In Praise of Passivity Michael Huemer
Citation (APA): email@example.com. (2014). In Praise of Passivity Michael Huemer [Kindle Android version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com
Nota - Posizione 2
esempi di ignoranza: protezionismo e terrorismo l ignoranza degli esperti valori: disaccordo disaccordo su tutta la linea come riconoscere quel che sappiamo xchè tanta ignoranza? 2 teorie (rat ign rat irrat) come distinguere l idealista dall ipocrita le scienze sociali sono scienze? conseguenze pratiche: nn votare trascura i problemi sociali indebolisci la democrazia non lottare x i tuoi ideali male fatto e male non impedito. asimmetria complessità. intervenire o no. asimmetrie
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 2
In Praise of Passivity Michael Huemer
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 11
Nota - Posizione 11
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 23
Voters, activists, and political leaders of the present day are in the position of medieval doctors. They hold simple, prescientific theories about the workings of society and the causes of social problems, from which they derive a variety of remedies– almost all of which prove either ineffectual or harmful. Society is a complex mechanism whose repair, if possible at all, would require a precise and detailed understanding of a kind that no one today possesses.
Nota - Posizione 26
x SOCIETÀ E IGNORANZA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 27
the wisest course for political agents is often simply to stop trying to solve society’s problems.
Nota - Posizione 28
x LA SOLUZIONE SUBOTTIMA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 32
2. What Don’t We Know?
Nota - Posizione 32
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 33
2.1. Public Ignorance of the Political System
Nota - Posizione 33
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 37
Michael Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter give the flavor of public political knowledge in America: The most commonly known fact about George [H.W.] Bush’s opinions while he was president was that he hated broccoli. During the 1992 presidential campaign 89 percent of the public knew that Vice President Quayle was feuding with the television character Murphy Brown, but only 19 percent could characterize Bill Clinton’s record on the environment. Also during that campaign, 86 percent of the public knew that the Bushes’ dog was named Millie, yet only 15 percent knew that both presidential candidates supported the death penalty.
Nota - Posizione 40
x IGNORANZA PROV DEGLI AMERICANI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 47
International data indicate that Americans’ political knowledge is no more than moderately below average.[ 12,
Nota - Posizione 48
x APPENA SOTTO LA MEDIA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 59
2.2. Descriptive Social Theory: The Neglect of Expert Knowledge
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 60
Fortunately, in some areas of social theory, one can find a clear, policy-relevant consensus among the experts. Unfortunately, this consensus is often boldly defied by both political leaders and the general public.
Nota - Posizione 62
x ESPERTI E PUBBLICO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 66
The vast majority of economists– the people whose profession is to study these kinds of things– oppose protectionism and believe that it harms the domestic economy. 2
Nota - Posizione 67
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 73
even left-wing economists such as Paul Krugman, famous for advocating government management of the economy,[ 21] have signed on to this consensus.
Nota - Posizione 75
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 75
When experts from opposite sides of the political spectrum converge on a given position, in contradiction to conventional opinion, who is the more likely victim of a cognitive bias: the community of experts, or the uneducated masses?
Nota - Posizione 77
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 77
A second example is provided by the issue of terrorism,
Nota - Posizione 78
X ES TERRORISMO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 79
Experts whose careers center on the study of terrorism generally agree that terrorism functions as retaliation for specific government policies, especially for foreign military occupation of territories that the terrorists prize.[ 27,
Nota - Posizione 81
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 87
Political leaders in countries subject to terrorist attacks, however, typically blame the attacks on fundamental and irreconcilable clashes of values, on the moral virtue of their own country and the sheer evil of the terrorists.
Nota - Posizione 89
x POPOLO E SCONTRO DI CIVILTÀ
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 91
They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.
Nota - Posizione 91
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 109
2.3. Descriptive Social Theory: The Limits of Expertise
Nota - Posizione 109
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 110
In light of the ignorance of typical political leaders and members of the general public, we might be tempted by the idea of rule by experts, as in Plato’s Republic.[ 28]  Unfortunately, when it comes to descriptive social theory, even the experts’ knowledge is unimpressive, as demonstrated recently by the social psychologist Phillip Tetlock.
Nota - Posizione 113
x ESPERTI E TETLOCK
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 115
the best experts did only slightly better than chance at predicting outcomes.
Nota - Posizione 116
x POCO MEGLIO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 118
What the experts were good at was rationalizing their failures.
