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

The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s

donotresearch.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 148 posts

Re: The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s

#131

Post by chermi »

AngryData wrote: post #129
pembrook wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How ironic that you were downvoted. HN is full of left-populists these days and any slightly negative mention of socialism or central planning (their equivalent utopian vision) triggers them. I think this suggests it's more than just hubris, it's religion. These aren't just ideas, they are belief systems and identities for people. Hence why someone would downvote a benign internet comment like yours. The steady decli…

I would equate similar values to people who think socialism and central planning are somehow linked and share the same criticisms. Probably 90% of criticism I hear about socialism is complete and utter nonsense. Co-op businesses are socialist ideals in practice and co-ops have consistently gained market share over the last 80+ years, and it is neither linked to or shares any of the problems as central planning. Im al…

Well you're criticizing shitty thinkers rightfully w.r.t to co-ops; they're great, they aren't top-down. But you're committing the same error. Co-ops are completely compatible with capitalism so holding them up as contrast doesn't make much sense. Show me non-authoritarian Marxism at the scale Marx so confidently predicted.

Marx simply had a flawed understanding of economics and it's time we moved on. We have the data supporting the decision to do so. Usually when a theory makes completely incorrect predictions repeatedly, we abandon it. But apparently marxists know better than everyone. Do they have some secret data set?

Re: The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s

#132

Post by jauntywundrkind »

akomtu wrote: post #21
_bypa wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why optimize for efficiency though? Why not human flourishing or planetary health, whichever way you wish to define that? Efficiency sounds to me like an absolutely awful way to run any society as it's what turns individuals into disposable cogs of a machine that needs to be operated smoothly because, well, no obvious reason other than a fetish to see the machine run smoothly, no matter the human cost.

Technocracy, and the doctrine of materialism, sees humans as machines.

I'd characterize it as cybernetic, as observant to & attending to inputs and outputs of systems. And interested in improving the results, by observing how these systems function.

Your characterization feels like one of those seeing-only-evil's that I characterize as an anti-willpower.

Re: The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s

#133

Post by oa335 »

Havoc wrote: post #69

Weird - that's the 2nd mention of "Technate" I see in 24 hrs - never heard of that before today. (Other instance was PredictiveHistory‬ youtube here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrmERlHUqBk ). Guessing that's not a coincidence

Also noticed that… another consequence of convergence of culture due to algorithmic management of attention?

Re: The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s

#134

Post by econ »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #111
econ wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can eat olives without martini. The actual problem with technocracy (if done right) is that the work of experts grows increasingly incomprehensible to average men. Even if things work out perfectly, experts can't properly take risks or make a leap of faith in other people's name. (Not to argue our current democratic model is any good at it)

The problem is that there's never any single "correct" solution for any engineering problem let alone social ones, and there's no single axis of "intelligence" or "expertise" that qualifies any single individual or set of individuals to make decisions in the long term on behalf of whole groups of people. I am not a free market capitalist, I am a socialist; but I also believe in decentralizing decision making because…

This is fun to watch if only for historic value.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL12574BA6D8566A03&si=SyeE...

>Having to find consensus is messy and difficult but always wins out in the long run.

It is talked about in the very first video. How votes are bought in the current system. Nothing is rooted in facts.

The (global) discussion should be about fixing the problem. How to find the least terrible system rather than point out all solutions are terrible.

Re: The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s

#135

Post by AngryData »

chermi wrote: post #131
AngryData wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would equate similar values to people who think socialism and central planning are somehow linked and share the same criticisms. Probably 90% of criticism I hear about socialism is complete and utter nonsense. Co-op businesses are socialist ideals in practice and co-ops have consistently gained market share over the last 80+ years, and it is neither linked to or shares any of the problems as central planning. Im al…

Well you're criticizing shitty thinkers rightfully w.r.t to co-ops; they're great, they aren't top-down. But you're committing the same error. Co-ops are completely compatible with capitalism so holding them up as contrast doesn't make much sense. Show me non-authoritarian Marxism at the scale Marx so confidently predicted. Marx simply had a flawed understanding of economics and it's time we moved on. We have the dat…

Something exists in capitalism so therefore it can't be socialism? And im not going to get into another circular reasoning of "It didn't exist in that form before therefore it is impossible now." At no point have you pointed out anything Marx supported that is a problem other than a generalized brush of everything.

90% of Marxist work is a study of capitalism, much of which we still hold true today, so to me you look like everyone else that blindly dismisses what he said without learning what he even did or said.

