The Gaming Den

One thing that strikes me about pre-Information Age era politics and policy recommendations is that there was few a lot more blank-shooting and ephemeralness among politicians and academics. Back in this haze of the lack of facts, positions and sides mostly came down to gut feelings and political philosophies. Oh, sure, you had your Galbraiths and your Keyneses, but for the most part you could get away saying stuff like 'a tax cut for the rich helps the little guy' or 'getting tough on crime reduces crime' or 'religious people are more moral' or 'personhood begins at conception' or 'we must escalate the War on Drugs to reduce drug-related crime' without your opponent standing on enough ground to call you out-and-out wrong.

But things started to change one people realized that Empiricism and the scientific method could not only be applied to 'hard' science but also to social science, too. It was a pretty slow process, but we're now getting to the point where we realize that oftentimes in politics or sociology or economics there is a definite right and a wrong answer. But people will still hold onto the outdated or discredited opinions. And not just discredited in a 'this conflicts with our political philosophy and common sense' but discredited as in 'this will not do what the proponents say it will do, here is our scientific proof'.

So then the uncomfortable question that needs to be asked is 'why do we put up with viewpoints that are consistently and fractally wrong?' And yes, I am specifically picking on conservatives of both social and economic bents. Especially American ones. But European conservatives are proving just as foolish, too. When do the Obamas of the world just flat-out realize that even though the opposition needs to be tricked/bullied/cajoled/negotiated with, there isn't some middle position or back-and-forth that will lead us to the best policy recommendations. Empiricism can definitely prove which is the right course of action and anyone who goes against it can be safely ignored.

Well, political, social and economic systems are belief systems, not science. If people stop believing on the value of the US dollar, said value goes down.

Honest attempts to find the truth about how human beings interact like Evolutionary Psychology get shouted down for hurting people's feelings.

People believe that there's a difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration besides token changes despite all evidence says otherwise.

And, finally, people belief that their side of the discussion is the one supported by the truth.

So, good luck with that.

Lago wrote:So then the uncomfortable question that needs to be asked is 'why do we put up with viewpoints that are consistently and fractally wrong?'

Money. Look at crap like educational programs, climate change, cigarettes...

Because conversation was invented so we could bully each other into submission. The other things that came out of it, even though they're far more important and useful, were happy side effects. It's why no one cares about who's right or who's wrong on the internet. All anyone cares about is making the other posters think you're right.

See? I've constructed an argument that allows me to casually dismiss anyone who challenges me as giving in to instinct, the antithesis of the empirical philosophy the Den embraces (or claims to, at least). And when someone responds to this post, the smart money says that is what they will actually be doing.

Chamo wrote:Because conversation was invented so we could bully each other into submission.

No, hon. This is what sticks are for.

:instinct:

The problem is that science is easily used incorrectly.

I mean, take every time someone brings up evolutionary biology. It's always used to excuse the worse behavior despite the fact that most of it is unproven theory and none of it is actually social science or was intended to be taken as social science.

That being said, most actual social science is wildly counter-intuitive. I mean, tell people that legalizing drugs drops drug use or that giving drugs away for free drops crime dramatically and they'll call you crazy despite the fact that it's 100% true.

The problem is that modern education across the world teaches the public to be factory workers and not critical thinkers. They accept a pseudo-scientific claim as easily as a real scientific claim because they don't even know what qualifies as real evidence.

That being said, I've recently decided that all argument on the internet is masturbation at best. The internet is a great place to share ideas, but the fact that almost nobody knows what qualifies as real evidence means it's an ultimately pointless exercise to try to convince anyone of anything.

That, and many maxims and life lessons are basically bullshit but can still be highly functional to believe in anyway. For example, the whole notion that anyone can make it in America via hard work can be an advantage if it inspires you to try and maximize every opportunity that comes your way. It's a notion that has some power even if you start out life all but irrevocably fucked over by the birth lottery. It also sometimes makes for some really, really bad policy.

K wrote:That being said, I've recently decided that all argument on the internet is masturbation at best.

That's a poor metaphor - masturbation only involves one person and it most often done in private. When you expose yourself masturbating to the whole world, that's exhibitionism

Josh_Kablack wrote:That's a poor metaphor - masturbation only involves one person and it most often done in private. When you expose yourself masturbating to the whole world, that's exhibitionism

What about mutual masturbation?

Lago PARANOIA wrote: So then the uncomfortable question that needs to be asked is 'why do we put up with viewpoints that are consistently and fractally wrong?'

You have to split "we" into two groups. Half of us aren't putting up with it. The other half are seeking it out for confirmation bias.