In a democratic republic of over 300 million people, whether or not you “participate in politics” has virtually no effect on whether your rulers are inferior or superior than yourself (unless “participate in politics” is a euphemism for coup d’état).
And you don’t even need a majority of rationalists by headcount. You just need to find and hack the vulnerable parts of your culture and politics where you have a chance of raising people’s expectations for rational decision making. Actual widespread ability in rationality skills comes later.
Whenever you feel pessimistic about moving the mean of the sanity distribution, try reading the Bible or the Iliad and see how far we’ve come already.
You just need to find and hack the vulnerable parts of your culture and politics where you have a chance of raising people’s expectations for rational decision making.
People don’t expect rational decision making from politics, because that’s not what politics is for. Politics exists for the sake of power (politics), coordination and control, and of tribalism, not for any sort of decision making. When politicians make decisions, they optimize for political purposes, not for anything external such as economic, scientific, cultural, etc. outcomes.
When people try make decisions to optimize something external like that, we don’t call them politicians; we call them bureaucrats.
If you tried to do what you suggest, you would end up trying not to improve or reform politics, but to destroy destroy it. Good luck with that.
Whenever you feel pessimistic about moving the mean of the sanity distribution, try reading the Bible or the Iliad and see how far we’ve come already.
Depends on who “we” are. A great many people still believe in the Bible and try to emulate it, or other comparable texts.
A little cynical maybe? Politicians don’t spend 100% of the time making decisions for purely political reasons. Sometimes they are trying to achieve something, even if broadly speaking the purposes of politics are as you imply.
But of course, most of the people we would prefer to be more rational don’t know that’s what politics is for, so they aren’t hampered by that particular excuse to give up on it. Anyway, they could quite reasonably expect more rational decision making from co-workers, doctors, teachers and others.
I don’t think the people making decisions to optimise an outcome are well exemplified by bureaucrats. Try engineers.
Knowing that politics is part of what people do, and that destroying it is impossible, yes I would be trying to improve it, and hope for a more-rational population of participants to reform it. I would treat a claim that the way it is now is eternal and unchangeable as an extraordinary one that’s never been true so far. So, good luck with that :)
You aren’t seriously suggesting the mean of the sanity distribution hasn’t moved a huge amount since the Bible was written? Or even in the last 100 years? I know I’m referring to a “sanity distribution” in an unquantifiable hand-wavy way, but do you doubt that those people who believe in a literalist interpretation of the Bible are now outliers, rather that the huge majority they used to be?
Politicians don’t spend 100% of the time making decisions for purely political reasons. Sometimes they are trying to achieve something, even if broadly speaking the purposes of politics are as you imply.
Certainly, they’re often trying to achieve something outside of politics in order to gain something within politics. We should strive to give them good incentives so the things they do outside of politics are net benefits to non-politicians.
most of the people we would prefer to be more rational don’t know that’s what politics is for, so they aren’t hampered by that particular excuse to give up on it
So teaching them to be more rational would cause them to be less interested in politics, instead of demanding that politicians be more rational-for-the-good-of-all. I’m not sure if that’s a good or bad thing in itself, but at least they wouldn’t waste so much time obsessing over politics. Being apolitical also enhances cooperation.
they could quite reasonably expect more rational decision making from co-workers, doctors, teachers and others.
That’s very true, it just has nothing to do with politics. I’m all for making people more rational in general.
Knowing that politics is part of what people do, and that destroying it is impossible, yes I would be trying to improve it, and hope for a more-rational population of participants to reform it
Politicians can be rational. It’s just that they would still be rational politicians—they would use their skills of rationality to do more of the same things we dislike them for doing today. The problem isn’t irrationally practiced politics, it’s politics itself.
I would treat a claim that the way it is now is eternal and unchangeable as an extraordinary one that’s never been true so far.
It’s changed a lot over the past, but not in this respect: I think no society on the scale millions of people has ever existed that wasn’t dominated by one or another form of politics harmful to most of its residents.
You aren’t seriously suggesting the mean of the sanity distribution hasn’t moved a huge amount since the Bible was written? Or even in the last 100 years? I know I’m referring to a “sanity distribution” in an unquantifiable hand-wavy way, but do you doubt that those people who believe in a literalist interpretation of the Bible are now outliers, rather that the huge majority they used to be?
Indeed, it depends on how you measure sanity. On the object level of the rules people follow, things have gotten much better. But on the more meta level of how people arrive at beliefs, judge them, and discard them, the vast majority of humanity is still firmly in the camp of “profess to believe whatever you’re taught as a child, go with the majority, compartmentalize like hell, and be offended if anyone questions your premises”.
