www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Sunday, December 01, 2024
I don't know
I would ask my readers to mentally add "in my opinion" to every phrase I write on this blog. I don't do it myself, because it would wreak havoc with my writing style. But whether it is about video games, board games, social trends, economics, or politics, the fundamental truth is always that I do not know everything. There are things I believe that are true, like climate change. There are values that I think are important, like tolerance and honesty. And there are complex system relationships that I think I understood, like economies being "trickle up" rather than "trickle down". But for none of these beliefs I have absolute proof or absolute certainty. Which is great, because it enables me to openly discuss these things, and accept that other people might think differently.
Beyond the field of hard sciences, I have serious doubts whether absolute truths can even exist. As soon as you believe in more than one value, situations can arise where two values clash with each other. I used to live in a big city, near a quarter with a large Muslim population. And while I believe in religious freedom, it was hard for that not to clash with my feminists belief when seeing a woman in a burqa walking 3 steps behind her husband wearing jeans and T-shirt. Certain religious beliefs are simply not compatible with certain modern social beliefs.
On this blog I am constantly getting into trouble because I do not believe that it is possible for one political side to be 100% right, and the other side to be 100% wrong. One doesn't have to be a Trump supporter or be in favor of the bunch of bozos he is currently appointing to his cabinet to admit that left-wing governments have a tendency towards regulatory overreach, and that pruning some aspects of certain federal agencies is probably helpful (not that I think that the bozos will do a good job of it). Sometimes to a certain degree a part of the conflicting statements of both sides happen to be both true. For example the left claims that Trump committed a range of felonies and that the lawsuits against him are a consequence of that, while the right claims that the lawsuits are politically motivated. I think it is both, with the substance of the lawsuits being judicial, but much of the timing (from all the lawsuits starting in 2023 to the recent abandonments after the election) being political. That is not some strained attempt at balance through bothsideism, but the admission that the people on both sides are human, and thus fallible. If I had been able to vote, I would have voted Democrat, but that doesn't mean it is helpful to gloss over the failings of the left. I think the Democrats would have a much improved chance of winning elections if they would be more open to listening to criticism, and would be less certain of how specific demographics "must" vote for them.
There is a well-known cognitive bias, the Dunning-Kruger effect, which leads to people being most confident in knowing something when they only have very little knowledge of the subject matter. Knowing more leads to the insight that things are complicated and not so black & white. One needs to be a real professional expert in a subject matter to reach the same level of confidence of somebody who knows very little. I get the impression that the high degree of certitude that people express their opinions with online is more likely to be due to the lower end of the spectrum, rather than them being world-class experts. And when discussing issues that are in the cultural, social, or political domain, many beliefs are based more on emotions rather than knowledge. Online there is a good amount of virtue signaling going on, which makes it even more difficult for people to admit that they aren't 100% certain of something. But without that admission, sensible discussion is impossible. Moral superiority posturing leads to discussions drifting ever further towards the extremes, rather than to compromises that could be actual solutions to a problem.
In a way I envy Americans for having only two political choices. I will have to vote in Germany in three months, and there are 6 political parties big enough to possibly reach the 5% minimum vote requirement to enter parliament. Just like in the USA, people vote based on a mix of what a party program actually says, how much sympathy they have for a candidate, and as how efficient a party was perceived when last in power. And these criteria can contradict each other, for example I do agree with many of the positions of the Green party program on the environment, but don't like the Green's candidate having launched 800 defamation lawsuits against people who called him an idiot on X, nor do I think the party was especially efficient at tackling climate change in a socially acceptable way when in government. Knowing that there probably won't be any party with an absolute majority, and having to consider how to vote strategically for a coalition that works doesn't make this vote any easier. The previous coalition was mostly famous for internal strife, and one of the parties just scored a huge own goal by basically confirming through a leaked internal document that this was mostly their doing. On the positive side, maybe there are now only 5 parties left that could get into parliament. Nils Bohr is quoted saying "prediction is difficult, especially about the future". Admitting that I don't know which of my voting options will result in the best outcome for me and my country unfortunately isn't helpful in making that choice.
