4 ms·

Your comment started out well within the Overton window, but in the second paragraph it jumped out. Can we call that Overton window defenestration?

by djhn 7d ago

nostrademons 7d ago
I like that terminology. I'll explain, though, because I know the idea that we're all gonna kill each other is currently outside of the Overton Window. There's a fairly well-known (within the field) concept in history & international relations that wars start when the balance of power is ambiguous. Each side thinks that their in-group is more numerous, more powerful, and more righteous than the other. When groups have an accurate self-assessment of their relative power, the more powerful one gets its way and the less powerful one swallows its pride and does what it's told. But when both groups believe they are the more powerful one, they press their advantage and come into conflict. Rather than backing down, they keep pushing for concessions and escalating, believing that if it comes to a fight, they'll win. Since both groups have the misapprehension that they will be the winner, it actually does come to a fight, even though fighting is not strictly rational for either one. It gets even more ambiguous when the conflict is multi-sided, since the uncertainty in power relations is greater relative to their actual power, and the groups often don't know which way potential allies will break or to what extent an adversary's attention will be taken up by others. History is full of examples where the news articles were crowing that war was impossible right up until it broke out, usually because it would be irrational. People are not always rational, particularly when they have a false perception of the world.
- ai_critic 7d ago
  The current success of red team and Trump in the US is an excellent example of this from the last decade--one can make the argument that blue team failed to recognize the actual pecking order, and pushed too far and too hard, and now have gotten their teeth kicked in as a result. (Which is bad, because red team under Trump has no actual talent for boring, effective governance at a time when it is sorely needed. Near inarguably, they're actively bad at it.)
  - nostrademons 7d ago
    I was certainly think of U.S. red vs. blue politics. I think it's bidirectional though: blue team doesn't realize how unpopular some of their key policy agendas are with red-team America, which is why they keep getting their teeth kicked in during elections. But red team doesn't realize the extent to which urban America has moved on from the cultural values of the 1980s, and both how numerous and how devoted their opposition is to their ideals. In reality, the teams are fairly evenly matched in both numbers and strength of conviction. But neither team will admit that, thinking that it's just a few errant radicals that are being manipulated by shadowy forces (Bill Gates, George Soros, and the NYTimes are the bogeyman for the reds; Trump, Miller, Bannon, and Fox News are the bogeyman for the blues). It seems inconceivable to each side that tens of millions of Americans might have sincere beliefs that differ from their own. The mismatch between perception and reality makes me quite worried for the future of the country. There are plenty of global examples as well, eg. everybody thought Russia would absolutely steamroll Ukraine and that hasn't happened, both Iran and the US think they have the upper hand and just need to mop up in the Persian Gulf. That's why those conflicts are still going on.
    - ai_critic 7d ago
      Perhaps a bit ahistorical, but I'm put in mind of the quote "Not even Masada began as a suicide attempt." Interesting times indeed.
    - SamInTheShell 7d ago
      You can probably div up some factions just based off voting data. Red team made it in with just about 1/3rd of the voting population. About 1/3rd of the voting population didn't vote. Just if we're trying to put some numbers to something, those should be verifiable at least. Doesn't say why 1/3rd didn't vote, so it's just 1/3rd unknown faction.
    - tosapple 7d ago
      here's a bogeyman for you, accepting money in a representative democracy for political action is maybe mere nanometers from the definition of bribery.
- watwut 7d ago
  I think this is overly simplified. The other reason people fight is that they feel they have no chance otherwise or they feel like their values are attacked. Small group that fight dont think they are stronger, they think they are right and willing to sacrifice (or feel like they have nothing to loose, or just feel hate so much). Also, more confident about own power go to war because they want to. See WWII - it does not matter how many concessions would be done to nazi, the ideology itself demanded the war. That is why it happened. Or look at Iran war. Iran was making concessions, USA attacked anyway because it wanted to. American leadership valued war and lethality and wanted to demonstrate it. Irans strategic appeasement was seen as sign of weakness. Or look at Canada trade war. Canada does not think it is stronger, it thinks concessions will lead to further bullying from stronger neighborhood.
  - falserum 7d ago
    The parent point still stands. Poland and England and everybody could have just not resisted, and accepted occupation, then there would be no war. (Most probably slavery or something, but not war). Iran didn’t agree to all US/Israel points. Iran felt that they have leverage and can resist. (On the other side, Iran’s leverage/power was not obvious enough to US administration, so US started the war hoping to win quickly). Guerrilla groups fight because they believe they can win / make s difference, not necessarily in military sense. e.g. Vietnam didn’t win the war on the battle field, US got politically exhausted/tired and retreated (non-military victory is still a victory) In all cases groups that fight believe they can win somehow eventually. Brainwashed suicide bombers, also believe (less due to ambiguity, more due to brainwashing part)
    - watwut 7d ago
      > The parent point still stands. Poland and England and everybody could have just not resisted, and accepted occupation, then there would be no war. (Most probably slavery or something, but not war) It does not stand and frankly, you are guessing too much about history and motivations of past actors. The plan for Poland was literal genocide, so no. The plan was not "the occupation" the plan was "the place is ours now, the people who lived there are about to be removed and killed within 2 generations". The difference between "there is a war" and "we are violently removing locals and killing them" is immaterial. The implementation of that plan even started. Besides, an American once said "slavery is the war against people". > Guerrilla groups fight because they believe they can win / make s difference, not necessarily in military sense. The problem here is that this claim is based on imagining what guerrilla groups fight for rather then past reading about what their motivations really were. It is easy to make claim about groups or peoples motivations and then project them on past people. It is not the same as taking effort to analyze motivations of those groups and then making claims. > In all cases groups that fight believe they can win somehow eventually. Brainwashed suicide bombers, also believe (less due to ambiguity, more due to brainwashing part) And again, you are making confident claims based on imagined motivations - or outcomes.
- psychoslave 7d ago
  There is nothing like "the most powerful", though. Already at individual level, even the last "powerless" isolated homeless can go out, steal a gun and start to kill random people in the street, no matter how wealthier and more prominent in martial art they are. And at geopolitical level, representations are even more scattered. "Swallow its pride" might work with small groups, but at larger scale, there is no nation that can prevent some of its own side of the line to go into asymmetric engagement. Even in the most efficient totalitarian government, there will always be insiders willing to get rid of a head that is is considered weak with outsiders and abusive with insiders, and hurt in all reachable manners the outsiders. >People are not always rational, particularly when they have a false perception of the world. That really sounds like "prediction are hard especially about the future"; as everyone is basically operating with limited knowledge, limited resources to acquire and process accurate data, biological and cultural biases. Streets are not exactly crowded with legions of buddha acknowledging each other enlightenment by mere deep and significant sights. Plus rationality is unable to serve as foundation for itself.

