Discover more from Overcoming Bias
Extremists hold extreme views, and struggle to persuade others of their views, or even to get them to engage such views. Since most people are not extremists, you might think extremists focus mostly on persuading non-extremists. If so, they should have a common cause in getting ordinary people to think outside the usual boxes. They should want to join together to say that the usual views tend to gain from conformity pressures, and that such views are held overconfidently.
But in fact extremists don’t seem interested in joining together to support extremism. While each individual extremist tends to hold multiple extreme views, extremists groups go out of their way to distance themselves from other extremist groups. Not only do they often hate close cousins who they see as having betrayed their cause, they are also hostile to extremists groups on orthogonal topics.
This all makes sense if, as I’ve suggested, there are extremist personality types. Extremist groups have a better chance of attracting these types to their particular sort of extremism, relative to persuading ordinary folks to adopt extreme views.
Extremists Compete
Providing "customers" what they want is a process that is subject to evolutionary pressure. Giving "incorrect contrarians" the appearance of objectivity (and rationality) is what they want, more than being correct. However, they want being correct more than they want the negative reinforcement of being seen as an obviously incorrect anomaly.
So, before there is a superintelligent synthetic sentience, those who claim that such a thing is impossible are "incorrect contrarians," and there's a ton of evidence that they're wrong, but they get a thrill out of being wrong, because then people listen to them and debate them, and they like debate and being listened to.
After superintelligent sentiences arrive though, and there is easily-available direct evidence that they do, in fact, exist, those incorrect contrarians have a few choices: stay committed to their wrong idea, modify it so it isn't quite as wrong, or abandon their contrarianism on that issue.
Every time a contrarian abandons their contrary stance on an issue, it's an indication that their contrarianism is --at least to some extent-- born from a desire to find the truth.
I have a deeply-held belief that putting people in prison for non-crimes is morally wrong. That led me to learn something about the law, social order, and economics. Before I began that learning, I allowed my morality to lead me to incorrect economic ideas. Eventually, I was faced with enough countermanding evidence (plus the internal inconsistency from the few ideas I initially had correct) that I abandoned my totally incorrect economic ideas. Areas of economics that I currently don't understand are now in the category of unknown, and I don't have a strong opinion for or against them.
I've stopped being a "contrarian" on the issue of economics, because I now have a position on the relevant issues and how they impact human morality. Now I simply oppose the ideas I see as incorrect, and less vociferously and with more curiosity.
Let's examine two sets of contrarian idea clusters (being angered by the roadside theft from motorists, anger at the victimless crime laws)(being a marxist). The first contrarian idea was at first initially supported by the fact that marxists lyingly claimed to share my anger towards those ideas. (They wanted to recruit me to their entire thinking, and then use me to obtain political organizational work.)
However, building a bigger state means more police on the roads, not fewer. It also means more laws for them to enforce, not fewer. It also means more politicians, and more powerful politicians.
If more politicians, and more powerful politicians resulted in the feeding of the poor, and the optimization of the system, we'd now be living in a paradise.
However, the facts of the matter became clear the more I searched for answers.
My "true rejection" was the totally indefensible punishment of innocent people, which results in a dramatic negative for all concerned (taxpayers, society as a whole, the punished party, their family, the education system, etc).
Once identified, though, I couldn't accept "the system" as I saw it. I simply didn't see it that clearly, or with enough comprehension of what I saw. After all, I'm a stupid human.
Now, when I recognize the same errors I once made in other contrarians, I don't begrudge them their errors. They'll figure it out, if they're moral people.
On the other hand, I've met people who are contrarians (mostly Islamic, sometimes Christian) because they think that homosexuals should be stoned to death in public. Those kinds of people are completely different from me, and I share little in common with them. However, they still will try to find common areas of agreement, and then twist them to their overall reason for being contrarian. In such people, they have a core reason that is very different from my "true rejection." Often, they wish to be the coercers of social conformity, because they imagine a fantastical theocracy to be to their liking, with themselves as rulers.
There are also contrarians who are motivated by the desire to debate (more neutral, less of a positive or negative). I encourage their contrarianism, because long term, such contrarians have no real stake in the outcome, and being more rational helps them get into the debates and discussions that they so enjoy. Such people are necessary for network communication, and sometimes "fact finding" and conflict resolution. However: Such people should not be put into leadership positions! (As much as they might like to occupy them, this is a common mistake!)
For example, the FBI, when they infiltrate an anti-government group they wish to neutralize, they work hard to promote all the ineffectual "contrarians-first, ideologues second" and demote those who are "morally driven but rationally-committed to the specific contrarian cause." The latter make good figureheads and leaders. The former will usually never do anything of significance. (See: Peter Matthiessen's book "In the Spirit of Crazy Horse"; Hunter S. Thompson's "Hell's Angels"; and John Douglas' "The Anatomy of Motive")
Often contrarians (libertarians, in my example) will meet and dicker about which sub-issue is "most important," rather than moving toward the agreed-upon existing highest-priority goals. The people who are very concerned about their own personal "sub-issue on which they are best-educated" will try to hijack the group so that that's all it talks about or cares about. This is a good example of contrarianism for its own sake, and not contrarianism motivated by some sort of core rejection of general values.
There are all kinds of minds in this world.
You wrote: "The Weimar Republic did not exist anymore in 1936. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...You are correct, I changed my example and forgot to change the dates. My bad. The point I made still stands on its own, even if you exchange "Third Reich" for "Weimar Republic." (I was going to use increased enforcement of the 1928 Weimar gun registration and licensing measure as the date, got too lazy to look up the date because I couldn't remember it, and only went back and changed part of the text, unfortunately for my argument surviving for those place more importance on details than essentials.)