Nota - Posizione 118
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 134
Might it be that experts have highly reliable beliefs about these untestable matters? There is no reason to think so. Typically, if a person proves unreliable whenever you actually test that person’s claims, it is reasonable to assume that that person is also unreliable with regard to the claims you did not test.
Nota - Posizione 136
x MATERIE NN TESTABILI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 138
Thus, experts are probably even less reliable when it comes to these untestable matters.
Nota - Posizione 138
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 139
2.4. Evaluative Knowledge
Nota - Posizione 139
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 143
There is no generally accepted theory– either among ordinary people or among experts– for any of the central evaluative categories of moral or political philosophy. There is no generally accepted theory of the good, the right, justice, authority, human rights, equality, or liberty.
Nota - Posizione 145
x DISACCORDO SULL ETICA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 154
We may be tempted to argue that while other people are unreliable about evaluative questions, we ourselves have the correct values.
Nota - Posizione 155
x IO HO RAGIONE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 159
I would suggest that we ought to be very suspicious of any attempt to treat ourselves as special,
Nota - Posizione 159
x IO NN SONO SPECIALE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 167
2.5. What We Know
Nota - Posizione 167
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 168
I think we know that slavery is unjust, that democracy is superior to dictatorship, that torture is almost always wrong, that free markets work better than communist planning.
Nota - Posizione 169
x COSE CHE SAPPIAMO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 171
People often vociferously defend a policy while having no awareness of the literature on the subject.
Nota - Posizione 172
x LA LETTERATURA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 175
How can we recognize genuine political knowledge? I cannot offer a precise or complete answer to this question.
Nota - Posizione 176
x COME RICONOSCERE LA CONOSC
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 176
Genuine political knowledge tends to be: 1. Simple.
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 179
2. Accepted by experts.
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 182
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 185
Nota - Posizione 185
x SOGGETTA A ECCEZIONI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 187
5. Specific and concrete.
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 190
6. Supported by appropriate evidence.
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 193
7. Undefeated by counter-evidence.
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 197
Consider now the claim that democracy is better than dictatorship. This claim fares reasonably well with respect to the above list.
Nota - Posizione 198
x ES DEMOCR
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 203
3. Why Don’t We Know?
Nota - Posizione 203
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 204
3.1. Rational Ignorance and Irrationality
Nota - Posizione 204
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 208
The benefits of political knowledge are dubious. For the overwhelming majority of individuals, political knowledge makes no practical difference to how their lives go, since the probability of their causing a change in public policy is approximately zero.
Nota - Posizione 210
x L IGNORANZA POLITICA È RAZIONALE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 212
The costs of political knowledge, however, can be enormous, beginning with the costs in sheer time and effort.
Nota - Posizione 213
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 219
cultivation of habits of epistemic rationality.
Nota - Posizione 219
x UN COSTO PARTICOLARE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 225
1. People act only when the benefits exceed the costs. 2. The benefits of acquiring political knowledge are minimal. 3. The costs of acquiring political knowledge are substantial. 4. Therefore, people will not acquire political knowledge.
Nota - Posizione 227
x CONCLUSIONE IN TRE PUNTI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 235
politician may have strong motives to discover which positions are popular among voters and campaign contributors. But this is quite a different matter from discovering which policies are truly best.
Nota - Posizione 237
x L INFORMAZ NEI POLITICI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 242
3.2. Who Cares about the Good of Society?
Nota - Posizione 242
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 248
most of those who think of themselves as deeply moved by high ideals are not in fact so moved. This may seem a surprising claim. How
Nota - Posizione 250
x SENTIRSI SANTI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 252
I suggest that these individuals are chiefly moved, not by a desire for some noble ideal, but by a desire to perceive themselves as working for the noble ideal– not,
Nota - Posizione 253
x SENTIRSI IN PACE CON SE STESSI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 257
there is at least one way of distinguishing the desire for X from the desire to perceive oneself as promoting X. This is to observe the subject’s efforts at finding out what promotes X.
Nota - Posizione 259
x DISCERNERE I FALSI SANTI. COME FARE?
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 270
It seems to me that most people who expend a great deal of effort promoting political causes expend very little effort attempting to make sure their beliefs are correct.
Nota - Posizione 271
x I FATTTI. NESSUNO STUDIA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 278
3.3. Social Theory Is Harder than You Think
Nota - Posizione 278
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 278
There is another reason why human beings are terrible at figuring out political issues: it is a lot harder to figure things out than it appears.
