From: Robin Hanson (rhanson@gmu.edu)
Date: Wed Dec 06 2000 - 12:45:52 MST
>Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 20:27:39 -0800
>To: Robin Hanson <rhanson@gmu.edu>
>From: "d.brin" <brin@cts.com>
>Subject: Feel free to post this response...
>
> >Hal Finney wrote:
> >>Personally, I consider the ideas Brin is pushing to be significant
> >>threats to the values which are most important to me. I don't want to
> >>demonize the guy, but based strictly on his current writings I have to
> >>view him as an enemy. I hope people can see past the smiling face and
> >>jokey writing style to recognize the importance and seriousness of the
> >>issues he is raising. David Brin is a dedicated and sincere ideological
> >>warrior who is fighting a long-term, well-planned campaign to use his
> >>writing skills to influence public opinion.
>
> >I view Brin as the opposite of an enemy. Brin is IMHO what we
> >need much more of: he is smart, thoughtful, articulate, eager for
> >criticism, a consequentialist on policy, and takes seriously the
> >technologies we envision. I might disagree with Brin on some details
> >of privacy policy, but those are far from fundamental issues for me.
> >
> >Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu <http://hanson.gmu.edu>http://hanson.gmu.edu
> >Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
> >MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
> >703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
>
>
>
>Thanks Robin! Both for sharing this slag by Hal Finney and for your
>spirited defense. I consider you a friend and an adult.
>
>Not that I consider Hal an "enemy"... no matter what he mutters about me!
>
>Naturally, I know Hal. He sent extensive and vigorous criticism of early
>drafts of my controversial nonfiction book about openness: The Transparent
>Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Freedom and Privacy?
> I got used to his grouchy style then, enduring it for the sake of
> those occasional gems one often discovers when listening patiently to
> intelligent fools, instead of simply dismissing them because they disagree.
>
>That typifies our difference, of course. I deeply believe that no single
>human being can accurately model the world, especially with formulaic
>ideologies. One mind cannot even model itself, let alone a complex
>society. This has been proved by science in at least three fundamental
>ways. Alas, this discovery hasn't prevented obsessive meme-fixation, only
>helped to abate it a bit.
>
>Indeed, this fact is deeply linked to the great tragedy of human history,
>a chain horrid blunders made by countless individuals and societies over
>time -- blunders arising not so much from ignorance, as from mistakened
>certainty. Across all those sad millennia, only one palliative has ever
>been found effective against our innate human drive to wallow again and
>again in satisfying oversimplifications and self-deceptive errors.
>
>That palliative (though we find it unpleasant) is criticism.
>
>Hence, I am fond of Hal for many savagely caustic things he said about my
>early drafts. His critiques (along with those of over four dozen selected
>opponents and nitpickers) helped me to refine my arguments in The
>Transparent Society, winning me awards, good press and fat speaking
>fees. In other words, the very process I describe in the book seems to
>have worked very well for me, thanks.
> And I get to have low blood pressure, too. I don't perceive many
> "enemies." Only lots of sarcastically helpful critics.
>
>
>
>I'm not sure which of my pieces Hal is railing against this time. Notice
>that he only used vague generalities -- no attempts to paraphrase or
>describe what he objected to.
>
> Well, I presume it's one of my recent critiques of contemporary
> libertarianism.
> To a purist ideologue, my call for pragmatism -- in the tradition of
> Scots-American Enlightenment figures like Ben Franklin -- must seem like
> utter betrayal. Far better to remain pure and righteous and ineffective
> than to engage in the gritty, compromise ridden world of practical
> politics! Above all, we must never acknowledge that any of our opponents
> have legitimate points to make.
>
>There are so many levels to this. Let's start with the most basic --
>psychopharmacology!
>
>(Warning. What follows may be a bit long. But I eventually get back to the
>main topic and it may be interesting enough to read, rather than skim.)
