Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Re44-NOTES.pdf
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Re44-NOTES.pdf
(The below text version of the notes is for search purposes and convenience. See the PDF version for proper formatting such as bold, italics, etc., and graphics where applicable. Copyright: 2022 Retraice, Inc.)
Re44: We Can't Vote and Can't Think.
Retraice^1
The Midterms Part 2: Trust (anti-nuking democracy) comes from practice (frequent voting) and drinking responsibly (not forgetting that we're being conned, which is manageable).
Air date: Tuesday, 8th Nov. 2022, 11:00 PM Eastern/US.
The hypothesis most relevant to the U.S. 2022 midterms is, of course:
H5. Civil War: `The U.S. seems vulnerable to a civil war this decade.'
Side notes
Side note, follow up from Re43: Super Tuesday: "the United States presidential primary election day in February or March when the greatest number of U.S. states hold primary elections and caucuses."^2 Today is not a Super Tuesday.
Another side note: We should find a way to apply the ingenious colossal machinery of our sports culture to politics. All problems would be solved.
About that nuke
The democracy nuke is `no confidence' (loss of trust) caused (in part) by infrequent practice, i.e. things we don't do often we don't do well, and voting is one of them.
We at Retraice are aware that making recommendations about how to fix a democracy, especially from the outsider-irrelevant position of a new podcast, is shouting in the wind. Outsiders are generally technical `dummies', meaning "any player, regardless of their weight, who has no say in the outcome of the election"^3 or other contest. Nonetheless, we're all part of coalitions of some sort, and ideas can be much more powerful than the `dummies' who hold them.
Back to the nuke: Voting, like other things, benefits from practice. More voting means more skill at: o compliance (e.g. registration); o procedure (e.g. knowledge of location, voter-roll maintenance); o norms (e.g. knowing what's out of the ordinary and what isn't).
So, are we delegating too much? I.e. are we doing too-infrequent elections and referenda, thereby leaving too much of the knowledge and decisions of civics up to our representatives? A heady question.
Are the downsides of frequent voting worse than the upsides? Thinking as homo economicus,^4 is the real benefit greater than the real cost?
Imagine if corporate boards could only vote every two years, or four. They would not have enough power to run their companies. The shareholders delegate to the board, and the board would have delegated too much to the executives.
Get bullshitted responsibly
We act like the world is simple but it's complex.^5 Alternatively: We know its too complex for us, so we seek someone who seems to be better/faster/stronger than us.
Technical bullshit
But these people are spouting technical `bullshit', as loosely defined by Frankfurt:
Statements that are "unconnected to a concern with truth: she is not concerned with the truth-value of what she says. That is why she cannot be regarded as lying; for she does not presume that she knows the truth, and therefore she cannot be deliberately promulgating a proposition that she presumes to be false. Her statement is grounded neither in a belief that it is true nor, as a lie must be, in a belief that it is not true. It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth--this indifference to how things really are--that I regard as of the essence of bullshit."^6
"Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person's obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic are more extensive than his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic. This discrepancy is common in public life, where people are frequently impelled--whether by their own propensities or by the demands of others--to speak extensively about matters of which they are to some degree ignorant. Closely related instances arise from the widespread conviction that it is the responsibility of a citizen in a democracy to have opinions about everything, or at least everything that pertains to the conduct of his country's affairs. The lack of any significant connection between a person's opinions and his apprehension of reality will be even more severe, needless to say, for someone who believes it his responsibility, as a conscientious moral agent, to evaluate events and conditions in all parts of the world."^7
This is not to say that intelligence (IQ, and/or good guessing^8), experience and wisdom are not extremely important--they are. The point is that they are not enough to overcome the mathematical complexity^9 of our society.
It's complicated
* PREMISE 1: The world is too complicated to understand completely.^10 Solutions might include: + trust policies;^11 + risk mitigation (especially hedging);^12 + explicit models.^13 * PREMISE 2: We instinctively respond to those who act like they understand, wich is analogous to being drunk.^14 Solutions might include: + being explicit about what's `good': Do we want someone good at `true', or good at `fit'? (They should always be good at `right', right?)^15 * CONCLUSION: We respond to liars, fools and bullshitters.