Nota - Posizione 280
x SS È DIFFICILE. PIÙ CHE LA SCIENZA DURA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 287
We now know that all of these theories are utterly wrong, not even close to the truth. Yet all were widely accepted by the experts for centuries.
Nota - Posizione 289
x ELENCO TEORIE FALSE PER SECOLI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 294
the number of possible theories of any given phenomenon is enormous, if not infinite. Of these, all but one are false. So given just the information that T is a theory, the probability that T is correct is approximately zero.
Nota - Posizione 296
x NUMERO DELLE TEORIE POSSIBILI: INFIN
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 303
Another factor is the widespread phenomenon of confirmation bias: when we think about a hypothesis, our natural tendency is to look for evidence supporting the hypothesis, not to look for ways of falsifying it. 7
Nota - Posizione 305
x BIAS OVUNQUE. CONF BIAS
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 310
We now test hypotheses experimentally, making serious and explicit efforts at falsification. But when it comes to political ideology, no such techniques have been developed.
Nota - Posizione 311
x POLITICA E IDEOLOGIA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 316
questions are difficult to investigate because of the unavailability of controlled experiments. If we want to test whether fiscal stimulus cures recessions, we cannot prepare two identical societies, with identical recessions, and then apply fiscal stimulus in one society but not the other.
Nota - Posizione 318
x NO LABORATORI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 320
social phenomena are vastly more complex than the phenomena studied by physicists and chemists.
Nota - Posizione 320
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 332
Generalizations about human behavior almost always contain “ceteris paribus” clauses. Almost any factor influencing our behavior can be amplified or moderated by numerous other factors. When we move to the behavior of an entire society, matters are only that much more complicated. If there are laws of social evolution, they are no doubt incredibly complex.
Nota - Posizione 334
x COETERIS PARIBUS
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 336
But as Tetlock found, this rarely happens; most experts prefer to explain away their errors in ways that preserve the experts’ theoretical beliefs.
Nota - Posizione 337
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 338
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 344
4. Practical Lessons
Nota - Posizione 344
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 350
Fortunately, however, we are not completely ignorant, and we can derive some plausible recommendations for political agents.
Nota - Posizione 350
x NO ALLO SCETYICSMO ASSOLUTO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 352
4.1. Don’t Vote
Nota - Posizione 352
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 357
Imagine that someone asks you for directions to a local restaurant. If you have no idea where the restaurant is, you should not make it up. You should not tell the person some guess that seems sort of plausible to you. You should tell them you don’t know and let them get directions from someone more knowledgeable.
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 361
Ignorant voting is even worse than ignorant giving of directions, because voting is an exercise of political power (albeit a very small one)– to vote for a policy is not only to make a recommendation, but to request that the policy be imposed on others by force.
Nota - Posizione 363
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 367
One might suggest that citizens have an obligation to become informed, and then vote. But becoming sufficiently informed to know who is the best candidate in a given election is typically extremely difficult.
Nota - Posizione 369
x TROPPO ONEROSO IMPORRE L INFO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 377
4.2. Neglect Social Problems
Nota - Posizione 377
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 380
Consider for example the problem of recreational drug use, which leads to health problems, addiction, and general deterioration of the lives of drug users and their families. Perhaps there is something government could do to solve the problem. But given the ignorance of political leaders, activists, and the public, a government attempt to solve the problem is unlikely to succeed.
Nota - Posizione 384
x ESEMPIO DROGA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 385
one might think that, if we were completely ignorant, our policies would be as likely to increase as to reduce the problem; but as long as we have some relevant knowledge and understanding, and we are aiming at a reduction in the problem, we should be at least slightly more likely to alleviate the problem than to exacerbate it.
Nota - Posizione 387
x OBIEZIONE: QUALCOSINA SO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 389
four reasons why this is wrong.
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 389
First, any government policy that imposes requirements or prohibitions on citizens automatically has certain costs. One cost is the reduction of citizens’ freedom.
Nota - Posizione 391
x LA PROIB È GIÀ UN COSTO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 391
suffering on the part of those who violate the law and are subsequently punished by the legal system.
Nota - Posizione 392
x COSTO DEL PUNITO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 392
the monetary cost involved in implementing the policy.
Nota - Posizione 392
x COSTO BUROCRAZIA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 395
moral presumption against coercive interventions.
