I value authenticity and truth, and that is a very difficult value to have in a world of facades and distorted perceptions. But its possible to tell the truth with tact and not use it as a weapon. But no matter how much I value truth, Im still an actor out amongst the world. Theres no other choice. People who punish the truth are asking to be lied to. Most people loooooove being lied to, and we are all very skilled at creating bullshit narratives and lying to ourselves.
I think authenticity can be very confusing to people who do not know who they are... so, that's why we like the BS that gives us the illusion that we are whoever we would like to be.
“Authenticity” and honesty can be mutually exclusive. There are prominent examples of people elected to leadership positions who are authentically dishonest. They “tell us what they really think” but are consistently lying, wrong, or willfully ignorant. They are excellent performers who appear to believe what they say, and appeal to emotion, therefore come across as “authentic.” Give me the boring leader who is awkward in front of the camera and the crowd with integrity.
I've long thought about how much "technocrats," are hated. There is a danger in getting into ivory-tower loops divorced from the reality of the electorate, but I much prefer someone who just plays it straight, who tells you what data they're working from, what their assumptions are, what metrics they're trying to achieve.
The problem is that we've had decades of examples of people not voting for those types. Not anymore. No one will listen to them debate. They fail as talking head, at least among the majority.
Theoretically yes, but all such measures tend toward discrimination and the valuation of some voices as more relevant than others, which our system doesn't like. This goes back to Plato suggesting rule by philosopher kings, which may not be achievable, and was even more unlikely in Plato's formulation. It provides the basis for this "rule by the best," but even if there are upsides to such a system, the downsides are also legion.
My personal "theoretically achievable step without throwing out democracy" is increasingly demanding all decision makers have significant skin in the game and the possibility of loss as well as gain, which I wrote about a few weeks ago in detail. Better incentives alone may not be enough to overcome our myriad problems, but I'm fairly certain they would reduce them.
That is among the legion of downsides of such a system. Because while we might identify competent "king makers," we might be wrong, and even if we did it well once there's no guarantee our heirs will. Thus, democracy, preferably with some amped-up skin in the game built in.
We obviously define authenticity in very different ways. Im talking about truth. Someone authentic is mostly their true self. Its impossible to always be this way. Im never certain of anything, but if I dont speak with authority, no one listens.
Agreed. I had a particular type in my mind: The pathological person who probably believes what they are saying in the moment and then contradicts themselves a moment later. To them, that is their truth and they come across as authentic.
Well, if it wasn't working for politicians to do what they do, they wouldn't be doing it. I come from a country where we have a saying, "Don't blame the cake eater. Ask who gave them the cake." What if we, the voters, take our eyes off the circus and take our civic duty more responsibly? But then again, what if these politicians are mouthpieces for our worst instincts? If we take our civic responsibilities more seriously, would we lose the self-gratification we derive from allowing the circus to continue? Just thinking out loud.
I value authenticity and truth, and that is a very difficult value to have in a world of facades and distorted perceptions. But its possible to tell the truth with tact and not use it as a weapon. But no matter how much I value truth, Im still an actor out amongst the world. Theres no other choice. People who punish the truth are asking to be lied to. Most people loooooove being lied to, and we are all very skilled at creating bullshit narratives and lying to ourselves.
I think authenticity can be very confusing to people who do not know who they are... so, that's why we like the BS that gives us the illusion that we are whoever we would like to be.
Excellent point.
“Authenticity” and honesty can be mutually exclusive. There are prominent examples of people elected to leadership positions who are authentically dishonest. They “tell us what they really think” but are consistently lying, wrong, or willfully ignorant. They are excellent performers who appear to believe what they say, and appeal to emotion, therefore come across as “authentic.” Give me the boring leader who is awkward in front of the camera and the crowd with integrity.
Agreed.
I've long thought about how much "technocrats," are hated. There is a danger in getting into ivory-tower loops divorced from the reality of the electorate, but I much prefer someone who just plays it straight, who tells you what data they're working from, what their assumptions are, what metrics they're trying to achieve.
The problem is that we've had decades of examples of people not voting for those types. Not anymore. No one will listen to them debate. They fail as talking head, at least among the majority.
Is there a way we can actually choose the best people for the job? Forced service to country by committee? You have to pass an IQ test to vote?
Theoretically yes, but all such measures tend toward discrimination and the valuation of some voices as more relevant than others, which our system doesn't like. This goes back to Plato suggesting rule by philosopher kings, which may not be achievable, and was even more unlikely in Plato's formulation. It provides the basis for this "rule by the best," but even if there are upsides to such a system, the downsides are also legion.
My personal "theoretically achievable step without throwing out democracy" is increasingly demanding all decision makers have significant skin in the game and the possibility of loss as well as gain, which I wrote about a few weeks ago in detail. Better incentives alone may not be enough to overcome our myriad problems, but I'm fairly certain they would reduce them.
Better incentives and more accountability for all government employees. Yes please.
My question is who determines who is the best? 🤔
That is among the legion of downsides of such a system. Because while we might identify competent "king makers," we might be wrong, and even if we did it well once there's no guarantee our heirs will. Thus, democracy, preferably with some amped-up skin in the game built in.
We obviously define authenticity in very different ways. Im talking about truth. Someone authentic is mostly their true self. Its impossible to always be this way. Im never certain of anything, but if I dont speak with authority, no one listens.
Agreed. I had a particular type in my mind: The pathological person who probably believes what they are saying in the moment and then contradicts themselves a moment later. To them, that is their truth and they come across as authentic.
Well, if it wasn't working for politicians to do what they do, they wouldn't be doing it. I come from a country where we have a saying, "Don't blame the cake eater. Ask who gave them the cake." What if we, the voters, take our eyes off the circus and take our civic duty more responsibly? But then again, what if these politicians are mouthpieces for our worst instincts? If we take our civic responsibilities more seriously, would we lose the self-gratification we derive from allowing the circus to continue? Just thinking out loud.
Wise and entertaining article culminating with three powerful takeaways. Loved it