>
>
>Fascinating research indicates that moral indignation is one of the most
>potent known self-doping mechanisms for triggering massive secretions of
>dopamine and endorphins within the brain, by pure mental volition
>alone! As a psychotropic modifier, it can be as powerful as some illegal
>hallucinogens. It IS a well-known hallucinogen.
>
>Indeed, self-righteousness in some individuals offers a more rapid and
>steep fix than disciplined adepts achieve through deep meditation! A
>surge quicker than ingested or injected drugs. Any of us can demonstrate
>this by recalling times when we entered this indignant state of
>consciousness. (We all have!) Those of us who are honest will admit that
>it is an insidiously attractive high. One that most decent folks try to
>indulge only moderately or sparingly.
>
>Nevertheless, we shouldn't be too harsh in assessing our brothers who are
>resentment junkies, unable to wean themselves off the repeated chemical
>jolt that self-righteousness provides.
>
>
>Here are some suggested tests to check for dudgeon addiction, in yourself
>or a neighbor:
>
> 1) Are irate episodes rhythmic or episodic?
>
> 2) Are they reliably induced by stress?
>
> 3) Do they show traits that some theorists associate with fevered
> infection by a self-protective meme? (e.g. exaggerated irate response to
> mere disagreement or symbols in the environment?) Do physiological
> fight-flight responses (flushes, rapid heartbeat, clenching, etc.) get
> triggered, completely out of proportion to the person's immediate ability
> to do anything about the situation?
>
> 4) Is the person capable of reading an opponent's arguments
> carefully, without skimming, and then paraphrasing the adversary's
> position with some accuracy, eschewing exaggeration or demonizing
> caricatures? (Try it out here!)
>
> 5) Most telling of all is the Contempt Factor. Is the person
> deeply wedded to a belief that he is among just a few who see the world
> clearly, while the great masses of his fellow citizens are befuddled
> sheep, prey to manipulation by propaganda? Does he get pleasure from
> this self-depiction? (Come on now, be honest.)
>
> 6) Does he claim that his opponents hold their beliefs due to
> flaws in their character, while HIS beliefs were (naturally) arrived at
> through detached logic and selfless reason?
>
>Notice how wonderfully convenient #5 and #6 are! Of course, being human,
>his opponents think exactly the same things about him, in reverse! But an
>ideologue perceives no irony there. He simply responds that he is right
>about them and they are wrong about him. Period. Simple. No irony or
>dilemma. No more need be said!
>
>(A hint to the mature: whenever one of your own beliefs happens to be
>conveniently self-serving, that is the very time to feel a prickle of
>suspicion. It's time to seek every critical voice and counter-example, if
>only to keep yourself grounded and verify you aren't fooling
>yourself. Alas, ideologues of all stripes cannot do this. In my
>experience, they cannot even scan what I have written between these
>parentheses and parse the meaning accurately, without great effort. Try it
>on a few and see!)
>
>Alas, this memic/psychopharmacological cycle demonstrates that ideology is
>far worse than just a foolish attempt to model complex systems with
>paragraph-sized rants. It is a deeply cruel self-doped addiction -- and
>perhaps an insidious kind of infection -- that has been with us in many
>forms for ages and was especially responsible for the hellish middle years
>of the Twentieth Century. It has far more in common with religion than
>with any science.
>
>For more on this, people may want to take a little self-test ... or
>"Questionnaire on the Underlying Roots of Ideology"... to be found at
><http://www.kithrup.com/brin/>http://www.kithrup.com/brin/ The
>questionnaire is ideologically neutral and aims only at pointing out some
>of the assumptions and processes that affect our choice of favorite
>indignations.
> Instead of prescribing or preaching, I only ask questions and hope
> to provoke serious discussion. In fact, I do not know the answers to
> many of the riddles posed there. I'd be very interested in hearing bright
> suggestions!
>
>
>(Incidentally, in saying all this I do not claim we'd be better off
>without any ideologues! In The Transparent Society I speak with much
>admiration of the positive effects of raising millions of educated
>individualists, drunk on indignation and suspicious of all authority, each
>of them filled with ardor for one particular simpleminded model of the
>world and contempt for all others. In an open society, they make great
>immune cells against all kinds of error!