The real solution: Acknowledge reality: Being conned is like being drunk--and most of us, at some point, are so. First acknowledge it. Then drink (get bullshitted) responsibly.
_
References
Barlow, H. B. (2004). Guessing and intelligence. (pp. 382-384). In Gregory (2004).
Blackmore, S. (2005). Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0192805850. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9780192805850 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9780192805850 https://lccn.loc.gov/2004027966
Frankfurt, H. G. (1988). The Importance of What We Care About. Cambridge. ISBN: 978-0521336116. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0521336116 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0521336116 https://lccn.loc.gov/87026941
Gregory, R. L. (Ed.) (2004). The Oxford Companion to the Mind. Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. ISBN: 0198662246. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0198662246 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0198662246 https://lccn.loc.gov/2004275127
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN: 978-0374533557. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0374533557 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0374533557 https://lccn.loc.gov/2012533187
Lippmann, W. (1920). Liberty and the News. Harcourt, Brace and Howe (Leopold Reprint). No ISBN. eBook and searches: https://books.google.com/books?id=Df-SzcLRcAIC Retrieved 24th Feb. 2022. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Liberty+and+the+News+Lippmann https://www.google.com/search?q=liberty+and+the+news+lippmann https://lccn.loc.gov/20004814
Paulos, J. A. (1995). A Mathematician Reads The Newspaper. Basic Books. ISBN: 0465043623. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0465043623 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0465043623 https://lccn.loc.gov/94048206
Retraice (2020/11/02). Re10: Living to Guess Another Day. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re10 Retrieved 2nd Nov. 2020.
Retraice (2022/10/19). Re23: You Need a World Model. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re23 Retrieved 20th Oct. 2022.
Retraice (2022/10/24). Re28: What's Good? RTFM. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re28 Retrieved 25th Oct. 2022.
Retraice (2022/10/27). Re32: AI News. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re32 Retrieved 31st Oct. 2022.
Retraice (2022/10/29). Re34: Opinions. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re34 Retrieved 3rd Nov. 2022.
Retraice (2022/11/01). Re37: Notes on Solutions to Conspiracy. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re37 Retrieved 4th Nov. 2022.
Retraice (2022/11/07). Re43: The Midterms -- Part 1. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re43 Retrieved 9th Nov. 2022.
Schneier, B. (2000). Secrets and Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World. Wiley. ISBN: 0471453803. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0471453803 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0471453803 https://lccn.loc.gov/00042252
Footnotes
^1 https://www.retraice.com/retraice
^2 Super Tuesday, wikipedia.org, retrieved Nov. 8th, 2022. Also noted in Retraice (2022/11/07).
^3 Weighted voting: The notion of power, wikipedia.org, retrieved Nov. 9th, 2022.
^4 Homo economicus, wikipedia.org
^5 Lippmann (1920) p. 37 ff.; Paulos (1995) pp. 3-4; Retraice (2022/10/29) p. 2.
^6 Frankfurt (1988) p. 125.
^7 Frankfurt (1988) pp 132-133. Cf. also Retraice (2022/10/29) on opinions.
^8 Guessing, i.e. using our intelligence to "improv[e] the reliability of predictions by exploiting the redundancy [compressibility] of sensory messages." See Barlow (2004); Retraice (2022/10/27); Retraice (2020/11/02). Guessing is different from understanding, just as humans are good at subconsciously scanning images for danger (Computer-human hybrids could be best at scanning for danger, Aviva Rutkin, Aug. 12th, 2015), but that doesn't mean we understand what we're seeing. Side note: We're very vulnerable to missing changes in images (change blindness). Blackmore (2005) pp. 58-59.
^9 Paulos (1995) pp. 3-4.
^10 Paulos (1995) pp. 3-4; Lippmann (1920) p. 37 ff.
^11 Schneier (2000) p. 308.
^12 Retraice (2022/11/01) on `trustable tools' and `risk-limiting audits'.
^13 Retraice (2022/10/19).
^14 For an example, see Kahneman (2011) pp. 209-212.
^15 Retraice (2022/10/24).
