21 KiB
[Challenge Companion] Politics
-
Author: u/alexanderwales Time flies like an arrow*
-
URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/5atdsy/challenge_companion_politics/
-
Score: 16
-
Created: 2016-11-02T23:31:47
Post:
This is the companion thread for the biweekly challenge. Please post recommendations, story ideas, brainstorming, etc. in this thread.
I love politics. Or rather, I hate politics, because it's horrible and toxic, but I love the play and counterplay of politics; so long as I'm viewing it more as a chess match and less like a decision making process, I end up enjoying the show. I also think that politics is one of the hardest things for a writer to get right, because there's a strong instinct to just write the other side off as stupid or ignorant without actually trying to pass some form of the ideological Turing test.
Politics in science fiction and fantasy holds more of a draw for me, because an author can create a new issue from whole cloth and then explore where the ideological (and political faction) lines can be drawn. It's fascinating to me to see political explorations of necromancy or human-brain interfaces ... and in my opinion, it doesn't really show up as often as it should.
(Apologies for the brief summary, it's National Novel Writing Month.)
Comments:
u/RMcD94 [+7] (7 hours later)
politics is one of the hardest things for a writer to get right, because there's a strong instinct to just write the other side off as stupid or ignorant without actually trying to pass some form of the ideological Turing test.
I would say that the difficulty in writing politics is making both sides look stupid and ignorant which is a lot more in line with the reality of politics in a non-rational populace. What's the need for coherent sensible politics when buzzwords and catchphrases do more work?
u/IomKg [+5] (13 hours later)
http://yudkowsky.tumblr.com/writing/moral-conflicts
"The natural modality for genuinely sophisticated literary exploration of morality is a conflict of Good vs. Good, played straight. A conflict between high ideals that the story doesn’t try to taint, to cast down, to use to showcase the author’s superior worldly cynicism—-for this does nothing but weaken the conflict."
u/RMcD94 [+1] (14 hours later)
Are you trying to say that the world right now represents good vs good politically? Or that politicians aren't behaving rationally?
Because of all members of the real world I'd say politicians have one of the quickest feedback loops at maximising their goal of reelection
u/IomKg [+4] (14 hours later)
Is this thread about writing an article for a real world newspaper about some real world political party?
Or is this thread for a story about fictional characters?
u/RMcD94 [+2] (15 hours later)
I am saying that politics in most, even in rational, fiction is not based on the assumption that voters are rational. The politicians can be rational and still have a rational story while still presenting ignorant opinions.
For example there's nothing saying Trump is an irrational actor. Yeah he probably is but we don't know his goals, and he managed to get second place not by representing the side of good, same with Hillary.
u/IomKg [+3] (17 hours later)
Neither are military leaders, generals, councils of magic etc.
In theory you could portray all of them as irrational, but that is just less interesting.
u/RMcD94 [+2] (a day later)
None of those figures are elected by an irrational mass of people. But yes you would expect outside of combat they might say stuff to avoid losing their jobs by pissing off say an irrational King.
u/None [+2] (a day later)
None of those figures are elected by an irrational mass of people.
Your contempt for the broad population is duly noted.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (a day later)
Do you think that people are generally rational?
I think if you have contempt for people who don't align to the adherence of rationality you might want to relax a bit
u/None [+3] (a day later)
Yes, I do think people are generally rational. There's basically no other way they could work.
u/RMcD94 [+0] (a day later)
That's completely and totally wrong.
People are not rational actors at all.
u/None [+2] (a day later)
*for a definition of "rational" in which a generative model and utility function are given a priori, all sensory information is perfectly precise, and economic utility-maximization is the assumed normative standard
In short, people are not "rational" if by "rational" you mean "AIXI". Of course, AIXI has numerous flaws listed out in the literature about it, and can't exist in the physical world. When you try to come up with definitions of rationality that can in principle apply to physical, embodied beings with no a priori knowledge beyond their learning algorithms, you get definitions under which human beings are approximately rational. It is, of course, possible to make something more rational than a human, but that requires building in additional information, literally writing more bits of code into the learning algorithms.
I'll post links late in the evening today.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (a day later)
I'm using rationality as it is consistently used in every economic literature I've ever read or studied, if you want to redefine it then that's on you.
But I have no interest in a semantics argument, reread my initial sentence with the definition of rationality as accepted by the rest of the world instead of the world rationality.
u/None [+1] (a day later)
And I'm using "rationality" as discussed in cognitive science, because economists are, well, studying objectively insane behavior that happens to model the particular systems they care about.
The cog-sci definition is actually closer to the colloquial usage of the word than the economics definition that Tversky and Kahneman have popularized throughout "rationality" communities.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (a day later)
I don't have a degree in cog-sci so I'm hardly going to use whatever they define it. I can't speak for "colloquial" but like I said I am talking about that type of rationality.
u/None [+1] (a day later)
At which point we agree that people are not economically "rational", but disagree on what further conclusions should be drawn from that.
