I’d be more interested in an initial discussion of whether it is in fact rational to discuss politics (except to the extent that you gain intrinsic enjoyment from the discussion). It is clear that for most people in most elections their vote is irrelevant (the chances of it making any difference are negligible). This suggests that time spent discussing politics for the purposes of deciding how to vote is wasted and such discussion is irrational. Arguably the only people who rationally devote any significant time to thinking or talking about politics are the small group of people who actually make their living as politicians or political commentators. Robin Hanson has often made the point that politics is not about policy—it is mostly about signalling status and in-group/out-group dynamics. What would we be hoping to achieve by discussing politics at less wrong?
How about a more reasonable topic to discuss—Corporate Organizational Design for a seastead.
You are starting a seastead with certain ideas on how to make money in the long run. How do you make a structure that is better than present governments or corporations?
Corporate design is much simpler than already present nation design.
Also, a good design emerging from this will theoritically be better than any political design in today’s nations, since a seastead by definition starts with a huge economic disadvantage.
Why would LW want to discuss this - A well run corporation might be the closest thing in the present world to a superintelligence.
But what would be the use of that? Do you have the ear of the president? Do you have reason to think that the problem with politics is a lack of good policy ideas rather than the inability of the political process to enact good policy? Are you prepared to devote yourself full time to promoting whatever wonderful never-before-considered policies the great minds of less wrong are able to concoct? Politics is not about Policy.
If we were to decide to discuss politics, the best possible use I can think of is to generate strategies for implementing (cheap) positive changes in policy. As to how to implement, California State Senator Joe Simitian has his There Oughta be a Law Contest.
the best possible use I can think of is to generate strategies for implementing (cheap) positive changes in policy.
Competitive government seems about the best hope for this to me, though I rate its chances of success pretty low it seems slightly less hopeless than fixing conventional politics.
The real question is whether you think discussing politics is an effective use of your time. I’m more interested in discussions where ultimately I can take concrete actions that deliver the most expected value possible. Politics doesn’t generally seem like such a topic.
I’m similarly skeptical about the benefits of a conversation about politics but lets not overgeneralize. Politics is not about policy. Except when it is. Certain parts of government are more amenable to policy changes than others. The key is identifying those areas and organizing around them. Change is usually easiest in areas where there aren’t entrenched interests influencing legislators, where the general public doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other, and when legislators aren’t running for reelection or aren’t at risk of losing. Areas where I think Less Wrong could make non-trivial impacts: federal science policy—specifically stream-lining the grant process to save scientists time and resources, and local public school curriculum—specifically finding some amenable school districts and try to improve/add to/create critical thinking/classical rationality curricula.
If people were interested I’d be especially interested in digging into the second.
Change is usually easiest in areas where there aren’t entrenched interests influencing legislators, where the general public doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other, and when legislators aren’t running for reelection or aren’t at risk of losing.
where the general public doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other
A similar way of saying the same thing: change gets easier when debates don’t map onto pre-existing signaling narratives. Obviously anything that explicitly threatens religion is going to be a bitch to get through. I don’t think critical thinking course in liberal districts would raise a lot of ire even if we were giving students tools that, properly applied, would tell them something about their religious beliefs.
I think local public school curriculum fails on two of your criteria: ‘entrenched interests influencing legislators’ (teachers’ unions, publishers of textbooks, parents’ groups, think tanks, etc.); ‘where the general public doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other’ (parents tend to care quite a bit about what/how their kids are taught, ideologically motivated groups care quite a bit about what kids are taught, many interest groups have opinions about what focus education should have). There are already lots of groups trying to influence education in all kinds of ways, including local public school curriculums.
(teachers’ unions, publishers of textbooks, parents’ groups, think tanks, etc.)
Teachers unions are definitely an entrenched interest but they aren’t really entrenched on the issue of curriculum. I’m not trying to fire them, just add another elective class or change a couple of class days in the English curriculum. Textbook publishers sure, but they don’t have necessarily opposing views. You could just as easily turn them into allies. Parents groups, think tanks? I would start in a poor or urban district—but I can’t think of any reason parents groups would oppose a critical thinking elective in liberal, wealthy districts.
Obviously all policy areas have someone ‘invested’. But it isn’t like getting rid of subsidies for the sugar industry, ending teacher tenure or limiting unionizing.
parents tend to care quite a bit about what/how their kids are taught, ideologically motivated groups care quite a bit about what kids are taught, many interest groups have opinions about what focus education should have
These groups care about curriculum when the debate involves sex or religion. Thats about it. I’m not trying to teach 2nd graders about sex or tell anyone their religion is false. Aspects of critical thinking are already part of the AP Language curriculum—we’re not talking about some radical transformation of the school system. Around half the parents at my public high school were lawyers, you’re gonna tell me they’re going to object to a critical thinking class?
Again, obviously people are affected by policy. But not every issue makes people go crazy like evolution, sex or money. I’m actually surprised you picked the curriculum issue to criticize… reforming the government grant-giving bureaucracy strikes me as a lot harder.
