Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 194 posts

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#151

Post by panick21_ »

diego_moita wrote: post #57
jhbadger wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were plenty of Westerners who were concerned with inequality -- there were numerous failed peasant rebellions throughout Europe ever since the Middle Ages.

He fully addresses that in the book. Don't take my word for it, I don't have his explaining skills. But what he addresses is radical equality, as a fundamental value, as opposed to "less inequality". Equality under a ruler or rebellion against abuses is not the same as thinking the whole society as composed of equals. Think of no-slavery, equality among genders, sexual freedom, etc. Even thinkers that thought about e…

> But what he addresses is radical equality, as a fundamental value, as opposed to "less inequality".

Typical Graeber. Total nonsense. Radical equality has multi-origins in religious cults for 1000s of years. It has been part of 'Western' history writing for almost as long as we have historical narratives.

Pretty much as far as we can tell these ideas are resurfacing over and over in every big culture. For most we have no documentation but its clear there and has been documented lots of time.

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#152

Post by agumonkey »

panick21_ wrote: post #148
agumonkey wrote: post #23

How do people on HN deal with the potential disappearance of work altogether ? physical labour -> boston dynamics office labour -> ~cloud + smartphones (i'm in an office job right now, and it's near zero work, it's full on redundancy, ambiguous and contradictory information, political friction.. any computer could replace the entire building and operate faster 24/7) it's really not a huge stretch to predict 90% of ta…

The largest potential for disappearance of works has already happened. It was called the industrial revolution, and literally since then the smartest intellectual have predicted mass unemployment and the disappearance of work. Endlessly the same prediction with endlessly the same argument only to be proven wrong over and over.

I really don't think that applies. Industrial couldn't address the same area as tech can do today.

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#153

Post by specialist »

steppi wrote: post #142
notahacker wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DeLong was definitely trolling Graeber, but Graeber brought it on himself with overreaction to reviews which brought up the error. (A reviewer opened an article by saying it was an impressive book he was considering setting as a text for his students and a few paragraphs of summary of points Graeber made which are good, before highlighting a mistake and another argument he considered weak. Graeber wrote a screed abou…

I'd accept that. OP's submission has a good example where Graeber's difficulty taking criticism almost cost him and Wengrow a publication which was saved by Wengrow's more measured approach. He and Wengrow were serious in a certain sense: They were determined to publish extracts in peer-reviewed journals, to establish scholarly credibility. When they made their first submission, to the Journal of the Royal Anthropolo…

I like your example of Russell's History of Western Philosophy.

Nitpicking (trolling) stuff that does not change or invalidate the central thesis is unhelpful.

Food fights over "most influential" (books, albums, paintings) is just hipster gatekeeping. As if. Which is more influential? St Peppers or Rubber Soul? Could the more popular St Peppers exist without Rubber Soul? Blah, blah, blah. Most people don't care. Both are amazing and worth studying.

I'd much prefer to read both DeLong and Graeber's Top Ten Albums lists, over DeLong kibitzing about Graeber's choices.

Especially now that I know Graeber was easily antagonized. Continuing to poke him just feels mean spirited. And definitely antithetical to scholarship.

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#154

Post by ocschwar »

jessaustin wrote: post #107
ocschwar wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the lack of democracy in the USA is the "Bowling Alone" problem: too much of the citizenry has no experience interacting with a democratic process. And part of THAT is the experience of losing a committee vote and moving on.

A democratic process would have to exist in order for us to "interact with" it (what would that even mean? if democracy is somehow separate from the people it isn't democracy). Citizens lose every vote. Rich assholes win every vote. A majority of citizens would never freely and informedly choose to fight multiple pointless wars of aggression on the other side of the planet. A majority of citizens would never freely a…

School boards and city councils are part of the democratic process, and they are open to you in your jurisdiction. You just have to face the prospect of your wishes being overruled for lack of support. That is part and parcel of living in a democratic society.

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#155

Post by steppi »

specialist wrote: post #153
steppi wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd accept that. OP's submission has a good example where Graeber's difficulty taking criticism almost cost him and Wengrow a publication which was saved by Wengrow's more measured approach. He and Wengrow were serious in a certain sense: They were determined to publish extracts in peer-reviewed journals, to establish scholarly credibility. When they made their first submission, to the Journal of the Royal Anthropolo…

I like your example of Russell's History of Western Philosophy. Nitpicking (trolling) stuff that does not change or invalidate the central thesis is unhelpful. Food fights over "most influential" (books, albums, paintings) is just hipster gatekeeping. As if. Which is more influential? St Peppers or Rubber Soul? Could the more popular St Peppers exist without Rubber Soul? Blah, blah, blah. Most people don't care. Both…

Right on. I'd actually edited out for brevity "perhaps a better analogy is that it's like saying Rubber Soul is the most famous Beatles album." and am now happy I left it to you to express better.

