31 ms·

My values, howled into the wind

108 points by ggoo 5y ago

pphysch 5y ago
These are pretty clearly just liberal values (Locke, not DNC) plus a few hot takes.
cure 5y ago
Maybe that person is called "rational, open minded, generally good-hearted" ?
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Would have agreed, but then the Trump lines hit... Entirely forgetting the BLM terrorism and sedition in the previous year...
- cgriswald 5y ago
  From my own experience, what that person is called depends heavily on who is doing the calling.
kmonsen 5y ago
I can't believe any of that is controversial. All political systems have been extremely captured and are very polarized and focused on short term thinking to make us miss the forest and focus on tiny divisive details. I would never vote for anything but democrats in the current form, but I think they are deeply corrupt and not really working for the people. Sadly easily the best we have right now. Especially in California we could do with competition from good republicans. And from better democrats.
- mellavora 5y ago
  Yes, and keeping this generic to help keep HN politics-free, given that the US has a 2-party system, the nation only functions if both parties are functioning. If one goes off the rails, it is bad for both. You need the counterweight.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    What happens when neither party is functioning?
    - kmonsen 5y ago
      then we live in a one party state which is not democracy
    - CoastalCoder 5y ago
      I suppose we'll feel that in every area of life, both domestic and internationally. As a parent, especially of young men, this scares me greatly.
      - InTheArena 5y ago
        this. It feels like where are in the reverse of the 50s. Where the 50s promoted masculinity, downplayed femininity the exact opposite is true now. Instead of father knows best, it's instead father knows nothing. My best advice to young men - Be polite. Be deferential. Study well. Work hard. Take care of yourself. Help others. Don't assume that anyone is going to recognize your work or your achievements without crying privileged, but also realize that regardless of it that is true, you have a responsibility to help others. This seems to me to apropos to the original article.
        jimbokun 5y ago
        Agreed there is a responsibility to help others. At the same time, some people demanding help and claiming oppression, are some of the most privileged people in society and more than capable of taking care of themselves. Direct your charity to those most in need of it.
- Ma8ee 5y ago
  Why do you feel that the Democrats are deeply corrupt?
  - deberon 5y ago
    I think their meddling in the Bernie/Hillary primaries broke a lot of peoples trust in them.
    - lalaland1125 5y ago
      If a single person leaking a debate question (a person who then got immediately fired once exposed) is enough to call the Democrats corrupt, then I think that was a standard doomed to fail.
      - nitrogen 5y ago
        Superdelegates were also problematic, as was a constant drumbeat of the self-fulfilling word "unelectable." But that's ancient history at this point and the current challenges are different.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
- peatmoss 5y ago
  I feel the same way (lack of good alternatives from all sides), and find myself becoming a bit of a one-issue believer in - Open primaries - Ranked choice voting I believe our current system rewards either extremism or outwardly expressed extremism. Each side has to one-up others on the same side to prove that they are the purest avatar of their side. Current candidates are physical manifestations of click-bait. But at the same time, effective politics requires nuance and competence. The shouting match that is current US politics definitely lacks nuance. I believe nuance is a prerequisite to competence. In the last ~6 years or so, I learned that there are some people towards the middle, on the “other side” that I’d have been delighted to select as my #2 choice either for reasons of temperament or specific policies. Open primaries and ranked choice voting would have let me do that.
  - zeruch 5y ago
    "I believe our current system rewards either extremism or outwardly expressed extremism." Pretty much. We've allowed a system of regulatory capture, gerrymandering, lobbying payola, and an incoherent pandering media pipeline to make the whole political discourse a giant meth-addled goat rodeo.
    - notpachet 5y ago
      > giant meth-addled goat rodeo Saving this one for a rainy day. Thank you. I frequently find myself in these, of one size or another.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
umvi 5y ago
He acts like his views are so nuanced that he can't be classified into a political bucket, yet like 90%+ are basically democratic party lines (pro abortion, pro sexual revolution, pro drugs, covid response should have been even stricter and of even greater scope than it was, etc).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- civilized 5y ago
  At a time when the country is cutting off its nose to spite its face -- e.g. making it so nobody can take Algebra "early" because it wouldn't be "equitable" -- should we be judging people based on whether they agree with us about abortion and the sexual revolution? Maybe a bigger tent coalition is needed to restore sanity on basic things, such as "kids should be allowed to learn so they can function in a technological society"?
  - crooked-v 5y ago
    Currently that bigger tent coalition is the Democrats, given that the only actual major Republican policy positions amount to "no abortion, lower taxes, and opposing whatever Democrats do".
    - civilized 5y ago
      Not really, given that Democrats control California 100% and attacks on early Algebra were the result. Neither major party is the coalition I'm talking about. It doesn't exist yet. But I can dream.
      - xxpor 5y ago
        It's more nuanced than that. America has the issue where there's 2 big tent parties, but there's a million little fiefdoms that are easily captured by radicals. Things like local school boards, where people just don't have the time and energy to pay attention to every detail. Last November, my ballot up here in Seattle had 25+ things to vote on. In California it's probably even worse. I get why the 2 party system evolved at the federal level, but there's no reason why we couldn't have more parties at the local level. That's exactly what happens in Canada, for example.
motohagiography 5y ago
To me he's someone who has taken the trouble to think things through, and even if he said something that was profoundly offensive to me, I'd just be more interested in why he thought it. It has clicked recently that I now understand how urgent it is to develop tech to find and inhabit other planets, as the moment we got a picture of our own planet from the moon, whether anyone acknowledged it or not, life and culture here has became a finite zero sum game, and I now doubt that's something we can roll back. This isn't even a negative view, it's just that the tech that enables it will also enable a new source of hope that I think people can orient toward again.
nojs 5y ago
One thing I am increasingly noticing as I get older is that the most interesting people hold wildly different political stances on different topics, meaning you can’t predict their stance on any given topic based on political affiliation alone. In fact, I think this alone would be one of the be best predictors of a person’s intellect and interest in thinking deeply about things: ask 10 politically polarising questions in different areas and score responses based on how diverse they are.
- dataangel 5y ago
  I’m going to answer your questionnaire randomly and look like a genius.
- noduerme 5y ago
  Looked at another way, the real measure of intellect is how consistent a person's views are within a logical framework. I'm not sure this writer's opinions are actually "diverse". They're pretty logically consistent, (and I happen to agree with all of them, which is rare). They just appear heterodox from the perspective of one or the other party platform in the US. But it is those party platforms which hold truly diverse policy ideas - in the sense that their policies are logically inconsistent and conflicting. To illustrate what I'm trying to say, consider the two polarizing issues of abortion and capital punishment. The standard right-of-center view in the US - if you asked almost any Republican - is to be pro-life when it comes to individuals not killing fetuses and pro-death when it comes to the State killing grown adults. This is not only inconsistent in its logical application of whether anyone has a right to kill anyone, but also wildly inconsistent with the right wing's antipathy toward state power over the individual. Meanwhile, the other party in this country is anti-death-penalty by the state and pro-choice for the individual, while preferring state power over individual autonomy in most other cases. Now who's holding wildly different, inconsistent political stances on polarizing questions? Probably the 70% or so of Americans who hew to either the standard liberal or conservative platforms, without considering their internal contradictions.
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    It's not true, though, that 70% of Americans hew to standard partisan platforms. Polling consistently shows that support is heterogeneous (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/5-views-of-parties-positions-on-issues-ideologies/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/5-views-of-p...): positions on individual issues have strong majority support within each party, but a strong majority of individual people disagree with some of their party's positions.
vanusa 5y ago
