So if you choose to seek agency rather than ineffectual truthiness, you have to ask: what positions are you willing to support, *at what cost* -- the cost being other positions that come along for the ride in your bundled options set.
-
-
The great risk of parochialism in globally consequential decision processes is the "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" effect. Great mindset for purely local decisions with no spillover effects. Terrible when you are structurally complicit in global ones.
Show this thread -
There aren't many ways to counterprogram parochialism in your thinking. It's not a question of intelligence, but input. The 3 known ways are education, travel, and seeking out interactions with people very unlike yourself. All three are driven by curiosity/openness to experience
Show this thread -
Guess what kind of people resist all 3 impulses? Guess how they act politically? In my processing, the greatest worst-case risk is simply having parochial people, contemptuous of the entire world beyond their horizons, making globally decisions consequential decisions.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Well put, but wouldn't it already be a big improvement in voting behavior (in general welfare terms) to get people to force-rank their own self-interested priorities? I guess this is the "What's the Matter with Kansas" argument...
-
...but I think I'd worry that adding your altruism and minimax modules collapses into the kind of Peter Singer utilitarianism that most people will reject, and then they could just go back to voting on whatever gets them riled up and ignore the ranking part too
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.