I’m actually surprised you picked the curriculum issue to criticize… reforming the government grant-giving bureaucracy strikes me as a lot harder.
You may well be right, but I know very little about grant-giving so I didn’t address it. I imagine there are a number of powerful interest groups involved there as well however.
I’d be more interested in an initial discussion of whether it is in fact rational to discuss politics (except to the extent that you gain intrinsic enjoyment from the discussion). It is clear that for most people in most elections their vote is irrelevant (the chances of it making any difference are negligible). This suggests that time spent discussing politics for the purposes of deciding how to vote is wasted and such discussion is irrational. Arguably the only people who rationally devote any significant time to thinking or talking about politics are the small group of people who actually make their living as politicians or political commentators. Robin Hanson has often made the point that politics is not about policy—it is mostly about signalling status and in-group/out-group dynamics. What would we be hoping to achieve by discussing politics at less wrong?
How about a more reasonable topic to discuss—Corporate Organizational Design for a seastead.
You are starting a seastead with certain ideas on how to make money in the long run. How do you make a structure that is better than present governments or corporations?
Corporate design is much simpler than already present nation design.
Also, a good design emerging from this will theoritically be better than any political design in today’s nations, since a seastead by definition starts with a huge economic disadvantage.
Why would LW want to discuss this - A well run corporation might be the closest thing in the present world to a superintelligence.
Lets discuss.
What would I hope to accomplish? I would hope we could come up with policy proposals which might be cheap to enact.
But what would be the use of that? Do you have the ear of the president? Do you have reason to think that the problem with politics is a lack of good policy ideas rather than the inability of the political process to enact good policy? Are you prepared to devote yourself full time to promoting whatever wonderful never-before-considered policies the great minds of less wrong are able to concoct? Politics is not about Policy.
If we were to decide to discuss politics, the best possible use I can think of is to generate strategies for implementing (cheap) positive changes in policy. As to how to implement, California State Senator Joe Simitian has his There Oughta be a Law Contest.
Competitive government seems about the best hope for this to me, though I rate its chances of success pretty low it seems slightly less hopeless than fixing conventional politics.
The real question is whether you think discussing politics is an effective use of your time. I’m more interested in discussions where ultimately I can take concrete actions that deliver the most expected value possible. Politics doesn’t generally seem like such a topic.
I’m similarly skeptical about the benefits of a conversation about politics but lets not overgeneralize. Politics is not about policy. Except when it is. Certain parts of government are more amenable to policy changes than others. The key is identifying those areas and organizing around them. Change is usually easiest in areas where there aren’t entrenched interests influencing legislators, where the general public doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other, and when legislators aren’t running for reelection or aren’t at risk of losing. Areas where I think Less Wrong could make non-trivial impacts: federal science policy—specifically stream-lining the grant process to save scientists time and resources, and local public school curriculum—specifically finding some amenable school districts and try to improve/add to/create critical thinking/classical rationality curricula.
If people were interested I’d be especially interested in digging into the second.
Umm, really?
Like I said:
A similar way of saying the same thing: change gets easier when debates don’t map onto pre-existing signaling narratives. Obviously anything that explicitly threatens religion is going to be a bitch to get through. I don’t think critical thinking course in liberal districts would raise a lot of ire even if we were giving students tools that, properly applied, would tell them something about their religious beliefs.
I think local public school curriculum fails on two of your criteria: ‘entrenched interests influencing legislators’ (teachers’ unions, publishers of textbooks, parents’ groups, think tanks, etc.); ‘where the general public doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other’ (parents tend to care quite a bit about what/how their kids are taught, ideologically motivated groups care quite a bit about what kids are taught, many interest groups have opinions about what focus education should have). There are already lots of groups trying to influence education in all kinds of ways, including local public school curriculums.
Teachers unions are definitely an entrenched interest but they aren’t really entrenched on the issue of curriculum. I’m not trying to fire them, just add another elective class or change a couple of class days in the English curriculum. Textbook publishers sure, but they don’t have necessarily opposing views. You could just as easily turn them into allies. Parents groups, think tanks? I would start in a poor or urban district—but I can’t think of any reason parents groups would oppose a critical thinking elective in liberal, wealthy districts.
Obviously all policy areas have someone ‘invested’. But it isn’t like getting rid of subsidies for the sugar industry, ending teacher tenure or limiting unionizing.
These groups care about curriculum when the debate involves sex or religion. Thats about it. I’m not trying to teach 2nd graders about sex or tell anyone their religion is false. Aspects of critical thinking are already part of the AP Language curriculum—we’re not talking about some radical transformation of the school system. Around half the parents at my public high school were lawyers, you’re gonna tell me they’re going to object to a critical thinking class?
Again, obviously people are affected by policy. But not every issue makes people go crazy like evolution, sex or money. I’m actually surprised you picked the curriculum issue to criticize… reforming the government grant-giving bureaucracy strikes me as a lot harder.
You may well be right, but I know very little about grant-giving so I didn’t address it. I imagine there are a number of powerful interest groups involved there as well however.