It’s like, what do you call someone who’s absolutely terrified about global warming, and who thinks the best response would’ve been (and actually, still is) a historic surge in nuclear energy, possibly with geoengineering to tide us over? … who wants to end world hunger … and do it using GMO crops? On first blush, I would say this is someone who is somehow overly attracted to idealized approaches -- dare we say silver bullets? -- without considering secondary effects or big picture, problem-first analysis. Most of his positions / proposals sound a lot better, but something seems off "off" about these first two. The first one just doesn't pass the smell test. Nuke plants are expensive and slow to build, and wishing it were otherwise won't make it so; and from a basic risk analysis perspective, it would be foolish to put most of our eggs in the geoengineering basket, without putting the problem of near-term emissions front and center. And as for the second -- let's just say the problem of global hunger is perhaps more multi-level and multi-factored than the issues that GMO, even in a best case scenario, can ever hope to address.
- bawolff 5y ago
  Maybe its all in the eye of the beholder, but those two seemed like some of the most common sense mainstream ones to me.
- ip26 5y ago
  History is littered with silver bullets. Automobiles solved the problem of knee deep horse manure in New York City once and for all. The Haeber-Bosch process quadrupled the productivity of agricultural land. Vaccines played a key role in eradicating smallpox. Etc. There are problems with all these technologies, and great depth to each of the challenges they address, but just as coal was a revolution over wood, and natural gas over coal, so too can imperfect solar, wind, or nuclear be over natural gas. Or perhaps GMOs will help us reverse some of the sins of today’s mono crops.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    Automobiles solved the problem of knee deep horse manure in New York City once and for all. In exchange for poisoning the air, killing streetcars, and (with the help of farcically idealistic mid-century urban planning) decimating whole communities, physically and spiritually (not so coincidentally with disproportionate effects on certain disadvantaged groups). A silver bullet to the horse manure problem, perhaps, but to the sustainable public transport problem .. a dull hammer, wouldn't you think? Just as coal was a revolution over wood, and natural gas over coal, so too can imperfect solar, wind, or nuclear be over natural gas. Or perhaps GMOs will help us reverse some of the sins of today’s mono crops. I agree that both nukes and GMOs can potentially be part of the arsenal of approaches to these problems. But to anoint them as our "best" solutions to these problem strikes me as fanciful, to say the least.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lalaland1125 5y ago
> ... who feels little attraction to the truth-claims of the world’s ancient religions, except insofar as they sometimes serve as prophylactics against newer and now even more virulent religions? The intuition behind this is appealing (that a lack of religion invites a void that is filled by crazier things), but the current evidence seems to indicate that this is incorrect. Mainstream religions aren't a "prophylactic" against newer craziness like QAnon. In fact, the reality is the opposite. QAnon is most effective in converting people who already believe in Christianity. You could also look at partisanship. Countries with less religion aren't really any more partisan.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > The intuition behind this is appealing (that a lack of religion invites a void that is filled by crazier things), but the current evidence seems to indicate that this is incorrect. Mainstream religions aren't a "prophylactic" against newer craziness like QAnon. > In fact, the reality is the opposite. QAnon is most effective in converting people who already believe in Christianity. I don't think you're looking at the right things. If you'll permit an extended quote from another Scott: > In high school I took a sociology class, and the teacher talked about how modern society was atomized and there were no real community bonds and so on. And I thought this was dumb. I didn’t live in an atomized society! My family knew our next-door neighbors, and we’d even been over at their house once for dinner. There was a Community Center a few blocks away, and when I was a kid I would go there a couple of times a year for some kind of Neighborhood Art Night. Sometimes my mother volunteered at my school, and my dad was too busy to volunteer but probably would have if he could. We weren’t devoid of community at all. > And then three things happened. Number one, I read some good anthropology about primitive and medieval societies, which actually described pre-atomized life and the way that there was barely even an individual identity and the community determined everything you ever did. Number two, I spent a little time in an honest-to-goodness Third World village and saw a little of what life was like there. And number three, I got involved in some good subcultures – including Bay Area rationality – which were slightly but noticeably less atomized than the neighborhood where I grew up. I realized that I’d mistaken the existent-but-weak forms of community in my suburban neighborhood for the really-strong forms of community that people complaining about atomization say we’re missing, because I had so little experience with the latter I couldn’t even imagine them. ( https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/07/concept-shaped-holes-can-be-impossible-to-notice/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/07/concept-shaped-holes-c... ) You're looking at the void that people are trying to fill with newer, more satisfying religions, calling that void "mainstream religion", and then saying that mainstream religion doesn't block the adoption of newer more virulent religions. But mainstream religion in the United States died a long time ago. The people you're "disagreeing" with are looking at the same void, calling it a void, and complaining that there's nothing there to block the adoption of maladaptive beliefs. Which is the same complaint that you're making.
ipaddr 5y ago
"… who’s happiest when telling the truth for the cause of social justice … but who, if told to lie for the cause of social justice, will probably choose silence or even, if pushed hard enough, truth?" Does everyone lie for the social justice cause because the truth never matches a pure ideological idea? Is silence accepting the lie here empowering social justice or by not fully supporting the lie are you cast out of the movement and seen as working for the man or for power?
- CoastalCoder 5y ago
  IIUC, there's a meta-lie (or at least confusion) here. (Apologies if I've misunderstood; corrections greatly appreciated.) - Every person of intelligence and good will agrees upon the definition of "social justice". - Every person who disagrees with "${author}" 's conception of social justice is at best part of the problem, or at worst a willing agent evil. Having read some social-justice-related Internet arguments from the sidelines, I get the impression that this lie/confusion is particularly vexing to those who aren't in the stereotypical social-justice camp.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bawolff 5y ago
I think this is largely damning of the american political system. These are all fairly mainstream center-left views. E.g. except for the get rid of beurocracy in the fda one, i agree with all of them, and im not particularly out there. If someone who has these relatively mainstream views feels unrepresented in the mainstream political discourse, something is wrong with the discourse.
- notahacker 5y ago
  > If someone who has these relatively mainstream views feels unrepresented in the mainstream political discourse, something is wrong with the discourse. Or that individual is really determined to believe that their relatively mainstream views are radical and individual
  - NavinF 5y ago
    Unfortunately his values are only mainstream on technical forums where everyone leans libertarian.
    - mattcwilson 5y ago
      I disagree. I think his views are much more widely agreeable among the populace, as evidenced by the popularity of forums such as the Joe Rogan podcast and independent journalism on Substack. The trouble is you wouldn’t notice if all you pay attention to in order to “understand American political discourse” is pay attention to the parties and the major news outlets. Also, preference falsification is a big thing.
    - LAC-Tech 5y ago
      It's 2021, not 2006. The libertarians have long since been replaced by CoC writers.
clavicat 5y ago
When your values lead you to [almost castrate yourself](https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=2119 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=2119) and then publicly flagellate yourself further when your supposed political allies dogpile you, maybe you should rethink them.
pezzana 5y ago
