9 ms·

This sentiment seems completely useless (actually incredibly dangerous) without at least some attempt at explaining how we might distinguish between aspects of

This sentiment seems completely useless (actually incredibly dangerous) without at least some attempt at explaining how we might distinguish between aspects of society which seem terrible but are actually secretly good even though no one knows why, and aspects of society which seem terrible because they're terrible.

mandmandam 5y ago
You're not wrong. However, the system works "well" for the status quo, and questioning their rule and methods can also be dangerous. You could end up with your name smeared in the media, tortured for years, and imprisoned without a fair trial.. Or chainsawed up. Or sent to prison for trumped up charges. Etc Honesty is very, very necessary in figuring out how to solve the problems we are facing as a species - but lies are cheap, and power corrupts, and a lot of people just have other shit to do than pick through the mountains of manure to find truth nuggets.
imgabe 5y ago
The GP said aspects of society you don't understand. You changed "don't understand" to "seems terrible". Those aren't the same thing. This doesn't require you to accept things that you find terrible.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  No, I only mentioned the ones that seem terrible because those are the ones you would be most inclined to change.
  - imgabe 5y ago
    Ah, well I think the answer would be to investigate whether something that seems terrible, is in fact actually terrible or not, and then act on that rather than a superficial impression.
  - narag 5y ago
    The most terrible ones could also be the most difficult ones to change. Because if they're so terrible, the hidden reason to keep them in place must be specially strong. Or they could be extremely difficult to change because of some shadowy societal forces that lead to unintended consequences.
BurningFrog 5y ago
You ask a difficult and important question. The two relevant ideas I know are: 1. Chesterton's Fence: "I don't understand why this exists, so let's tear it down" is an big and tempting error. Wait until you understand. 2. Consequences of societal change are inherently unknowable, which is why revolutions usually end in tragedy. The sane approach is to change society incrementally, see what happens, and adjust and learn as you go. The educated reader may notice that 1+2 is pretty much the sane version of Conservatism. I'm not a conservative myself, but as I've grown older and wiser, I've come to understand and respect the philosophy.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  > Chesterton's Fence: "I don't understand why this exists, so let's tear it down" is an big and tempting error. Wait until you understand. Right, but the quote I was questioning seemed to indicate that this principle should be applied in cases where no one knows or perhaps even there is no way to know what the purpose is or even in there is one. That’s a much stronger claim than Chesterton’s fence, because a fence is at least a pretty clear indication of human intent (prevent creatures or objects of a certain size from traveling from one particular area to another), and the class of reasons to build a fence is fairly bounded and can feasibly be investigated. Also, I’m not sure how Chesterton’s fence is used in detail, but I wouldn’t agree that you must discover the original reason for the fence to justify removing it. You should investigate all the normal reasons a fence would be there, and if no extant reason turns up, tear down the fence and maybe keep an eye out for a while in case you missed something. I don’t want Chesterton’s fence to devolve all the way to the precautionary principle. Sure, maybe the fence was never needed as a traditional fence, and instead was built by ancient people because they were visited by aliens who said they will destroy Earth if there is ever not a fence in that location. Sure, that’s probably physically possible, but keeping the fence around because of that possibility is terrible epistemology.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > You should investigate all the normal reasons a fence would be there, and if no extant reason turns up, tear down the fence No, you should give up the idea that you can justify tearing down the fence by any intellectual investigation. If you really believe it would be better if the fence came down, then you need to work to convince everyone who has an interest in the fence to agree with you. If you succeed, then the fence will come down on its own without you having to force anything. And if you don't succeed, perhaps your belief that it would be better if the fence came down was wrong.
pdonis 5y ago
The short answer is, you can't. But you might be misinterpreting what Hayek is referring to by "the anonymous and seemingly irrational forces of society". Here is what he says a little later on, when he is comparing the individualist approach he advocates with the alternative: "So long as he knows only the hard discipline of the market, he may well think the direction by some other intelligent human brain preferable; but, when he tries it, he soon discovers that the former still leaves him at least some choice, while the latter leaves him none, and that it is better to have a choice between several unpleasant alternatives than being coerced into one."
GhettoComputers 5y ago
We say that women cannot eat this food, its religion. We don't question it. They study the food and find it is toxic, causes abortions or fetal development issues, but the meaning was lost, its now our religion.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Don't eat pork because it spoils quickly. A rule deprecated by freezers, but still practiced quite often. Don't drink alcohol because... well, luck favors the bold...
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    I thought pork was just full of worms. I heard in the middle east it was just not as productive as chickens, which would not only give meat but eggs, they used to eat it there.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      Chicken spoils quickly too, but you aren't usually storing it in large quantities. But maybe it was also worms, just reinforces the point.
      - GhettoComputers 5y ago
        Pigs make lots of manure, lbs of it.
        candiodari 5y ago
        If you think pigs are bad with the environment, watch until you see the environmental damage that goats do. They literally graze everything to the ground. They fatally wound most trees. They leave behind desert.
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
heavyset_go 5y ago
The only time I've seen the quote, or similar ones to it, trotted out is to imply that the person being addressed by it is ignorant or doesn't understand something. It's an easy way to dismiss facts or arguments without really considering or addressing them in good faith.
starfallg 5y ago
This is exactly the reason why social media is so dangerous. The strength of Western society was that we had freedoms that were managed by a elaborate social and information architecture that ensures we don't drift too far beyond the bounds (such as ethical failure in public office and being anti-science). Once you remove this it you find that there is a limit to how much 'free' speech can correct itself, and we discover how easy it is to divide and manipulate people with misinformation.