> (But they are not deep thinkers.)
>
>**
>
>Ah, but having thus insulted poor Hal -- (by implicitly (and perhaps a bit
>self-righteously, I admit!) calling him a self-doping memic drug
>addict) -- I'll now happily change levels and deal with the superficial
>merits of his case.
>
>I consider myself to some large degree a libertarian (though admittedly a
>heretic from today's obligatory standard dogma). I do because libertarians
>are correct in their belief that bureaucracies can oppress -- or more
>likely, stifle -- the right-hand of human creativity. Individual
>competitiveness. The long range goal must be an open society of
>hyper-educated and hyper-free adults who are liberated to maximally
>achieve what their talents allow them to achieve. Under such conditions,
>will we even need states anymore?
>
> Anyone who doubts my fealty to markets and other competitive systems
> should see my recent paper "Disputation Arenas: Harnessing Conflict and
> Competition for Society's Benefit," which is the lead article in the most
> recent American Bar Association Journal on Dispute Resolution (Ohio State
> University), V.15, N.3, pp 597-618, Aug.2000. (This article drew far
> more ire from lefties than I ever got from pallid attacks like Hal's!)
> Therein I present a model for "accountability arenas" and show that
> markets are just one example of this new kind of synergistic system in
> human affairs, responsible for our society's tremendous fecundity,
> freedom and wealth.
>
>So I'm loyal to competitive systems. Libertarian, right?
> On the other hand, I AM a heretic to official dogma, because I see
> how open-competitive systems have generally been stymied across time by a
> human curse far deeper and more general than mere bureaucracy.
> Cheaters! People who conspire to shut down open-competitive systems for
> their own biased benefit, squelching the opportunity and creativity of
> others. And cheaters are remarkably adept at finding out whatever works.
> I refuse to let some smug ideological mantra force blinkers over my
> eyes, focusing my gaze on just one threat to liberty.
>
>It always astonishes me how many bright guys (nearly all male) consider
>themselves well educated while utterly ignoring 99% of human history!
>During all that time, the sins of bureaucrats have been small potatoes
>compared to the agenda of a far greater and more persistent foe of human
>freedom -- aristocracy.
>
>Get this. EVERY SINGLE TIME AND PLACE THAT HUMANS INVENTED BOTH
>AGRICULTURE AND METALLURGY, SMALL BANDS OF BULLIES PICKED UP METAL
>IMPLEMENTS IN ORDER TO STEAL OTHER MEN'S WOMEN AND WHEAT.
>
>They then proceeded to set up social structures that guaranteed their sons
>the rights of lords and kings. Religion and biased property rules
>eventually became even more effective tools for maintaining these
>pyramidal social orders than picking up swords.
>
>Some call it feudalism. Others liken it to schoolyard bullying. Some use
>"Lord of the Flies". Whatever you call it, the phenomenon happened nearly
>everywhere on Earth(!) with utter and dreary predictability. (Under
>so-called communism this elite clade of aristocratic thieves were called
>"commisars" and they followed the exact-same pattern with complete
>reliability, replacing the old Czarist elites under a thin patina of
>altered verbal rationalizations. "Communism" actually had nothing at all
>to do with their power-cabal.)
>
>Whatever you call the aristocratic kleptocracy, it's clearly the most
>natural human social order. And it stinks.
>
>The only way to avoid it has been to set up a civil society of laws and
>balanced interests, reciprocal accountability, high education levels,
>regulated markets and... yes, some scrupulously constrained bureaucracy.
>
>Those who say otherwise bear a steep burden of proof! I have for years
>defied them to name ONE other society that did a better job of replacing
>feudal gangs with competitive markets than we have done here, now, in the
>"sheeplike" culture they express so much contempt for!
>
>Can they name even one culture that was more wonderfully set up to raise,
>train, and unleash legions of libertarians? Any other nations or tribes
>that even HAD appreciable numbers of libertarians? Or even the concept?