View all episodes
By Retraice, Inc.(The below text version of the notes is for search purposes and convenience. See the PDF version for proper formatting such as bold, italics, etc., and graphics where applicable. Copyright: 2022 Retraice, Inc.)
Re44: We Can't Vote and Can't Think.
Retraice^1
The Midterms Part 2: Trust (anti-nuking democracy) comes from practice (frequent voting) and drinking responsibly (not forgetting that we're being conned, which is manageable).
Air date: Tuesday, 8th Nov. 2022, 11:00 PM Eastern/US.
The hypothesis most relevant to the U.S. 2022 midterms is, of course:
H5. Civil War: `The U.S. seems vulnerable to a civil war this decade.'
Side notes
Side note, follow up from Re43: Super Tuesday: "the United States presidential primary election day in February or March when the greatest number of U.S. states hold primary elections and caucuses."^2 Today is not a Super Tuesday.
Another side note: We should find a way to apply the ingenious colossal machinery of our sports culture to politics. All problems would be solved.
About that nuke
The democracy nuke is `no confidence' (loss of trust) caused (in part) by infrequent practice, i.e. things we don't do often we don't do well, and voting is one of them.
We at Retraice are aware that making recommendations about how to fix a democracy, especially from the outsider-irrelevant position of a new podcast, is shouting in the wind. Outsiders are generally technical `dummies', meaning "any player, regardless of their weight, who has no say in the outcome of the election"^3 or other contest. Nonetheless, we're all part of coalitions of some sort, and ideas can be much more powerful than the `dummies' who hold them.
Back to the nuke: Voting, like other things, benefits from practice. More voting means more skill at: o compliance (e.g. registration); o procedure (e.g. knowledge of location, voter-roll maintenance); o norms (e.g. knowing what's out of the ordinary and what isn't).
So, are we delegating too much? I.e. are we doing too-infrequent elections and referenda, thereby leaving too much of the knowledge and decisions of civics up to our representatives? A heady question.
Are the downsides of frequent voting worse than the upsides? Thinking as homo economicus,^4 is the real benefit greater than the real cost?
Imagine if corporate boards could only vote every two years, or four. They would not have enough power to run their companies. The shareholders delegate to the board, and the board would have delegated too much to the executives.
Get bullshitted responsibly
We act like the world is simple but it's complex.^5 Alternatively: We know its too complex for us, so we seek someone who seems to be better/faster/stronger than us.
Technical bullshit
But these people are spouting technical `bullshit', as loosely defined by Frankfurt:
Statements that are "unconnected to a concern with truth: she is not concerned with the truth-value of what she says. That is why she cannot be regarded as lying; for she does not presume that she knows the truth, and therefore she cannot be deliberately promulgating a proposition that she presumes to be false. Her statement is grounded neither in a belief that it is true nor, as a lie must be, in a belief that it is not true. It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth--this indifference to how things really are--that I regard as of the essence of bullshit."^6
"Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person's obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic are more extensive than his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic. This discrepancy is common in public life, where people are frequently impelled--whether by their own propensities or by the demands of others--to speak extensively about matters of which they are to some degree ignorant. Closely related instances arise from the widespread conviction that it is the responsibility of a citizen in a democracy to have opinions about everything, or at least everything that pertains to the conduct of his country's affairs. The lack of any significant connection between a person's opinions and his apprehension of reality will be even more severe, needless to say, for someone who believes it his responsibility, as a conscientious moral agent, to evaluate events and conditions in all parts of the world."^7
This is not to say that intelligence (IQ, and/or good guessing^8), experience and wisdom are not extremely important--they are. The point is that they are not enough to overcome the mathematical complexity^9 of our society.
It's complicated
* PREMISE 1: The world is too complicated to understand completely.^10 Solutions might include: + trust policies;^11 + risk mitigation (especially hedging);^12 + explicit models.^13 * PREMISE 2: We instinctively respond to those who act like they understand, wich is analogous to being drunk.^14 Solutions might include: + being explicit about what's `good': Do we want someone good at `true', or good at `fit'? (They should always be good at `right', right?)^15 * CONCLUSION: We respond to liars, fools and bullshitters.