The structure of this essay sets up the paired positions as opposing ideologically, but it's not clear that they are. Take this for example: > It’s like, what do you call someone who’s absolutely terrified about global warming, and who thinks the best response would’ve been (and actually, still is) a historic surge in nuclear energy, possibly with geoengineering to tide us over? The Democratic Party has recently endorsed nuclear power: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2020/08/23/after-48-years-democrats-endorse-nuclear-energy-in-platform/?sh=f2297cd58293 https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2020/08/23/after-48... Republicans seem on board as well: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/543267-house-republicans-pitch-nuclear-natural-gas-as-cleaner-energy https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/543267-house-r... Others appear to be tautologies: > … who wants to end world hunger … and do it using GMO crops? I have yet to see anyone promote GMO as a way to make better tasting crops. It's always painted as a way to better feed the planet and reduce starvation. To support GMO seems to be an affirmation for ending world hunger. At least it would be entertaining to see someone try to argue that that's not the best use of GMO. Still other opinions are often heard, but when push comes to shove, actively opposed. For example: > … who supports free speech, to the point of proudly tolerating views that really, actually disgust them at their workplace, university, or online forum? Yet: > … who believes in patriotism, the police, the rule of law, to the extent that they don’t understand why all the enablers of the January 6 insurrection, up to and including Trump, aren’t currently facing trial for treason against the United States? Those who participated didn't think of themselves as traitors. They thought of themselves as doing their patriotic duty, exercising their Constitutional rights of speech and assembly, and their moral right of action against tyranny. They may be delusional, but that's how they describe themselves. Not coincidentally unlike the lawbreakers who interfered with nuclear weapons research, animal cruelty practices, racial discrimination, the British occupation, the Vietnam War, and abortion clinics.
- mtsr 5y ago
  I’ve mostly seen nuclear and GMO being promoted as a way to earn money by the promoter, their employer or their friends. Nuclear or GMO to improve the world is certainly an option but undoubtedly looks different than privatizing the profits and socializing the risks. And I’m convinced it would also be treated differently in the public debate (to an extent anyway) if approached in a different way.
Ericson2314 5y ago
I don't know how best to speak to these rationalist types. Here's a new attempt; There is a ---Dawkins----Gould--- political spectrum, and Scott and his people are in the Dawkins camp, in terms of the content certainly, but also in terms of the personal relationships, if one were to make a big over time social graph. The Gould camp however I think is the better / more correct / more insightful one.
- exolymph 5y ago
  We rationalist types already know that you think Gould is better, but that doesn't raise our opinion of you :P The guy has lied too many times (Google it, the takedowns abound). Back to the drawing board, I'm afraid.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    Aye, at least existence of the spectrum confirmed, tribe identity confirmed!
- tempestn 5y ago
  Could you elaborate what you see as the salient differences, and why you believe the Gould camp is more correct? Personally I agree pretty strongly with almost everything in the post, but I'm interested to hear the counter-argument.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    Well to start, it's not that I would say the Gould camp is against that list. The core differences are of method, and the outcome / end opinion differences are therefore of less importance. I am just going to go down the list and write some off the cuff thoughts > It’s like, what do you call someone who’s absolutely terrified about global warming, and who thinks the best response would’ve been (and actually, still is) a historic surge in nuclear energy, possibly with geoengineering to tide us over? > … who wants to end world hunger … and do it using GMO crops? Also, GMO this or Nuclear that I would not consider a point of disagreement. (I have no idea what Gould thought of those, but if he disagreed I suppose I would chalk that up to the era and say they are not the point of my construction.) A Gould person might be skeptical of "world hunger" as a concept, or the implicit characterization of it as something that has to do chiefly with how food is produced. > who wants to smash systems of entrenched privilege in college admissions … and believes that the SAT and other standardized tests are the best tools ever invented for that purpose? This might be a specifically Scott Aaronson thing. Personally speaking, I would say there was a time in elementary school (in California, too!) I was pissed they ended the skipping ahead in math program just as I hit the relevant age. But I feel like I was able to still end up doing plenty of advanced Math, so I am not too salty today. It's certainly not the keystone of my politics or world view. Maybe there is a larger story to tell here---I guess if I had to generalize I am more concerned with jobs being stupid and education being "supply without demand" absent 0-sum credentials rat race than the quality of the education itself---but then again maybe there isn't. I am not sure. > who feels a personal distaste for free markets, for the triviality of what they so often elevate and the depth of what they let languish, but tolerates them because they’ve done more than anything else to lift up the world’s poor? "world's poor" jumps out like "world hunger". How to characterize pre-industrial/modern/colonial consumption is very methodologically fraught. And China being the place where the absolute majority of this happened also muddies the water. Markets are interesting for allowing small scale social experiments, but whatever the story is on poverty without arbitrarily cropping history a Gould person would say is a lot more nuanced than Aaronson is giving it credit for. > … who’s happiest when telling the truth for the cause of social justice … but who, if told to lie for the cause of social justice, will probably choose silence or even, if pushed hard enough, truth? Mainstream culture war rots brains and wastes time. I am skipping this. > … who wants to legalize marijuana and psychedelics Sure > and also legalize all the promising treatments currently languishing in FDA approval hell? Yet merely promising stuff that gets out of FDA hell also slurps out of Medicare's teat in worrisome ways. Moreover, "treatments" is a very myopic way to look at public health. Some combination of: - Public healthcare - Abolition of car culture and other underlying causes of widespread unhealthiness - Separation of "treatment being good enough to make legal" and "treatment being good enough that the state should pay for it" - Drug bounties vs foisting all the risk on the private sector so it has to rent seek to recoup is more interesting to focus on > … who feels little attraction to the truth-claims of the world’s ancient religions, except insofar as they sometimes serve as prophylactics against newer and now even more virulent religions? Dawkins people are so hung up on religiosity as cause, not mere symptom. It also seems counter-productive tactically, even if it were true. Secularism does well when society rapidly technically advances and people are socialized enough to not need to search for alternatives. Darwins people seem to want to just indoctrinate secularism in ignorance of understanding the social processes that created it. > … who thinks the covid response of the CDC, FDA, and other authorities was a historic disgrace—not because it infringed on the personal liberties of antivaxxers or anything like that, but on the contrary, because it was weak, timid, bureaucratic, and slow, where it should’ve been like that of a general at war? No disagreement. But Gould people would say this is 0 surprise and fits large pattern of emaciated state and civil service, going back decades. > … who thinks the Nazi Holocaust was even worse than the mainstream acknowledges it to be, because in addition to the staggering, one-lifetime-isn’t-enough-to-internalize-it human tragedy, the Holocaust also sent up into smoke whatever cultural process had just produced Einstein, von Neumann, Szilard, Born, Meitner, Wigner, Haber, Pauling, Ulam, Tarski, Erdös, and Noether, and with it, one of the wellsprings of our technological civilization? No disagreement. Yeah important to realize the US intellectual spoils of war was still very sad and lost a lot of value. Don't extrapolate from Von Neumann loving the US that it was otherwise. This is a funny thing because Darkins people seem very in the Anglo-American intellectual tradition. Gouldists are open to more continental things, which I would argue probably are closer (not just geographically) to the pre-Nazi Central European intellectual tradition. Obviously Jews did have a huge and outsized contribution, but in the general strain of "19th Century nationalism was a mistake" I would argue it was a very pluralist tradition, in a region that had very complex ethnic and linguistic boundaries. > … who supports free speech, to the point of proudly tolerating views that really, actually disgust them at their workplace, university, or online forum? Kind of like secularism, no firm disagreement but less emphasis, and questioning of cause versus effect. Doctrinaire Liberalism holds that free speech must be self-supporting, and equivalence of moral good and sustainability. Other strands are less self-assuredly optimistic. > … who believes in patriotism, the police, the rule of law, to the extent that they don’t understand why all the enablers of the January 6 insurrection, up to and including Trump, aren’t currently facing trial for treason against the United States? This is kinda odd. "Treason" as a crime has very shaky foundations under liberalism. Where is the free speech/assembly/association absolutism now?! > … who’s (of course) disgusted to the core by Trump and everything he represents, but who’s also disgusted by the elite virtue-signalling hypocrisy that made the rise of a Trump-like backlash figure predictable? Thinks "elite hypocrisy" as a cause of Trump sounds like a lot of idealism and not very much materialism. > … who not only supports abortion rights, but also looks forward to a near future when parents, if they choose, are free to use embryo selection to make their children happier, smarter, healthier, and free of life-crippling diseases (unless the “bioethicists” destroy that future, as a previous generation of Deep Thinkers destroyed our nuclear future)? This stuff receives too much attention a la "trolley problem"s. But if one does support it, saying nothing about maintaining generic diversity, filtering absent full understanding of consequences, and evolution fundamental about optimizing against a dynamic and unpredictable metrics is rather poor tactics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law generalized, folks! > … who, when reading about the 1960s Sexual Revolution, instinctively sides with free-loving hippies and against the scolds … even if today’s scolds are themselves former hippies, or intellectual descendants thereof, who now clothe their denunciations of other people’s gross, creepy sexual desires in the garb of feminism and social justice? More culture war diversions. Hippie -> neoliberal pipeline I suppose could be interesting, but not in that way.
