David Brin's Ideological Poll
This is a questionairre you can take on the website of scientist and science fiction author David Brin. Here are my answers (if they can be called answers) in italic.
An Informal Opinion Poll Regarding Certain "Fundamental Questions" of Politics, Ideology and Human Destiny
Please choose the statement which most closely models your own point of view, or provide a response in the space provided.
THE TIME FLOW OF WISDOM
How do you feel wisdom is acheived?
A: "I believe humans knew a natural idyllic condition at some point in the past, from which we fell because of bad, inappropriate or sinful choices, thus reducing our net wisdom. (The Look Back View.)"
B: "I consider such tales mythological. Wisdom is cumulative and anything resembling a human utopia can only be achieved in the future, through incremental improvements in knowledge or merit. (The Look Forward View.)"
Answer: B
Can you provide convincing evidence to support your point of view?
My view is a statement of my own value preference between what I've seen of the past and what I've seen of the present. Those who want to call the nasty, brutish and short lives revealed by archeology an "idyllic" condition are welcome to define their own happiness. I would prefer they achieve it on another planet.
PROPAGANDA
Are members of our present culture subjected to propaganda? What kind?
I don't know how a non-censoring culture could completely eliminate propaganda messages.
What are the principal propaganda messages circulated today, and how are they disseminated? How effective has this propaganda been?
Too ubiquitous to list, and coming from every advocacy mouthpiece. Even this quiz is not exempt. The amount I've been exposed to indicates a huge amount I haven't been exposed to yet. It varies along the entire spectrum of effectiveness/ineffectiveness. From my POV, the most widespread, most effective, and the one I happen to dislike most, is coming from church pulpits.
Name 5 popular modern films in which these propaganda messages have been promoted?
The Passion Of The Christ
POLITICAL BELIEFS
Which of the following best describes how and why you arrived at your present set of political opinions and political agenda?
A: Logical appraisal of the evidence.
B: Inherent qualities of my nature, character or intelligence.
C: The effects of propaganda or upbringing.
D: Pursuit of my agenda may result in personal advantage.
Answer: C
Now answer the same question about why your political opponents hold the opinions/agendas they do.
A: Logical appraisal of the evidence.
B: Inherent qualities of their nature, character or intelligence.
C: The effects of propaganda or upbringing.
D: Pursuit of their agenda may result in personal advantage.
Answer: A
Do you think your opponents would agree with the way you answered just now? How do you think they would respond, if asked the very same questions about their own beliefs... and yours?
I don't know what's in their heads, so I'll be charitable to them. It's easy to fall into the trap of conveniently thinking fundamentalist Christians and irrationalist postmoderns are just liars. I am accused by fundamentalist Christians all the time that I secretly know they're right and just won't admit it. Isn't that annoying?
THE TOXICITY OF IDEAS
Please choose between the following:
A: I think ideas are inherently dangerous or toxic. People are easily deceived. An elite should guide or protect gullible masses toward correct thinking (Memic Frailty).
B: I believe children can be raised with a mixture of openness and skepticism to evaluate concepts on their own merits. Citizens can pluck useful bits wherever they may be found, even from bad images or ideologies (Memic Maturity).
Answer: B
If your answer to the preceding question was Memic Frailty, do you believe you should be selected as one of the elite who help encourage correct thinking?
Yes No
Answer: No
If your answer to the preceding question was Memic Maturity, do you hold "the masses" in contempt for not always agreeing with you?
Yes No
Answer: Yes
BIRDS OF A FEATHER
With whom would you ally? Which of the following persons would you listen to?
A: Person A, who agrees with my long-range dreams and goals, but disagrees profoundly with my program for getting there.
B: Person B, who agrees with my near-term political agenda and despises the same opponents, but has a very different image of what kind of society we should eventually arrive at.
Answer: A
How often have your political or other discussions with your allies actually focused on the distant goal? What is that goal?
Almost all I ever think and argue about are disagreements over core values, not how to acheive them. I don't mind leaving politics the way they are, except where church/state separation is concerned. My life is good and the world is good, and the ways to improve on this can't be legislated.
Do you have a clear image of the future society all your efforts are aimed at achieving? Describe your program for getting there.
