3 ms·

> 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 wi

> 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.

mistermann 4y ago
> Is that model based on information you collected that day? Mostly no. Of course not, but how is that relevant to whether causality is only(!) useful in geopolitics on extremely large timescales? > Proactive vs reactive. Causality is good for planning or initiating, but ultimately what happens happens... It does indeed, and that is a function of what preceded the event happening....you know: causality. > ...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. And I agree (it's my point!)...but that is not contrary to anything I've said, at least as far as I can tell. > Of course, and we can learn a lot from looking at why. Do you believe we do a good job of this? Do you believe that the US Government promotes causal thinking among the public (as opposed to encouraging them to think in other forms, such as justification)? > That doesn't really fit into this instance of cyber defense though. It is certainly relevant to a lot of the "facts" being laid down in the discussions here. > There is no lesson to be learned that makes you give up and hand over digital systems to an adversary. I don't think anyone is proposing that we "give up and hand over digital systems to an adversary". Maximally absurd hyperbole is useful when it comes to rhetoric during internet arguments, but for clear thinking I believe it is detrimental. > 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. Can you explain why causality has zero utility here? For example: how events unfold in Ukraine has some dependency on Vladimir Putin - do you think there is zero utility in at least considering his opinion on such matters? And to be clear: I am in no way proposing that we roll over and give into every demand he has - rather, I am proposing that we engage in clear, unbiased, truthful, "good faith" conversation, to the extent of our abilities. To me, this seems like a good idea.

mistermann 4y ago

> Is that model based on information you collected that day? Mostly no. Of course not, but how is that relevant to whether causality is only(!) useful in geopolitics on extremely large timescales? > Proactive vs reactive. Causality is good for planning or initiating, but ultimately what happens happens... It does indeed, and that is a function of what preceded the event happening....you know: causality. > ...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. And I agree (it's my point!)...but that is not contrary to anything I've said, at least as far as I can tell. > Of course, and we can learn a lot from looking at why. Do you believe we do a good job of this? Do you believe that the US Government promotes causal thinking among the public (as opposed to encouraging them to think in other forms, such as justification)? > That doesn't really fit into this instance of cyber defense though. It is certainly relevant to a lot of the "facts" being laid down in the discussions here. > There is no lesson to be learned that makes you give up and hand over digital systems to an adversary. I don't think anyone is proposing that we "give up and hand over digital systems to an adversary". Maximally absurd hyperbole is useful when it comes to rhetoric during internet arguments, but for clear thinking I believe it is detrimental. > 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. Can you explain why causality has zero utility here? For example: how events unfold in Ukraine has some dependency on Vladimir Putin - do you think there is zero utility in at least considering his opinion on such matters? And to be clear: I am in no way proposing that we roll over and give into every demand he has - rather, I am proposing that we engage in clear, unbiased, truthful, "good faith" conversation, to the extent of our abilities. To me, this seems like a good idea.