- posted by Tobold @ 11:57 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
In my opinion (there we go) the German political system is one of the best democratic systems in the world. I like coalition-based democracies as they really dampen out the extremes - but the fact that there is a minimum treshold for a party to acquire seats is really what makes it work. Germany hits the right spot between control and actionability. The 17 parties that the Dutch second chamber was made of at some point did NOT help to get anything done.
# posted by 
: 2/12/24 23:22
: 2/12/24 23:22
Tobold: "I don't do it myself, because it would wreak havoc with my writing style."
In your opinion! :D
"[...] economies being "trickle up" rather than "trickle down".
It's both. The proponents of their often just ignore the other part and miss that economies are an exchange system.
Yes, if you only follow the money, then it's trickle up. If you only follow the value, it's trickle down.
The reality is that buying a loaf of bread makes the baker richer in monetary terms and you richer in value as you now own a bread.
You both should have a personal higher utility of that than what you had before or you made a bad economic decision aka don't buy stuff you think it too expensive or sell below your asking price.
"[...] I have serious doubts whether absolute truths can even exist."
I think that they do exist but that it's rather difficult to find out what they are and to verify.
Imagine that a tree fell in the amazon rainforest. That would be the truth.
But in order to find it, you would need to get there, observe and verify.
Maybe you only heard something falling and assume it must have been a tree. Others think it was a rock and for the third it was Big Foot.
You may then fly over the place and see something lying there, so maybe not Big Foot but is it a tree or a rock? Are you even sure it's the correct place?
For me the existence of the absolute truth means that you cannot stop questioning the status quo. If you were to say there is no absolute truth, then what do you base everything on? Someone can just come in and say, "well, there is no absolute truth, so why bother listening to you".
I will listen to someone as I think that even when yours isn't the absolute truth, it might get us closer.
And yes (religious) freedom is the ability to choose what to do and comes with the responsibility to bear the consequences.
The issue with religions and other ideologies is that they present themselves as the absolute truth and for obvious reasons don't like to be challenged on that. Therefore they have to deny any progress that would advance us as it would mean their depiction is flawed.
In your opinion! :D
"[...] economies being "trickle up" rather than "trickle down".
It's both. The proponents of their often just ignore the other part and miss that economies are an exchange system.
Yes, if you only follow the money, then it's trickle up. If you only follow the value, it's trickle down.
The reality is that buying a loaf of bread makes the baker richer in monetary terms and you richer in value as you now own a bread.
You both should have a personal higher utility of that than what you had before or you made a bad economic decision aka don't buy stuff you think it too expensive or sell below your asking price.
"[...] I have serious doubts whether absolute truths can even exist."
I think that they do exist but that it's rather difficult to find out what they are and to verify.
Imagine that a tree fell in the amazon rainforest. That would be the truth.
But in order to find it, you would need to get there, observe and verify.
Maybe you only heard something falling and assume it must have been a tree. Others think it was a rock and for the third it was Big Foot.
You may then fly over the place and see something lying there, so maybe not Big Foot but is it a tree or a rock? Are you even sure it's the correct place?
For me the existence of the absolute truth means that you cannot stop questioning the status quo. If you were to say there is no absolute truth, then what do you base everything on? Someone can just come in and say, "well, there is no absolute truth, so why bother listening to you".
I will listen to someone as I think that even when yours isn't the absolute truth, it might get us closer.
And yes (religious) freedom is the ability to choose what to do and comes with the responsibility to bear the consequences.
The issue with religions and other ideologies is that they present themselves as the absolute truth and for obvious reasons don't like to be challenged on that. Therefore they have to deny any progress that would advance us as it would mean their depiction is flawed.
"For example the left claims that Trump committed a range of felonies and that the lawsuits against him are a consequence of that, while the right claims that the lawsuits are politically motivated. I think it is both, [...]"