Nota - Posizione 395
x ETICA LIBERTY FIRST
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 401
when the state actively intervenes in society– for example, by issuing commands and coercively harming those who disobey its commands– the state then becomes responsible for any resulting harms, in a way that the state would not be responsible for harms that it merely (through lack of knowledge) fails to prevent.
Nota - Posizione 404
x L OMISSIONE CI RENDE MENO COLPEVOLI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 412
Fourth and finally, a policy made under conditions of extreme ignorance is not equally likely to be beneficial as harmful; it is much more likely to be harmful.
Nota - Posizione 413
x PROB DANNO SEMPRE MAGGIORI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 422
It is here that we must recall the case of George Washington. Washington’s doctors, ignorant of the germ theory of disease and lacking in antibiotics, had no chance of curing Washington’s infection. The human body is a complex mechanism with parts that work together in specific ways. Nearly all things one might add to or take away from the body, and nearly all ways in which one might rearrange the parts of the body, will interfere with that mechanism. Indeed, almost all large changes in the body are fatal. Thus, given their state of ignorance, almost any treatment the former President’s doctors prescribed could be expected to be harmful. Society can be viewed as a vast mechanism, whose parts (individual human beings), like the parts of an organism, work together in extremely complex ways. 9
Nota - Posizione 427
x ESISTE UN EQ NATURALE: TURBARLO IN MODO INAPPROPRIATO È SEMPRE DANNOSO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 431
I am not arguing that states should never intervene in society. Some interventions are clearly justified. For instance, prohibitions on murder, theft, and assault are justified. What differentiates these from, say, a prohibition on recreational drug use? A number of differences might be cited, 10 but what is most relevant to this paper is the difference in the state of our knowledge with respect to these prohibitions. We know that prohibitions on murder are beneficial– there are no real counter-arguments to the claim, and all experts agree.
Nota - Posizione 434
x INTERVENTI PLAUSIBILI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 436
Rather than recommending universal non-intervention, I am advocating a strong burden of proof for those who advocate legal demands or prohibitions.
Nota - Posizione 437
x ONERE DELLA PROVA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 439
The same lesson applies to many other controversial issues, such as gun control, fiscal stimulus, the minimum wage, immigration, and so on.
Nota - Posizione 440
x CASI DUBBI DI NN INTERVENTO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 445
4.3. Weaken Democracy
Nota - Posizione 445
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 449
for issues that are controversial or require careful reasoning or specialized knowledge, democracy is about the equivalent of drawing policies out of a hat.
Nota - Posizione 450
x DOVE NN FUNZIONA LA DEMOCR
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 452
When an issue is controversial, the best solution is not to simply take a vote; the best solution is to remove the issue from the political arena– that
Nota - Posizione 453
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 459
It is perhaps infeasible for a Constitution to include prohibitions on all the policies that would be controversial or whose effects would be unknown. A reasonable proxy would be to require large supermajority votes for the passage of any law. For example, a state could be designed in which a 70% vote of the legislature would be required to pass any new law, while a 30% vote would suffice to repeal any existing law.
Nota - Posizione 462
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 465
4.4. Don’t Fight for What You Believe In
Nota - Posizione 465
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 466
Fighting for something, as I understand the term, involves fighting against someone. If one’s goal faces no (human) opposition, then one might be described as working for a cause (for instance, working to reduce tuberculosis, working to feed the poor) but not fighting for it. Thus, one normally fights for a cause only when what one is promoting is controversial.
Nota - Posizione 470
x SI LOTA SOLO SE C È era N NEMICO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 474
Fighting for a cause has significant costs. Typically, one expends a great deal of time and energy, while simultaneously imposing costs on others, particularly those who oppose one’s own political position. This time and energy is very likely to be wasted, since neither side knows the answer to the issue over which they contend.
Nota - Posizione 476
x I COSTI DELLA CAUSA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 476
In many cases, the effort is expended in bringing about a policy that turns out to be harmful or unjust.
Nota - Posizione 477
x ESIYI DEPRECABILI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 479
Thus, suppose you are deciding between donating time or money to Moveon.org (a left-wing political advocacy group), and donating time or money to the Against Malaria Foundation (a charity that fights malaria in the developing world). For those concerned about human welfare, the choice should be clear. Donations to Moveon.org may or may not affect public policy, and if they do, the effect may be either good or bad– that is a matter for debate. But donations to Against Malaria definitely save lives. No one disputes that. 12
Nota - Posizione 483
x UN CSSO ESEMPLARE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 490
Nota - Posizione 490