Re: The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s

#136

Post by chermi »

AngryData wrote: post #135
chermi wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you're criticizing shitty thinkers rightfully w.r.t to co-ops; they're great, they aren't top-down. But you're committing the same error. Co-ops are completely compatible with capitalism so holding them up as contrast doesn't make much sense. Show me non-authoritarian Marxism at the scale Marx so confidently predicted. Marx simply had a flawed understanding of economics and it's time we moved on. We have the dat…

Something exists in capitalism so therefore it can't be socialism? And im not going to get into another circular reasoning of "It didn't exist in that form before therefore it is impossible now." At no point have you pointed out anything Marx supported that is a problem other than a generalized brush of everything. 90% of Marxist work is a study of capitalism, much of which we still hold true today, so to me you look…

I didn't say it wasn't socialism. I said it wasn't a counterexample. As for whether you still think it's worth taking Marx seriously as an economist, I'm guessing you'd laugh at someone citing Smith. Yet one had a better track record than the other. My point was simply that a theory should be judged on its merits, it's predictions, it's actual outcomes.

Re: The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s

#137

Post by Havoc »

oa335 wrote: post #133
Havoc wrote: post #69

Weird - that's the 2nd mention of "Technate" I see in 24 hrs - never heard of that before today. (Other instance was PredictiveHistory‬ youtube here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrmERlHUqBk ). Guessing that's not a coincidence

Also noticed that… another consequence of convergence of culture due to algorithmic management of attention?

Honestly I have no idea what to make of it.

In my mind it could be:

1) Simple copycat - article author is watching predictive history which seems plausible given channels surge in popularity

2) Algo effects

3) Coincidence / think of pink elephant effect

4) An actual coordinated intentional campaign by [insert evildoer with insert evildoer motive here...or even 3 letter agency meaning well but ending up functionally doing same as evildoer]

...the fact that I couldn't tell #4 apart from 1-3 has me a little spooked

Re: The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s

#138

Post by Havoc »

y-c-o-m-b wrote: post #126
Havoc wrote: post #69

Weird - that's the 2nd mention of "Technate" I see in 24 hrs - never heard of that before today. (Other instance was PredictiveHistory‬ youtube here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrmERlHUqBk ). Guessing that's not a coincidence

I watch his channel regularly mostly for entertainment and to help form my own thoughts and opinions on the subject matter relative to other sources. I do think some of his content is accurate and useful, but a lot of it isn't. I've caught him regurgitating conspiracy threads from reddit in his teachings on more than one occasion. I think he reads those threads and possibly uses AI to design the topics around them al…

I'd be a little reluctant to mark his speeches as "conspiracy".

I don't disagree with that on a qualitative level, but predictive history is as the name suggests forward looking. We're by definition up to our eyeballs into speculative territory here, a lot of it may align with conspiracy.

So yeah may land on the same ballpark, but still think "conspiracy" label does the dude a disservice.

Re: The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s

#139

Post by jongjong »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #110
jongjong wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep and I think unfortunately people don't understand human nature because they look at themselves and look at their neighbours to estimate it... But human nature is very different when evaluated from the centres of power. Humans near the centres of power are fundamentally very different from those on the periphery. There are powerful selection mechanisms at play. I used to think success was mostly about luck but now…

I think there are different life strategies that humans use. Some people need to survive based on skill more than others. The most obvious cases of non-skill strategies are the ones where people make a living based on having a certain physical appearance, or else live off of inheritance. This might be controversial but I think rich and powerful people are usually skilled. The skill might be pretty far removed from th…

Yep but there are strange undesirable characteristics that are being selected. Some of which we don't fully understand.

For example, it is my personal belief that there is a selection mechanism for high suggestibility (by social media and search algorithms which can monetize it). Basically suggestible people are helped in their careers because they act like a money pipeline which redirects money they 'earn' back to social media companies. Social media companies might be thinking of people as straight money pipes leading outward vs bendable pipes potentially leading back towards themselves. Which kind of pipe would they select to pump money through?

This has a side effect of creating strong social alignment over bad ideas. If you empower suggestible people to make decisions, then whoever is above them can bend them in any direction they want.

Re: The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s

#140

Post by andrekandre »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #128
steve1977 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One issue with economy as a science is that it's a very soft science at best and just pseudoscience at worst. Which then kind of defeats the purpose of experts in the sense of technocracy. As an analogy, you can make a PhD in theology, but that is not proof that God exists.

Economics is very deliberately a pseudo-science. Orthodox economics starts from neoliberal moral beliefs and tries to justify and excuse them. It's about controlling the narrative, not about modelling consequences. Example: the way the supply shocks of the oil crises in the 70s and 80s were converted into a "keep wages low and raise interest rates to prevent inflation" narrative, when the rational solution would have…

  > economics starts from neoliberal moral beliefs
its why in the old days they used to call it "political-economy"... removing the political part does it a big disservice because its now ignoring the biggest influence (politics) on the thing and instead treats it like a machine that just need tooling once in a while.
Post reply on HN