← Back to context

Comment by sunshowers

17 days ago

I mean in their actual self-interest rather than, say, what they have been made to believe is in their self-interest.

> Deindustrialization and Nikefication in the past several decades isn't "rational" long-term behavior either.

Maybe, but I was responding to "They benefitted from it so hard they voted for the exact opposite with eyes wide open. Twice."

There's an implication here, and in a subsequent reply that people voting against their interests is "[t]he go to midwit rationalization for every electoral loss", that people exercised free will when they voted.

This is plainly incorrect, because free will quite clearly does not exist. No one has ever shown the kinds of violations in the laws of physics that would be required for free will to exist.

Since free will does not exist, there is simply no a priori reason to believe that people voted in their interests. People's voting decisions, like everything else they do, are out of their control. To the extent that they vote in a particular way that's good or bad for them, it's driven purely by luck and circumstances.

It is this a priori belief that people vote or act in their own interests that's the real "midwit rationalization".

> There's an implication here, that people exercised free will when they voted.

There's no such implication.

> This is plainly incorrect, because free will quite clearly does not exist.

> Since free will does not exist, there is simply no a priori reason to believe that people voted in their interests.

What are you even talking about.

People (and living beings in general) acting in their own self-interest - pretty much all the time - it is the most universal general principle of life if there ever was one. This doesn't require or involve free will.

How well a biorobot (no free will!) executes in pursuing his self-interests, is the selection critereon.

Now, the people make mistakes pursuing their self-interests, doesn't mean they aren't acting in their self-interest. Because they sure as hell are - all the frigging time! It's their whole firmware!

Deindustrialization / nikefication all the way through the value chain except the very, very top last step of the value add - hasn't been in their self-interest, it isn't in the interests of their nation either.

It's only in the self-interests of short-term thinking shareholders that min-max asset valuations with great costs to everyone else but themselves.

  • > People (and living beings in general) acting in their own self-interest - pretty much all the time - it is the most universal general principle of life if there ever was one.

    Base evolutionary instincts to survive don't translate to humans living in complex modern societies acting in their self-interest.

    • >Base evolutionary instincts to survive don't translate to humans living in complex modern societies acting in their self-interest.

      What are you talking about?

      Base evolutionary pressures and instincts have translated in exactly that.

      Complex modern societies, and emergent behaviors and strategies arise from agents acting in their own self-interest (organizing in groups or otherwise to further their goals).

      The idea that not only people don't act in their self-interest, but you - in fact - know better what's in their best interest is truly some mid-tier thinking. Or that you have some unique ability to know what's in their best self-interest, but they... for some reason... don't.

      Now it doesn't mean that acting in self-interest doesn't sometimes result in ruin, because it surely can! That however doesn't mean that all these choices weren't made with self-interest in mind, front and center, despite people claiming otherwise.

      The groups and societies that enact the winning, most sensible strategy, economic and industrial policy will win out. Those individually or in groups that don't, will go to shitter and or be selected out. It's that simple.

      13 replies →