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#156

Post by bluecheese33 »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #138
bluecheese33 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think modern economists have been acknowledging and quantifying the flaws in simplifying assumptions in economic models for decades [1]. That being said, I do think there is a serious problem in the way economics is often taught, and things like debt (and more broadly, anthropology) is part of the cure [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics [2] https://ravik.substack.com/p/does-learning-economic…

> modern economists have been acknowledging and quantifying the flaws in simplifying assumptions in economic models for decades Just FYI, both Kahneman and Tversky were psychologists, not economists.

Noted, but they still are pretty accepted in mainstream economics (nobel prize in economics in 2002).

Also of course, they're not the only ones doing behavioral economics [1]:

> Imperfect information is core to modern econ; theories showing how imperfect information can cause markets to break down received a Nobel 20 years ago. Perfect rationality has been successfully challenged by behavioral economics for decades, and received Nobels in 2002, 2013, and 2017.

[1] https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/this-years-econ-critics-ma... (includes links)

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#157

Post by petermcneeley »

quadrangle wrote: post #117
petermcneeley wrote: post #8

Graber vs Thiel discussion 2020: https://youtu.be/eF0cz9OmCGw

Thanks, that was interesting. They actually largely agreed in that exchange, not really "vs". That was possible because of not being people who just do or say the caricature of some particular political dogma. If there's any chance to progress our discourse as a society, we have to overcome the pattern where if I say "Graeber and Thiel were in agreement", people stop imagining that it means they both are effectively…

The issue with this dialogue was that it was not long enough. I think there are very real disagreements between Thiel and Graeber. I think the two stand on opposite sides of the egalitarianism debate.

Is this rift completely insurmountable? Perhaps a kind of horseshoe theory can bring them together.

I am not even sure that bringing them together is entirely the goal. It would be nice if a diverse set of beliefs could be practiced in relative isolation to prove out the viability of these concepts. This is why the YouTube comments dont really matter. Not everyone needs to participate in these experiments.

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#158

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

bluecheese33 wrote: post #156
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> modern economists have been acknowledging and quantifying the flaws in simplifying assumptions in economic models for decades Just FYI, both Kahneman and Tversky were psychologists, not economists.

Noted, but they still are pretty accepted in mainstream economics (nobel prize in economics in 2002). Also of course, they're not the only ones doing behavioral economics [1]: > Imperfect information is core to modern econ; theories showing how imperfect information can cause markets to break down received a Nobel 20 years ago. Perfect rationality has been successfully challenged by behavioral economics for decades,…

Definitely, but it amused me that psychologists keep winning the economics nobel :)

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#159

Post by ocschwar »

jancsika wrote: post #96
ocschwar wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point: Occupy had two goals that I kept hearing when I went: 1. the bailout and recovery from the crash of 2008 should help the victims of the crash, and not the perpetrators. And 2. "it's not about the policy, it's about the process." That is to say, the people camping out at Occupy were trying to evangelize the GA model for decision making to the world at large. Both failed miserably. And I blame the process. No…

Alright, I'll bite. What's the single best source for an outsider to become familiar with the problems Occupy's GA consensus process created? The more first-hand accounts the better, video or text.

Just look around. Do you see it adopted anywhere?

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#160

Post by [deleted] »

petermcneeley wrote: post #157
quadrangle wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, that was interesting. They actually largely agreed in that exchange, not really "vs". That was possible because of not being people who just do or say the caricature of some particular political dogma. If there's any chance to progress our discourse as a society, we have to overcome the pattern where if I say "Graeber and Thiel were in agreement", people stop imagining that it means they both are effectively…

The issue with this dialogue was that it was not long enough. I think there are very real disagreements between Thiel and Graeber. I think the two stand on opposite sides of the egalitarianism debate. Is this rift completely insurmountable? Perhaps a kind of horseshoe theory can bring them together. I am not even sure that bringing them together is entirely the goal. It would be nice if a diverse set of beliefs could…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN