It allowed me to read a lot of poltical articles more deeply and understand their motivations and context
How do you know that you understand motivations of political articles better? Are you able to predict anything politically relevant that you couldn’t have predicted beforehand?
How do you know that you understand motivations of political articles better? Are you able to predict anything politically relevant that you couldn’t have predicted beforehand?
Concretely, I can often tell if the article writer is coming from a particular school of thought or referencing a specific thesis, then interpret jargon, fill in unstated assumptions, see where they’re deviating or conforming to that overarching school of thought. This directly enhances my ability to extrapolate to what other political views they might have and understand what they are attempting to write, and who their intended audience is.
As far as predicting the real world, that’s tough. These frameworks of thought are in constant competition with one another. They are more about making normative judgments than predictive ones. The political theories that I believe have the most concrete usefulness are probably those that analyze world affairs in terms of neocolonialism, in part because those theories directly influence a ton of intellectuals but also in part because they provide a coherent explanation of how the US has managed its global influence in the past and (I predict) how it will do so in the future.
I can also do things like more fully analyze the factors behind US police and African-American relations, or how a film will influence a young girl.
These frameworks of thought are in constant competition with one another.
That reminds me of the Marxist who can explain everything with the struggle of the workers against the capitalists.
I can also do things like more fully analyze the factors behind US police and African-American relations, or how a film will influence a young girl.
The sentence looks like your study did damage. You shouldn’t come out of learning about politics believing that you can fully understand the factors of anything political.
That reminds me of the Marxist who can explain everything with the struggle of the workers against the capitalists.
I am referring to the normative parts of frameworks. For instance feminism makes many normative statements. It is a project dedicated to changing certain policies and cultural attitudes. The eventual influence of these frameworks are based largely on their acceptance.
People make statements. Abstract intellectual labels don’t. People have all sorts of personal goals.
If one sees everything as the battle of certain frameworks then a lot dealing with individual people is lost.
Additionally you can also miss when new thoughts come along that don’t fit into your existing scheme.
A lot of people coming from the humanities for example have very little understanding of the discourse of geeks.
The political effects of getting people to meditate and be in touch with their bodies are also unknown unknowns for a lot of people trained in the standard political ways of thinking.
People make statements. Abstract intellectual labels don’t. People have all sorts of personal goals. If one sees everything as the battle of certain frameworks then a lot dealing with individual people is lost.
I don’t have much to comment on this except that many academics in the humanities level charges of dehumanization and ignoring individual agency against a lot of works in economics or quantitative sociology and political science (ex. they might criticize an economics paper that attributes civil unrest to food shortages without discussing how it might originate in individual dissatisfaction with oppression and corruption). So it’s ironic if I’ve done the same disservice to those academics.
Additionally you can also miss when new thoughts come along that don’t fit into your existing scheme. A lot of people coming from the humanities for example have very little understanding of the discourse of geeks.
I don’t really know what you’re referring to. But if you’re talking LW-style memes, I think that it is generally true that futurism isn’t of much interest to many in the humanities. And to a great degree it is orthogonal to what they do. A scenario like the singularity may not be, in that it’s not orthogonal to anyone or anything, but I haven’t had many conversations about it with those in the humanities.
The political effects of getting people to meditate and be in touch with their bodies are also unknown unknowns for a lot of people trained in the standard political ways of thinking.
What are you thinking of?
But I am sure there are academics who can readily discuss the effects of the fall of physically demanding labor, the effect of physical rigors on those in the military, or the interaction of all flavors of Buddhism with politics.
(ex. they might criticize an economics paper that attributes civil unrest to food shortages without discussing how it might originate in individual dissatisfaction with oppression and corruption).
Dissatisfaction with oppression and corruption in itself doesn’t have much to do with individual people being actors. Standard feminist theory suggests that social groups are oppressed.
And to a great degree it is orthogonal to what they do. A scenario like the singularity may not be, in that it’s not orthogonal to anyone or anything, but I haven’t had many conversations about it with those in the humanities.
As far as LW ideas go, prediction markets do have political implications. X-risk prevention does have political implications.
CFAR mission also mentions that they want to change how we decide which legislation to pass.
A bunch of geeks are working on getting liquid democracy to work.
Wikileaks and it’s in actions do have political effects.
Sweden recently changed their Freedom of Press laws to make it clear that having a server in Sweden is not enough to profit from Swedish press protections because Julian Assanges Wikileaks tried to use Swedish press protection to threaten people who try to uncover sources of Wikileaks.
In Germany a professor of sociology recently wrote a book that argued that Quantified Self is driven by the belief that it’s possible to know everything. It isn’t. The kind of geeks New Atheists that want everything to be evidence-based and who believe that they can know everything generally reject QS for not doing blinded and controlled trials.
He simply treated all geeks the same way and therefore missed the heart of the issue.
How much have polticial scientists wrote about Crypto Wars and in Cory Doctorow words the recent war on general computing?
