Technocratic Plimsoll Line • Hacker News Board

Re: Technocratic Plimsoll Line

#21

Post by eternalban » Tue, May 18, 2021, 12:14 AM UTC

rendang wrote: post #18

eternalban wrote: post #14

"For the purpose of this article, technocracy, bureaucracy and meritocracy are the same thing: It's a class of people who got their jobs based on their capabilities. The counterpart is the political class, the people who get their jobs based on their political views and/or their loyalty." It seems to me that this basically begs the question of whether "merit" is an objective measure in a politicized society. Beyond t…

In what manner does Alphabet Inc. represent technocracy? What do they rule over? Do you mean that they have a great deal of indirect power over the lives of the people who use their products?

"nascent: "(especially of a process or organization) just coming into existence and beginning to display signs of future potential: the nascent space industry."

https://www.businessinsider.com/google-mountain-view-new-cam...

It's hardly an original thought that we are living through major changes in societal order: a transitional period. Google and its parent company appear to be the avant-garde of an emerging societal type. We may live to see the day that individuals are born to corporate parents, schooled by that corporation, live in that corporation's cities, and end up working for that corporation. But unlike the industrial cities of the eponymous bygone era, these will be cities of technocrats, "mind workers". This will likely occur in conjunction with diminishing role of nation-states, and a more robust, overt, and assertive global governance that will play the (political/"spiritual") role of, say, Catholic Church, in the Middle Ages' Europe.

Re: Technocratic Plimsoll Line

#22

Post by jessriedel » Tue, May 18, 2021, 12:27 AM UTC

Ericson2314 wrote: post #17

jessriedel wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also the case in the US too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_th... It's pretty clearly established at each agency which positions are turned over when a new administration gains power and which are protected as non-political, and this interacts with the formal rules (e.g., you need cause to fire non-political positions but not political ones). Perhaps the author of the post is arguing t…

Thanks to this thread for pointing out that in multiple governments the distinction is in fact formal. I am tempted to grumble that, once again, the rationalists are ignorant of the ways the world actually works.

Even if the authors was mistaken on this point, the rest of the post is still useful and interesting. These are mostly just people blogging in their spare time; doesn't seem sensible to smear the community for a minor mistake like this.

Re: Technocratic Plimsoll Line

#23

Post by sideshowb » Tue, May 18, 2021, 7:28 AM UTC

jameshart wrote: post #20

sideshowb wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to criticise, but I'd be interested to know 1. Some key ways in which this model breaks down outside of the West, 2. A good summary of the literature you mention?

It doesn’t break down outside the west - it doesn’t even understand how this dynamic plays out in the west. Look at the terms of reference here: “Why can't the political appointees and the technocrats be formally separated in the same way as the executive, the legislative and the judiciary?” - I mean, this is laughable. It asks why something can’t be done that manifestly is done in many government systems. It takes a…

Tbf I don't have time to dog into journals on the subject, we're browsing hn here after all and short summaries are appreciated. But since penning that comment I'm feeling a little more educated by https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/16/book-review-seeing-lik...

Re: Technocratic Plimsoll Line

#24

Post by claudiawerner » Tue, May 18, 2021, 12:37 PM UTC

jameshart wrote: post #5

This seems to just be amateur idle musing, masquerading as political philosophy. > the technocratic Plimsoll line phenomenon is a fact of life. As such it can become a subject of research. Well: 1) it’s not a ‘fact of life’, as described. It’s a very simplified, Western-centric view that assumes certain things about rule of law and the nature of political accountability and maps loosely onto some organizations, yet d…

>Seems a little bold to just wade in and claim to have noticed a universal rule of government..

This is, for better or worse, the way the 'rationalist' community operates. The maximum amount of reading on any topic not directly related to computers or electronics is one or - for the truly enlightened - two pop-polsci or pop-phil books. That's all you can expect. Sometimes it extends more generally than just computing, for instance, Scott Alexander is a psychiatrist. But the spirit is the same - almost unlimited license to opine on any topic with the minimal amount of background knowledge possible in order to properly secure the status of being an ignorant (on the topic) person's smart person.

That's not to say it's entirely bad. Sometimes outside perspectives are good in that they challenge us to think in a new way about things. They ask questions with some thought that a domain expert may have trouble answering. They don't work in any particular established framework of the topic, so situating their theoretical commitments because less relevant to the topic at hand (which can also be a good thing).

They love to write and make their opinions known. That's also not a bad thing. But it doesn't inspire confidence. If you're knowledgable about a field and you see one of their posts that's either on a theory that's been covered a century ago (and refuted) or a theory that is fundamentally at odds with the discipline, it makes you skeptical. You start to think "if they're wrong about this, then what else are they wrong about?". These bloggers have all heard of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect. It's just too bad they don't realize it applies to them just as much, if not more, than to the journalists they typically decry for having no background knowledge on a topic. Every bold and poorly-argued claim you used to see in undergrad theses is now published in blog form - the only difference is these people never had a supervisor to look over their shoulder and question them.

I wrote about this phenomenon as practiced by "hacker bloggers" a little more than a year ago in this comment[0], though I think I was being a little too harsh back then, and ironically, also speaking beyond my field of knowledge.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22101989