Theme: Agency

  • Some human social mechanisms are black boxes filled with chaotic nonsense gears,

    Some human social mechanisms are black boxes filled with chaotic nonsense gears, which even under analysis are absurd. In fact, they work, in part, because they are absurd, chaotic, nonsensical black boxes impervious to rational scrutiny.

    Rationalism is overrated. You cannot teach a child to be fully rational in real time. You cannot teach all human beings to be fully rational – because the grasp of some of the greater abstractions upon which our complex world is based is simply beyond all but perhaps ten percent of the population. (Nothing is so irrational as the idiocy of smart people.) You can however, teach parables, myths, and legends: narratives and history, and from that teach children how to use the black box.

    Protestant christianity is a mashup of the objective and technical nature of germanic language, ancient germanic social sentiments and legal customs, pagan river and forest mythology, the demands of being a poor minority on the world stage, an attempt to keep the ‘decadent’ east at bay, the christian ethic restated in germanic terms, a history under the church and a rebellion against it in favor of germanic customs, and a rapid assimilation and embracing of classical aristotelian ideas.

    No sane person would devise such a mechanism. It is a personal philosophy with political ends, and enormously beneficial economic consequences. (And plenty of other religions achieve just the opposite ends – perpetual ignorance and poverty.)

    It works. That’s the problem. Christianity produces ‘goods’. Even in the developing world, the market and political reforms are driven by christians.

    That’s why I support it. Not because it’s rational. But because supporting it is rational.

    I don’t care that it’s nuts. I care that it’s a goose that lays golden eggs.


    Source date (UTC): 2011-10-05 09:24:00 UTC

  • Jobs took big risks and learned from big failures

    http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/08/steve-jobs-americas-greatest-failure.htmlSteve Jobs took big risks and learned from big failures.


    Source date (UTC): 2011-08-25 11:19:00 UTC

  • **Social status is the human currency. It has to be. If we didn’t pursue status

    **Social status is the human currency. It has to be. If we didn’t pursue status humans couldn’t ‘calculate’ (in the heuristic sense) how to behave any more than they could calculate plans without using prices (in the quantitative sense). If economic calculation is impossible without prices and incentives, then human planning is impossible without status signals and incentives.**


    Source date (UTC): 2011-08-20 09:15:00 UTC

  • We have over 300 international studies that show that women are more violent, mo

    We have over 300 international studies that show that women are more violent, more often, in relationships than men. The evidence is overwhelming. (Why I have had to train every woman not to hit me has always surprised me.) Children imitate violence no matter which gender starts it.


    Source date (UTC): 2011-08-12 04:22:00 UTC

  • warning to economists: Humans seek status, not money

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/?p=3186A warning to economists: Humans seek status, not money.


    Source date (UTC): 2011-07-10 00:19:00 UTC

  • People do not choose their values so much as they choose those values that help

    People do not choose their values so much as they choose those values that help them create a world view that requires the least amount of problem-solving, and returns the highest self perceived social status from the values available to them.


    Source date (UTC): 2011-07-05 12:19:00 UTC

  • A Mouthful Of Pebbles And The Roar Of The Ocean

    Someone asked me (again) today, why I waste my time on some silly online political debate group. And that’s a good question. But I know the answer. It’s a choice. First, it’s not really very useful to argue with people who agree with you. I spent a good half hour last night at a dinner table overlooking the Aegean, arguing core libertarian ethical theory with Stephan Kinsella, who relies on preference and moral argument for his theories. If I agreed with him, what would I learn? You know, it’s like this: The Athenian orator Demosthenes, who had a soft and stammering voice, said that he filled his mouth with pebbles and practiced over the roar of he waves until his speech was perfect. I have a tendency to speak in high abstraction, making leaps between concepts that are too far apart in causal relation for most people to follow. About a decade ago, two friends, Ali from Iran, and Frank from the USA, abused me daily for this kind of lazy communication. I began to view this tendency as ‘my problem’. A form of impediment. And so for ten years I have worked, as Spinoza suggested, to “speak in a manner comprehensible to the common people”. Unfortunately, the common people will not debate, and are happy in their ignorance. But motivated ideological opponents, regardless of their motives, mental ability or character defect, are convenient foils for the improvement of one’s arguments. So, this group, like most online forums, is my mouthful of pebbles. I don’t seek to convert anyone. Although I do find friends occasionally. I simply seek to improve my argument. If others learn in the process than that is find with me. But my purpose is to improve my ability to express ideas.

