4 ms·

> politics is also a technical challenge That's a remarkable claim, in view of the fact that political problems don't seem to be diminishing in the face of tec

> politics is also a technical challenge That's a remarkable claim, in view of the fact that political problems don't seem to be diminishing in the face of technical advances over 2,000 years. I don't think I've even heard of a technical formulation of political differences. Of course, an 'iron fist' is a sort of technical solution to political problems; and the classical model of a ship has a captain who commands total obedience. But even ships with authoritarian captains have suffered mutinies; arguably, an authoritarian captain makes a mutiny more likely. Are you suggesting that technology can solve political problems by psychological manipulation? If that's the deal, then I'll lead the mutiny.

digging 3y ago
> Are you suggesting that technology can solve political problems by psychological manipulation? Not at all. > That's a remarkable claim I don't think so. I think it's self-evident. You're not born knowing how to interact with others socially; it is learned. There is not one single technique for persuasion, but many rhetorical techniques. Therefore it follows that any given individual can learn to become more skillful and effective at social interaction, broadly. (I'm not specifically talking about manipulating or convincing others to do something they don't want.) It also follows that people can learn new social interaction techniques from each other and build on their skills by sharing. This is a form of technology; social structures and language are tools. Social structures come in a range of complexities and types. Governments come in a range of complexities and types. Communication techniques, languages, ideas, etc. All can be built upon, adapted, and improved in effectiveness, as evidenced by the structures we've built upon the structures our ancestors have invented. For example, how do our legal codes compare to the Code of Hammurabi? Is it possible that Hammurabi could have spontaneously invented anything like the modern US penal system without building upon millennia of innovation? And if we do agree that social interactions and structures can be improved upon, then the most remarkable claim would be to say that we must have already discovered all the techniques and their limits, and cannot learn new techniques for cooperation in new environments, without any evidence.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  > You're not born knowing how to interact with others socially; it is learned. I disagree. As I've grown older, it has startled me to observe the degree to which personality is innate, or inherited. I used to believe we were born tabula rasa, but since raising children and burying my parents, I see that my earlier opinions were absurd. Do you have children?
  - digging 3y ago
    What social skills are infants born with?
    - denton-scratch 3y ago
      Well, obviously not many! They haven't learned to communicate, which is a bit fundamental to having social skills. But they end up with personalities that were NOT trained into them. I don't know what is 'nature' and what is 'nurture', but I do know that kids arrive with their own personality, even if you can't yet discern it in the newborn infant. Do you have kids?

digging 3y ago

> Are you suggesting that technology can solve political problems by psychological manipulation? Not at all. > That's a remarkable claim I don't think so. I think it's self-evident. You're not born knowing how to interact with others socially; it is learned. There is not one single technique for persuasion, but many rhetorical techniques. Therefore it follows that any given individual can learn to become more skillful and effective at social interaction, broadly. (I'm not specifically talking about manipulating or convincing others to do something they don't want.) It also follows that people can learn new social interaction techniques from each other and build on their skills by sharing. This is a form of technology; social structures and language are tools. Social structures come in a range of complexities and types. Governments come in a range of complexities and types. Communication techniques, languages, ideas, etc. All can be built upon, adapted, and improved in effectiveness, as evidenced by the structures we've built upon the structures our ancestors have invented. For example, how do our legal codes compare to the Code of Hammurabi? Is it possible that Hammurabi could have spontaneously invented anything like the modern US penal system without building upon millennia of innovation? And if we do agree that social interactions and structures can be improved upon, then the most remarkable claim would be to say that we must have already discovered all the techniques and their limits, and cannot learn new techniques for cooperation in new environments, without any evidence.

denton-scratch 3y ago
> You're not born knowing how to interact with others socially; it is learned. I disagree. As I've grown older, it has startled me to observe the degree to which personality is innate, or inherited. I used to believe we were born tabula rasa, but since raising children and burying my parents, I see that my earlier opinions were absurd. Do you have children?
- digging 3y ago
  What social skills are infants born with?
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    Well, obviously not many! They haven't learned to communicate, which is a bit fundamental to having social skills. But they end up with personalities that were NOT trained into them. I don't know what is 'nature' and what is 'nurture', but I do know that kids arrive with their own personality, even if you can't yet discern it in the newborn infant. Do you have kids?