldwide by people acting in their own (perhaps shortsighted) self-interest at others' expense.

anamax 15y ago
> Lastly, the stories of horrendous atrocities caused by misguided-do-gooders are the exceptions that prove the rule Not at all. Almost every genocide has been initiated by do-gooders. > the cascade of constant repeated atrocities Yes, folks tend to go along, but that's true of everything, good and bad.
- leot 15y ago
  Surely you're joking. This has to be the most odious of the objectivists' canards. Just because "doing good" was used as a pretense or excuse doesn't mean it was the perpetrator's actual motive. I suppose you also believe that most violent criminals were individuals that had only the best of intentions for their victims. Or that Nazis and Stalinists had little interest in power and influence, which were but side-effects of their selfless altruism. That Pearl Harbor was an act of charity, and that the Gulf Oil Spill was caused by attention to detail and an overabundance of interest in the common good.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > Just because "doing good" was used as a pretense or excuse doesn't mean it was the perpetrator's actual motive. And you know that they were lying because you read their minds.... > I suppose you also believe that most violent criminals were individuals that had only the best of intentions for their victims. Nope. But they don't kill all that many people. > Or that Nazis and Stalinists had little interest in power and influence, Surely you don't believe that people who want to do good have no interest in power and influence. You seem to think that killing lots of people is inconsistent with a desire to do good. You clearly haven't had much experience with fanatics, or even do-gooders. It's easy to convince the latter that the world would be better off if the "right" people were dead.
    - leot 15y ago
      > And you know that they were lying because you read their minds.... No, I infer it from their actions. > Surely you don't believe that people who want to do good have no interest in power and influence. This is a straw man. I'm disputing your original claim that money(/power/influence) was not the "most influential" source of corruption, and that the impulse to "do good" was "far more effective than money". > It's easy to convince [do-gooders] that the world would be better off if the "right" people were dead. I'm calling B.S. Evidence? (or did you actually mean the "former"?) > You seem to think that killing lots of people is inconsistent with a desire to do good. Yes, I do, especially since we're talking about corruption in the U.S., and not about the rise of Stalinism. At base we're dealing with issues of systemic bias, not the actions of fanatics. Show me a consistent source of corrupting bias, one that silently and perniciously organizes the behaviors of millions, but which _isn't_ money.
      - anamax 15y ago
        > > And you know that they were lying because you read their minds.... > No, I infer it from their actions. There's your mistake. You think that bad outcome implies bad intentions. It doesn't. How do you know that they didn't honestly think that killing a lot of people would result in good? > > It's easy to convince [do-gooders] that the world would be better off if the "right" people were dead. > I'm calling B.S. Evidence? It's a conversation that I have as often as possible, in hopes that pointing out where they end up will convince them that they really should rethink what they mean by "good". >> You seem to think that killing lots of people is inconsistent with a desire to do good. > Yes, I do, especially since we're talking about corruption in the U.S., and not about the rise of Stalinism. You seem hung up on Stalinism. While it does have the record in shear numbers, it isn't the winner in percentages. And, there are plenty of other folks who will go the same route. For example, it's not hard to find environmentalists who are hoping for a population crash. Do you really believe that none of them would push things in that direction? > Show me a consistent source of corrupting bias, one that silently and perniciously organizes the behaviors of millions, but which _isn't_ money. All of the "I know what's best for you" behaviors qualify.

by leot 15y ago

anamax 15y ago

> Lastly, the stories of horrendous atrocities caused by misguided-do-gooders are the exceptions that prove the rule Not at all. Almost every genocide has been initiated by do-gooders. > the cascade of constant repeated atrocities Yes, folks tend to go along, but that's true of everything, good and bad.

leot 15y ago
Surely you're joking. This has to be the most odious of the objectivists' canards. Just because "doing good" was used as a pretense or excuse doesn't mean it was the perpetrator's actual motive. I suppose you also believe that most violent criminals were individuals that had only the best of intentions for their victims. Or that Nazis and Stalinists had little interest in power and influence, which were but side-effects of their selfless altruism. That Pearl Harbor was an act of charity, and that the Gulf Oil Spill was caused by attention to detail and an overabundance of interest in the common good.
- anamax 15y ago
  > Just because "doing good" was used as a pretense or excuse doesn't mean it was the perpetrator's actual motive. And you know that they were lying because you read their minds.... > I suppose you also believe that most violent criminals were individuals that had only the best of intentions for their victims. Nope. But they don't kill all that many people. > Or that Nazis and Stalinists had little interest in power and influence, Surely you don't believe that people who want to do good have no interest in power and influence. You seem to think that killing lots of people is inconsistent with a desire to do good. You clearly haven't had much experience with fanatics, or even do-gooders. It's easy to convince the latter that the world would be better off if the "right" people were dead.
  - leot 15y ago
    > And you know that they were lying because you read their minds.... No, I infer it from their actions. > Surely you don't believe that people who want to do good have no interest in power and influence. This is a straw man. I'm disputing your original claim that money(/power/influence) was not the "most influential" source of corruption, and that the impulse to "do good" was "far more effective than money". > It's easy to convince [do-gooders] that the world would be better off if the "right" people were dead. I'm calling B.S. Evidence? (or did you actually mean the "former"?) > You seem to think that killing lots of people is inconsistent with a desire to do good. Yes, I do, especially since we're talking about corruption in the U.S., and not about the rise of Stalinism. At base we're dealing with issues of systemic bias, not the actions of fanatics. Show me a consistent source of corrupting bias, one that silently and perniciously organizes the behaviors of millions, but which _isn't_ money.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > > And you know that they were lying because you read their minds.... > No, I infer it from their actions. There's your mistake. You think that bad outcome implies bad intentions. It doesn't. How do you know that they didn't honestly think that killing a lot of people would result in good? > > It's easy to convince [do-gooders] that the world would be better off if the "right" people were dead. > I'm calling B.S. Evidence? It's a conversation that I have as often as possible, in hopes that pointing out where they end up will convince them that they really should rethink what they mean by "good". >> You seem to think that killing lots of people is inconsistent with a desire to do good. > Yes, I do, especially since we're talking about corruption in the U.S., and not about the rise of Stalinism. You seem hung up on Stalinism. While it does have the record in shear numbers, it isn't the winner in percentages. And, there are plenty of other folks who will go the same route. For example, it's not hard to find environmentalists who are hoping for a population crash. Do you really believe that none of them would push things in that direction? > Show me a consistent source of corrupting bias, one that silently and perniciously organizes the behaviors of millions, but which _isn't_ money. All of the "I know what's best for you" behaviors qualify.