Estonia had to be defended against cyber war by a lose collection where likely the stronger players weren’t government associated. It’s also quite likely that we live in a time where a nongovernemntal force is strong enough to start such a war.
The NSA is geeky enough that it’s NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander modeled his office after the Star Treck bridge.
Jeff Bezos brought the Washington post. Pierre Omidyar who made his money with ebay sponsored First Look Media. Those are the signs that more and more political power goes to geeks.
What are you thinking of?
I’m just pointing to a political idea to which you probably aren’t exposed.
the effect of physical rigors on those in the military
Military training is not supposed to build empathy but the opposite. Soldiers are trained to ignore bodily feelings.
How do you know that you understand motivations of political articles better? Are you able to predict anything politically relevant that you couldn’t have predicted beforehand?
Concretely, I can often tell if the article writer is coming from a particular school of thought or referencing a specific thesis, then interpret jargon, fill in unstated assumptions, see where they’re deviating or conforming to that overarching school of thought. This directly enhances my ability to extrapolate to what other political views they might have and understand what they are attempting to write, and who their intended audience is.
As far as predicting the real world, that’s tough. These frameworks of thought are in constant competition with one another. They are more about making normative judgments than predictive ones. The political theories that I believe have the most concrete usefulness are probably those that analyze world affairs in terms of neocolonialism, in part because those theories directly influence a ton of intellectuals but also in part because they provide a coherent explanation of how the US has managed its global influence in the past and (I predict) how it will do so in the future.
I can also do things like more fully analyze the factors behind US police and African-American relations, or how a film will influence a young girl.
That reminds me of the Marxist who can explain everything with the struggle of the workers against the capitalists.
The sentence looks like your study did damage. You shouldn’t come out of learning about politics believing that you can fully understand the factors of anything political.
I think the difference I highlighted is an important one.
I am referring to the normative parts of frameworks. For instance feminism makes many normative statements. It is a project dedicated to changing certain policies and cultural attitudes. The eventual influence of these frameworks are based largely on their acceptance.
People make statements. Abstract intellectual labels don’t. People have all sorts of personal goals. If one sees everything as the battle of certain frameworks then a lot dealing with individual people is lost.
Additionally you can also miss when new thoughts come along that don’t fit into your existing scheme. A lot of people coming from the humanities for example have very little understanding of the discourse of geeks.
The political effects of getting people to meditate and be in touch with their bodies are also unknown unknowns for a lot of people trained in the standard political ways of thinking.
I don’t have much to comment on this except that many academics in the humanities level charges of dehumanization and ignoring individual agency against a lot of works in economics or quantitative sociology and political science (ex. they might criticize an economics paper that attributes civil unrest to food shortages without discussing how it might originate in individual dissatisfaction with oppression and corruption). So it’s ironic if I’ve done the same disservice to those academics.
I don’t really know what you’re referring to. But if you’re talking LW-style memes, I think that it is generally true that futurism isn’t of much interest to many in the humanities. And to a great degree it is orthogonal to what they do. A scenario like the singularity may not be, in that it’s not orthogonal to anyone or anything, but I haven’t had many conversations about it with those in the humanities.
What are you thinking of?
But I am sure there are academics who can readily discuss the effects of the fall of physically demanding labor, the effect of physical rigors on those in the military, or the interaction of all flavors of Buddhism with politics.
Dissatisfaction with oppression and corruption in itself doesn’t have much to do with individual people being actors. Standard feminist theory suggests that social groups are oppressed.
As far as LW ideas go, prediction markets do have political implications. X-risk prevention does have political implications.
CFAR mission also mentions that they want to change how we decide which legislation to pass.
A bunch of geeks are working on getting liquid democracy to work.
Wikileaks and it’s in actions do have political effects.
Sweden recently changed their Freedom of Press laws to make it clear that having a server in Sweden is not enough to profit from Swedish press protections because Julian Assanges Wikileaks tried to use Swedish press protection to threaten people who try to uncover sources of Wikileaks.
In Germany a professor of sociology recently wrote a book that argued that Quantified Self is driven by the belief that it’s possible to know everything. It isn’t. The kind of geeks New Atheists that want everything to be evidence-based and who believe that they can know everything generally reject QS for not doing blinded and controlled trials. He simply treated all geeks the same way and therefore missed the heart of the issue.
How much have polticial scientists wrote about Crypto Wars and in Cory Doctorow words the recent war on general computing?
Estonia had to be defended against cyber war by a lose collection where likely the stronger players weren’t government associated. It’s also quite likely that we live in a time where a nongovernemntal force is strong enough to start such a war.
The NSA is geeky enough that it’s NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander modeled his office after the Star Treck bridge.
Jeff Bezos brought the Washington post. Pierre Omidyar who made his money with ebay sponsored First Look Media. Those are the signs that more and more political power goes to geeks.
I’m just pointing to a political idea to which you probably aren’t exposed.
Military training is not supposed to build empathy but the opposite. Soldiers are trained to ignore bodily feelings.