swayvil 5y ago
I think that most of us are missing the point. What he laid out here is just mainstream gospel. And then he punctuates it with "correct". Which is to say, he's calling out the latest popular totalitarianism. Yes, I might be spoiling the punchline here but it seems like it needs to be underlined.
- bobsmooth 5y ago
  Unfettered free speech and a heavy nuclear push are mainstream?
  - mattcwilson 5y ago
    It depends on if you’re defining “mainstream” as “that which is found to be the case commonly among the people” or “that which is popularized most loudly.”
lkrubner 5y ago
My politics are similar to the policy prescriptions that Scott Aaronson lists in this post. I prefer the pragmatism of nuclear energy over coal, and GMO food over famine. I appreciate the implicit irony of listing out the possible coalition possibilities for the sad coalition that holds too many 49% positions. (I’m using 49% here and elsewhere to mean less than 50%). I recently read the book Democracy For Realists that makes the point that in a society where people care about multiple issues there will be no 51% coalition that also holds the 51% position on every issue. It’s basically impossible. For anyone interested in the details of that theory, I posted a long excerpt here, along with an example: https://demodexio.substack.com/p/democracy-for-realists-part-4-of https://demodexio.substack.com/p/democracy-for-realists-part...
beeboop 5y ago
>who feels a personal distaste for free markets, for the triviality of what they so often elevate and the depth of what they let languish, but tolerates them because they’ve done more than anything else to lift up the world’s poor? I feel like this is a bad argument. There's never been an instance of non-free markets that was given any sort of room to grow healthily without substantial outside powers trying to force it to fail. Free markets being the standard economic model doesn't deserve any praise. It's impossible to know without more examples of non-free markets whether we're making progress because of it or despite it.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  > without substantial outside powers trying to force it to fail The only example I can think of is Soviet-style communism - I assume that the substantial outside powers you're referring to are western capitalism? If so... soviet communism was as substantial and working at least as hard (probably harder) to make capitalism fail, but capitalism was able to withstand assault by outside powers.
  - beeboop 5y ago
    I think what this tells is that capitalism, in our sample size of one, was better capable of withstanding assault. Not that it's a better system, that it serves people better, or is better at lifting people out of poverty. In fact it the evidence seems the opposite: European countries that are much less free-market and have strong socialist policies are overwhelmingly better places to live than the US for the poor, disabled, and disadvantaged. To claim that capitalism is the reason for people being lifted out of poverty just seems ridiculous when there's not really a way to show causation.
    - dataangel 5y ago
      Yes but if a system consistently fails in response to external pressure then it’s not an equilibrium, which will almost certainly end up being bad for the people under that system as they are conquered, annexed etc.
analog31 5y ago
Man, I could almost take that as a manifesto, which probably means that I need to carefully re-examine my beliefs yet again. Just about one thing: >>> encouraging kids to learn advanced math whenever they’re ready for it. I think the actual number of kids who are likely to be super advanced in math and continue with that interest past high school is so small that encouraging that interest will have absolutely no measurable effect on how the rest of us fare in school or life. Yet it could have a great effect on the quality of life for those kids, and for the future welfare of society. In fact, being great at math, given the tiny number of people who are, is a drop in the bucket compared to being great at computer programming. Likewise for kids who develop an aptitude for playing classical music.
- civilized 5y ago
  That's right! Letting gifted kids pursue their interests has essentially no cost to anyone else... except the Envious Levelers, who cannot stand the idea that someone might be reaching a level inaccessible to them because of a difference in talent and/or effort. I am in a constant state of shock and disgust at how many Envious Levelers there are in society, and their planet-engulfing sense of entitlement to drag everyone down to their level. Harrison Bergeron was written because it is a real possibility.
  - xupybd 5y ago
    The problem is some people honestly believe people are all capable of the same level of achievement. That the only thing that differentiates outcome is external to the individual. So if some children outperform others in Math it's because the system around the underperforming child failed that child. The reality is that all are not equal in ability but all should be free to choose the path they want. Some will become elite mathematicians, others trades men. They can both have great lives who are we to judge who is better off. Let the individual pick their own path and judge their outcomes for themselves.
    - civilized 5y ago
      Precisely. Inequality does not damn the world because there is no universal scale of human value, and everyone has value. Diversity is good, even the diversity that the DEI politburo doesn't like.
davesque 5y ago
It doesn't really strike me as incredibly outlandish to call someone like Aaronson simply correct, as he says at the end, albeit jokingly. He's always struck me as eminently rational. For that reason, he's established a great deal of trust with me and I'm sure with much of his reader base. Truly one of the most lucid thinkers of our time.
civilized 5y ago
If you're curious about the protest against the California Mathematics Framework which inspired this post, I highly recommend this article, which exposes the extremely shoddy and essentially fraudulent research used to justify the CMF: https://edsource.org/2021/one-districts-faulty-data-shouldnt-drive-californias-math-policy/663374 https://edsource.org/2021/one-districts-faulty-data-shouldnt... Perhaps the most shocking point from the article: the oft-trumpeted claim that SF schools reduced retake rates of Algebra 1 from 40% to 7% by delaying it to 9th grade is entirely fraudulent.
ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
These are completely mainstream liberal views and caricaturally imbued with moralizing self-importance. I know HN is as liberal a crowd as it comes but it's hard to believe you guys are eating it up, and don't see it for the obvious satire that it is.
- jimbokun 5y ago
  The problem is that more and more common mainstream beliefs are becoming blasphemy to the activist classes that wield disproportionate power and influence in the Democratic Party.
- mattcwilson 5y ago
  Could you point me to other examples of people publically professing values with a similar mix of stances, so that I can agree with you that these are completely mainstream?
ncmncm 5y ago
What I found remarkable about the list was the ones that were superficially appealing but fundamentally disastrous, in a way that takes more than a paragraph to explain why. E.g., right at the top: Geoengineering, really? Maybe he does not know the expression "termination shock". Or "ocean acidification". And, does the author know nothing of the history of nukes in the US? Nuke projects nowadays produce $10B+ ratepayer debt and, ten years on, zero watts.
- kharak 5y ago
  Your comment doesn't add anything without such an explanation.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    That would take more paragraphs than you would read.
    - kharak 5y ago
      > That would take more paragraphs than you would read. Your first post could be read as a thinly disguised insult. Your second post is the same, but even more in the open. I wonder what you get out of this behavior? I hoped for an interesting insight, given your strong assertion. edit I see you edited your first post. I guess that is as good as it gets.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        Yet, neither of your comments added any information at all. "Termination shock" and "ocean acidification" may be looked up and read about in as much detail as anybody cares for. Likewise, recent history of US nuke projects.
disambiguation 5y ago
This comes across as an academics utopia, especially the last bit. This also made me realize I haven't thought about utopia in a long time.