I should actually run the equations I came up with and see if I can get the correspondence I think I should between economic-style rationality and cog-sci embodied rationality.
u/None [+1] (2 days later)
Here's a paper. It's got a section "Computational rationality in mind and brain" that addresses the question we're talking about. I can also find something from Friston's lab about how economic rationality is a special case of active inference, and how model uncertainty interacts with the economic rationality assumptions (specifically, those have no model uncertainty, so that probability and utility always trade off linearly).
u/IomKg [+1] (a day later)
How being elected by an "irrational" mass of people matter?
Why do you think that in combat they would not be "irrational"?
u/RMcD94 [+1] (a day later)
They would die in combat if they acted irrationally.
u/IomKg [+1] (a day later)
Statistically some won't...
u/RMcD94 [+1] (a day later)
True
u/trekie140 [+3] (a day later)
To me, that sounds like an oversimplification. The US political system certainly has many systemic problems that have become very apparent this election, but to write off the situation as "people are morons" is unproductive. What is productive is to understand why the system is the way it is due to what interests people are incentivized to pursue.
Political campaigns aren't build on catchphrases, those are just marketing slogans designed to attract attention from potential voters so they might reconsider their position and also give current supporters a tribal identification to latch onto. It's easier for people to process, especially when they're distracted from politics by their own busy lives.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (a day later)
Both sides of the political spectrum in the USA look pretty stupid and ignorant to me but the individual actors may not be. Since humans can lie if Trump gets more votes by acting stupid and ignorant then that's what he'll do.
Also tribal identification doesn't exactly scream to me good vs good
u/trekie140 [+2] (a day later)
Individuals have enough difficulty being rational by themselves, when they group together those biases are even more likely to take hold just by pure volume. Tribalism is a significant source of bias, but we can't exactly prevent it since grouping up to pursue mutual interests ahead of others is a basic survival mechanism. Some people have more empathy for those outside their tribe than others, but in the end we all have people whose interests we value more than others even if it's just our loved ones. That's not a bad thing, that's just what us humans are programmed to do.
I would still call it good vs good, it's just that each tribe has a different definition of what is good that is predisposed to helping their tribe over others. It's a politician's job to fulfill their constituents desires, but no one can get everything they want so they negotiate to get as much as they can. Of course, not all constituents will be happy with the end result or what had to be done to get there, so politicians have to project an image that doesn't encompass the whole truth. Outright lying is possible, just like it is for any human, but being found out will destroy the trust they've earned.
Trump is an anomaly in the context of political history, and he can't be used as an example of anything until the campaign is over and we can see the consequences of it. All we can examine right now is the lead up to his campaign, look at the ideological shifts within the GOP over the years. In general, politics around the world has seen a resurgence of populism in response to both rapid change and a lack of change in different areas. Both sides think their grievances are being ignored by the political system and are flocking to candidates that defy the status quo due to their frustration with it.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (a day later)
I would still call it good vs good, it's just that each tribe has a different definition of what is good that is predisposed to helping their tribe over others.
If you describe the current political climate as good vs good and that's what Alexander meant then I agree.
u/trekie140 [+1] (a day later)
To be clear, I do not think Trump is "good" in the least and Clinton has plenty of her own baggage. I was speaking in generalizations that I find effective at understanding how political trends work. Specifics are more difficult since we don't have complete data or the benefit of hindsight.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (a day later)
I was speaking our as in globally since I am not from the USA I don't identify them as us.
If you're writing a story which contains two party politics in the back or foreground then I think unless you have a population which is rational making them appear good vs good to a reader seems wrong to me. Go read 90% of political discussions from just 100 years ago from example and both sides would be difficult to describe as good, and that's from both a hindsight and a much more in depth look in than the average citizen would get (depends if your story has your character super involved in the depth behind scene or not). Once you're detached from the environment that political machines have built up it's very difficult to see sides as good.
Of course you can do it and it'd certainly be interesting to read a story about 2 rational political parties debating for a rational audience (though I think eventually you'd get very few debates since it'd come down to axiomatic disagreements).
u/trekie140 [+2] (a day later)
Of course political debates seem that way when you are detached from the environment, but it's impossible to separate analysis of politics from the environment it takes place in. The people in that environment are the ones making demands and politicians have to listen to them. The USA looks like a circus to Europe, while us yanks are marveling at the absurdity of Brexit and the inhumanity of the refugee crisis.
The best book I ever read that helped me understand how people think about politics, and moral values in general, is The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. It's a rational examination of irrational behavior on a large scale and the psychological mechanisms that cause it.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (a day later)
Well I think many people feel that their own political system looks like a circus regardless, just that more people feel that way about foreign political systems.
Similar to that previous monthly challenge on Moloch, aggreggate individual approval rating of the overall system is not enough to ever think that it is good vs good.
u/None [+1] (a day later)
What's the need for coherent sensible politics when buzzwords and catchphrases do more work?