The real solution: Acknowledge reality: Being conned is like being drunk--and most of us, at some point, are so. First acknowledge it. Then drink (get bullshitted) responsibly.
_
References
Barlow, H. B. (2004). Guessing and intelligence. (pp. 382-384). In Gregory (2004).
Blackmore, S. (2005). Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0192805850. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9780192805850 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+9780192805850 https://lccn.loc.gov/2004027966
Frankfurt, H. G. (1988). The Importance of What We Care About. Cambridge. ISBN: 978-0521336116. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0521336116 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0521336116 https://lccn.loc.gov/87026941
Gregory, R. L. (Ed.) (2004). The Oxford Companion to the Mind. Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. ISBN: 0198662246. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0198662246 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0198662246 https://lccn.loc.gov/2004275127
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN: 978-0374533557. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0374533557 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0374533557 https://lccn.loc.gov/2012533187
Lippmann, W. (1920). Liberty and the News. Harcourt, Brace and Howe (Leopold Reprint). No ISBN. eBook and searches: https://books.google.com/books?id=Df-SzcLRcAIC Retrieved 24th Feb. 2022. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Liberty+and+the+News+Lippmann https://www.google.com/search?q=liberty+and+the+news+lippmann https://lccn.loc.gov/20004814
Paulos, J. A. (1995). A Mathematician Reads The Newspaper. Basic Books. ISBN: 0465043623. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0465043623 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0465043623 https://lccn.loc.gov/94048206
Retraice (2020/11/02). Re10: Living to Guess Another Day. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re10 Retrieved 2nd Nov. 2020.
Retraice (2022/10/19). Re23: You Need a World Model. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re23 Retrieved 20th Oct. 2022.
Retraice (2022/10/24). Re28: What's Good? RTFM. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re28 Retrieved 25th Oct. 2022.
Retraice (2022/10/27). Re32: AI News. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re32 Retrieved 31st Oct. 2022.
Retraice (2022/10/29). Re34: Opinions. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re34 Retrieved 3rd Nov. 2022.
Retraice (2022/11/01). Re37: Notes on Solutions to Conspiracy. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re37 Retrieved 4th Nov. 2022.
Retraice (2022/11/07). Re43: The Midterms -- Part 1. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re43 Retrieved 9th Nov. 2022.
Schneier, B. (2000). Secrets and Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World. Wiley. ISBN: 0471453803. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0471453803 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0471453803 https://lccn.loc.gov/00042252
Footnotes
^1 https://www.retraice.com/retraice
^2 Super Tuesday, wikipedia.org, retrieved Nov. 8th, 2022. Also noted in Retraice (2022/11/07).
^3 Weighted voting: The notion of power, wikipedia.org, retrieved Nov. 9th, 2022.
^4 Homo economicus, wikipedia.org
^5 Lippmann (1920) p. 37 ff.; Paulos (1995) pp. 3-4; Retraice (2022/10/29) p. 2.
^6 Frankfurt (1988) p. 125.
^7 Frankfurt (1988) pp 132-133. Cf. also Retraice (2022/10/29) on opinions.
^8 Guessing, i.e. using our intelligence to "improv[e] the reliability of predictions by exploiting the redundancy [compressibility] of sensory messages." See Barlow (2004); Retraice (2022/10/27); Retraice (2020/11/02). Guessing is different from understanding, just as humans are good at subconsciously scanning images for danger (Computer-human hybrids could be best at scanning for danger, Aviva Rutkin, Aug. 12th, 2015), but that doesn't mean we understand what we're seeing. Side note: We're very vulnerable to missing changes in images (change blindness). Blackmore (2005) pp. 58-59.
^9 Paulos (1995) pp. 3-4.
^10 Paulos (1995) pp. 3-4; Lippmann (1920) p. 37 ff.
^11 Schneier (2000) p. 308.
^12 Retraice (2022/11/01) on `trustable tools' and `risk-limiting audits'.
^13 Retraice (2022/10/19).
^14 For an example, see Kahneman (2011) pp. 209-212.
^15 Retraice (2022/10/24).