Why Don't Rationalists Win?
lesswrong.com
lesswrong.com
If you want your side to beat others, you want irrational ideas and motives that justify violent and deceptive actions.
This strikes me as so absurd, I can't fully wrap my head around it. Instead, I'll just give counter examples.
In politics, rational thought often favors the majority over the minority. Almost everyone ends up as the unfavored minority for a few issues.
Rational thought is also incredibly subjective. A Marxist's reason is wildly different from a capitalist's, and there is no objective or rational way to say who is correct. It boils down to morality.
Seems like that argues against simple majoritarianism being rational.
> Rational thought is also incredibly subjective. A Marxist's reason is wildly different from a capitalist's, and there is no objective or rational way to say who is correct. It boils down to morality.
If it's subjective it means it's either not rational or depends on undecidable questions. Undecidability is part of reality, but can be accounted for.
Politics is advocacy. Debate, in the more formal, rational sense, is a subset of advocacy.
Advocacy has three pillars and they are:
Reason, the rational.
Emotion, the feels, essentially.
Character, the reputable, our nature, worthiness.
Effective advocacy incorporates all three, ideally. It can be effective with less, depending on the state of the advocacy targets.
A simple example is desperate people. They are not entirely rational, because they are in pain, need. Strong emotional and character advocacy will be extremely potent.
"You hurt because bad people" or, "those other people."
"You deserve because X is the right thing to do."
One area where rationality can fail is when how people value things differs from otherwise rational norms. A great many entirely rational arguments centered on market based solutions as primary policy fail because they assume people to be rational actors in posession of sufficient information, time and energy to make optimal choices. The reality varies considerably, and people value things differently enough to make the "optimal" choice a more complex space than is understood and intended as an artifact of said policy.
While we intend and desire to see politics as some objective debate, the reality is one of advocacy and influence being applied to actualize desires and preferences as much as it may be for a common, public good, or promotion of the general welfare.
Money in politics exacerbates all that.
Finally, and due to variances in what people value and why, the idea of there being "right" answers does not align with the reality being answers ranging from poor to excellent.
People, particularly struggling people, want to end their struggles far more than they want to, say reduce global poverty, for example. And their lives, loves, desires all count when it comes to votes, and other political activity and expression.
The single most important thing we can do, whether we are rationalists or not, is seek better understanding of others.
That leads to effective advocacy, and it can lead to just, effective, human policy. It may not be optimal. Very large numbers of humans will not care so long as their struggles do not exceed that level where they find the idea of change more compelling than exercizing their options are. (If they have options, or understand those they do have.)
Humans are not machines, nor computers. They feel stuff and they trust some people, despise others, and it all counts no matter how painful and complicated that is.
Politics boils down to a sell job. Getting what you personally want can happen with money and or a compelling vision for others to also want what you want.
There are really no objective right answers. Ideologies are reasoning tools, not laws, like physics.
There are only choices and outcomes.