108 points by ggoo 5y ago

pphysch 5y ago

These are pretty clearly just liberal values (Locke, not DNC) plus a few hot takes.

cure 5y ago

Maybe that person is called "rational, open minded, generally good-hearted" ?

Ekaros 5y ago
Would have agreed, but then the Trump lines hit... Entirely forgetting the BLM terrorism and sedition in the previous year...
cgriswald 5y ago
From my own experience, what that person is called depends heavily on who is doing the calling.

kmonsen 5y ago

I can't believe any of that is controversial. All political systems have been extremely captured and are very polarized and focused on short term thinking to make us miss the forest and focus on tiny divisive details. I would never vote for anything but democrats in the current form, but I think they are deeply corrupt and not really working for the people. Sadly easily the best we have right now. Especially in California we could do with competition from good republicans. And from better democrats.

mellavora 5y ago
Yes, and keeping this generic to help keep HN politics-free, given that the US has a 2-party system, the nation only functions if both parties are functioning. If one goes off the rails, it is bad for both. You need the counterweight.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  What happens when neither party is functioning?
  - kmonsen 5y ago
    then we live in a one party state which is not democracy
  - CoastalCoder 5y ago
    I suppose we'll feel that in every area of life, both domestic and internationally. As a parent, especially of young men, this scares me greatly.
    - InTheArena 5y ago
      this. It feels like where are in the reverse of the 50s. Where the 50s promoted masculinity, downplayed femininity the exact opposite is true now. Instead of father knows best, it's instead father knows nothing. My best advice to young men - Be polite. Be deferential. Study well. Work hard. Take care of yourself. Help others. Don't assume that anyone is going to recognize your work or your achievements without crying privileged, but also realize that regardless of it that is true, you have a responsibility to help others. This seems to me to apropos to the original article.
      - jimbokun 5y ago
        Agreed there is a responsibility to help others. At the same time, some people demanding help and claiming oppression, are some of the most privileged people in society and more than capable of taking care of themselves. Direct your charity to those most in need of it.
Ma8ee 5y ago
Why do you feel that the Democrats are deeply corrupt?
- deberon 5y ago
  I think their meddling in the Bernie/Hillary primaries broke a lot of peoples trust in them.
  - lalaland1125 5y ago
    If a single person leaking a debate question (a person who then got immediately fired once exposed) is enough to call the Democrats corrupt, then I think that was a standard doomed to fail.
    - nitrogen 5y ago
      Superdelegates were also problematic, as was a constant drumbeat of the self-fulfilling word "unelectable." But that's ancient history at this point and the current challenges are different.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
peatmoss 5y ago
I feel the same way (lack of good alternatives from all sides), and find myself becoming a bit of a one-issue believer in - Open primaries - Ranked choice voting I believe our current system rewards either extremism or outwardly expressed extremism. Each side has to one-up others on the same side to prove that they are the purest avatar of their side. Current candidates are physical manifestations of click-bait. But at the same time, effective politics requires nuance and competence. The shouting match that is current US politics definitely lacks nuance. I believe nuance is a prerequisite to competence. In the last ~6 years or so, I learned that there are some people towards the middle, on the “other side” that I’d have been delighted to select as my #2 choice either for reasons of temperament or specific policies. Open primaries and ranked choice voting would have let me do that.
- zeruch 5y ago
  "I believe our current system rewards either extremism or outwardly expressed extremism." Pretty much. We've allowed a system of regulatory capture, gerrymandering, lobbying payola, and an incoherent pandering media pipeline to make the whole political discourse a giant meth-addled goat rodeo.
  - notpachet 5y ago
    > giant meth-addled goat rodeo Saving this one for a rainy day. Thank you. I frequently find myself in these, of one size or another.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

umvi 5y ago

He acts like his views are so nuanced that he can't be classified into a political bucket, yet like 90%+ are basically democratic party lines (pro abortion, pro sexual revolution, pro drugs, covid response should have been even stricter and of even greater scope than it was, etc).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
civilized 5y ago
At a time when the country is cutting off its nose to spite its face -- e.g. making it so nobody can take Algebra "early" because it wouldn't be "equitable" -- should we be judging people based on whether they agree with us about abortion and the sexual revolution? Maybe a bigger tent coalition is needed to restore sanity on basic things, such as "kids should be allowed to learn so they can function in a technological society"?
- crooked-v 5y ago
  Currently that bigger tent coalition is the Democrats, given that the only actual major Republican policy positions amount to "no abortion, lower taxes, and opposing whatever Democrats do".
  - civilized 5y ago
    Not really, given that Democrats control California 100% and attacks on early Algebra were the result. Neither major party is the coalition I'm talking about. It doesn't exist yet. But I can dream.
    - xxpor 5y ago
      It's more nuanced than that. America has the issue where there's 2 big tent parties, but there's a million little fiefdoms that are easily captured by radicals. Things like local school boards, where people just don't have the time and energy to pay attention to every detail. Last November, my ballot up here in Seattle had 25+ things to vote on. In California it's probably even worse. I get why the 2 party system evolved at the federal level, but there's no reason why we couldn't have more parties at the local level. That's exactly what happens in Canada, for example.

motohagiography 5y ago

To me he's someone who has taken the trouble to think things through, and even if he said something that was profoundly offensive to me, I'd just be more interested in why he thought it. It has clicked recently that I now understand how urgent it is to develop tech to find and inhabit other planets, as the moment we got a picture of our own planet from the moon, whether anyone acknowledged it or not, life and culture here has became a finite zero sum game, and I now doubt that's something we can roll back. This isn't even a negative view, it's just that the tech that enables it will also enable a new source of hope that I think people can orient toward again.

nojs 5y ago

One thing I am increasingly noticing as I get older is that the most interesting people hold wildly different political stances on different topics, meaning you can’t predict their stance on any given topic based on political affiliation alone. In fact, I think this alone would be one of the be best predictors of a person’s intellect and interest in thinking deeply about things: ask 10 politically polarising questions in different areas and score responses based on how diverse they are.

dataangel 5y ago
I’m going to answer your questionnaire randomly and look like a genius.
noduerme 5y ago
Looked at another way, the real measure of intellect is how consistent a person's views are within a logical framework. I'm not sure this writer's opinions are actually "diverse". They're pretty logically consistent, (and I happen to agree with all of them, which is rare). They just appear heterodox from the perspective of one or the other party platform in the US. But it is those party platforms which hold truly diverse policy ideas - in the sense that their policies are logically inconsistent and conflicting. To illustrate what I'm trying to say, consider the two polarizing issues of abortion and capital punishment. The standard right-of-center view in the US - if you asked almost any Republican - is to be pro-life when it comes to individuals not killing fetuses and pro-death when it comes to the State killing grown adults. This is not only inconsistent in its logical application of whether anyone has a right to kill anyone, but also wildly inconsistent with the right wing's antipathy toward state power over the individual. Meanwhile, the other party in this country is anti-death-penalty by the state and pro-choice for the individual, while preferring state power over individual autonomy in most other cases. Now who's holding wildly different, inconsistent political stances on polarizing questions? Probably the 70% or so of Americans who hew to either the standard liberal or conservative platforms, without considering their internal contradictions.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  It's not true, though, that 70% of Americans hew to standard partisan platforms. Polling consistently shows that support is heterogeneous (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/5-views-of-parties-positions-on-issues-ideologies/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/5-views-of-p...): positions on individual issues have strong majority support within each party, but a strong majority of individual people disagree with some of their party's positions.

