3 ms·
This seems like way too complex an explanation when a much simpler alternative is possible. Most people are simply not that virtuous, because by definition the
by MichaelZuo 2y ago
This seems like way too complex an explanation when a much simpler alternative is possible.
Most people are simply not that virtuous, because by definition the vast majority of the population has to have mediocre virtues or be in that ballpark range.
So ‘radical transparency’ reveals as much negative as positive, on average.
- ethbr1 2y agoSure, that's the first step. But the next step was how society would change (or not), suddenly realizing that most people are simply not that virtuous. Certainly not as much as their previously perception-dominant "best face" made them seem to be. Instead of accepting that, we seem to still be taking pot shots at leaders or prospective leaders for faults. Or... maybe Trump's twice electability is an indicator that most people are willing to overlook things, now.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoWhy are you assuming there must be a ‘next step’? The general population can just not care about a ‘next step’ on average…?
- ethbr1 2y agoTypically when a core previous truth changes, society changes in response.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoOnly if the median person cares about it past a certain theshold…
- watwut 2y ago> Or... maybe Trump's twice electability is an indicator that most people are willing to overlook things, now. They are not overlooking things. They are looking at things and like what they see. There is segment population for which a credible accusation is seen as a good thing about a guy.