It’s just that there are pretty few very-long-running, hidden, effective organizational conspiracies. They get eaten in their infancy by the banal inter-conspirator conspiracies against each other. I can’t guarantee none, but it’s certainly a lot less than hucksters would have you believe.
Why do you think the long-running and hidden conspiracies get eaten by inter-conspirator conspiracies? I’m interpreting this claim as the idea that ruling elites only cooperate for short amounts of time and then try to screw each other over.
Here are my off-the-top-of-my-head reasons for why this wouldn’t be true:
Long term goals are achieved by cooperation, the elites which produce stable alliances should expect to be able to achieve more important goals
At an elite level long term goals become much more attractive because you already have way more than your short term goals full filled
There exists an entire science for how you would organize in a stable and hidden way, the idea that this is a practically impossible task seems false
My guess is that the last point will be the crux, but other than that I’m wondering what your reasons/evidence are for your belief?
I suspect our crux is about whether alliances are hidden. There are LOTS of ways where groups coordinate against other groups, and “elites” are probably better at it than most, both because they’re successful at it, and able to use their coalitions effectively.
As far as I can tell, these alliances aren’t particularly well hidden, and are not “secret conspiracies”. They’re just partnerships, support, and shared goals. Their goals are often different than publicized, but that’s hypocrisy, not conspiracy—the true goals are pretty easily inferred from the actions. The internal competition and infighting makes it lots harder when secrets are involved, as a secret is a value to some and a weakness to others, and CAN be used to shift the split of rewards of the alliance.
I’m interested in your last point: “there exists an entire science for how you would organize in a stable and hidden way”. I feel like you expect this to be obviously true, but I’m at least a little well-read and plenty cynical about society, and I’m not seeing what this refers to.
edit to add: I do think there’s a whole lot of implicit collusion and non-explicit cooperation against other coalitions. This isn’t conspiracy, because it’s not organized and overt. It’s not “secret” in that there are no extraordinary measures taken to silence the snitches, but it is “hidden” in that there’s no actual conspiracy to expose, just unpleasant (to me) world models and shared goals.
I feel like you expect this to be obviously true, but I’m at least a little well-read and plenty cynical about society, and I’m not seeing what this refers to
You are correct, I expect this to be true but I don’t have a more specific example in mind more than intelligence services such as the CIA seeming to have a thought-out structure which is good at combating leaks and betrayal in different ways.
If you are well read on this, do you remember some resource that makes you think this is not the case? Are you saying conspiracies are really difficult to contain because it is near-impossible to organize in a way to prevent leaks?
edit to add: I do think there’s a whole lot of implicit collusion and non-explicit cooperation against other coalitions. This isn’t conspiracy, because it’s not organized and overt. It’s not “secret” in that there are no extraordinary measures taken to silence the snitches, but it is “hidden” in that there’s no actual conspiracy to expose, just unpleasant (to me) world models and shared goals.
I feel like defining what exactly constitutes a conspiracy is a common problem I have when trying to discuss them, this makes me think the word has too much baggage and should be left for something else, but there are other problem with that.
Imagine for example that the way the world works is something like:
Think tank that is made up of small group of highly filtered elites analyses the world
Media org listens almost entirely to what think tank thinks should be done and tailors message to that
Govs follow media narrative and puts into practice what think tank wanted
Imagine that regular people don’t realize that this is how it works, they think the media is simply reporting the news in an unbiased way (or basically only biased by personal feelings of reporters).
Does this make a conspiracy? If you imagine that it works out in the open to the degree that if you and I, really interested individuals, can figure it out and at least circumstantially prove it, is it a conspiracy? What if the way they deal with snitches is that the entire system is built on “knowing” the right people and if you’ve been marked as a no-good-snitch you end up being thrown out of any important position of power?
I feel as if you probably wouldn’t call this a conspiracy, but what is the required additional aspect? That someone in power does something illegal? That they cover something illegal up? That they are malevolent in their intent at some point?
Another, perhaps more important, question is if that behavior is observed somewhere in this system to what degree does that implicate the system at large? If we find that the Epstein story was literally covered up in mainstream media years before it broke, how should we reason about that in regards to the larger system? Currently we get to see glimpses of serious illegal and heinous crimes being part of the course for elites but the usual thinking is that this is only implicating exactly the parts of the system we see the glimpse of.
I feel like defining what exactly constitutes a conspiracy is a common problem I have when trying to discuss them, this makes me think the word has too much baggage and should be left for something else
This seems likely to me. Unpleasant equilibria and semi-organized feedback loops are very common. There’s almost no secret masterminds or shadowy cabals behind it, just selfish short-sighted power-seeking behavior. Calling it “conspiracy” without clarifying the mechanisms and motivations is misleading.
Think tank that is made up of small group of highly filtered elites analyses the world
Media org listens almost entirely to what think tank thinks should be done and tailors message to that
Govs follow media narrative and puts into practice what think tank wanted
1.5 is “think tank is publicly incorporated, takes funding in mostly-public ways, and publishes position papers with it’s name (and the name of members) on it”, right? I’d classify that as “normal, if imperfect, power relationships”, not “conspiracy.
If you put a more direct path from think tank’s non-public motives and recommendations to/from powerful individuals in government, especially if it contradicts public statements from the think tank and government, you have a conspiracy. If there are hidden paybacks or agendas in the media, those are conspiracies.
I suspect you’ve found our crux: “conspiracy” implies “intentionally and explicitly secret” to me, not just selective information and power-seeking, or even fairly pervasive corruption. The reason the distinction matters is that if one sees hidden competent conspiracies where there are none, the obvious bad equilibria use that against you.
