In most cases (>80%), the identification of the problem is accurate.
In most cases (>95%), the proposed solution won't solve the problem in a way that even makes the proposer happy, much less everyone.
I noticed because once again, I think the leftist identification of problems is fabulous. But their capability to find solutions is atrocious.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Can I get some examples?
For example, the particular leftist problem/solution pair you were looking at when this came to you?
I'd just read this post:
The Left-Libertarian argument, on the other hand, runs differently. We accept the harm caused to minorities by socially destructive and divisive prejudices- and the need to fight them.
We also accept the damage caused by concentration of wealth and the class system- and the need to fight them.
Our only disagreement with the conventional left is our mistrust of the State as a tool for reforms.
But then, I can reference Moldbug the same way. Critiques: Fabulous. Solutions? Not so much.
FWIW, the middle 3 lines from that last comment are a quote from the article:
The Left-Libertarian...tool for reforms.
I see. Thanks.
(Insert cogitation...)
Many thanks!
So, you noticed that conventional leftists are genuinely concerned but clueless.
Then, did you wonder who else was like that, and came up with this? (Or: what was the lead into generalizing it?)
If that's correct, may I ask how long approximately you spent thinking about it?
Alrenous,
Not quite. I've been mumbling in this direction for more than a year, and may have even said things much like this before...but the article provided the impulse to do so again/try harder.
Generally concerned but clueless is a not-quite-right statement in Aretae-speak. "Genuinely insightful when it comes to what the problem is" is stronger than genuinely concerned.
It's a (the?!?) core position in the Aretae constellation. We're all wrong A LOT. The ONLY (!!!!) path to success in any even moderately complex endeavor is feedback systems. Planning up front is a near guaranteed fail.
I see, thanks.
I'll give a specific example of how the Left is better at diagnosis than at cures.
In the 1970s, the Left wing of the time frequently accused conservatives of denying that unemployment was a problem. (One common argument was that conservatives should back the welfare state on the grounds that their policies made it necessary.) The Right wing of the time would claim that anybody who wanted a job could get one. Looking at the stagflation controversy in hindsight, we can see that unemployment was indeed a problem (even if was exaggerated by Leftists) but that it was alleviated by following policies exactly opposed to those recommended by the people who claimed to be most concerned about unemployment.
"but that it was alleviated by following policies exactly opposed to those recommended by the people who claimed to be most concerned about unemployment."
First: note lay-progressive and professional progressive split.
I'd say the lay progressives are actually concerned.
What concerns me is how doing the opposite of whatever a professional leftist suggests is so very often the right way* to serve the lay progressive's goals. That's a bad, bad sign.
*(Or at least, a not-entirely-wrong way.)
Joseph,
Welcome. Good example.
Alrenous,
There are 4 positions, not 3:
Progressive
Conservative
Libertarian
Politician -- all politicians claim the mantle of one of the others, but don't fit it very well.
Both,
I do not think that singling out progressives as particularly bad here is optimal...though I will agree that their constant search for improvement does seem to leave them as the posterboys for this syndrome.
Post a Comment