Personal divergence and political leanings

Post Reply New Topic

Should the eccentric have the right to set broader social policy?

I got to thinking about this in the course of the last few days as I checked in on Noam Chomsky, both in his contributions to linguistic philosophy and computer language and his politics and how strange his political worldview gets. The link below is to one of his lectures on Youtube that, in my opinion, had a lot of good content with respect to his outlook on Newton, the Enlightenment, and the nature of how we process different kinds of information as well as showcasing some how he sees politics toward the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86RY40TvRgE

What I have noticed is that a lot of highly intelligent people, particularly with profound areas of expertise, have a way of really falling off the map when it comes to being able to gauge what's good for people who are nothing like them or to properly consider the quantity difference of people who are nothing like them. Those who do have such competencies and have the circumspection to see this problem you also probably won't hear any radical political notions coming out of.

What I'd like to bring up for consideration is the idea that a lot of (if not most) people have a way of measuring what the world should be like, what its laws should be, or what its political systems should be, based on what they personally would thrive best in. We live in a very diverse world filled with all kinds of people and what seems somewhat self-evident is that there seems to be no set of rules, applied to all people across a society, that won't be profoundly injurious to one type of person or another. Totalitarianism for example is utterly crushing to the person who has to be different in order to get by. Capitalism is typically destructive and poisonous to the person whose an artist or writer at heart, strong-antidrug laws punish those who'd want to explore their own minds deeper with aid. Standardized school systems have a way of crushing the exceptional or particularly those who'd be great right out of the gate if they could be set directly to something like hands-on vocational learning at an early age but who'd either only have access to it above age 16 (thinking of Ohio vocational schools - at least in my area) or possibly not at all aside from a parent or relative putting them to work.

On one hand it seems perfectly appropriate that those who have certain eccentricities, ie. people who simply come into life as outliers on the bell-curve in either aptitudes or challenges, should be able to rally for enough support that they aren't utterly destroyed by systems and institutions dedicated to condition the center of the bellcurve. People should have the right to thrive.

Unfortunately, sometimes this gets taken too far. What I really think is happening with Noam - a world under a sort of liberal anarchism might perhaps be great if the world were populated by 7 billion replications of Noam Chomsky. He and all the other Noams might thrive perfectly in that environment. Unfortunately, and despite both apparently high IQ and analytical abilities, he's unable to stop himself from projecting what would fit him or people like him best onto other people who are nothing like him, would fail miserably in a system where he'd thrive, and where that segment who'd fall down in his system is the majority.

Even looking at myself - I find more and more that I have strange ideas on what might solve political, economic, drug-war, etc. related problems sometimes when confronted with how absolutely closed minded a lot of people are who have a lot more expertise in these areas are I have to consider that this is less about them being closed-minded than them being right about the center of the bell-curve and how society needs to be shaped to suit their needs and me being completely wrong about it because I'm talking off the cuff about what would make the world a better place for people like me - who are probably 3 standard deviations or better from the mean. In that sense I'm realizing that, with respect to what's good for other people, I also probably need to sit down and shut up until I can manage to truly know what it's like to be that hypothetical person who sits at the 50th percentile on all the bell-curves.

Let me know if you guys can think of a better or more salient explanation as to why this happens, ie. corporate or special interest sellout or whatever the situation may be. I can't help but look at people like Noam and come away with the conclusion that their huge swings and misses on politics have a lot to do with the dilemma or intelligence and refinement not being able to accurately size up unintelligence and its limits and consequences on individual lives. When people like this set broad-brush policy (things as big as whether we'll be republican, anarchistic, communist etc. as a country) they do so to the detriment of the rest of society if they have any success in their endeavor.

I think he believes his ideas result in a net "greater good".

While the premise of what you say could be true, I'm not in the belief that one's 'distance from the mean' as you put it, is why they then think up of things that you, you being someone closer to the mean, wouldn't think of as good ways to structure society. People are very capable of thinking that something would be good for them and then if actually put into practice, the find that they did not understand what would -actually- happen and then find that it's then horrible and not idyllic.

I'm with you. I've never been inclined to tell people how to live their lives, but I finally realized that my personal characteristics are unusual enough that I really need to step back from taking my politics too seriously as a generally applicable world view. In my case small-l libertarian or anarchist on some days.

On one hand I do think the world would be better if we legalized prostitution and heroin, not that I've ever done either. But, I am realizing that I really have no idea how that would play out in real life with people different from me.

On a third hand, I don't like leaving those decisions to others, who seem pretty crazy and controlling to me. At this point I'm just kind of shutting up about all of that.

And no, those two vices are not really important issues to me, just good examples.

It's probably gratis that the same thing goes even more for people who are profoundly ignorant or who'd frame the way they'd handle politics or environment on an imminent eschatological ideal, just that I think it's very easy for very high philosophic thinkers to detach themselves from how life works for other people less erudite or thought-oriented than themselves.

Side thought on those two things - I'm starting to think the way things are heading right now, ie. slow and steady, might do the trick. Part of the problem is a lot of pent-up taboo and I think if that's deleveraged over the course of a few generation most of the slipperiness of the slope will dry up as they stop being something dangerous and sexy and rather normalize down to 'this is what this does - these are the circumstances and ways to employ it properly, these are the ways that'll cause you major problems'. OTOH pain-killers are a funny thing, in particular how many people get hooked on them and start stepping up from non-recreational use; even with legality we'd need intensive intervention.

I was actually going to post drugs as an issue myself earlier - for example I'm for marijuana legalization (just not the state cartel solution though) and really I'm for therapeutic and more common religious license for hallucinogens. Of course I know the drill - it I share that with most people (especially federal law enforcement or medical/ER careers) I'm showing lack of adult critical thinking in having that viewpoint, with a lot other people it's way too conservative.

I again disagree with the first clause you bring up for the reason you bring up. I just don't think that's a given...but then again, look at my position on this...I'm not 'with the pulse' of the flow much like you aren't. However I agree overall because that person's goal is one of a long-term, eventual outcome versus a more immediate 'how do we deal with this now?' approach. Consider that that person's ideal is actually correct and not wrong in the long-term, that their ideals -could- become reality. There are going to be like a bazillion more variables the longer the transitional period of time it takes to get to that reality, and within that time period, chaos would ensue. And of course, all that time, there would be seemingly less and less evidence that that reality would work since more and more time would pass without the outcome being the one espoused.

Would it be right to ruin even 1 generation's life for the next generation to have it better? Is it right that we don't think long-term right now, and that most of us only truly consider us and our next immediate generation largely in our everyday choices?