mandmandam 5y ago

You're not wrong. However, the system works "well" for the status quo, and questioning their rule and methods can also be dangerous. You could end up with your name smeared in the media, tortured for years, and imprisoned without a fair trial.. Or chainsawed up. Or sent to prison for trumped up charges. Etc Honesty is very, very necessary in figuring out how to solve the problems we are facing as a species - but lies are cheap, and power corrupts, and a lot of people just have other shit to do than pick through the mountains of manure to find truth nuggets.

imgabe 5y ago

The GP said aspects of society you don't understand. You changed "don't understand" to "seems terrible". Those aren't the same thing. This doesn't require you to accept things that you find terrible.

tshaddox 5y ago
No, I only mentioned the ones that seem terrible because those are the ones you would be most inclined to change.
- imgabe 5y ago
  Ah, well I think the answer would be to investigate whether something that seems terrible, is in fact actually terrible or not, and then act on that rather than a superficial impression.
- narag 5y ago
  The most terrible ones could also be the most difficult ones to change. Because if they're so terrible, the hidden reason to keep them in place must be specially strong. Or they could be extremely difficult to change because of some shadowy societal forces that lead to unintended consequences.

BurningFrog 5y ago

You ask a difficult and important question. The two relevant ideas I know are: 1. Chesterton's Fence: "I don't understand why this exists, so let's tear it down" is an big and tempting error. Wait until you understand. 2. Consequences of societal change are inherently unknowable, which is why revolutions usually end in tragedy. The sane approach is to change society incrementally, see what happens, and adjust and learn as you go. The educated reader may notice that 1+2 is pretty much the sane version of Conservatism. I'm not a conservative myself, but as I've grown older and wiser, I've come to understand and respect the philosophy.

tshaddox 5y ago
> Chesterton's Fence: "I don't understand why this exists, so let's tear it down" is an big and tempting error. Wait until you understand. Right, but the quote I was questioning seemed to indicate that this principle should be applied in cases where no one knows or perhaps even there is no way to know what the purpose is or even in there is one. That’s a much stronger claim than Chesterton’s fence, because a fence is at least a pretty clear indication of human intent (prevent creatures or objects of a certain size from traveling from one particular area to another), and the class of reasons to build a fence is fairly bounded and can feasibly be investigated. Also, I’m not sure how Chesterton’s fence is used in detail, but I wouldn’t agree that you must discover the original reason for the fence to justify removing it. You should investigate all the normal reasons a fence would be there, and if no extant reason turns up, tear down the fence and maybe keep an eye out for a while in case you missed something. I don’t want Chesterton’s fence to devolve all the way to the precautionary principle. Sure, maybe the fence was never needed as a traditional fence, and instead was built by ancient people because they were visited by aliens who said they will destroy Earth if there is ever not a fence in that location. Sure, that’s probably physically possible, but keeping the fence around because of that possibility is terrible epistemology.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > You should investigate all the normal reasons a fence would be there, and if no extant reason turns up, tear down the fence No, you should give up the idea that you can justify tearing down the fence by any intellectual investigation. If you really believe it would be better if the fence came down, then you need to work to convince everyone who has an interest in the fence to agree with you. If you succeed, then the fence will come down on its own without you having to force anything. And if you don't succeed, perhaps your belief that it would be better if the fence came down was wrong.

pdonis 5y ago

The short answer is, you can't. But you might be misinterpreting what Hayek is referring to by "the anonymous and seemingly irrational forces of society". Here is what he says a little later on, when he is comparing the individualist approach he advocates with the alternative: "So long as he knows only the hard discipline of the market, he may well think the direction by some other intelligent human brain preferable; but, when he tries it, he soon discovers that the former still leaves him at least some choice, while the latter leaves him none, and that it is better to have a choice between several unpleasant alternatives than being coerced into one."

GhettoComputers 5y ago

We say that women cannot eat this food, its religion. We don't question it. They study the food and find it is toxic, causes abortions or fetal development issues, but the meaning was lost, its now our religion.

raxxorrax 5y ago
Don't eat pork because it spoils quickly. A rule deprecated by freezers, but still practiced quite often. Don't drink alcohol because... well, luck favors the bold...
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  I thought pork was just full of worms. I heard in the middle east it was just not as productive as chickens, which would not only give meat but eggs, they used to eat it there.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Chicken spoils quickly too, but you aren't usually storing it in large quantities. But maybe it was also worms, just reinforces the point.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      Pigs make lots of manure, lbs of it.
      - candiodari 5y ago
        If you think pigs are bad with the environment, watch until you see the environmental damage that goats do. They literally graze everything to the ground. They fatally wound most trees. They leave behind desert.
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago

heavyset_go 5y ago

The only time I've seen the quote, or similar ones to it, trotted out is to imply that the person being addressed by it is ignorant or doesn't understand something. It's an easy way to dismiss facts or arguments without really considering or addressing them in good faith.

starfallg 5y ago

This is exactly the reason why social media is so dangerous. The strength of Western society was that we had freedoms that were managed by a elaborate social and information architecture that ensures we don't drift too far beyond the bounds (such as ethical failure in public office and being anti-science). Once you remove this it you find that there is a limit to how much 'free' speech can correct itself, and we discover how easy it is to divide and manipulate people with misinformation.