3 ms·

One of the fundamental mistakes that I think people make is to anthropomorphize things which do not actually act like regular humans. Corporations are the most

One of the fundamental mistakes that I think people make is to anthropomorphize things which do not actually act like regular humans. Corporations are the most obvious one because corporations are made of people but do not actually act like regular people. If you put a black box around most corporations and someone asked you what was in it, you’d say the box contained a sociopath. I am not moralizing here, by the way. I am not claiming that corporations should be less sociopathic. Maybe they should be but we’ve had much better success in aligning sociopathy than in making the amoral, moral - see capitalism vs communism - so I think it’s an open question. Another group of entities which, while comprised of people, does not act in the way you’ve come to understand a human to act is politicians. The incentives to act in whatever way that is most effective totally dominates their behavior. A politician who does not do what the job asks (amass political power) will not be a politician for long.

ethbr1 3y ago
> The incentives to act in whatever way that is most effective totally dominates their behavior. I think that's where we seem to differ? "Whatever is most effective" I'll grant democracy as practiced has many side effects and incentive traps. However, it also does generally align politician's goals with their voters, under threat of being kicked out of office.
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  I will say it aligns them much better than authoritarianism, but also I’m not at all saying that democracy is bad or that because politicians are effectively sociopathic we should not have politicians. Famously, the worst system of government except for all the others. I’m only saying that effectively sociopathic agents do not deserve the courtesies, the benefit of the doubt that we afford regular people.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    I'd characterize it as "people with sociopathic tendencies." I don't believe there are that many politicians who literally don't believe anything they support and are only doing it because they think it will win them elections. Greater than zero, but less than most. Most spend a non-trivial amount of time on electioneering, and a non-trivial amount of consideration on the re-electability impacts of a given decision, but also do things for a variety of other reasons (e.g. personal convictions, campaign promises, lobbying, etc).
    - AbrahamParangi 3y ago
      All fair statements

ethbr1 3y ago

> The incentives to act in whatever way that is most effective totally dominates their behavior. I think that's where we seem to differ? "Whatever is most effective" I'll grant democracy as practiced has many side effects and incentive traps. However, it also does generally align politician's goals with their voters, under threat of being kicked out of office.

AbrahamParangi 3y ago
I will say it aligns them much better than authoritarianism, but also I’m not at all saying that democracy is bad or that because politicians are effectively sociopathic we should not have politicians. Famously, the worst system of government except for all the others. I’m only saying that effectively sociopathic agents do not deserve the courtesies, the benefit of the doubt that we afford regular people.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  I'd characterize it as "people with sociopathic tendencies." I don't believe there are that many politicians who literally don't believe anything they support and are only doing it because they think it will win them elections. Greater than zero, but less than most. Most spend a non-trivial amount of time on electioneering, and a non-trivial amount of consideration on the re-electability impacts of a given decision, but also do things for a variety of other reasons (e.g. personal convictions, campaign promises, lobbying, etc).
  - AbrahamParangi 3y ago
    All fair statements