I am not sure what the point is… perhaps that if voters were more conscientious we would get better candidates, who could accomplish things worth accomplishing? Neither seems likely.
You can’t just use the word “vizier” like that so casually!! Now I have to spend the next couple of hours watching Disney’s “Aladdin” for the billionth time… 🧞♂️
Oh gosh, Animorphs! That takes me back… not sure if I ever read more than a dozen entries or so, but they were scattered randomly across the timeline as they were what my local library had on offer.
All I can recall now is “blue people” (centaurs?), some seriously disturbing holographic book covers, and how some of the “morphing” sections were, uh, a little more than “suggestive” to my innocent young mind…
(In hindsight, they probably increased the furry population by a non-negligible amount tbh 😬 )
I mean, even if we accept the point of your debate, people vote for Vizziers 1 because this is, in this Pareto equilibrium, their best chance to at least avoid Vizziers 2. Negative polarization rather than positive.
In theory, yes. But I think you'd need to prove that the choice was both available in practice AND consciously rejected purely for compatibility reasons before you go full defeatist and assume politicians and their machines embody "socials powers that animate them" so well that it's possible to equate the two.
I, for one, think it's much better to think of them as mediums channeling actual (complex, multi-faceted) sentiments that exist in society, and this allows for some sentiments not being channeled at all, some being quite different in origin from the way the politicians express them, and the overall choice being severely affected by what (very few) plausible alternatives exist. The dilemma of the courtier in your story? It's a predicament of every human ever.
I think the millions of people who choose to cover their property with Trump flags shows that this is more than a reluctant defection in a collective action problem.
> I keep telling myself that the king is led astray by his wicked advisors. It’s not wrong, and it’s all I can do. I really do believe that, past it all, people are good.
Keep in mind this belief needs to be compatible with the fact that most people choose to eat meat simply because it tastes slightly better than plant-based alternatives, and that most people believe it costs less than $50 to save a life in the developing world and still choose not to donate.
I think people are good, just not in a purely universalistic way.
I eat meat, but I'd never be able to eat an animal I met personally.
I'd donated way more than $50 both is cash and time, but probably all my contributions are not worth that many QALYs bc I never researched the most efficient way to do so.
The task of political activism is to connect people's model of the world to their moral instinct. Seeing Bessy anytime we are talking about factory farming. Seeing the nice Chinese shopkeeper anytime we are talking about immigration. Seeing the bright eyed Ethiopian kid they saw in a documentary anytime we are talking about foreign aid, etc.
I think the oft-repeated claim that people choose to eat meat simply because it tastes better is wrong.
In my experience, most people believe--rightly or wrongly--that meat is essential for health.
My relatives and my boyfriend constantly express concern that my vegetarian (not even vegan) diet is bad for my health. They may be wrong (I certainly think they are!), but I'm quite convinced they're sincere.
That might be the first justification that comes to mind when they're reaching for a rationalization, but I think it's so flimsy that it shouldn't be considered a meaningful cause of their behavior. How are all the vegans still alive?
Ask yourself this: if the government (or some organization they trust if they don't trust the government) were to perform a massive, unimpeachable study that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that meat is not necessary for health (and to be extra charitable to them let's even pretend that no supplements or careful diet choices are needed to stay healthy on a vegan diet), what fraction of carnists do you think would stop eating meat?
I think this is my favorite thing that you’ve written and should do a much longer story about the visera.
I am not sure what the point is… perhaps that if voters were more conscientious we would get better candidates, who could accomplish things worth accomplishing? Neither seems likely.
You can’t just use the word “vizier” like that so casually!! Now I have to spend the next couple of hours watching Disney’s “Aladdin” for the billionth time… 🧞♂️
https://images.app.goo.gl/rEwgmduTuhFq2EnQ7
Reading Animorphs also works
Oh gosh, Animorphs! That takes me back… not sure if I ever read more than a dozen entries or so, but they were scattered randomly across the timeline as they were what my local library had on offer.
All I can recall now is “blue people” (centaurs?), some seriously disturbing holographic book covers, and how some of the “morphing” sections were, uh, a little more than “suggestive” to my innocent young mind…
(In hindsight, they probably increased the furry population by a non-negligible amount tbh 😬 )
(That's Visser rather than Vizer, but I always think of them as the same)
I mean, even if we accept the point of your debate, people vote for Vizziers 1 because this is, in this Pareto equilibrium, their best chance to at least avoid Vizziers 2. Negative polarization rather than positive.
Nope, they could have picked someone else in the primary
In theory, yes. But I think you'd need to prove that the choice was both available in practice AND consciously rejected purely for compatibility reasons before you go full defeatist and assume politicians and their machines embody "socials powers that animate them" so well that it's possible to equate the two.
I, for one, think it's much better to think of them as mediums channeling actual (complex, multi-faceted) sentiments that exist in society, and this allows for some sentiments not being channeled at all, some being quite different in origin from the way the politicians express them, and the overall choice being severely affected by what (very few) plausible alternatives exist. The dilemma of the courtier in your story? It's a predicament of every human ever.
I think the millions of people who choose to cover their property with Trump flags shows that this is more than a reluctant defection in a collective action problem.
And there is never any gatekeeping going on in the primaries!
No. Because there was little chance to _coordinate_ such a choice.
You might consider Caplan's argument that people aren't bad so much as error-prone, and then vote Libertarian.
> I keep telling myself that the king is led astray by his wicked advisors. It’s not wrong, and it’s all I can do. I really do believe that, past it all, people are good.
Keep in mind this belief needs to be compatible with the fact that most people choose to eat meat simply because it tastes slightly better than plant-based alternatives, and that most people believe it costs less than $50 to save a life in the developing world and still choose not to donate.
I think people are good, just not in a purely universalistic way.
I eat meat, but I'd never be able to eat an animal I met personally.
I'd donated way more than $50 both is cash and time, but probably all my contributions are not worth that many QALYs bc I never researched the most efficient way to do so.
The task of political activism is to connect people's model of the world to their moral instinct. Seeing Bessy anytime we are talking about factory farming. Seeing the nice Chinese shopkeeper anytime we are talking about immigration. Seeing the bright eyed Ethiopian kid they saw in a documentary anytime we are talking about foreign aid, etc.
I think the oft-repeated claim that people choose to eat meat simply because it tastes better is wrong.
In my experience, most people believe--rightly or wrongly--that meat is essential for health.
My relatives and my boyfriend constantly express concern that my vegetarian (not even vegan) diet is bad for my health. They may be wrong (I certainly think they are!), but I'm quite convinced they're sincere.
That might be the first justification that comes to mind when they're reaching for a rationalization, but I think it's so flimsy that it shouldn't be considered a meaningful cause of their behavior. How are all the vegans still alive?
Ask yourself this: if the government (or some organization they trust if they don't trust the government) were to perform a massive, unimpeachable study that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that meat is not necessary for health (and to be extra charitable to them let's even pretend that no supplements or careful diet choices are needed to stay healthy on a vegan diet), what fraction of carnists do you think would stop eating meat?