Comment by stevenhuang
3 days ago
> I’ll make this bet: any such model you come up with could be improved by including notions of international agreements and laws.
And you'd have lost the bet with such a naive understanding of geopolitics and power dynamics played by nation states. Are you reading the thread you're on?
To the commenter above: it seems like you are responding to something other than what I wrote. Perhaps my meaning didn't come across? I'll try again:
Start with model M which does not account for international law.* For any such model, that model can be modified by including information about international law. Call that M'. I claim M' will do better than M. Do you agree? Disagree? Why?
Onto my next point. Please take the context into account. I was responding to a comment that said:
>>> Having said that, international law is a myth.
This is why I said:
>> Arguments over definitions really bore me. To any reasonable person predicting the future, international law is an important factor. It cannot be simply waved off because it is flawed and unevenly enforced.
I am having a hard time understanding how you think I'm naive for saying the above. To me, it would be naive to ignore international law altogether, simply because it is nuts to ignore relevant information. Am I just redefining my claim to be "this information is relevant to predicting an outcome". Maybe, but even this seems to be getting lost in translation.
May I ask if you've done geopolitical analysis at the international level? I have no idea -- you very well might have. By the same token, I may have as well. This isn't a who-has-the-bigger GPU question. I'm just trying to understand if you understand the game we're talking about. If you're trying to predict price stability, election outcomes, how long a dictator stays in power, etc... what models do you build?
If you want to compare some models on this, let's do it. We'll compare and see if including international law/agreements has predictive value (relative to not including them). Are you game?
* It is possible a model could build up an internal representation of international law even if not provided it directly. If such an internal representation proves useful and predictive, this serves to prove my overarching point, albeit in a different way; namely international law (conceptually) matters. It doesn't matter if we call it 'real', 'fake', 'a myth' or whatever. Arguing such terminology is a waste of time. If we can measure it (somehow, to some degree) and use it to make better predictions, that is good enough for me.**
** It is also good enough for physicists! People may argue the _metaphysics_ of quantum physics tirelessly, but if the equations work, that is pretty darn impressive. Call it "spooky action at a distance" or "entanglement". In an an important sense, these are just words, metaphors, attempts to make sense of reality. Focus on how to turn the crank on the theory and don't get hung up on what is 'real'.
Yes I was incorrect to say such a model would be strictly worse off. But my read is that you over index on the notion of laws, hence your general befuddlement on the current outcome. Sovereign nations follow international law and order to the extent their goals align and perceived costs of contravening them exceeds some threshold. Might ultimately makes right, has always been the case. That's realpolitik for you, unfortunately.
I appreciate the discussion and thoughtful response.
> But my read is that you over index on the notion of laws
To be fair, nothing I said asserted the relative importance of international law in comparison to other influences (i.e. military power, strategic goals, economic interests, a vindictive leader).
> hence your general befuddlement on the current outcome
Where do you get the impression that I'm befuddled? I was disappointed in the lack of nuance of some comments, so I pushed back, but I'm not 'befuddled' by current events.
> Sovereign nations follow international law and order to the extent their goals align and perceived costs of contravening them exceeds some threshold.
This sounds like the 'rational actor' model from international relations. [1] But that model is not the only game in town, nor is it universally the best model to use!
> Might ultimately makes right, has always been the case.
I would happily see this phrase fall out of usage. It is what authoritarians want you to believe. What is right != who has power. Normative != positive. They are not the same. We would do well not to blur 'what is' with 'what should be', not even in an aphorism.
[1]: http://slantchev.ucsd.edu/courses/ps12/03-rational-decision-...
2 replies →