I would like to see faith and obedience revealed as thinly disguised authoritarianism, dependency and misology. I'm not sure how to get there except by swimming in the meme pool a lot. It certainly can't be legislated. I wonder if left-liberals and moral-majority-conservatives have more trust, or are comfortable in interdependent relationships, whether it be with their parents or spouse or religion or children, or their DNA for that matter, which carries over to government. In the "perfect idealistic world" of my imagination there would be none of those. But I acknowledge a world of all adults, a world of artificial intelligences who can just self-modify whenever they don't like their own nature, is not where we are right now, and I have no good reason to expect it to become that way.
How have you verified that your "allies" have the same destination in mind?
I've had many discussions with atheists, agnostics, deists, and even pantheists on Universism messageboards and we have clarified the common thread about truth-finding methods. The more I argued with them the more I realized, wow, we agree about social freedoms, we agree on quack medicine, we agree on superstitions, we agree on paranormal phenomena, we agree on relationships. Everything that affects non-hypothetical decisions with imminent problems and real solutions for tangible people in this life, in this world. Just about the only differences were a pointless, rarified, ivory-tower philosophical abstraction.
DYNAMIC SYSTEMS
What are the attributes of these four social innovations -- Democracy, Science, the Justice System, Free Markets?
They are where biological evolution has moved to. In these arenas, memes/ideas die in our place so that human evolution no longer proceeds as much through biological death. In a democracy, the people are the evolutionary environment. Be as punishing an environment as you can: always vote to fire an incumbent who screws you over, even if the alternative is worse. The powerful will get away with anything so long as they collude with their opponents to present a worse alternative. That system short-circuits democracy's selection effect by curtailing variation in the competitors.
How are the four social attributes listed above similar?
In these systems truth is no longer "caused" to be true by the decree of a group or authority. Now to be considered an authority on a subject means the reverse: that one has met a standard instead of being the standard.
How are the four social attributes listed above different?
They are two sides of the same coin. Science established accountability on the subject of existence truth claims. Due process law made all authorities accountable to those they governed: this established accountability on the subject of moral truth claims.
Now consider Secrecy, a commonly prescribed social remedy. Discuss whether each of the four dynamic social systems named above (Democracy, Science, the Justice System and Free Markets) will function better if:
A: Most participants know MORE than they presently do about each other and whatever is going on.
B: Most participants know LESS than they presently do about each other and whatever is going on.
Answer: A
Is your safety enhanced more by:
A: denying knowledge to my enemies.
B: increasing my own knowledge.
Answer: B
Which is easier to verify:
A: that my foes don't know something.
B: that I do know something.
Answer: B
Which would you choose for yourself:
A: privacy/secrecy.
B: accountability.
Answer: B
Which would you choose for the group you consider freedom's worst enemy:
A: privacy/secrecy.
B: accountability.
Answer: B
PROGRESSIVE WISDOM
Are we wise or knowledgeable enough to prescribe ideologies for our descendants? How should we transmit these ideologies to our descendants?
A: Focus all efforts on achieving total victory for one's particular political agenda and then leave the transformed world to them.
B: Concentrate on achieving pragmatic solutions, raise a new generation that is appreciably wiser and more aware than ours, and then leave the rest of the details to them.
Answer: B
HUMAN NATURE
Do you believe in evolution? Are humans still at least somewhat part of the animal kingdom?
Biological evolution is a fact of paleontological history. Now however, memes and ideas increasingly die in our place.
What politically relevant things, if any, can we learn from fields like mammalian ethology, psychopharmacology, anthropology, and the historical behavior of real human tribes?
This list, if it is read to include functional MRI, is the most important area of human discovery.
If discrepancies appear between these sciences and our idealization of human nature, should ideology be revised? If information appears that shows an intrinsic difference between basic human nature and the ideal way we "ought to be", what is your response?
A: The so-called information about our basic nature must be wrong.
B: Society must adapt and conform to information about our basic nature, letting us be ourselves, since people are what they are.
C: The more we learn about 'basic human nature,' the more clearly we need vigorous guidance to encourage behavior more appropriate than we would 'naturally' engage in. This can be achieved by hewing to standards that have been known for generations.
D: Information about our basic nature helps us understand the raw material from which a new/better humanity might emerge.
Answer: D
THE WISDOM OF HISTORY
Historically, which prescription has best helped to maximize human achievement, minimized costly errors and ensured freedom/happiness etc.?
