About a decade ago, I retired from my (second) career as a restauranteur and embarked on my (third and current) career as a commercial real estate investor.
“If I offer you advice and you don't take it, I won't get cranked up unless your actions or negligence do me harm.” This sentiment empowered so many to be outraged by nonconformists through the pandemic.
I democratically anoint you, Peter, my libertarian philosopher king. For now. That can of course be revoked on any given day - and that's as it should be. Each of us have to get up each day and prove our words' worth to others. I've noticed among the government authoritarian "kings" they don't provide receipts - links to studies and data - so we can authenticate what they're saying. Or they cherry-pick or rig the data they provide in justification of their pronouncements. They got away with this for only so long as the "mainstream" (now misinformation disinformation propaganda) media complex had a monopoly. But those days are over. We anoint those who provide receipts and show their math.
Hah, thanks. I've joked on occasion that I should be made king for 3 weeks, where I can make any changes I want to government, but cannot pay myself or extend my power. That'd be a bad idea, of course, because not even Solomon should have such power, but I do think I could fix a thing or two liberty-wise. There'd be much gnashing of teeth, of course.
As usual, I generally agree, but there is nothing at all that is new about this. In Western literature, the first person to speculate about rule by philosopher-kings was Socrates, as documented in Plato's "The Republic", and it's been an enduring theme since then. But (according to Plato, at least) Socrates used to proclaim that the only thing of which he was sure was his own ignorance. The distinguishing difference in the new totalitarians isn't their ignorance, but rather their inability to admit it . . . and even to take wrong-headed actions fueled by their dubious understanding of reality, as Saint Anthony Fauci did during the pandemic.
It would be interesting to examine where that evil folly comes from, and when inquiries into truth gave way to predetermined narratives. My own thought is that we need to look back to our Puritan ancestors to see when their hard-core religious certainty (which led their English brethren to behead their monarch) moved into the secular realm. But I admit that I've never thought about this too deeply, and, like Socrates, the only thing I'm certain of is my own ignorance on this topic.
I had to google the origin of "there is nothing new under the sun." The original form is from Ecclesiastes: "there is no new thing under the sun." Not entirely true, but I'm a firm believer in the Mark Twain quote "History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes."
Over at FB, I'm having a conversation with Mark Allinson about human wiring. I think that the big change isn't in our wiring, but in the feedback mechanisms that amplify or mute that wiring. As you likely know, I think that social media has created a bad positive feedback loop that rewards behaviors and attitudes that work against societal harmony and amplify tribalism and "othering." And feeds big egos, such as Tyson and Fauci and more, by providing them swathes of sycophants.
It wouldn't be the first time that "elites" have sent a nation down the tubes. I would never vote for Trump but I wouldn't be surprised that a number of his supporters like how he takes down the establishment which treat them as deplorables.
Very few of the expert trusters actually trust any real experts. They trust journalists to tell them who the experts are, and then trust those people. The journalists don't know who the real experts are, either. But oh boy is there ever a stead supply of experts ready to jump in front of a microphone and get out of their lane in the manner you detailed.
This amplifies another problem:
Real experts, in the rare instance they find themselves under the public spotlight, are under intense pressure to appear much more certain than they actually are. Journalists act as a sort of natural filter by which the most honest experts (the ones uncertain about uncertain things) are cast aside for the most cocksure, but probably wrong, experts in the field (ahem, Fauci).
Great post! And I think it helps explain why figures like SBF and Elizabeth Holmes were so successful for as long as they were. Everyone involved was too smart in other areas to see the scam.
“If I offer you advice and you don't take it, I won't get cranked up unless your actions or negligence do me harm.” This sentiment empowered so many to be outraged by nonconformists through the pandemic.
I democratically anoint you, Peter, my libertarian philosopher king. For now. That can of course be revoked on any given day - and that's as it should be. Each of us have to get up each day and prove our words' worth to others. I've noticed among the government authoritarian "kings" they don't provide receipts - links to studies and data - so we can authenticate what they're saying. Or they cherry-pick or rig the data they provide in justification of their pronouncements. They got away with this for only so long as the "mainstream" (now misinformation disinformation propaganda) media complex had a monopoly. But those days are over. We anoint those who provide receipts and show their math.
Hah, thanks. I've joked on occasion that I should be made king for 3 weeks, where I can make any changes I want to government, but cannot pay myself or extend my power. That'd be a bad idea, of course, because not even Solomon should have such power, but I do think I could fix a thing or two liberty-wise. There'd be much gnashing of teeth, of course.
There'd definitely be much weeping and gnashing of teeth were I given such power for three weeks.
I doubt it would take you, or me, three weeks!
There's a lot to fix....
As usual, I generally agree, but there is nothing at all that is new about this. In Western literature, the first person to speculate about rule by philosopher-kings was Socrates, as documented in Plato's "The Republic", and it's been an enduring theme since then. But (according to Plato, at least) Socrates used to proclaim that the only thing of which he was sure was his own ignorance. The distinguishing difference in the new totalitarians isn't their ignorance, but rather their inability to admit it . . . and even to take wrong-headed actions fueled by their dubious understanding of reality, as Saint Anthony Fauci did during the pandemic.
It would be interesting to examine where that evil folly comes from, and when inquiries into truth gave way to predetermined narratives. My own thought is that we need to look back to our Puritan ancestors to see when their hard-core religious certainty (which led their English brethren to behead their monarch) moved into the secular realm. But I admit that I've never thought about this too deeply, and, like Socrates, the only thing I'm certain of is my own ignorance on this topic.
I had to google the origin of "there is nothing new under the sun." The original form is from Ecclesiastes: "there is no new thing under the sun." Not entirely true, but I'm a firm believer in the Mark Twain quote "History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes."
Over at FB, I'm having a conversation with Mark Allinson about human wiring. I think that the big change isn't in our wiring, but in the feedback mechanisms that amplify or mute that wiring. As you likely know, I think that social media has created a bad positive feedback loop that rewards behaviors and attitudes that work against societal harmony and amplify tribalism and "othering." And feeds big egos, such as Tyson and Fauci and more, by providing them swathes of sycophants.
Right. Too many people make a good living dividing us.
It wouldn't be the first time that "elites" have sent a nation down the tubes. I would never vote for Trump but I wouldn't be surprised that a number of his supporters like how he takes down the establishment which treat them as deplorables.
I had forgotten Ehrlich was actually an entomologist. An expert in one area who thinks he is an expert in everything else.
Very few of the expert trusters actually trust any real experts. They trust journalists to tell them who the experts are, and then trust those people. The journalists don't know who the real experts are, either. But oh boy is there ever a stead supply of experts ready to jump in front of a microphone and get out of their lane in the manner you detailed.
This amplifies another problem:
Real experts, in the rare instance they find themselves under the public spotlight, are under intense pressure to appear much more certain than they actually are. Journalists act as a sort of natural filter by which the most honest experts (the ones uncertain about uncertain things) are cast aside for the most cocksure, but probably wrong, experts in the field (ahem, Fauci).
Paul Ehrlich really bugs me!
Great post! And I think it helps explain why figures like SBF and Elizabeth Holmes were so successful for as long as they were. Everyone involved was too smart in other areas to see the scam.