vanusa 5y ago

It’s like, what do you call someone who’s absolutely terrified about global warming, and who thinks the best response would’ve been (and actually, still is) a historic surge in nuclear energy, possibly with geoengineering to tide us over? … who wants to end world hunger … and do it using GMO crops? On first blush, I would say this is someone who is somehow overly attracted to idealized approaches -- dare we say silver bullets? -- without considering secondary effects or big picture, problem-first analysis. Most of his positions / proposals sound a lot better, but something seems off "off" about these first two. The first one just doesn't pass the smell test. Nuke plants are expensive and slow to build, and wishing it were otherwise won't make it so; and from a basic risk analysis perspective, it would be foolish to put most of our eggs in the geoengineering basket, without putting the problem of near-term emissions front and center. And as for the second -- let's just say the problem of global hunger is perhaps more multi-level and multi-factored than the issues that GMO, even in a best case scenario, can ever hope to address.

bawolff 5y ago
Maybe its all in the eye of the beholder, but those two seemed like some of the most common sense mainstream ones to me.
ip26 5y ago
History is littered with silver bullets. Automobiles solved the problem of knee deep horse manure in New York City once and for all. The Haeber-Bosch process quadrupled the productivity of agricultural land. Vaccines played a key role in eradicating smallpox. Etc. There are problems with all these technologies, and great depth to each of the challenges they address, but just as coal was a revolution over wood, and natural gas over coal, so too can imperfect solar, wind, or nuclear be over natural gas. Or perhaps GMOs will help us reverse some of the sins of today’s mono crops.
- vanusa 5y ago
  Automobiles solved the problem of knee deep horse manure in New York City once and for all. In exchange for poisoning the air, killing streetcars, and (with the help of farcically idealistic mid-century urban planning) decimating whole communities, physically and spiritually (not so coincidentally with disproportionate effects on certain disadvantaged groups). A silver bullet to the horse manure problem, perhaps, but to the sustainable public transport problem .. a dull hammer, wouldn't you think? Just as coal was a revolution over wood, and natural gas over coal, so too can imperfect solar, wind, or nuclear be over natural gas. Or perhaps GMOs will help us reverse some of the sins of today’s mono crops. I agree that both nukes and GMOs can potentially be part of the arsenal of approaches to these problems. But to anoint them as our "best" solutions to these problem strikes me as fanciful, to say the least.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lalaland1125 5y ago

> ... who feels little attraction to the truth-claims of the world’s ancient religions, except insofar as they sometimes serve as prophylactics against newer and now even more virulent religions? The intuition behind this is appealing (that a lack of religion invites a void that is filled by crazier things), but the current evidence seems to indicate that this is incorrect. Mainstream religions aren't a "prophylactic" against newer craziness like QAnon. In fact, the reality is the opposite. QAnon is most effective in converting people who already believe in Christianity. You could also look at partisanship. Countries with less religion aren't really any more partisan.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> The intuition behind this is appealing (that a lack of religion invites a void that is filled by crazier things), but the current evidence seems to indicate that this is incorrect. Mainstream religions aren't a "prophylactic" against newer craziness like QAnon. > In fact, the reality is the opposite. QAnon is most effective in converting people who already believe in Christianity. I don't think you're looking at the right things. If you'll permit an extended quote from another Scott: > In high school I took a sociology class, and the teacher talked about how modern society was atomized and there were no real community bonds and so on. And I thought this was dumb. I didn’t live in an atomized society! My family knew our next-door neighbors, and we’d even been over at their house once for dinner. There was a Community Center a few blocks away, and when I was a kid I would go there a couple of times a year for some kind of Neighborhood Art Night. Sometimes my mother volunteered at my school, and my dad was too busy to volunteer but probably would have if he could. We weren’t devoid of community at all. > And then three things happened. Number one, I read some good anthropology about primitive and medieval societies, which actually described pre-atomized life and the way that there was barely even an individual identity and the community determined everything you ever did. Number two, I spent a little time in an honest-to-goodness Third World village and saw a little of what life was like there. And number three, I got involved in some good subcultures – including Bay Area rationality – which were slightly but noticeably less atomized than the neighborhood where I grew up. I realized that I’d mistaken the existent-but-weak forms of community in my suburban neighborhood for the really-strong forms of community that people complaining about atomization say we’re missing, because I had so little experience with the latter I couldn’t even imagine them. ( https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/07/concept-shaped-holes-can-be-impossible-to-notice/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/07/concept-shaped-holes-c... ) You're looking at the void that people are trying to fill with newer, more satisfying religions, calling that void "mainstream religion", and then saying that mainstream religion doesn't block the adoption of newer more virulent religions. But mainstream religion in the United States died a long time ago. The people you're "disagreeing" with are looking at the same void, calling it a void, and complaining that there's nothing there to block the adoption of maladaptive beliefs. Which is the same complaint that you're making.

ipaddr 5y ago

"… who’s happiest when telling the truth for the cause of social justice … but who, if told to lie for the cause of social justice, will probably choose silence or even, if pushed hard enough, truth?" Does everyone lie for the social justice cause because the truth never matches a pure ideological idea? Is silence accepting the lie here empowering social justice or by not fully supporting the lie are you cast out of the movement and seen as working for the man or for power?

CoastalCoder 5y ago
IIUC, there's a meta-lie (or at least confusion) here. (Apologies if I've misunderstood; corrections greatly appreciated.) - Every person of intelligence and good will agrees upon the definition of "social justice". - Every person who disagrees with "${author}" 's conception of social justice is at best part of the problem, or at worst a willing agent evil. Having read some social-justice-related Internet arguments from the sidelines, I get the impression that this lie/confusion is particularly vexing to those who aren't in the stereotypical social-justice camp.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bawolff 5y ago

I think this is largely damning of the american political system. These are all fairly mainstream center-left views. E.g. except for the get rid of beurocracy in the fda one, i agree with all of them, and im not particularly out there. If someone who has these relatively mainstream views feels unrepresented in the mainstream political discourse, something is wrong with the discourse.

notahacker 5y ago
> If someone who has these relatively mainstream views feels unrepresented in the mainstream political discourse, something is wrong with the discourse. Or that individual is really determined to believe that their relatively mainstream views are radical and individual
- NavinF 5y ago
  Unfortunately his values are only mainstream on technical forums where everyone leans libertarian.
  - mattcwilson 5y ago
    I disagree. I think his views are much more widely agreeable among the populace, as evidenced by the popularity of forums such as the Joe Rogan podcast and independent journalism on Substack. The trouble is you wouldn’t notice if all you pay attention to in order to “understand American political discourse” is pay attention to the parties and the major news outlets. Also, preference falsification is a big thing.
  - LAC-Tech 5y ago
    It's 2021, not 2006. The libertarians have long since been replaced by CoC writers.

clavicat 5y ago

When your values lead you to [almost castrate yourself](https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=2119 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=2119) and then publicly flagellate yourself further when your supposed political allies dogpile you, maybe you should rethink them.