A: Weak government
B: Widespread and open criticism
C: Strong leadership
D: A cohesive shared value system
Answer: B
Can you think of historical examples to support your claim?
Greece had the forum, the absence of an intermediary priesthood, and abundant travel across the Mediterranean. Traveling scholars were challenged by unfamiliar thoughts which they robustly challenged back. I think that society did pretty well.
Can you cite counter-examples?
Church of Scientology; Jonestown
PROBLEM-SOLVING METHODS
Consider the following two approaches that have been used for many generations by people and societies attempting to solve problems or change their world:
* THE LEFT-HANDED APPROACH: concerted action by tribal or national units, organized by leaders who gather social resources (e.g., taxes or tithes) and apply them to attain goals in an organized manner.
* THE RIGHT-HANDED APPROACH: create loosely regulated markets wherein free individuals compete and/or cooperate, making the best deals they can for their own self interest.
In 10,000 years we've seen countless left-handed projects (pyramids, canals, wars and universities) and countless right-handed projects (industry, medicine, slavery and bookstores). Radical socialists have long demonized the right-handed approach as inherently corrupt/exploitive, and prescribe its amputation. Radical libertarians and anarchists call the left-handed approach coercive and stifling, and prescribe its amputation.
Which approach do you prefer?
A: the left-handed approach
B: the right-handed approach
C: neither/both
Answer: B
If you prefer one approach over another, would you:
A: amputate the other entirely?
B: severely limit it?
C: try to discover which types of problem each approach is best at performing and utilize the best approach?
Answer: C
How does your preferred approach create abiding conditions for personal satisfaction or generation of wealth?
My politics are just an extrapolation of my relationships with family and friends: I basically want to be left alone to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else; I form very loose low-commitment relationships. It seems to me, when I am armchair-theorizing, that other people would be more satisfied that way too; but I don't know. Intuition would be all I could go on at my level of knowledge, but societies are more difficult to intuitively understand and predict than individuals.
How would it deal with acute problems like natural disasters or Adolf Hitler?
I'm flattered that you would structure this activity to exclude the option that I don't know. It sounds like what you're fishing for is that the left-handed approach is needed for natural disasters and the right-handed approach prevents the dictators. That sounds good to me.
Has democracy moderated the faults in the left-handed approach? If so, what other reforms might help make it work better?
Yes, it has. I like the Idea-Futures Market. It would be nice to try it and see if it works.
Likewise, has democracy moderated the faults in the right-handed approach? If so, what other reforms might help make it work better?
Yes, it has. The most promising idea I've heard was the Science Court, which I think I heard of from Carl Sagan. Also, I wonder what would happen if we had a lottery to pick a random citizen to serve a short term making all the policy decisions with the assistance of futuristic artificial intelligences. It sounds insane, but who knows.
STRATEGY
Over the long run, what are the fundamental prerequisites for nurturing a growing state of freedom and wisdom for all human beings? (Please write a list.)
Suspicion of authority; wealth. I might be asking for a self-incompatible list of bread and circuses so I won't really attempt this question.
Can these prerequisites you just listed be achieved by:
A: persuading people to behave differently than they presently do (Exhortation)?
B: ensuring that actions have consequences (Accountability)?
C: creating environmental preconditions (e.g., heightened health and/or wealth and/or education and/or low fear levels) then trusting people to make correct decisions (Changed Circumstance)?
D: some combination of the above
Answer: D
Which of the above prerequisites (or lack thereof) are most responsible for our present state of civilization?
Persuasion gets the credit.
Which of the above prerequisites (or lack thereof) are most responsible for YOUR present beliefs?
I used to be a very compliant and trusting child, a dutiful husband, and a devout follower of Jesus of Nazareth. Those arrangements were all bad and I'll never again get into relationships of parent/child, till-death-do-us-part, or worshiper/worshipee. I have no policy statistics, I've never paid much attention to laws and their outcomes, I don't claim to be an expert in society or governance, so I cannot be looked to for anything more specific on politics than a treatise of first principles. I merely have life experiences that teach me hyper-individualism, which manifests as suspicion of all authority and an aversion to entitlement. By entitlement, I mean home, family, church, government, and other communal relationships in which people basically feel like they can have free run to abuse each other and praise it as "self-sacrifice."
