Comment by gsf_emergency_6

1 day ago

The cultural chasm between technocrats and politicians reminds me of the old trope about "women are from Venus and men are from Mars". That hasn't been bridged either, has it? It's a bit like those taboo topics here on HN where no good questions can be entertained by otherwise normal adults.

Here's something from someone we might call a manchild

For I approach deep problems like cold baths: quickly into them and quickly out again. That one does not get to the depths that way, not deep enough down, is the superstition of those afraid of the water, the enemies of cold water; they speak without experience. The freezing cold makes one swift.

Lichtenberg has something along these lines too, but I'll need to dig that out :)

Here's a consolation that almost predicts Alan Watts:

To make clever people [elites?] believe we are what we are not is in most instances harder than really to become what we want to seem to be.

I think I'm too stupid to understand what you or those authors are trying to say

  • I think parent-poster is saying that politicians and technocrats have a gulf between how their view the world and how well they communicate with one-another. However after that point (ironically?) it isn't clear what what their purpose is for including the quotes.

    I think the most-charitable interpretation for the "baths" quote [0] might be: "For the people I'm trying to communicate with, lightly touching on deep subjects is actually fine." (Both most-charitable to Nietzche, and also to the poster quoting him.)

    [0] https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/52881/pg52881.txt , section 381

    • After thinking some time, I think the baths quote is saying that, contrary to common wisdom, it isn't necessary to have intense, long discussions about "deep" subjects - small, quick conversations can still be as productive.

      I think there's some truth here. I've held for a long time that minds are not changed overnight or in a single discussion - this happens over time, as you repeatedly discuss something, and people consider their own views and others. To that point, I suppose small conversations would work.

      Still, I don't think it can be one or the other. Many subjects we're referring to are very complex and require more in-depth analysis (of the problem, and of our views) than a short conversation.

      But I'm probably misreading the quote.