4 ms·

Gall's law reminds me of Hayek: The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To

Gall's law reminds me of Hayek: The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order. Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account. - Friedrich A. Hayek

southerntofu 5y ago
> Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account I fully agree with this quote, however it's important to note the context that Hayek (and other ancaps/neoliberals) consider that only selfish personal financial interest should be taken into account, and their proponents go to great lengths to impose that aspect on everyone through government intervention and other manipulation strategies. See also Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, or Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing consent. Both of whom, from my readings, agree with that quote, but in a more social/cooperative interpretation that is more in line with how most people behave in reality. Adam Curtis also has a documentary series on this topic called "The Trap: what happened to our dreams of freedom?". To paraphrase an experiment outlined in these documentaries, back when the game theory hypothesis of human relations was tested, it turned out only economists and sociopaths behaved accordingly. I'm sure such a study would yield significantly different results today, after decades of neoliberal propaganda and startup culture, but it's worth pointing out from a historical perspective that decentralization and mutual aid is how humanity progressed thus far (see also Piotr Kropotkin's Mutual Aid for a (out)dated scientific take on that topic).
- _0ffh 5y ago
  >only selfish personal financial interest should be taken into account Sorry, that's just wrong. Firstly, the central scientific question is one of description and not prescription. It's not what should be taken into account but what actually is. Secondly, that which is taken into account is not "selfish personal financial interest" but preference. Would you seriously try and deny that you have preferences and choose your actions in accordance with those preferences? Well, neither can anyone else.
  - dang 5y ago
    Hey, can you please make your substantive points without crossing into the flamewar style on HN? We're trying for curious conversation here, which is more or less disjoint from ideological battle (and this particular ideological theme is of course a flamewar classic). If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note this one: "Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine."
    - _0ffh 5y ago
      Hi, I've reviewed my comment and unfortunately I honestly can't see what's wrong with it. I've made two points about factual errors and I asked a rhetorical question to drive my point home. I highlighted, but deliberately didn't further comment on, the unnecessarily loaded language of the parent comment. Although I'm told I come from a culture that tends towards speaking somewhat bluntly, I'm truly surprised and a bit confused to have my comment come across as "flamewar style", when what I was going for was more along the lines of "clinically detached rebuttal".
      - dang 5y ago
        I read HN comments rather superficially (just because time/quantity is so low). From that perspective, when a comment starts with a putdown like "Sorry, that's just wrong" and ends with "Would you seriously try and deny", it's already clear that it isn't curious conversation. When I read the comment more closely it doesn't seem as bad. If you'd dropped the swipe in the first sentence, it would've been ok. I'm sure it's true that culture enters into this, but given that HN is a highly international/multicultural forum, what that unfortunately means is that we all have to neutralize ourselves a little bit in order to be understood correctly. or something like that.
        _0ffh 5y ago
        Okay, thanks for the heads up and explanation, I'll try to keep it in mind!

southerntofu 5y ago

> Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account I fully agree with this quote, however it's important to note the context that Hayek (and other ancaps/neoliberals) consider that only selfish personal financial interest should be taken into account, and their proponents go to great lengths to impose that aspect on everyone through government intervention and other manipulation strategies. See also Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, or Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing consent. Both of whom, from my readings, agree with that quote, but in a more social/cooperative interpretation that is more in line with how most people behave in reality. Adam Curtis also has a documentary series on this topic called "The Trap: what happened to our dreams of freedom?". To paraphrase an experiment outlined in these documentaries, back when the game theory hypothesis of human relations was tested, it turned out only economists and sociopaths behaved accordingly. I'm sure such a study would yield significantly different results today, after decades of neoliberal propaganda and startup culture, but it's worth pointing out from a historical perspective that decentralization and mutual aid is how humanity progressed thus far (see also Piotr Kropotkin's Mutual Aid for a (out)dated scientific take on that topic).

_0ffh 5y ago
>only selfish personal financial interest should be taken into account Sorry, that's just wrong. Firstly, the central scientific question is one of description and not prescription. It's not what should be taken into account but what actually is. Secondly, that which is taken into account is not "selfish personal financial interest" but preference. Would you seriously try and deny that you have preferences and choose your actions in accordance with those preferences? Well, neither can anyone else.
- dang 5y ago
  Hey, can you please make your substantive points without crossing into the flamewar style on HN? We're trying for curious conversation here, which is more or less disjoint from ideological battle (and this particular ideological theme is of course a flamewar classic). If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note this one: "Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine."
  - _0ffh 5y ago
    Hi, I've reviewed my comment and unfortunately I honestly can't see what's wrong with it. I've made two points about factual errors and I asked a rhetorical question to drive my point home. I highlighted, but deliberately didn't further comment on, the unnecessarily loaded language of the parent comment. Although I'm told I come from a culture that tends towards speaking somewhat bluntly, I'm truly surprised and a bit confused to have my comment come across as "flamewar style", when what I was going for was more along the lines of "clinically detached rebuttal".
    - dang 5y ago
      I read HN comments rather superficially (just because time/quantity is so low). From that perspective, when a comment starts with a putdown like "Sorry, that's just wrong" and ends with "Would you seriously try and deny", it's already clear that it isn't curious conversation. When I read the comment more closely it doesn't seem as bad. If you'd dropped the swipe in the first sentence, it would've been ok. I'm sure it's true that culture enters into this, but given that HN is a highly international/multicultural forum, what that unfortunately means is that we all have to neutralize ourselves a little bit in order to be understood correctly. or something like that.
      - _0ffh 5y ago
        Okay, thanks for the heads up and explanation, I'll try to keep it in mind!