Five years ago I wrote: On average people who support odd ideas are less desirable as associates, and less discriminating in which ideas they endorse. If people only endorsed odd ideas when they had new information suggesting such ideas were promising, we should be eager to hear of such news, and eager to associate with such people. But in fact the main task faced by those with good news on odd ideas is to distinguish themselves from freethinkers who just pretend to have such news. Contrary to their self-image, undiscriminating freethinkers are our main obstacle to innovation. (
utarchy is a form of government proposed by economist Robin Hanson, in which elected officials define measures of national welfare and prediction markets are used to determine which policies will have the most positive effect. That is socialism, communism or fascism. Government managing the economy, or market is nothing but socialism and fascism.
Not sure what a non sequitur exactly is, but I think I can agre that while not necessarily incorrect this may be a rethorical license or simply an intuitive claim, not exactly measurable with which I ,also intuitively, tend to disagree, in short there is good share of both and probably many bad changes were due to failure to address the overall spiritual disposition of men toward exploitation, that led to a bad use of new technology.I'll stop here as the scope is so large about this subject, that I'm getting sloppy, and that sentence is so vague that I doubt I'm answering that very concept of big changes - bad ideas controversy.;)The second sentence is probably an assumed consequence, with doubting formula, of his first sentence, meaning that as there are so many bad new ideas, according to him, there is a justified skepticism and a sort of protection against so many bad new ideas, therefore demanting a damn good scientific demonstration of its goodness :D.The second phrase taken alone, obviously would be patently logically flawed, as good idea is good regardless of how it's explained. Obviously this given the ease and simplicity of use of the idea, otherwise the explanation is vital for the idea to be working right.
I'm not pessimist, assuming, obviously that I'm a free thinker, I'm not so sure, if you want I'll discuss why, but that's part of me being free thinking ;).That something is wrong is fairly obvious, if he/she is wrong doesn't certainly mean, not only that nothing is wrong, but also doesn't mean that the specific problem doesn't exist, but just that what he/she thought was not a solution.But that invalid logic was clearly intentional ;), as you admitted.
Elitistic closure and presumption of stupidity of readers? I don't think it is a good idea. Smart thinkers are going to evaluate his ideas regardless (to some extend I may grant) of how many sloppy thinkers are here. Otherwise how can ideas be discussed?No offence, you have your points, i get it, but I'm just worried of uncorrect or too much of assumed implication of it.
Ops, you are also right :).Indeed the receiver of the new ideas must be open minded in this case and it is up to him/her to help in the evaluation of a proposition, held as possibly true. Let's say the good argument theory is more valid in front of a heterogeneous crowd, not as expert as the (let's say an engineer, a scientist, a producer or the like) one whom the proposer of the badly argumented good idea is directed to. (sorry, no native English)
Unfortunately, in fact this way of thinking led me to believe libertarians believe that market is good :) or the "invisible hand", or that they think rich or poor people are like that always because they deserved it.I'm another kind of libertarian, lets, say, for equality but not through State invasion in our lives, through taxes and the like (the infamous "nanny state"), lets say and for individual freedom. I also have the odd idea of a sort of welfare as part of the free exchange system not as an extra-charity. Obviously it needs many people to participate at this idea of marked, and that is the problem, it will need good ass arguments :).
You are both right I presume ;).I'm afraid it's up to the rational free thinker with the good idea, to back it up with good arguments. He/she also have to grasp and recognize a badly advocated good idea from a sloppy free thinker, to explain why is it good, even if he made the possible to make it sound silly. And in short I don't believe in a majority of stupid people, anyway, it's very complex describing how they could have become seemingly stupid or mediocre-medium thinkers, let's say obtusely conservative or sloppily radicals or freethinkers or indifferent, I believe some of them, not all, obviously could have let their genius ensue much more under certain conditions.
If our government is in State A and you are arguing why it should be in State B, you need to persuade people. The path you choose to take people through and the rhetoric you use obviously needs to be carefully chosen.
I think you even wrote on that subject a while back with a utility curve for rhetoric.
If you're trying to appeal ad populum then you would choose a populist argument, if you need to appeal to bureaucrats then you would choose an argument that appeals to them.
It's possible to appeal to multiple groups through multiple arguments. Hence why "talking points" arise out of very complex legislation (e.g. Obamacare)
If you do not provide the talking points for people who can not understand your detailed argument, they will use heuristics to make their own—which is how you end up with the problem you currently have.
Most big changes are bad ideas. So if a big change is a good idea, it must be because of some rather specific detailed reasons.
This is pretty obvious on call-in shows like talk radio and C-Span. The speaker has some ax to grind, and the callers trying to support him or her are usually in his camp for totally absurd reasons, and the speaker then is forced to try and make the caller's argument more logical, which encourages confabulations that go nowhere.
You touched on some of this in your connections vs insight post (http://www.overcomingbias.c.... That post is one of my favorites.
At this simplest, freethinkers are pessimists. That a big idea is needed presupposes something is wrong; therefore, if the freethinker is incorrect, then nothing is wrong. That's invalid logic, but there's always room for irrationality.
This is perhaps why genius and movement-builder are often different people. The genius may have trouble finding the best arguments that the sloppies can grasp.
Can the idea of a sloppy supporter being bad for an idea, and use that against ideas we oppose? By becoming a rabid and vocal supporter with a clearly invalid reason, can we weaken opposing positions?
Is that why mainstream politics is the way it is?
Just don't fall into the trap of thinking people who reject your ideas must just be practicing the wrong sort of skepticism.
Futarchy is like crowdsourcing... crowdsourcing 2.0! And in the Cloud! With social networking and apps!
Does one want futarchy to occur anywhere in the near future - or does one want to just create a template that will be available in the future?In case 1 - it is a matter of hitting a certain amount of support (which will be mostly sloppy thinking support) at a critical moment and enacting change.In case 2 - one might want to keep a pure idea then quietly refine it until it is rediscovered in an unquestioning manner by the sloppy thinking community.