Read on Twitter
This is fascinating thread on the mechanics of the breakdown in political discourse, but for better/worse, that seems to be only symptomatic of a much more fundamental societal failure, triggered by extreme asymmetries information and incentives https://twitter.com/vgr/status/1347228497815633921
The consequences of this in politics are pretty obvious and extremely grim. https://twitter.com/vgr/status/1347231506146549763
The fact that some of the most powerful in our society are engaging in this behavior unchecked, taking advantage of the credulousness their position affords them out of what appears to be simple cravenness and personal ambition, does not bode well.
But what concerns me is how endemic this has become in so many facets of public life. Ithe US (and do mean US precisely) I think it's undermining not only infrastructure required to function as a liberal democracy, but also as a market economy. Eg: https://twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status/1347211314981081088
One of the core functions of democracies, and a more fundamental rule of law, is to build systems to keep everyone in check and engaging honestly.
But there's also a point where there's just too much lying for things to function properly.
But there's also a point where there's just too much lying for things to function properly.
Too much transactional friction grinds the economy down to the point where only the powerful can win.
And there's a point where everyone realizes the system is rigged, and just starts absorbing the asymmetry as a cost of doing business and muddles on best the can.
And there's a point where everyone realizes the system is rigged, and just starts absorbing the asymmetry as a cost of doing business and muddles on best the can.
One of the really unfortunate symptoms of that latter breakdown is it seems people start building up weird layers of mental and emotional immunity just not have to feel bad about being tricked all the time.
It's like Stockholm Syndrome for endemic corruption.
It's like Stockholm Syndrome for endemic corruption.
My personal experiences and conversations over the last few years, in business and public life, have led me to suspect that we're at or close to that latter point in a way that feels like its mirroring the broader institutional failures we're all watching unfold.
I've had the unfortunate experience of pointing out to people (colleagues, friends, etc.) they're getting tricked by people they want to trust. Not because I have deep insight into the world, but I simply had basic information about people's incentives that wasn't wildly known.
Two things have surprised me about these experiences:
1) How many people in positions of power are willing to take advantage of information asymmetries to win trust or transactional battles, and how aware they appear to be about power afforded by their informational advantage.
1) How many people in positions of power are willing to take advantage of information asymmetries to win trust or transactional battles, and how aware they appear to be about power afforded by their informational advantage.
2) How angry people get when you point out someone is tricking them.
It makes people really upset.
Apparently, part of this whole protective mechanism of dealing with endemic corruption is not talking about endemic corruption.
It makes people really upset.
Apparently, part of this whole protective mechanism of dealing with endemic corruption is not talking about endemic corruption.
I've noticed three different underlying situations that drive this resistance:
1) People who are surprised/disappointed to learn about their circumstances
1) People who are surprised/disappointed to learn about their circumstances
2) People who are unsurprised but have internalized that they have more to loose than to gain from doing anything about it.
3) People who are fully aware, and taking advantage of it, and understand that part of the con is reciprocity in not calling out someone else's grift.
3) People who are fully aware, and taking advantage of it, and understand that part of the con is reciprocity in not calling out someone else's grift.
We know what #3 is about, even if we're not aware it's happening, or are trying to look the other way.
It's the Cruz/Hawley failure mode. In a functioning society these people would be put pushed out of public or business life but are instead gaining power by taking advantage.
It's the Cruz/Hawley failure mode. In a functioning society these people would be put pushed out of public or business life but are instead gaining power by taking advantage.
It's #1 and #2 that are more interesting to me, and offer ideas about a way out of this failure mode in both politics and business.
With #2 you just need people to believe the system isn't rigged. They'd prefer a fair fight and to play by the rules, if they're being enforced.
With #2 you just need people to believe the system isn't rigged. They'd prefer a fair fight and to play by the rules, if they're being enforced.
Some of them might even occasionally speak up on behalf of enforcing the rules when they sense the room is with them. Mitt Romney is one of the more reliable #2s in DC, and we see others quietly signaling that they too are willing to stand up for justice, if others go first.
Fwiw, I thikn Jack is kind of a lost cause #2s. He's not some evil grifter, but he's way too stoned to care enough to do anything.
The situation with #1s is little more precarious but also offers more possibility.
The question is what happens to people when they realize they're being tricked, and how much agency do they think they have.
The question is what happens to people when they realize they're being tricked, and how much agency do they think they have.
This is where I have uncomfortable flashes of empathy for Trump supporters. This series of interviews is an illuminating exploration of the phycology and trauma of being tricked (be warned, it's also really depressing). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/05/podcasts/the-daily/georgia-election-purdue-loeffler.html
People are earnestly, and with great exasperation asking, "why would someone someone with such extraordinary power lie to me?"
It's actually a reasonable question. And the answer is pretty upsetting.
It's actually a reasonable question. And the answer is pretty upsetting.
We do not live in the egalitarian society we were led to believe in. And people in power know that, and know that others don't.
And as power asymmetries grow so does the incentive to take advantage of them, both because there's more to gain, less chance of being called out.
And as power asymmetries grow so does the incentive to take advantage of them, both because there's more to gain, less chance of being called out.
What's fascinating to me about all this is both that it offers a bit more hope than the darker "epistemic crisis"/"information poisoning" frame that gets bantered about.
I have no problem laying this on FB and Twitter, and the people funding the major political parties...
I have no problem laying this on FB and Twitter, and the people funding the major political parties...
but at the core, that's about power. And the "epistemic crisis" everyone is concerned about is created (or at least exacerbated and used in consequential ways) by people who have power, as a means of holding on to it.
The solution to this is simpler than dismantling the Internet, or inventing a new ways of regulating speech.
The solution has more to do with addressing the fundamental inequalities and injustices that allow people who are lying to get away with it.
The solution has more to do with addressing the fundamental inequalities and injustices that allow people who are lying to get away with it.