There’s almost no secret masterminds or shadowy cabals behind it, just selfish short-sighted power-seeking behavior.
How do you know this?
1.5 is “think tank is publicly incorporated, takes funding in mostly-public ways, and publishes position papers with it’s name (and the name of members) on it”, right? I’d classify that as “normal, if imperfect, power relationships”, not “conspiracy.
Yeah, I think this is usually how it works. However I also think the way these are written makes them almost impossible for people not in the know to understand them or know that they exist.
Do you think it would be accurate to call the soviet union a conspiracy? In it there were rarely explicit lies, although they happened, people in a sense knew that the power structure was manipulating them and not working in their interest yet regular people (I think) didn’t pay this too much mind.
Why do you think the long-running and hidden conspiracies get eaten by inter-conspirator conspiracies? I’m interpreting this claim as the idea that ruling elites only cooperate for short amounts of time and then try to screw each other over.
Here are my off-the-top-of-my-head reasons for why this wouldn’t be true:
Long term goals are achieved by cooperation, the elites which produce stable alliances should expect to be able to achieve more important goals
At an elite level long term goals become much more attractive because you already have way more than your short term goals full filled
There exists an entire science for how you would organize in a stable and hidden way, the idea that this is a practically impossible task seems false
My guess is that the last point will be the crux, but other than that I’m wondering what your reasons/evidence are for your belief?
I suspect our crux is about whether alliances are hidden. There are LOTS of ways where groups coordinate against other groups, and “elites” are probably better at it than most, both because they’re successful at it, and able to use their coalitions effectively.
As far as I can tell, these alliances aren’t particularly well hidden, and are not “secret conspiracies”. They’re just partnerships, support, and shared goals. Their goals are often different than publicized, but that’s hypocrisy, not conspiracy—the true goals are pretty easily inferred from the actions. The internal competition and infighting makes it lots harder when secrets are involved, as a secret is a value to some and a weakness to others, and CAN be used to shift the split of rewards of the alliance.
I’m interested in your last point: “there exists an entire science for how you would organize in a stable and hidden way”. I feel like you expect this to be obviously true, but I’m at least a little well-read and plenty cynical about society, and I’m not seeing what this refers to.
edit to add: I do think there’s a whole lot of implicit collusion and non-explicit cooperation against other coalitions. This isn’t conspiracy, because it’s not organized and overt. It’s not “secret” in that there are no extraordinary measures taken to silence the snitches, but it is “hidden” in that there’s no actual conspiracy to expose, just unpleasant (to me) world models and shared goals.
You are correct, I expect this to be true but I don’t have a more specific example in mind more than intelligence services such as the CIA seeming to have a thought-out structure which is good at combating leaks and betrayal in different ways.
If you are well read on this, do you remember some resource that makes you think this is not the case? Are you saying conspiracies are really difficult to contain because it is near-impossible to organize in a way to prevent leaks?
I feel like defining what exactly constitutes a conspiracy is a common problem I have when trying to discuss them, this makes me think the word has too much baggage and should be left for something else, but there are other problem with that.
Imagine for example that the way the world works is something like:
Think tank that is made up of small group of highly filtered elites analyses the world
Media org listens almost entirely to what think tank thinks should be done and tailors message to that
Govs follow media narrative and puts into practice what think tank wanted
Imagine that regular people don’t realize that this is how it works, they think the media is simply reporting the news in an unbiased way (or basically only biased by personal feelings of reporters).
Does this make a conspiracy? If you imagine that it works out in the open to the degree that if you and I, really interested individuals, can figure it out and at least circumstantially prove it, is it a conspiracy? What if the way they deal with snitches is that the entire system is built on “knowing” the right people and if you’ve been marked as a no-good-snitch you end up being thrown out of any important position of power?
I feel as if you probably wouldn’t call this a conspiracy, but what is the required additional aspect? That someone in power does something illegal? That they cover something illegal up? That they are malevolent in their intent at some point?
Another, perhaps more important, question is if that behavior is observed somewhere in this system to what degree does that implicate the system at large? If we find that the Epstein story was literally covered up in mainstream media years before it broke, how should we reason about that in regards to the larger system? Currently we get to see glimpses of serious illegal and heinous crimes being part of the course for elites but the usual thinking is that this is only implicating exactly the parts of the system we see the glimpse of.
This seems likely to me. Unpleasant equilibria and semi-organized feedback loops are very common. There’s almost no secret masterminds or shadowy cabals behind it, just selfish short-sighted power-seeking behavior. Calling it “conspiracy” without clarifying the mechanisms and motivations is misleading.
1.5 is “think tank is publicly incorporated, takes funding in mostly-public ways, and publishes position papers with it’s name (and the name of members) on it”, right? I’d classify that as “normal, if imperfect, power relationships”, not “conspiracy.
If you put a more direct path from think tank’s non-public motives and recommendations to/from powerful individuals in government, especially if it contradicts public statements from the think tank and government, you have a conspiracy. If there are hidden paybacks or agendas in the media, those are conspiracies.
I suspect you’ve found our crux: “conspiracy” implies “intentionally and explicitly secret” to me, not just selective information and power-seeking, or even fairly pervasive corruption. The reason the distinction matters is that if one sees hidden competent conspiracies where there are none, the obvious bad equilibria use that against you.
How do you know this?
Yeah, I think this is usually how it works. However I also think the way these are written makes them almost impossible for people not in the know to understand them or know that they exist.
Do you think it would be accurate to call the soviet union a conspiracy? In it there were rarely explicit lies, although they happened, people in a sense knew that the power structure was manipulating them and not working in their interest yet regular people (I think) didn’t pay this too much mind.