pezzana 5y ago

The structure of this essay sets up the paired positions as opposing ideologically, but it's not clear that they are. Take this for example: > It’s like, what do you call someone who’s absolutely terrified about global warming, and who thinks the best response would’ve been (and actually, still is) a historic surge in nuclear energy, possibly with geoengineering to tide us over? The Democratic Party has recently endorsed nuclear power: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2020/08/23/after-48-years-democrats-endorse-nuclear-energy-in-platform/?sh=f2297cd58293 https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2020/08/23/after-48... Republicans seem on board as well: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/543267-house-republicans-pitch-nuclear-natural-gas-as-cleaner-energy https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/543267-house-r... Others appear to be tautologies: > … who wants to end world hunger … and do it using GMO crops? I have yet to see anyone promote GMO as a way to make better tasting crops. It's always painted as a way to better feed the planet and reduce starvation. To support GMO seems to be an affirmation for ending world hunger. At least it would be entertaining to see someone try to argue that that's not the best use of GMO. Still other opinions are often heard, but when push comes to shove, actively opposed. For example: > … who supports free speech, to the point of proudly tolerating views that really, actually disgust them at their workplace, university, or online forum? Yet: > … who believes in patriotism, the police, the rule of law, to the extent that they don’t understand why all the enablers of the January 6 insurrection, up to and including Trump, aren’t currently facing trial for treason against the United States? Those who participated didn't think of themselves as traitors. They thought of themselves as doing their patriotic duty, exercising their Constitutional rights of speech and assembly, and their moral right of action against tyranny. They may be delusional, but that's how they describe themselves. Not coincidentally unlike the lawbreakers who interfered with nuclear weapons research, animal cruelty practices, racial discrimination, the British occupation, the Vietnam War, and abortion clinics.

mtsr 5y ago
I’ve mostly seen nuclear and GMO being promoted as a way to earn money by the promoter, their employer or their friends. Nuclear or GMO to improve the world is certainly an option but undoubtedly looks different than privatizing the profits and socializing the risks. And I’m convinced it would also be treated differently in the public debate (to an extent anyway) if approached in a different way.

Ericson2314 5y ago

I don't know how best to speak to these rationalist types. Here's a new attempt; There is a ---Dawkins----Gould--- political spectrum, and Scott and his people are in the Dawkins camp, in terms of the content certainly, but also in terms of the personal relationships, if one were to make a big over time social graph. The Gould camp however I think is the better / more correct / more insightful one.

exolymph 5y ago
We rationalist types already know that you think Gould is better, but that doesn't raise our opinion of you :P The guy has lied too many times (Google it, the takedowns abound). Back to the drawing board, I'm afraid.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Aye, at least existence of the spectrum confirmed, tribe identity confirmed!
tempestn 5y ago
Could you elaborate what you see as the salient differences, and why you believe the Gould camp is more correct? Personally I agree pretty strongly with almost everything in the post, but I'm interested to hear the counter-argument.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Well to start, it's not that I would say the Gould camp is against that list. The core differences are of method, and the outcome / end opinion differences are therefore of less importance. I am just going to go down the list and write some off the cuff thoughts > It’s like, what do you call someone who’s absolutely terrified about global warming, and who thinks the best response would’ve been (and actually, still is) a historic surge in nuclear energy, possibly with geoengineering to tide us over? > … who wants to end world hunger … and do it using GMO crops? Also, GMO this or Nuclear that I would not consider a point of disagreement. (I have no idea what Gould thought of those, but if he disagreed I suppose I would chalk that up to the era and say they are not the point of my construction.) A Gould person might be skeptical of "world hunger" as a concept, or the implicit characterization of it as something that has to do chiefly with how food is produced. > who wants to smash systems of entrenched privilege in college admissions … and believes that the SAT and other standardized tests are the best tools ever invented for that purpose? This might be a specifically Scott Aaronson thing. Personally speaking, I would say there was a time in elementary school (in California, too!) I was pissed they ended the skipping ahead in math program just as I hit the relevant age. But I feel like I was able to still end up doing plenty of advanced Math, so I am not too salty today. It's certainly not the keystone of my politics or world view. Maybe there is a larger story to tell here---I guess if I had to generalize I am more concerned with jobs being stupid and education being "supply without demand" absent 0-sum credentials rat race than the quality of the education itself---but then again maybe there isn't. I am not sure. > who feels a personal distaste for free markets, for the triviality of what they so often elevate and the depth of what they let languish, but tolerates them because they’ve done more than anything else to lift up the world’s poor? "world's poor" jumps out like "world hunger". How to characterize pre-industrial/modern/colonial consumption is very methodologically fraught. And China being the place where the absolute majority of this happened also muddies the water. Markets are interesting for allowing small scale social experiments, but whatever the story is on poverty without arbitrarily cropping history a Gould person would say is a lot more nuanced than Aaronson is giving it credit for. > … who’s happiest when telling the truth for the cause of social justice … but who, if told to lie for the cause of social justice, will probably choose silence or even, if pushed hard enough, truth? Mainstream culture war rots brains and wastes time. I am skipping this. > … who wants to legalize marijuana and psychedelics Sure > and also legalize all the promising treatments currently languishing in FDA approval hell? Yet merely promising stuff that gets out of FDA hell also slurps out of Medicare's teat in worrisome ways. Moreover, "treatments" is a very myopic way to look at public health. Some combination of: - Public healthcare - Abolition of car culture and other underlying causes of widespread unhealthiness - Separation of "treatment being good enough to make legal" and "treatment being good enough that the state should pay for it" - Drug bounties vs foisting all the risk on the private sector so it has to rent seek to recoup is more interesting to focus on > … who feels little attraction to the truth-claims of the world’s ancient religions, except insofar as they sometimes serve as prophylactics against newer and now even more virulent religions? Dawkins people are so hung up on religiosity as cause, not mere symptom. It also seems counter-productive tactically, even if it were true. Secularism does well when society rapidly technically advances and people are socialized enough to not need to search for alternatives. Darwins people seem to want to just indoctrinate secularism in ignorance of understanding the social processes that created it. > … who thinks the covid response of the CDC, FDA, and other authorities was a historic disgrace—not because it infringed on the personal liberties of antivaxxers or anything like that, but on the contrary, because it was weak, timid, bureaucratic, and slow, where it should’ve been like that of a general at war? No disagreement. But Gould people would say this is 0 surprise and fits large pattern of emaciated state and civil service, going back decades. > … who thinks the Nazi Holocaust was even worse than the mainstream acknowledges it to be, because in addition to the staggering, one-lifetime-isn’t-enough-to-internalize-it human tragedy, the Holocaust also sent up into smoke whatever cultural process had just produced Einstein, von Neumann, Szilard, Born, Meitner, Wigner, Haber, Pauling, Ulam, Tarski, Erdös, and Noether, and with it, one of the wellsprings of our technological civilization? No disagreement. Yeah important to realize the US intellectual spoils of war was still very sad and lost a lot of value. Don't extrapolate from Von Neumann loving the US that it was otherwise. This is a funny thing because Darkins people seem very in the Anglo-American intellectual tradition. Gouldists are open to more continental things, which I would argue probably are closer (not just geographically) to the pre-Nazi Central European intellectual tradition. Obviously Jews did have a huge and outsized contribution, but in the general strain of "19th Century nationalism was a mistake" I would argue it was a very pluralist tradition, in a region that had very complex ethnic and linguistic boundaries. > … who supports free speech, to the point of proudly tolerating views that really, actually disgust them at their workplace, university, or online forum? Kind of like secularism, no firm disagreement but less emphasis, and questioning of cause versus effect. Doctrinaire Liberalism holds that free speech must be self-supporting, and equivalence of moral good and sustainability. Other strands are less self-assuredly optimistic. > … who believes in patriotism, the police, the rule of law, to the extent that they don’t understand why all the enablers of the January 6 insurrection, up to and including Trump, aren’t currently facing trial for treason against the United States? This is kinda odd. "Treason" as a crime has very shaky foundations under liberalism. Where is the free speech/assembly/association absolutism now?! > … who’s (of course) disgusted to the core by Trump and everything he represents, but who’s also disgusted by the elite virtue-signalling hypocrisy that made the rise of a Trump-like backlash figure predictable? Thinks "elite hypocrisy" as a cause of Trump sounds like a lot of idealism and not very much materialism. > … who not only supports abortion rights, but also looks forward to a near future when parents, if they choose, are free to use embryo selection to make their children happier, smarter, healthier, and free of life-crippling diseases (unless the “bioethicists” destroy that future, as a previous generation of Deep Thinkers destroyed our nuclear future)? This stuff receives too much attention a la "trolley problem"s. But if one does support it, saying nothing about maintaining generic diversity, filtering absent full understanding of consequences, and evolution fundamental about optimizing against a dynamic and unpredictable metrics is rather poor tactics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law generalized, folks! > … who, when reading about the 1960s Sexual Revolution, instinctively sides with free-loving hippies and against the scolds … even if today’s scolds are themselves former hippies, or intellectual descendants thereof, who now clothe their denunciations of other people’s gross, creepy sexual desires in the garb of feminism and social justice? More culture war diversions. Hippie -> neoliberal pipeline I suppose could be interesting, but not in that way.

