...an explicitly non-partisan effort to gather thoughtful citizens of all political stripes devoted to spreading rational thinking and wise decision-making in the political arena, We see the lack of these practices as one of the worst problems for our global society in terms of how important, neglected, and tractable it is.
“Rational politics” seems like too narrow a focus to be successful in real-world politics. You should consider expanding this project from mere ‘rationality’ to encompass the broader notion of political virtues, as famously identified by political scientist Bernard Crick in his well-known book In Defence of Politics, which is often assigned as required reading in intro poli-sci courses.
In particular, as most people will know, “rationalism” in politics has some unfortunate connotations of ivory-tower over-intellectualism and disregard for most real-world issues and dynamics. Avoiding this impression, however misguided in this particular case, would seem to be of critical importance to any such project. You can view this as a simple, politically-grounded argument for why a broader focus on widely-recognized political virtues would in fact be highly desirable.
I hear you about “rationalism in politics.” The public-facing aspect of this project will be using terms like “post-lies movement” and so on. We’re using “Rational Politics” as the internal and provisional name for now, while we are gathering allies and spreading word about the project rather than doing much public outreach.
The public-facing aspect of this project will be using terms like “post-lies movement” and so on.
Good call—this will give folks a much better idea of what the project is actually about.
(Of course, ordinary sloppy thinking is just as problematic as overt “lies”, and I still think your project could usefully expand to encompass other facets of “wise decision-making” in a political context. There are many other “dark patterns”—particularly, black-and-white rhetoric that blatantly rejects any sort of compromise or adaptation as possible virtues—which are just as foolish and dangerous in practice (and there’s basically no controversy that this is the case, at least in the abstract). Again, Donald Trump’s campaign provides the best example of this as of late, but we’ve seen similar rhetoric from the “left” in the past—and some people would even say that the current campaign was no exception!)
We chose the issue of lies specifically because it is something a bunch of people can get behind opposing, across the political spectrum. Otherwise, we have to choose political virtues, and it’s always a trade-off. So the two fundamental orientations of this project are utilitarianism and anti-lies.
FYI, we plan to tackle sloppy thinking too, as I did in this piece, but that’s more complex, and it’s important to start with simple messages first. Heck, if we can get people to realize the simple difference between truth and comfort, I’d be happy.
So the two fundamental orientations of this project are utilitarianism and anti-lies.
Utilitarianism is nice of course, but since you’re operating in a political context here, it’s important to go for a politically-mindful variety of utilitarianism, that treats other people’s existing political stances as representational, or at least as useful evidence for what they actually care about. Virtues like adaptation, compromise, conciliation—even humor, sometimes—can be seen as ways to operationalize this sort of utilitarianism in practice—and also promote it to average folks who generally don’t know what “utilitarianism” is actually about!
This is probably too complex to hash out in comments—lots of semantics issues and some strategic/tactical information that might be best to avoid discussing publicly. If you’re interested in getting involved in the project and want to chat on Skype, email me at gleb [at] intentionalinsights [dot] org
No worries—I trust you to get the strategic/tactical side right, and it’s quite promising to see that you’re aware of these issues as well. I now think that this can be a very promising project, since you’re clearly evading the obvious pitfalls I was concerned about when I read the initial announcement!
In particular, as most people will know, “rationalism” in politics has some unfortunate connotations of ivory-tower over-intellectualism and disregard for most real-world issues and dynamics. Avoiding this impression, however misguided in this particular case,
Is it in fact misguided? Certainly looking at the OP the impression appears to be correct.
“Rational politics” seems like too narrow a focus to be successful in real-world politics. You should consider expanding this project from mere ‘rationality’ to encompass the broader notion of political virtues, as famously identified by political scientist Bernard Crick in his well-known book In Defence of Politics, which is often assigned as required reading in intro poli-sci courses.
In particular, as most people will know, “rationalism” in politics has some unfortunate connotations of ivory-tower over-intellectualism and disregard for most real-world issues and dynamics. Avoiding this impression, however misguided in this particular case, would seem to be of critical importance to any such project. You can view this as a simple, politically-grounded argument for why a broader focus on widely-recognized political virtues would in fact be highly desirable.
I hear you about “rationalism in politics.” The public-facing aspect of this project will be using terms like “post-lies movement” and so on. We’re using “Rational Politics” as the internal and provisional name for now, while we are gathering allies and spreading word about the project rather than doing much public outreach.
Good call—this will give folks a much better idea of what the project is actually about.
(Of course, ordinary sloppy thinking is just as problematic as overt “lies”, and I still think your project could usefully expand to encompass other facets of “wise decision-making” in a political context. There are many other “dark patterns”—particularly, black-and-white rhetoric that blatantly rejects any sort of compromise or adaptation as possible virtues—which are just as foolish and dangerous in practice (and there’s basically no controversy that this is the case, at least in the abstract). Again, Donald Trump’s campaign provides the best example of this as of late, but we’ve seen similar rhetoric from the “left” in the past—and some people would even say that the current campaign was no exception!)
We chose the issue of lies specifically because it is something a bunch of people can get behind opposing, across the political spectrum. Otherwise, we have to choose political virtues, and it’s always a trade-off. So the two fundamental orientations of this project are utilitarianism and anti-lies.
FYI, we plan to tackle sloppy thinking too, as I did in this piece, but that’s more complex, and it’s important to start with simple messages first. Heck, if we can get people to realize the simple difference between truth and comfort, I’d be happy.
Utilitarianism is nice of course, but since you’re operating in a political context here, it’s important to go for a politically-mindful variety of utilitarianism, that treats other people’s existing political stances as representational, or at least as useful evidence for what they actually care about. Virtues like adaptation, compromise, conciliation—even humor, sometimes—can be seen as ways to operationalize this sort of utilitarianism in practice—and also promote it to average folks who generally don’t know what “utilitarianism” is actually about!
This is probably too complex to hash out in comments—lots of semantics issues and some strategic/tactical information that might be best to avoid discussing publicly. If you’re interested in getting involved in the project and want to chat on Skype, email me at gleb [at] intentionalinsights [dot] org
No worries—I trust you to get the strategic/tactical side right, and it’s quite promising to see that you’re aware of these issues as well. I now think that this can be a very promising project, since you’re clearly evading the obvious pitfalls I was concerned about when I read the initial announcement!
Thank you!
Is it in fact misguided? Certainly looking at the OP the impression appears to be correct.