A democratic republic is not necessary. In any kind of political regime encompassing 300 million people, your participation in politics has very small expected effect on whether your rulers are inferior to you.
This seems a bit mangled. The original in The Republic talks about refusing to rule, not refusing to go into politics. Makes it a bit less of a snappy exhortation for your fellow monkeys to gang up on the other monkeys for the price of actually making more sense.
Plato
In a democratic republic of over 300 million people, whether or not you “participate in politics” has virtually no effect on whether your rulers are inferior or superior than yourself (unless “participate in politics” is a euphemism for coup d’état).
Another case of rationalists failing at collective action.
It’s not a nation of 300 million rationalists, however.
Yet.
And you don’t even need a majority of rationalists by headcount. You just need to find and hack the vulnerable parts of your culture and politics where you have a chance of raising people’s expectations for rational decision making. Actual widespread ability in rationality skills comes later.
Whenever you feel pessimistic about moving the mean of the sanity distribution, try reading the Bible or the Iliad and see how far we’ve come already.
People don’t expect rational decision making from politics, because that’s not what politics is for. Politics exists for the sake of power (politics), coordination and control, and of tribalism, not for any sort of decision making. When politicians make decisions, they optimize for political purposes, not for anything external such as economic, scientific, cultural, etc. outcomes.
When people try make decisions to optimize something external like that, we don’t call them politicians; we call them bureaucrats.
If you tried to do what you suggest, you would end up trying not to improve or reform politics, but to destroy destroy it. Good luck with that.
Depends on who “we” are. A great many people still believe in the Bible and try to emulate it, or other comparable texts.
A little cynical maybe? Politicians don’t spend 100% of the time making decisions for purely political reasons. Sometimes they are trying to achieve something, even if broadly speaking the purposes of politics are as you imply.
But of course, most of the people we would prefer to be more rational don’t know that’s what politics is for, so they aren’t hampered by that particular excuse to give up on it. Anyway, they could quite reasonably expect more rational decision making from co-workers, doctors, teachers and others.
I don’t think the people making decisions to optimise an outcome are well exemplified by bureaucrats. Try engineers.
Knowing that politics is part of what people do, and that destroying it is impossible, yes I would be trying to improve it, and hope for a more-rational population of participants to reform it. I would treat a claim that the way it is now is eternal and unchangeable as an extraordinary one that’s never been true so far. So, good luck with that :)
You aren’t seriously suggesting the mean of the sanity distribution hasn’t moved a huge amount since the Bible was written? Or even in the last 100 years? I know I’m referring to a “sanity distribution” in an unquantifiable hand-wavy way, but do you doubt that those people who believe in a literalist interpretation of the Bible are now outliers, rather that the huge majority they used to be?
Certainly, they’re often trying to achieve something outside of politics in order to gain something within politics. We should strive to give them good incentives so the things they do outside of politics are net benefits to non-politicians.
So teaching them to be more rational would cause them to be less interested in politics, instead of demanding that politicians be more rational-for-the-good-of-all. I’m not sure if that’s a good or bad thing in itself, but at least they wouldn’t waste so much time obsessing over politics. Being apolitical also enhances cooperation.
That’s very true, it just has nothing to do with politics. I’m all for making people more rational in general.
Politicians can be rational. It’s just that they would still be rational politicians—they would use their skills of rationality to do more of the same things we dislike them for doing today. The problem isn’t irrationally practiced politics, it’s politics itself.
It’s changed a lot over the past, but not in this respect: I think no society on the scale millions of people has ever existed that wasn’t dominated by one or another form of politics harmful to most of its residents.
Indeed, it depends on how you measure sanity. On the object level of the rules people follow, things have gotten much better. But on the more meta level of how people arrive at beliefs, judge them, and discard them, the vast majority of humanity is still firmly in the camp of “profess to believe whatever you’re taught as a child, go with the majority, compartmentalize like hell, and be offended if anyone questions your premises”.
A democratic republic is not necessary. In any kind of political regime encompassing 300 million people, your participation in politics has very small expected effect on whether your rulers are inferior to you.
This seems a bit mangled. The original in The Republic talks about refusing to rule, not refusing to go into politics. Makes it a bit less of a snappy exhortation for your fellow monkeys to gang up on the other monkeys for the price of actually making more sense.
“One of the penalties for not ruling the world is that it gets ruled by other people.”—clearly superior quote