How does your answer to this question corelate with your earlier answers regarding Propaganda, the Time Flow of Wisdom and Toxicity of Ideas?
When I found libertarianism and technological culture, they fit like a hand in a glove. God, marriage, parents, government, nature, it's all of a piece. Technology attempts to break the wheel of nature, that we are in relationship with, and which governs us.
TACTICS
In the short term, which of the following describes how you feel you are more likely to achieve immediate political goals:
A: Consolidate your core supporters, demonize your opponents, and dismiss compromise as a form of ideological betrayal.
B: Negotiate the best near-term deal you can through whatever political process works best, even if it means your opponents get part of their agenda accomplished, too.
C: Learn as much as possible about the opposition, then offer the other side's moderate wing enough to split them off from their fanatics, destroying their coalition and building your own.
D: Ignore your opponents because (a) they represent obsolete or decrepit worldviews doomed to inevitably fail anyway, or (b) because they are mere stalking horses or fronts for the real opposition -- power groups who operate inimically behind the scenes.
E: Concentrate on perfecting your own position/behavior/soul, since that is all an individual can ever really be responsible for.
Answer: C
MEANS TO AN END
Do ends justify means? Can one justifiably squelch speech, behaviors or actions by repugnant parties/individuals if it serves a higher cause?
I don't think so.
That's it so far.
Of course this is hardly a complete questionnaire! Many of you will find flaws or ways to improve these questions... or come up with additional ones that might beneficially be added. If so, please provide your suggestions in the space below. Again, the aim is to provoke new levels of discussion, not to promote a particular point of view.
It depends on what the goal of this survey is. It seems to assume everyone cares deeply about which group of criminals holds political office at the moment. Politics is the symptom; religion is the disease.
Meanwhile, let's open up our minds. The satisfactions of self-righteousness are very druglike, but in the long run human problems will not be solved by junkies. They will be negotiated by earnest and wise human beings.
Comments
elizilla on Oct. 11, 2005 3:59 PM
Um, either you have your answers switched under POLITICAL BELIEFS, or you see yourself a lot differently today than you usually do. :)
matt-arnold on Oct. 11, 2005 5:01 PM
Much of my other answers to the poll revolved around explaining what you are pointing out here. I see my political beliefs differently than I see any other area of my beliefs. Can you describe my political beliefs to me? Because I sure can't. I like Libertarian social policies one minute and Democratic economic policies the next-- in short, an incompatible list of bread and circuses.
elizilla on Oct. 11, 2005 8:41 PM
You think your beliefs are the result of propaganda and upbringing, while your opponents reached their conclusions logically? I always thought that you consider yourself the logical one, and that it's the other guys who are swayed by propaganda and upbringing.
elizilla on Oct. 11, 2005 8:45 PM
I don't know what your political beliefs are, except that you carry your religion (or lack thereof) into the political fray just as forcefully as the fundies carry theirs. It's one of the things I like about you, you call a spade a spade, instead of backing down out of some notion that we must be tolerant of people's irrational religious beliefs even when they're crusading to make them part of the government and apply them to us against our will.
matt-arnold on Oct. 11, 2005 9:10 PM
First off, thank you very much for the support.
When I think "politics" I think effectiveness. Fiscal and business sense. Taxes and spending programs. These are about what works and what doesn't work. If I knew anything about that, I would come right out and say so. In that sense I have no opponents. The questionnaire provided no radio buttons for "I don't know" or "not applicable." Ignorance and apathy are cousins of stupidity. So claiming my non-existent opponents are smart and my non-existent opinions are stupid is preferable to claiming non-existent opponents are stupid and my non-existent opinions are smart.
I find existence claims such as evolution and gods to be easier matters than the fiduciary business of government. This is approached through science. Philosophical questions of values and rights, such as abortion or church-state separation, are also easier. It's not a disagreement about what strategies will work. That would be like asking "what are human rights good for?"
So, which topics are being asked about in each question? If the answer is different for economics, science, and human rights, that is a problem. One of the problems with David Brin's questionnaire is that the person being questioned is given no idea what topics or controversial issues they are being asked about. The philosophy of science teaches us that it's useless to ask a question until the terms in it are defined.
Leave a Comment