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’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.