You wrote: "Firearms were not banned in 1936 (in fact they were never banned at all in Germany, even in 2014 Germans can legally possess firearms)"
That's untrue. Obviously, they were never banned to the democidal and genocidal ruling establishment, because gun bans never apply to the ruling establishment. Guns were banned to Jews and other "undesirables" in 1938. Before that, they were banned to those without a state-approved permit (the "unlicensed," in a tiered licensing system, much like the current USA has).
Again: you are superficially correct, but your criticism is solely correct at the detail level. Even there, you are not materially correct, as the 1928 firearms law was used to raid unlicensed manufacturers, dealers, importers, and carriers of firearms. If the licensing was made sufficiently onerous by 1936, (as it had been), it was used to raise the cost of self-defense beyond the threshold where most people could afford to be competent with firearms. Moreover, such licensing destroys any "gun culture" by raising the cost of firearms practice and possession beyond what most people are willing to pay.
Moreover, just two years after 1936, the German Weapons Act was Passed by the Nazis. Here's what it accomplished, in addition to denying enemies of the Nazis, including Jews, from possessing firearms:
==============================The 1938 German Weapons Act
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." But under the new law:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition."[3]
The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[4]
Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[4]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[3]
Jews were prohibited from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. They were also forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[3]
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, promulgated Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews living in those locations of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[5]=================================You wrote:" and Jews were such a tiny minority compared to the Nazis and the powerful German military that it wouldn't have mattered anyway (the Soviets with their tanks and airplanes still lost millions of soldiers against the German military)."
This indicates that you completely lack a comprehension of how countries that have an "individual rights gun culture" are made more free by that gun culture, either before or during a totalitarian occupation. If it's before a totalitarian occupation, it makes the "progress" (in the sense of the term "progressive") toward totalitarianism slower, by offering a disincentive to government-authorized murder and theft.
In the case of the gun culture persisting after a totalitarian occupation, the gun culture results in that occupation being made vastly more costly on the occupiers, and makes territory vastly more difficult to occupy, ultimately resulting in the expulsion or deaths of the totalitarian occupiers. (As in Vietnam, and as in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.)
In all cases where individuals own guns, they do not attempt to "take and hold territory" in the military sense. They always induce losses on the occupiers via guerrilla warfare. This is an intelligent strategy, given the existence of even a few firearms.
In the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, a handful of Jews (less than 50) decided to arm themselves as best they could and resist, under the leadership of Mordecai Anielewicz. They held off the strongest division of the German Army for over 2 months, until the Nazis burnt the ghetto to the ground.
From the Wikipedia article on Anielewicz:
"A connection with the Polish government in exile in London was made and the group began receiving weapons from the Polish underground on the "Aryan" side of the city. On 18 January 1943, Anielewicz was instrumental in the first act of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, preventing the majority of a second wave of Jews from being deported to extermination camps. This initial incident of armed resistance was a prelude to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising that commenced on 19 April."
Some sources I've read that, with less than 50 handguns, those handguns were then used to kill German soldiers, and take their rifles, significantly expanding the number of people who could shoot another Nazi.
Also, even though my sense of what is likely, and my historical education cannot be perfect (I'm not the world's most intelligent guy, and I wasn't there), there is strong evidence from seemingly honest holocaust survivors that there was the strong possibility of a Jewish resistance, but that the total lack of a "gun culture" prevented it from happening, to the dramatic detriment of the Jews and other German minorities.
Here's an interview that strongly bears this conclusion out:http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z...
Now, I do know a few things about my individual capacity to use a firearm. I know that I have the ability to shoot a paper dinner plate from about 30 yards with my handgun. That's a lot closer than I need to be to shoot a rifle-carrying totalitarian thug, and take his rifle. Additionally, the USA has over 30,000,000 guns in around 5,000,000 hands. Most of those people don't work for the DEA, ATF, IRS, EPA, or other gestapo-like organization.
Of course, there needs to be a culture that resists totalitarian oppression in addition to resisting "gun control" (really, "gun chaos" or "slave control").
It may well be that this Nation of Cowards implodes simply because it lacks the internal will to survive, and because the government schools have done such a great job of creating people who are so narrowly specialized that they don't prefer a free republic to a national socialist police state.
Of course, in order for that to happen, nearly 100% of the people would still need to be disarmed, and that would need to happen AFTER jury trials are completely eliminated. (Right now jury trials are mostly-eliminated due to judges and prosecutors use of "voir dire" to stack the jury with people who mindlessly believe "the law is always right" and conform to that belief by "applying the law as the judge gives it to them." If jury trials are made improper in this manner, then they mostly "don't exist" or at minimum, "fail to serve their intended purpose.")
No military can successfully impose a long-term totalitarian regime on a free people who remain armed. This is because even one firearm can kill up to six soldiers before a reload. And, if you wait to do the killing at night, you can probably get a soldier and his firearm, too. Try holding territory in an area where people who are armed are determined that you will not be able to hold that territory.
The extreme threat of long-term imprisonment for increasingly minor political agitation --like that from which the person whose prisoner number is my username suffers-- is what currently keeps "whipped dog" Americans in line. America is a nation of cowards, and it needs its share of vocal contrarians to help restore it to its free market ideal.
I hope that clarifies my admittedly poorly-constructed initial argument.