What's the need for convoluted intellectual frameworks to rationalize the stupid buzzword-policies your sponsors actually want to enact?
u/RMcD94 [+1] (a day later)
Because the sponsors don't want the same things as the public?
u/None [+1] (a day later)
Of course they don't. Why would they? They're a sample from the subset who have the resources to sponsor politicians.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (a day later)
Having the resources changes your motives. That's pretty basic stuff.
u/None [+1] (a day later)
Yes, I know what a material interest is too.
u/Cariyaga [+3] Kyubey did nothing wrong (an hour later)
Wow, talk about spot on timing for this one. :p
u/Stopppit [+2] (7 hours later)
Not exactly politics (rather anti-politics) but I think the idea of anarchy or anarcho-capitalism has potential in rational fiction. I keep waiting for a story where the 'Dark Lord' gets overthrown and isn't just replaced with another ruler, benevolent or not. The moral philosophy behind anarchy or voluntaryism is also quite rationalistic (empirical evidence aside, as there haven't exactly been a lot of functioning anarchistic societies) so I'm surprised I haven't at least seen something similar.
u/None [+3] (14 hours later)
Ancap == anarchy, and if you think the two are even similar you dont know what you're talking about.
Also, if you're advocating for ancap you probably know roughly nothing about economics.
u/Stopppit [+8] (16 hours later)
Why not explain your point instead of just insulting me?
u/None [+5] (a day later)
The original definition of "anarchism" was left-anarchism, and there are good philosophical reasons why. That is, if you're willing to use force to create and defend private property (as in "anarcho"-capitalism), then you're really just going against your supposed anarchist principles to endorse primitive accumulation and its products.
It would be interesting to do this bit of history differently in some fictional world, and perhaps see what the arrangement of factions would be if one side was actually anarchist (perhaps based on Sterner or Kropotkin, or just as Iain Banks fanfic), another side was actually anarcho-capitalist (they decided to encourage economic growth using this newfangled "market" thing they made up), and another side was actually trying to engage in primitive accumulation.
u/eaglejarl [+1] (3 days later)
I need to read up on the various flavors of anarchy, because it would be a really interesting thing to add to my writing.
My understanding of it has always been "you can't use force of any kind, even to enforce agreements or laws." (Since laws are just agreements writ large, that makes sense.) I've spoken to one or two advocates of the theory, although I suspect they may not have been the most knowledgeable about it, because as soon as I started asking about tragedy of the commons they had no answer.
Could you answer a couple immediate questions for me, and point me to some good resources? ("Read the Wikipedia references; they're a good start" is a fine answer if true.)
In an anarchist society where there is no state or private property, how do you:
- Motivate people to do unpleasant jobs?
- Prevent tragedy of the commons?
- Deny pyromaniacs the right to burn things down?
- Build anything that requires significant capital and/or extends far from people's homes, like a transcontinental railway?
- Defeat the Dunbar number?
EDIT: Note that I'm talking about real-world-style societies made up of real-world-style people, not ones with post-scarcity or "super-rational / super-intelligent people" advantages.
u/None [+1] (4 days later)
u/eaglejarl [+1] (4 days later)
That's not really a FAQ, as the "answers" are all just information-free pointers to long articles. I was hoping there would be some sort of summary to provide context followed by the "learn more" links.
I'll put it on my stack on things to investigate the next time I have free time.
u/trekie140 [+1] (a day later)
Based upon my current worldview and beliefs toward humanity, the only scenario I can imagine a anarchist society functioning is in transhumanist sci-fi. It makes sense in a setting like Eclipse Phase, where infrastructure that carries both resources and information is so efficient and universally accessible that it's easy for people to organize intelligence effectively without government coercion.
Where the interesting political drama comes in for anarchism, at least for me, is the fact that the society admits that every "law" is just an arbitrary decision by the citizens. Even if there is some semblance of law enforcement, criminal trials could be decided by popular vote rather than judges and juries. It's an environment where tribalism can easily take hold, which can make for interesting conflicts.
u/Nighzmarquls [+2] (18 hours later)
or playing a few games of Crusader Kings 2 would be valuable as well.
u/TennisMaster2 [+2] (a day later)
Read this instead of watching that video.
u/None [+2] (a day later)
And here I thought things got pretty dark with the horror challenges!
u/Ridingh00d [+1] Ankh-Morpork City Watch (5 days later)
I think there is space to write a compelling story around international politics and The Security Dilemma.
Lots of work has been done on this area in the study of international politics but basically it explains how 2 or more states (led by rational actors) can reduce their overall security (through the increased threat of conflict) by attempting to increase their own security.
For example, the USA is worried about the USSR so it moves some ships a bit closer to Russia and/or builds a missile shield. The USSR sees this as an aggressive move and so responds in kind...boom escalation.
Couple of key things the theory relies on which could become good story elements are:
- All weapons can be used offensively, ie there is no such thing as a 'shield'.
- A lack of perfect communication and understanding of the intentions of other states
- The risk of believing your own propaganda about another state (eg, those 'dirty commies, you cant trust them').
- The fact that if you don't respond to another states actions it can leave you in a position of weakness.
Wish I could write fiction worth a damn, but I think someone else might be able to do something interesting with this central dilemma in politics.