Conversation

The opposite of the Noble Lie fallacy (elites lying to masses “for their own good” is a good thing) is the Noble Crowd fallacy (elites telling the truth to the masses is a safe thing) The ignoble crowd punishes truth-telling severely. Especially if the truth is “we don’t know”
11
52
“We don’t know some things” is the most dangerous thing to put in a social contract. The consent of the governed requires you to claim omniscience. Fill gaps with gods and divine mandates if you must, but never say you don’t know an important thing.
Replying to
I guess it makes sense. If it’s down to trial and error why should some people get to do the experiments over others? “Consent to be experimented on” is a way dicier sort of contract. This is something all the experimental governance people don’t appreciate.
2
13
If you want to rule, you get like max 3 failed trials before you have some mix of exodus and lynch mob on your hands. A praetorian guard buys you 2 more.
1
4
Yeah the claiming-to-know contingent is a strong forcing function. Your “don’t know” has to be backed up with falsifications of others do-know claims
Quote Tweet
Replying to @vgr
I think it's more that the crowd ignores/replaces "we don't know" voices, sees them as unsatisfying options. Maintaining a "we don't know" position against charlatans/idiots who *claim* to know is an active proposition, probably best done by financially secure individuals
4