
Why Don't Rationalists Win? - alan_wade
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hgw3mYJnorskJG5RJ/why-don-t-rationalists-win
======
api
I've long held a less charitable suspicion that at least applies to politics:
rational thought seldom results in a position that unfairly favors one group
over another.

If you want your side to _beat_ others, you want irrational ideas and motives
that justify violent and deceptive actions.

~~~
smt88
> _rational thought seldom results in a position that unfairly favors one
> group over another_

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.

~~~
api
> In politics, rational thought often favors the majority over the minority.
> Almost everyone ends up as the unfavored minority for a few issues.

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.

~~~
smt88
This is going to sound condescending, but I don't intend it this way at all. I
had the same misconceptions as you did before taking some introductory
philosophy courses. I don't see the point or the possibility in arguing this
further when you don't seem to have a very basic foundation in philosophy.

------
ddingus
Pay attention: (hard won realizations)

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.