Your comment started out well within the Overton window, but in the second paragraph it jumped out. Can we call that Overton window defenestration?

by djhn 7d ago

Your comment started out well within the Overton window, but in the second paragraph it jumped out. Can we call that Overton window defenestration?

nostrademons 7d ago

I like that terminology. I'll explain, though, because I know the idea that we're all gonna kill each other is currently outside of the Overton Window. There's a fairly well-known (within the field) concept in history & international relations that wars start when the balance of power is ambiguous. Each side thinks that their in-group is more numerous, more powerful, and more righteous than the other. When groups have an accurate self-assessment of their relative power, the more powerful one gets its way and the less powerful one swallows its pride and does what it's told. But when both groups believe they are the more powerful one, they press their advantage and come into conflict. Rather than backing down, they keep pushing for concessions and escalating, believing that if it comes to a fight, they'll win. Since both groups have the misapprehension that they will be the winner, it actually does come to a fight, even though fighting is not strictly rational for either one. It gets even more ambiguous when the conflict is multi-sided, since the uncertainty in power relations is greater relative to their actual power, and the groups often don't know which way potential allies will break or to what extent an adversary's attention will be taken up by others. History is full of examples where the news articles were crowing that war was impossible right up until it broke out, usually because it would be irrational. People are not always rational, particularly when they have a false perception of the world.

