“Civil disobedience” is no more than a way for the overdog to say to the underdog: I am so strong that you cannot enforce your “laws” upon me.
This statement is obviously true. But it sure would be useful to have a theory that predicted (or even explained) when a putative civil disobedience would and wouldn’t work that way.
Obviously, willing to use overwhelming violence usually defeats civil disobedience. But not every protest wins, and it is worth trying to figure out why—if for no other reason than figuring out if we could win if we protested something.
I see no way to interpret it that would make it true. Civil disobedience serves to provoke a response that will—alone among crises that we know about—decrease people’s attitudes of obedience or submission to “traditional” authority. In the obvious Just-So Story, leaders who will use violence against people who pose no threat might also kill you.
We would expect this Gandhi trick to fail if the authorities get little-to-none of their power from the attitude in question. The nature of their response must matter as well. (Meanwhile, as you imply, I don’t know how Moldbug wants us to detect strength. My first guess would be that he wants his chosen ‘enemies’ to appear strong so that he can play underdog.)
I don’t think we are disagreeing on substance. “Underdog” and similar labels are narrative labels, not predictive labels. I interpreted Moldbug as saying that treating narrative labels as predictive labels is likely to lead one to make mistaken predictions and / or engage in hindsight bias. This is a true statement, but not a particularly useful one—it’s a good first step, but not a complete analysis.
Thus, the extent to which Moldbug treats the statement as complete analysis is error.
I hadn’t read your comment before I posted this. I assumed it meant what the terms usually mean, and lacked moldbuggerian semantics. In that sense, it would be a warning against rooting for the (usual) underdog, which is certainly a bias I’ve found myself wandering into in the past.
In retrospect I was somewhat silly for assuming Moldbug would use a word to mean what it actually means.
I have read his comment and the article. Knowing Moldbug’s style I agree with GLaDOS on the interpretation. I may be wrong in which case interpret the quote in line with my interpretation rather than original meaning.
The heuristic is great, but that article is horrible, even for Moldbug.
I agree. For example:
This statement is obviously true. But it sure would be useful to have a theory that predicted (or even explained) when a putative civil disobedience would and wouldn’t work that way.
Obviously, willing to use overwhelming violence usually defeats civil disobedience. But not every protest wins, and it is worth trying to figure out why—if for no other reason than figuring out if we could win if we protested something.
I see no way to interpret it that would make it true. Civil disobedience serves to provoke a response that will—alone among crises that we know about—decrease people’s attitudes of obedience or submission to “traditional” authority. In the obvious Just-So Story, leaders who will use violence against people who pose no threat might also kill you.
We would expect this Gandhi trick to fail if the authorities get little-to-none of their power from the attitude in question. The nature of their response must matter as well. (Meanwhile, as you imply, I don’t know how Moldbug wants us to detect strength. My first guess would be that he wants his chosen ‘enemies’ to appear strong so that he can play underdog.)
I don’t think we are disagreeing on substance. “Underdog” and similar labels are narrative labels, not predictive labels. I interpreted Moldbug as saying that treating narrative labels as predictive labels is likely to lead one to make mistaken predictions and / or engage in hindsight bias. This is a true statement, but not a particularly useful one—it’s a good first step, but not a complete analysis.
Thus, the extent to which Moldbug treats the statement as complete analysis is error.
How is it great? How would you use this “heuristic”?
I hadn’t read your comment before I posted this. I assumed it meant what the terms usually mean, and lacked moldbuggerian semantics. In that sense, it would be a warning against rooting for the (usual) underdog, which is certainly a bias I’ve found myself wandering into in the past.
In retrospect I was somewhat silly for assuming Moldbug would use a word to mean what it actually means.
I have read his comment and the article. Knowing Moldbug’s style I agree with GLaDOS on the interpretation. I may be wrong in which case interpret the quote in line with my interpretation rather than original meaning.