  • are reactions to changes in property?

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/?p=2786Emotions are reactions to changes in property?


    Source date (UTC): 2011-05-28 12:49:00 UTC

  • Camus Didn’t Take It Far Enough

    Camus starts The Myth of Sisyphus with this insight.

    “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide.”

    To which I’ll add:

    “There is but one truly serious problem of political philosophy, and that is, why not kill others and take their property?”

    We always assume common interest, and that politics starts with debate. Debate is a proxy for violence. But we too often assume that a proxy is equally advantageous. It isn’t. Debate arose uniquely in the west as a means of enfranchising fellow warriors who must pay the high cost of equipping themselves for battle, so that they can participate in the fraternal defense of market centers – what we call towns, or cities, or the polis. It was a transfer of social status and power from the strong to the weak, so that together they might be stronger. The assumed equality in debate is for the purpose of the debate itself. Equality does not exist outside of that venue. There are the weak, and the strong. Violence is still the choice of the strong. And debate is a trade off for them. They hope to be stronger by it. But if debate becomes a means of making them weaker, they have the choice to return to violence. The only serious question of politics is why the strong do not kill or enslave the weak. From that question all others follow. If instead, we start with any other assumption, there is already a transfer of wealth going on, from the strong to the weak.

  • On Happiness: Prospective and Retrospective

    To be happy, people desire access to new stimuli – ‘relishes’ as Aristotle put it, or ‘new experiences’ as we put it today. People prefer working on optimistic ends. They prefer to work successfully to accumulate new stimuli, rather than at planning to prevent negative stimuli, or at planning to conserve resources so that they can preserve the current stimuli. And they enjoy operating at the maximun that their abilities allow while still succeeding in their plans. The human mind craves something to do. It just wants to do something it can succeed at doing. Throughout history, any number of people have tried to take ownership of the term ‘happiness’ and to define it according to their preferences. Usually, someone picks a point on the temporal spectrum and claims that ‘true happiness’ comes from either pleasure, freedom from stress, or a life that is retrospectively well lived. Temporal priority is an important attribute of happiness, because Time Bias (Time Preference) or the tendency for people to pursue outcomes of shorter or longer distance in the future is correlative with social status. These terms below use the temporal spectrum to accommodate the most common priorities.

    • ‘Pleasure’
    • ‘Prospective Happiness’
    • ‘Retrospective Happiness’

    Happiness is both a reward for our anticipation of the opportunity for stimulation, and our reward for the exercise of good judgement in obtaining that stimuli. The priority that each of us give to these different properties of Prospective and Retrospective Happiness are different, and dependent upon a combination of our abilities and skill at forecasting, planning, succeeding, obtaining group membership, and avoiding stress. We would all be happier amidst the plenty in the Garden of Eden wherein our basic wants and needs were fully and freely satisfied, and there was little else to do but enjoy one another’s company. At least, we would, until our biological Alphas decided that hoarding the best resources and controlling access to mates was more entertaining than communalism. But in our real world, we are somewhat challenged in achieving happiness because of the unresolveable conundrum of living not in the garden of eden – which is a place of plenty – but in a universe of scarcity. And having to transform the scarce resources of the real world into increasingly complex products and services through a division of labor and knowledge in which many hands may indeed make light work, but which, because of the many hands, requires cooperation among people of different ages and abilities and interests to make that work light. To coordinate people within such a complex system, we must rely upon the information provided by an uncaring and anonymous pricing system rather than our natural empathy, observable interactions, personal commitments and habituated relationships that constitute the much more limited information system inherited from our tribal biology. And it is the conflict between our a) tribal instincts and sentiments, the need for belonging to a group, the status signals that come from that membership, and b) the anonymity and confusion that come from our dependence upon the pricing system, that make our prosperity and freedom from the vicissitudes of nature possible. This conflict appears to be an unresolvable conflict that satisfies our pleasures, but limits our happiness. Never in history have so many people had it so well, but claimed so little happiness – except perhaps since the first invasion of north america by modern man. But it need not be an unresolvable conflict if we separate thinking and acting locally as if we are in a tribe governed by our instincts, from thinking and acting socially and politically as if we are in a market, governed by prices. Unless we understand that difference, happiness will be elusive. You cannot be happy if want the impossible. That runs contrary to our biological want to have our plans succeed rather than fail.