>
>You don't think your own libertarianism came about as a result of cultural
>"training"? Oh really?
>
>Then name even one other society in which the principal propaganda message
>was like ours. Our central theme (seen in all our films) is Suspicion of
>Authority! Go on, deny that's the romantic zeitgeist conveyed by the
>rambunctious protagonist in nearly every modern movie!
>
>And you actually think you invented it? Honey, you suckled it from
>society's teat since long before you could talk. You couldn't have been
>more thoroughly & relentlessly programmed if you was a computer. (If
>"sheep" are defined as those whose beliefs were determined by propaganda
>messages, what does that make you, Hal?)
>
> Alphas tend to see the irony in this and smile, without losing an iota
> of their individualism... only a smidgen of their useless rancor. Betas
> just get mad. ("How DARE you imply that my individualism was TAUGHT to
> me by the very society I despise!!")
>
>***
>
>Oh, never mind about that for now. Back to the main point.
>
>People who cannot see that liberty has a myriad threats -- including
>old-time aristocracy -- are fools blithely guarding just one sector of
>liberty's wall. Worse, they invite barbarians inside the citadel to help
>"defend" it. Barbarians who, in helping us combat bureaucrats, do
>everything in their power to convert our unique "diamond-shaped" society
>of rambunctious-educated hyperindividuals back into a traditional pyramid
>of inherited privilege.
> I say feh!
>
>Even worse than welcoming 'help' from barbarians and would-be lords, these
>goofy-bright fools demonize and call "enemy" people like me, who are at
>least as deeply devoted as they are to a world of liberty.
> Double-feh.
>
>Check it out. I'm the paranoid one here! Because I fear ALL threats to
>liberty, not just one convenient variety of boogeymen that happens to fit
>a narrow ideology. I want to pit them all against each other in open
>opposition. I want all the elites stripped naked so I can see what
>they've got. And if someone else considers ME to be a worrisome elite...
>well then I'm no hypocrite. I'll grumble and strip down too.
> So long as they do first.
>
>It is exactly what's worked for us so far. Damn if I'll be the first to
>abandon it.
>
>**
>
>Enough. This could go on and on, but I have better things to do.
>
>Let me just say in conclusion that severe myopia about history,
>psychopharmacology, and basic complexity theory seem destined to hobble
>both libertarianism and extropianism, making both of them look silly to
>our contemporaries, as well as to our heirs.
>
>Only when we are willing to admit how human we are, and therefore wedded
>to a myriad primitive self-deceptions, can we finally start using
>criticism -- and a healthy sense of ironic humor -- to rise above
>self-righteous delusions and get to the really interesting meta-human
>stuff. Fun stuff that calls for mature negotiated cooperation, as well as
>competition.
>
>Only then will we be able to pragmatically persuade our rather unsheeplike
>fellow citizens to trust us with some power to try out a few of our clever
>ideas.
>
>Till then, I'm afraid our fellow citizens will be quite right not to trust
>thee -- or me -- with anything more powerful than a burnt match.
>
>What honest/mature person could blame them?
>
>With cordial regards.
>
>David Brin
>www.davidbrin.com
>
>*************************
>
>PS... I hear there's been a lot of comment on this site but have only read
>Hal's "enemy" comment and Robin's response. I quit this list some time
>ago for the very reason just stated. I share goals and dreams with many
>of you. But the rants are just plain tiresome.
>
> Want to know the difference between the opinions of grownups and those
> of indignant boys?
>
>Lecture to us about capitalism when you've made some money.
>
>Tell us about tyrants when you've actually fought one.
>
>Orate about the future after others agree that you've already helped to
>make it better.
>
>Preach about science when you've discovered something new that survived
>all tests.
>
>Tell us how to be meta-human when your neighbors admire you as a mensch.
>
> That's the only pad worth launching from.
>
>
> Till then, enjoy this magnificent civilization. It's far better
> than you've yet earned.
>
>db
>
></blockquote></x-html>
Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:13 MST