swayvil 5y ago

I think that most of us are missing the point. What he laid out here is just mainstream gospel. And then he punctuates it with "correct". Which is to say, he's calling out the latest popular totalitarianism. Yes, I might be spoiling the punchline here but it seems like it needs to be underlined.

bobsmooth 5y ago
Unfettered free speech and a heavy nuclear push are mainstream?
- mattcwilson 5y ago
  It depends on if you’re defining “mainstream” as “that which is found to be the case commonly among the people” or “that which is popularized most loudly.”

lkrubner 5y ago

My politics are similar to the policy prescriptions that Scott Aaronson lists in this post. I prefer the pragmatism of nuclear energy over coal, and GMO food over famine. I appreciate the implicit irony of listing out the possible coalition possibilities for the sad coalition that holds too many 49% positions. (I’m using 49% here and elsewhere to mean less than 50%). I recently read the book Democracy For Realists that makes the point that in a society where people care about multiple issues there will be no 51% coalition that also holds the 51% position on every issue. It’s basically impossible. For anyone interested in the details of that theory, I posted a long excerpt here, along with an example: https://demodexio.substack.com/p/democracy-for-realists-part-4-of https://demodexio.substack.com/p/democracy-for-realists-part...

beeboop 5y ago

>who feels a personal distaste for free markets, for the triviality of what they so often elevate and the depth of what they let languish, but tolerates them because they’ve done more than anything else to lift up the world’s poor? I feel like this is a bad argument. There's never been an instance of non-free markets that was given any sort of room to grow healthily without substantial outside powers trying to force it to fail. Free markets being the standard economic model doesn't deserve any praise. It's impossible to know without more examples of non-free markets whether we're making progress because of it or despite it.

commandlinefan 5y ago
> without substantial outside powers trying to force it to fail The only example I can think of is Soviet-style communism - I assume that the substantial outside powers you're referring to are western capitalism? If so... soviet communism was as substantial and working at least as hard (probably harder) to make capitalism fail, but capitalism was able to withstand assault by outside powers.
- beeboop 5y ago
  I think what this tells is that capitalism, in our sample size of one, was better capable of withstanding assault. Not that it's a better system, that it serves people better, or is better at lifting people out of poverty. In fact it the evidence seems the opposite: European countries that are much less free-market and have strong socialist policies are overwhelmingly better places to live than the US for the poor, disabled, and disadvantaged. To claim that capitalism is the reason for people being lifted out of poverty just seems ridiculous when there's not really a way to show causation.
  - dataangel 5y ago
    Yes but if a system consistently fails in response to external pressure then it’s not an equilibrium, which will almost certainly end up being bad for the people under that system as they are conquered, annexed etc.

analog31 5y ago

Man, I could almost take that as a manifesto, which probably means that I need to carefully re-examine my beliefs yet again. Just about one thing: >>> encouraging kids to learn advanced math whenever they’re ready for it. I think the actual number of kids who are likely to be super advanced in math and continue with that interest past high school is so small that encouraging that interest will have absolutely no measurable effect on how the rest of us fare in school or life. Yet it could have a great effect on the quality of life for those kids, and for the future welfare of society. In fact, being great at math, given the tiny number of people who are, is a drop in the bucket compared to being great at computer programming. Likewise for kids who develop an aptitude for playing classical music.

civilized 5y ago
That's right! Letting gifted kids pursue their interests has essentially no cost to anyone else... except the Envious Levelers, who cannot stand the idea that someone might be reaching a level inaccessible to them because of a difference in talent and/or effort. I am in a constant state of shock and disgust at how many Envious Levelers there are in society, and their planet-engulfing sense of entitlement to drag everyone down to their level. Harrison Bergeron was written because it is a real possibility.
- xupybd 5y ago
  The problem is some people honestly believe people are all capable of the same level of achievement. That the only thing that differentiates outcome is external to the individual. So if some children outperform others in Math it's because the system around the underperforming child failed that child. The reality is that all are not equal in ability but all should be free to choose the path they want. Some will become elite mathematicians, others trades men. They can both have great lives who are we to judge who is better off. Let the individual pick their own path and judge their outcomes for themselves.
  - civilized 5y ago
    Precisely. Inequality does not damn the world because there is no universal scale of human value, and everyone has value. Diversity is good, even the diversity that the DEI politburo doesn't like.

davesque 5y ago

It doesn't really strike me as incredibly outlandish to call someone like Aaronson simply correct, as he says at the end, albeit jokingly. He's always struck me as eminently rational. For that reason, he's established a great deal of trust with me and I'm sure with much of his reader base. Truly one of the most lucid thinkers of our time.

civilized 5y ago

If you're curious about the protest against the California Mathematics Framework which inspired this post, I highly recommend this article, which exposes the extremely shoddy and essentially fraudulent research used to justify the CMF: https://edsource.org/2021/one-districts-faulty-data-shouldnt-drive-californias-math-policy/663374 https://edsource.org/2021/one-districts-faulty-data-shouldnt... Perhaps the most shocking point from the article: the oft-trumpeted claim that SF schools reduced retake rates of Algebra 1 from 40% to 7% by delaying it to 9th grade is entirely fraudulent.

ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago

These are completely mainstream liberal views and caricaturally imbued with moralizing self-importance. I know HN is as liberal a crowd as it comes but it's hard to believe you guys are eating it up, and don't see it for the obvious satire that it is.

jimbokun 5y ago
The problem is that more and more common mainstream beliefs are becoming blasphemy to the activist classes that wield disproportionate power and influence in the Democratic Party.
mattcwilson 5y ago
Could you point me to other examples of people publically professing values with a similar mix of stances, so that I can agree with you that these are completely mainstream?

ncmncm 5y ago

What I found remarkable about the list was the ones that were superficially appealing but fundamentally disastrous, in a way that takes more than a paragraph to explain why. E.g., right at the top: Geoengineering, really? Maybe he does not know the expression "termination shock". Or "ocean acidification". And, does the author know nothing of the history of nukes in the US? Nuke projects nowadays produce $10B+ ratepayer debt and, ten years on, zero watts.

kharak 5y ago
Your comment doesn't add anything without such an explanation.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  That would take more paragraphs than you would read.
  - kharak 5y ago
    > That would take more paragraphs than you would read. Your first post could be read as a thinly disguised insult. Your second post is the same, but even more in the open. I wonder what you get out of this behavior? I hoped for an interesting insight, given your strong assertion. edit I see you edited your first post. I guess that is as good as it gets.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Yet, neither of your comments added any information at all. "Termination shock" and "ocean acidification" may be looked up and read about in as much detail as anybody cares for. Likewise, recent history of US nuke projects.

disambiguation 5y ago

This comes across as an academics utopia, especially the last bit. This also made me realize I haven't thought about utopia in a long time.