ai_critic 7d ago
The current success of red team and Trump in the US is an excellent example of this from the last decade--one can make the argument that blue team failed to recognize the actual pecking order, and pushed too far and too hard, and now have gotten their teeth kicked in as a result. (Which is bad, because red team under Trump has no actual talent for boring, effective governance at a time when it is sorely needed. Near inarguably, they're actively bad at it.)
- nostrademons 7d ago
  I was certainly think of U.S. red vs. blue politics. I think it's bidirectional though: blue team doesn't realize how unpopular some of their key policy agendas are with red-team America, which is why they keep getting their teeth kicked in during elections. But red team doesn't realize the extent to which urban America has moved on from the cultural values of the 1980s, and both how numerous and how devoted their opposition is to their ideals. In reality, the teams are fairly evenly matched in both numbers and strength of conviction. But neither team will admit that, thinking that it's just a few errant radicals that are being manipulated by shadowy forces (Bill Gates, George Soros, and the NYTimes are the bogeyman for the reds; Trump, Miller, Bannon, and Fox News are the bogeyman for the blues). It seems inconceivable to each side that tens of millions of Americans might have sincere beliefs that differ from their own. The mismatch between perception and reality makes me quite worried for the future of the country. There are plenty of global examples as well, eg. everybody thought Russia would absolutely steamroll Ukraine and that hasn't happened, both Iran and the US think they have the upper hand and just need to mop up in the Persian Gulf. That's why those conflicts are still going on.
  - ai_critic 7d ago
    Perhaps a bit ahistorical, but I'm put in mind of the quote "Not even Masada began as a suicide attempt." Interesting times indeed.
  - SamInTheShell 7d ago
    You can probably div up some factions just based off voting data. Red team made it in with just about 1/3rd of the voting population. About 1/3rd of the voting population didn't vote. Just if we're trying to put some numbers to something, those should be verifiable at least. Doesn't say why 1/3rd didn't vote, so it's just 1/3rd unknown faction.
  - tosapple 7d ago
    here's a bogeyman for you, accepting money in a representative democracy for political action is maybe mere nanometers from the definition of bribery.
watwut 7d ago
I think this is overly simplified. The other reason people fight is that they feel they have no chance otherwise or they feel like their values are attacked. Small group that fight dont think they are stronger, they think they are right and willing to sacrifice (or feel like they have nothing to loose, or just feel hate so much). Also, more confident about own power go to war because they want to. See WWII - it does not matter how many concessions would be done to nazi, the ideology itself demanded the war. That is why it happened. Or look at Iran war. Iran was making concessions, USA attacked anyway because it wanted to. American leadership valued war and lethality and wanted to demonstrate it. Irans strategic appeasement was seen as sign of weakness. Or look at Canada trade war. Canada does not think it is stronger, it thinks concessions will lead to further bullying from stronger neighborhood.
- falserum 7d ago
  The parent point still stands. Poland and England and everybody could have just not resisted, and accepted occupation, then there would be no war. (Most probably slavery or something, but not war). Iran didn’t agree to all US/Israel points. Iran felt that they have leverage and can resist. (On the other side, Iran’s leverage/power was not obvious enough to US administration, so US started the war hoping to win quickly). Guerrilla groups fight because they believe they can win / make s difference, not necessarily in military sense. e.g. Vietnam didn’t win the war on the battle field, US got politically exhausted/tired and retreated (non-military victory is still a victory) In all cases groups that fight believe they can win somehow eventually. Brainwashed suicide bombers, also believe (less due to ambiguity, more due to brainwashing part)
  - watwut 7d ago
    > The parent point still stands. Poland and England and everybody could have just not resisted, and accepted occupation, then there would be no war. (Most probably slavery or something, but not war) It does not stand and frankly, you are guessing too much about history and motivations of past actors. The plan for Poland was literal genocide, so no. The plan was not "the occupation" the plan was "the place is ours now, the people who lived there are about to be removed and killed within 2 generations". The difference between "there is a war" and "we are violently removing locals and killing them" is immaterial. The implementation of that plan even started. Besides, an American once said "slavery is the war against people". > Guerrilla groups fight because they believe they can win / make s difference, not necessarily in military sense. The problem here is that this claim is based on imagining what guerrilla groups fight for rather then past reading about what their motivations really were. It is easy to make claim about groups or peoples motivations and then project them on past people. It is not the same as taking effort to analyze motivations of those groups and then making claims. > In all cases groups that fight believe they can win somehow eventually. Brainwashed suicide bombers, also believe (less due to ambiguity, more due to brainwashing part) And again, you are making confident claims based on imagined motivations - or outcomes.
psychoslave 7d ago
There is nothing like "the most powerful", though. Already at individual level, even the last "powerless" isolated homeless can go out, steal a gun and start to kill random people in the street, no matter how wealthier and more prominent in martial art they are. And at geopolitical level, representations are even more scattered. "Swallow its pride" might work with small groups, but at larger scale, there is no nation that can prevent some of its own side of the line to go into asymmetric engagement. Even in the most efficient totalitarian government, there will always be insiders willing to get rid of a head that is is considered weak with outsiders and abusive with insiders, and hurt in all reachable manners the outsiders. >People are not always rational, particularly when they have a false perception of the world. That really sounds like "prediction are hard especially about the future"; as everyone is basically operating with limited knowledge, limited resources to acquire and process accurate data, biological and cultural biases. Streets are not exactly crowded with legions of buddha acknowledging each other enlightenment by mere deep and significant sights. Plus rationality is unable to serve as foundation for itself.