Well—this chain could go on ad infinitum.. all I was trying to say is:
- I am really trying to understand why people voted for Brexit and want to find answers that do not boil down to “they were ignorant/dumb/racists”, however tempting it might be; - The job of politicians is to serve the interests of the country they serve. If they have other reasons for pursuing certain policies they are being corrupt; - If you are going to advocate voting for “Unknown” then you better have a very good idea of what you want instead, how you will bring it about and how it will materially help your constituents in ways that are tangible and can be measured;
I am not claiming to know everything the UK government and its people think, though if you follow your logic to only moderate extremes any discussion of complex policies is fundamentally pointless guesswork. That isn’t necessarily false, mind you… compared to the average person, I’d assess my own knowledge of Brexit somewhere above the median for a non-UK resident, and probably below someone who actually lives there everyday. On the other hand, it is easier for me to be dispassionate as I don’t have a dog in that race :)
I am not claiming to know everything the UK government and its people think, though if you follow your logic to only moderate extremes any discussion of complex policies is fundamentally pointless guesswork.
You are making arguments that depend on the conclusion that you who what they think. As long as you understand that you don’t know what they think you can’t access their intelligence by looking at those decisions.
If you are going to advocate voting for “Unknown” then you better have a very good idea of what you want instead
Allowing more economic growth through deregulation and more rational laws is an idea that was articulated and one that they are working on. It’s not very specific but specific 4-year plans don’t work that well.
Telling the public about how you get the more rational laws by hiring superforcasters and building those seeing rooms is more specific but not the level of argument that the public is easily going to digest.
Seems to me that the relation to your original question “why don’t we attribute historial events to the intelligence of their actors” is that by this logic, historians of the future might conclude that Dominic Cummings was retarded. (Assuming the records of his writing would be lost.) If this logic doesn’t work reliably now, it was probably not more reliable in the past.
Well—this chain could go on ad infinitum.. all I was trying to say is:
- I am really trying to understand why people voted for Brexit and want to find answers that do not boil down to “they were ignorant/dumb/racists”, however tempting it might be;
- The job of politicians is to serve the interests of the country they serve. If they have other reasons for pursuing certain policies they are being corrupt;
- If you are going to advocate voting for “Unknown” then you better have a very good idea of what you want instead, how you will bring it about and how it will materially help your constituents in ways that are tangible and can be measured;
I am not claiming to know everything the UK government and its people think, though if you follow your logic to only moderate extremes any discussion of complex policies is fundamentally pointless guesswork. That isn’t necessarily false, mind you… compared to the average person, I’d assess my own knowledge of Brexit somewhere above the median for a non-UK resident, and probably below someone who actually lives there everyday. On the other hand, it is easier for me to be dispassionate as I don’t have a dog in that race :)
You are making arguments that depend on the conclusion that you who what they think. As long as you understand that you don’t know what they think you can’t access their intelligence by looking at those decisions.
Allowing more economic growth through deregulation and more rational laws is an idea that was articulated and one that they are working on. It’s not very specific but specific 4-year plans don’t work that well.
Telling the public about how you get the more rational laws by hiring superforcasters and building those seeing rooms is more specific but not the level of argument that the public is easily going to digest.
Seems to me that the relation to your original question “why don’t we attribute historial events to the intelligence of their actors” is that by this logic, historians of the future might conclude that Dominic Cummings was retarded. (Assuming the records of his writing would be lost.) If this logic doesn’t work reliably now, it was probably not more reliable in the past.