Plans you're not supposed to talk about • Hacker News Board

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#241

Post by pdonis » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 12:32 AM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #143

danblick wrote: post #83

The author presents the idea that "you may be born into a culture with social practices that you don't understand but that work for your benefit; they may work better if you don't understand them!" I find this idea a little repellant, but it's something Friedrich Hayek wrote about too. (In my mind Hayek is the person most associated with distributed knowledge.) ~"You may not understand the forces that have led societ…

This sentiment seems completely useless (actually incredibly dangerous) without at least some attempt at explaining how we might distinguish between aspects of society which seem terrible but are actually secretly good even though no one knows why, and aspects of society which seem terrible because they're terrible.

The short answer is, you can't. But you might be misinterpreting what Hayek is referring to by "the anonymous and seemingly irrational forces of society". Here is what he says a little later on, when he is comparing the individualist approach he advocates with the alternative:

"So long as he knows only the hard discipline of the market, he may well think the direction by some other intelligent human brain preferable; but, when he tries it, he soon discovers that the former still leaves him at least some choice, while the latter leaves him none, and that it is better to have a choice between several unpleasant alternatives than being coerced into one."

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#242

Post by AceJohnny2 » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 12:33 AM UTC

This reminds me of CEO-speak.

A CEO cannot speak their true mind or their true assessment of a situation. They can't say "wow we're in trouble here" because then people will jump ship and then the company will be even more in trouble (and the CEO would get sued for breaching Fiduciary Duty)

What a CEO says is merely wishful thinking for a goal they want people to follow. They can never speak their true plan. (And of course, it's all just game theory, a more elaborate version of https://youtu.be/S0qjK3TWZE8)

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#243

Post by tomcatfish » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 12:33 AM UTC

imwillofficial wrote: post #132

Noumenon72 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Executing strategy #5, I see.

No, it’s empathy. There is something human about our irrationality. Rising above that, we lose a bit of that magic that makes us unique.

That's neither true (humans are less irrational than chimps) nor inspiring (screwing up and letting people die is bad, not good)

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#244

Post by bwestergard » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 12:33 AM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #213

tshaddox wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sentiment seems completely useless (actually incredibly dangerous) without at least some attempt at explaining how we might distinguish between aspects of society which seem terrible but are actually secretly good even though no one knows why, and aspects of society which seem terrible because they're terrible.

You ask a difficult and important question. The two relevant ideas I know are: 1. Chesterton's Fence: "I don't understand why this exists, so let's tear it down" is an big and tempting error. Wait until you understand. 2. Consequences of societal change are inherently unknowable, which is why revolutions usually end in tragedy. The sane approach is to change society incrementally, see what happens, and adjust and lea…

"which is why revolutions usually end in tragedy"

A more judicious takeaway might be that revolutions often have tragic periods.

The French revolution had its blood-soaked Terror and Thermidor, lead to the Napoleonic wars in which many perished, etc. But it also liberated millions, spread an ideal of democracy and human rights cherished by much of the world today.

The U.S. Civil War and Reconstruction were in every sense a revolution against slavery. Who can deny that despite it all, this revolution was necessary, and did not go far enough in achieving its aims?

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#245

Post by evandwight » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 12:33 AM UTC

throwawayhaxor wrote: post #191

You know that your vote doesn't matter in large-scale elections. Being a busy person, you don't go out of your way to vote. When discussing an election with a friend, you mention you didn't vote. Your friend and others in the group socially ostracize you. You don't understand why, but after a few times you just say that you voted. In all future elections, you leave work early and indicate to your friends that you vot…

Does your vote not matter? I agree in most cases your vote won't change the result.

But, it does act as a signal. Also, not voting puts you in the group of people politicians don't need to care about.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#246

Post by reactspa » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 12:33 AM UTC

reducesuffering wrote: post #167

reactspa wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You consider telling everyone “OK, here are some promises that we’ve designed to maximize how embarrassing it would be for us to break up”, but decide it’s better not to make that explicit. I didn't understand this sentence. Anyone care to clarify please? (E.g., what would be an example of a promise that would be embarrassing?) Thanks.

It's talking about wedding vows during a marriage ceremony where the couple says in front of many people about how much they will do for the other person "for better or worse, in sickness and health", "til death do us part." If you divorce, it's embarrassing because you betrayed all those public exclamations.

But such vows ("till death do us part", etc.) are commonly said explicitly.

The article says: "You consider telling everyone... but decide it’s better not to make that explicit."

I'm asking for examples of something people "consider telling everyone" but decide it's "better not to make that explicit."

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#247

Post by spurgu » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 12:33 AM UTC

salt-thrower wrote: post #230

mherdeg wrote: post #54

Reading this gave me a kind of horrifying idea that goes something like: You know about a deadly disease whose most serious outcomes can be avoided by getting a shot. Many members of a group in your society have decided they don't want to get the shot. You are annoyed by the way they talk about a lot of things, including the way they talk about avoiding the shot. They, in turn, call you "smug" for the way your group…

What's the difference between: A) smugly telling them to do it so that they won't do it, and B) genuinely telling them to do it because you care about public health, but they interpret it as smug? Also, the kind of reverse psychology you're describing generally only works on children.

I don't know, most people like to at least have the illusion of making their own choices.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#248

Post by pdonis » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 12:34 AM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #213

tshaddox wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sentiment seems completely useless (actually incredibly dangerous) without at least some attempt at explaining how we might distinguish between aspects of society which seem terrible but are actually secretly good even though no one knows why, and aspects of society which seem terrible because they're terrible.

You ask a difficult and important question. The two relevant ideas I know are: 1. Chesterton's Fence: "I don't understand why this exists, so let's tear it down" is an big and tempting error. Wait until you understand. 2. Consequences of societal change are inherently unknowable, which is why revolutions usually end in tragedy. The sane approach is to change society incrementally, see what happens, and adjust and lea…

> Wait until you understand.

But you might never understand; that is part of Hayek's point. Which means you can never just "tear it down". Your #2 is really the essential point.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#249

Post by TimTheTinker » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 12:34 AM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #208

guidoism wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less about making those people safe and more about making you safe by making those other not spread the disease to you. For example: Go ahead and drive drunk, I don’t care, just do it on your private property so you don’t kill me. Similarly: Go and don’t get vaxed, honestly I don’t care. But viruses don’t respect borders like cars do, so if you are going to do it then make sure you are isolated on a private island wh…

But if you've already gotten the shot, you're protected from the disease. So, what is someone else not getting the shot going to do to you?

This ^. If the shots are truly protective, I don't understand what the hubbub is all about.

Is it really all about protecting those who truly can't get the shot for whatever reason? I doubt it.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#250

Post by narag » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 12:34 AM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #225

imgabe wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GP said aspects of society you don't understand. You changed "don't understand" to "seems terrible". Those aren't the same thing. This doesn't require you to accept things that you find terrible.

No, I only mentioned the ones that seem terrible because those are the ones you would be most inclined to change.

The most terrible ones could also be the most difficult ones to change.

Because if they're so terrible, the hidden reason to keep them in place must be specially strong. Or they could be extremely difficult to change because of some shadowy societal forces that lead to unintended consequences.