I absolutely agree. It's politics after all. I don't think anyone that has been in politics for a while has clean hands and certainly not those who join young and are professional politicians. The whole concept is to garner enough votes to be elected again in the next cycle.
I think it should be prosecuted but my issue is that it appears to be done only one sided. I also think that in the witch hunt of "not my president" the pendulum has been pushed quite hard and it's only a matter of time to come back to bite the left.
"Online there is a good amount of virtue signaling going on, which makes it even more difficult for people to admit that they aren't 100% certain of something. But without that admission, sensible discussion is impossible."
It goes even so far that if you hint that things might not be black and white (and your echo chamber being obviously white), said echo chamber will be quick to drag you through the court of public opinion. So the optimal strategy becomes to stop interacting with people.
Funnily enough, then that is being paraded through talk shows as "how can we reach these misguided people?!" and "why are these people not listening to us?!".
"In a way I envy Americans for having only two political choices."
Nah, it's way worse because you have to buy the package deal. You don't like the regulatory overreach from the left? Well, the only real option is the Christian stance on abortion, etc. and vice versa.
"[...] a leaked internal document [...]"
It would be naive to think that the other parties didn't have some sort of exit strategy prepared for when the SHTF. Like again, it is politics.
Biggles: "I like coalition-based democracies as they really dampen out the extremes [...]"
Except when the "extremes" gain 30% of the votes and the rest of the parties bend over backwards and form coalitions with parties they said they would never work with just so they don't have to work with the extreme party.
I absolutely agree. It's politics after all. I don't think anyone that has been in politics for a while has clean hands and certainly not those who join young and are professional politicians. The whole concept is to garner enough votes to be elected again in the next cycle.
I think it should be prosecuted but my issue is that it appears to be done only one sided. I also think that in the witch hunt of "not my president" the pendulum has been pushed quite hard and it's only a matter of time to come back to bite the left.
"Online there is a good amount of virtue signaling going on, which makes it even more difficult for people to admit that they aren't 100% certain of something. But without that admission, sensible discussion is impossible."
It goes even so far that if you hint that things might not be black and white (and your echo chamber being obviously white), said echo chamber will be quick to drag you through the court of public opinion. So the optimal strategy becomes to stop interacting with people.
Funnily enough, then that is being paraded through talk shows as "how can we reach these misguided people?!" and "why are these people not listening to us?!".
"In a way I envy Americans for having only two political choices."
Nah, it's way worse because you have to buy the package deal. You don't like the regulatory overreach from the left? Well, the only real option is the Christian stance on abortion, etc. and vice versa.
"[...] a leaked internal document [...]"
It would be naive to think that the other parties didn't have some sort of exit strategy prepared for when the SHTF. Like again, it is politics.
Biggles: "I like coalition-based democracies as they really dampen out the extremes [...]"
Except when the "extremes" gain 30% of the votes and the rest of the parties bend over backwards and form coalitions with parties they said they would never work with just so they don't have to work with the extreme party.
” Except when the "extremes" gain 30% of the votes and the rest of the parties bend over backwards and form coalitions with parties they said they would never work with just so they don't have to work with the extreme party.”
Yeah, that one bothers me too. There are ways to interdict extremist parties. Thus we end up with a curious status of “this party is not extreme enough to interdict, but too extreme to talk to”. And that happens in several countries at once, e.g. France and Germany. To me that looks like the parliamentary version of cancel culture, “we aren’t sure enough you raped somebody to put you in prison, but we are sure enough to end your career and remove all your work from Netflix”. Did we just abandon due process and the rule of law?
Post a Comment
Yeah, that one bothers me too. There are ways to interdict extremist parties. Thus we end up with a curious status of “this party is not extreme enough to interdict, but too extreme to talk to”. And that happens in several countries at once, e.g. France and Germany. To me that looks like the parliamentary version of cancel culture, “we aren’t sure enough you raped somebody to put you in prison, but we are sure enough to end your career and remove all your work from Netflix”. Did we just abandon due process and the rule of law?
<< Home
