3 ms·

> This is what happens, without exception, is it? No. There are other lines. This is just the relevant one here. > Of course. Americans never fall for propaga

> This is what happens, without exception, is it? No. There are other lines. This is just the relevant one here. > Of course. Americans never fall for propaganda, only their geopolitical rivals do. All of them, all the time. No. We fall for propaganda too.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mistermann 4y ago
> This is just [the] relevant one here. According to whom?
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  Context? Although, I suppose that isn't an entity with agency, so "whom" feels like the wrong word.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    I have an alternative way of coming at the problem: what is the (actually) true causality (as opposed to "true" "justification") that preceded this event? In my experience, this perspective is extremely unpopular (and is usually responded to with rhetoric, memes, not-actually-factual "facts", insults, rate-limiting, etc - for examples, see the thread we are in), but I'm curious what you think?
    - BobbyJo 4y ago
      Causality is only useful in geopolitics on extremely large timescales. It's useful to inform future behavior to some degree (if someone replaces Putin, will they have similar motivations?), but most responses are, by necessity, reactionary (which action can we take that is most aligned with our priorities at the moment). The events in Ukraine will inform future dealings with Russia, and other regimes we think might have similar motivations, but there isn't much use in asking "how we got here" when it comes to our goals for today, or this year. We don't want an expansionist Russia, so we have to make expansionism costly. It's like having a broken arm. Causality will inform you how to avoid a similar accident in the future, but no matter what happened, you still need to go to the doctor and get a cast today.
      - mistermann 4y ago
        > Causality is only useful in geopolitics on extremely large timescales. I disagree. I use causality on a day today basis. For example, with people I know I build a model of how they like to be interacted with, and I try to stay within a range that they will find pleasing. I suspect I am not the only one who does this. > but there isn't much use in asking "how we got here" when it comes to our goals for today, or this year. I am skeptical. Can you explain why you believe this to be necessarily true? > We don't want an expansionist Russia, so we have to make expansionism costly. Might it have been less costly if this war didn't begin in the first place? And if so, wouldn't having a better understanding of the causality be at least possibly useful? > It's like having a broken arm. Causality will inform you how to avoid a similar accident in the future, but no matter what happened, you still need to go to the doctor and get a cast today. Agreed, but wouldn't it be useful to remember what caused one to get the broken arm in the first place, and then avoid that situation in the future so it doesn't happen again? I'm also curious if you have any comments on my theory about the difference between a justification perspective and a true (!) causality perspective. Isn't it at least plausibly useful to consider both?
        BobbyJo 4y ago
        > I disagree. I use causality on a day today basis. For example, with people I know I build a model of how they like to be interacted with, and I try to stay within a range that they will find pleasing. Is that model based on information you collected that day? Mostly no. > I am skeptical. Can you explain why you believe this to be necessarily true? Proactive vs reactive. Causality is good for planning or initiating, but ultimately what happens happens, and you need to respond in a way that produces the best possible outcome with the highest likelyhood. I'm not saying that as an absolute, I just believe it to be the most efficient mode of operating, and seems to reflect most geopolitical interactions. > Might it have been less costly if this war didn't begin in the first place? Of course, and we can learn a lot from looking at why. That doesn't really fit into this instance of cyber defense though. There is no lesson to be learned that makes you give up and hand over digital systems to an adversary. > Agreed, but wouldn't it be useful to remember what caused one to get the broken arm in the first place, and then avoid that situation in the future so it doesn't happen again? I pointed out exactly that. My point was that no matter what lesson you learned, you still need the cast. I'm not saying causality isn't helpful, I'm just saying it's not helpful here.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mistermann 4y ago

> This is just [the] relevant one here. According to whom?

BobbyJo 4y ago
Context? Although, I suppose that isn't an entity with agency, so "whom" feels like the wrong word.
- mistermann 4y ago
  I have an alternative way of coming at the problem: what is the (actually) true causality (as opposed to "true" "justification") that preceded this event? In my experience, this perspective is extremely unpopular (and is usually responded to with rhetoric, memes, not-actually-factual "facts", insults, rate-limiting, etc - for examples, see the thread we are in), but I'm curious what you think?
  - BobbyJo 4y ago
    Causality is only useful in geopolitics on extremely large timescales. It's useful to inform future behavior to some degree (if someone replaces Putin, will they have similar motivations?), but most responses are, by necessity, reactionary (which action can we take that is most aligned with our priorities at the moment). The events in Ukraine will inform future dealings with Russia, and other regimes we think might have similar motivations, but there isn't much use in asking "how we got here" when it comes to our goals for today, or this year. We don't want an expansionist Russia, so we have to make expansionism costly. It's like having a broken arm. Causality will inform you how to avoid a similar accident in the future, but no matter what happened, you still need to go to the doctor and get a cast today.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      > Causality is only useful in geopolitics on extremely large timescales. I disagree. I use causality on a day today basis. For example, with people I know I build a model of how they like to be interacted with, and I try to stay within a range that they will find pleasing. I suspect I am not the only one who does this. > but there isn't much use in asking "how we got here" when it comes to our goals for today, or this year. I am skeptical. Can you explain why you believe this to be necessarily true? > We don't want an expansionist Russia, so we have to make expansionism costly. Might it have been less costly if this war didn't begin in the first place? And if so, wouldn't having a better understanding of the causality be at least possibly useful? > It's like having a broken arm. Causality will inform you how to avoid a similar accident in the future, but no matter what happened, you still need to go to the doctor and get a cast today. Agreed, but wouldn't it be useful to remember what caused one to get the broken arm in the first place, and then avoid that situation in the future so it doesn't happen again? I'm also curious if you have any comments on my theory about the difference between a justification perspective and a true (!) causality perspective. Isn't it at least plausibly useful to consider both?
      - BobbyJo 4y ago
        > I disagree. I use causality on a day today basis. For example, with people I know I build a model of how they like to be interacted with, and I try to stay within a range that they will find pleasing. Is that model based on information you collected that day? Mostly no. > I am skeptical. Can you explain why you believe this to be necessarily true? Proactive vs reactive. Causality is good for planning or initiating, but ultimately what happens happens, and you need to respond in a way that produces the best possible outcome with the highest likelyhood. I'm not saying that as an absolute, I just believe it to be the most efficient mode of operating, and seems to reflect most geopolitical interactions. > Might it have been less costly if this war didn't begin in the first place? Of course, and we can learn a lot from looking at why. That doesn't really fit into this instance of cyber defense though. There is no lesson to be learned that makes you give up and hand over digital systems to an adversary. > Agreed, but wouldn't it be useful to remember what caused one to get the broken arm in the first place, and then avoid that situation in the future so it doesn't happen again? I pointed out exactly that. My point was that no matter what lesson you learned, you still need the cast. I'm not saying causality isn't helpful, I'm just saying it's not helpful here.