Advocates of X often claim, and almost as often with no merit, that a detractor of X hasn’t experienced X enough or they would naturally enjoy it as much as the advocate. This is a naive worldview to subscribe to, as it pretends that there are not differing tastes in things (art, tools, etc) to account for such a discrepancy.
“Well the only reason this person doesn’t like ‘X’ is because he did not use it long enough for Stockholm Syndrome to set in.” — Eric James Michael Ritz
1.) Existing social structures carry with them more information and purpose than a novice can see.
2.) A novice, with a novice’s eyes, sees the remaining flaws with the system, but can not easily see the fixed flaws.
3.) The wheel is reinvented as, often with a sense of moral righteousness, the neophyte implements their own replacement for the current “corrupt” system.
4.) This new system must fix the non-obvious flaws that the original system already (non-obviously) fixed to catch up, and often ends up just as “corrupt” as solutions to these flaws become the “lesser evils” that were seen as “pointless evils” with novice contempt in the original system — as reality tears theory asunder.
5.) Since human beings are not immortal and breed, we have a constant recursion of neophytes (children) creating a two-steps-forward-one-step back system of progress where mistakes are retread with righteous indignation, indignation often uttered so publicly that admitting defeat is too costly.
Thought: I wonder if this naturally emergent strife between the self-interest of the old and the self-interest of the young isn’t more an explanation for age-based placement on the liberal/conservative scale than quotes regarding a lack of a heart or a brain.
Counter wisdom: “Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” — George Santayana
Inspiration for this micropost: bitcoin, plenty such mistakes made first-hand.
Commenting is welcome and encouraged.
I will not delete any comments unless they fall into the category of spam or illegal material. In particular, I do not intend to delete comments just for being rude and/or inflammatory, as I am against censorship and for letting peoples’ idiocy be archived.
I am not sure how I want to structure this blog. Blogging tends to be a very temporally ordered thing, but I picture a lot of my posts as being a slow “brain dump” that I will want to modify as I better understand how they tie together. As such, I am certain there will be a lot of post-publish edits and hyperlinking going on. I will try not to stealth edit, and if I edit to fix a mistake brought to my attention I will give attribution (in the edited article, or as a “thanks” reply to a comment pointing out the mistake, or both).
I see a depressingly large number of problems with the way people reason and argue in this world that I feel I need to try to address in a structured manner. I’ve spent too much time making the same arguments in comment sections, and I feel it would save me time to have a set of blog posts addressing common mistakes, fallacies, and outright lies to link to instead of having to repeat myself from scratch so often.
I operate under the illusion that by collating and addressing these fallacious arguments, I can contribute to making the world a more rational and peaceful place. It is a very thin illusion.
I look forward to others helping me develop my accuracy by politely correcting me when I make mistakes.