This is what happens when I get bored.
Dec. 14th, 2007 09:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kickahaAlright, this is something that's been bugging me for quite some time. I've noticed it among friends, both online and off, and among political groups to boot. Drives. Me. Bananas. It's taken me a while to come up with a proper explanation of the intellectual disconnect I see, but here it is.
Evolution is a mechanism by which the best {genes, ideas, code} get passed along and propagated in a {population, market, society}. It's a messy mechanism, but a proven one. When provided with the natural world, people tend to fall into one of two groups: "Well of course, it just makes sense." and "No, there must have been a controlling force behind this - it's too complex." We'll call these 'random-ists' and 'guidance-ists' to keep things neutral.
Alright, so one of the basic beliefs of the randomists (and evolution is but one example of this) is that random actions within a system, leading to changes of that system, will, *over the long run* give rise to a more efficient system *with regards to a context*. In evolution, this context is the environment that species adapt to. Those who are comfy with evolution have a personal acceptance of this philosophy on some level - it makes sense to them.
One of the basic beliefs of the guidanceists is that any efficient system must have a guiding force behind it, making conscious decisions and altering the system in some manner. In a religious view of biology, this is God, and a process such as evolution makes no sense. It simply cannot be that complex, efficient systems can be produced out of random actions with feedback from a context. This entire philosophy is rejectable as obviously absurd.
Folks tend to have one or the other core beliefs, and on a personal philosophy level, this is fairly easily extended to athiest vs. religious. Athiests see no need to introduce a deity, while religious folk see no other way. Athiest = randomist, religious = guidanceist. Kind of self evident.
Now it gets fun.
Consider software production. The two models being waged against each other in the marketplace are 'closed' and 'open'. The context is the quality of the software being produced (where success in the marketplace is an unspoken proxy for quality). The 'closed', or proprietary model, maintains that the best software is produced via closed design decisions made by a single body. Input is minimized, and a top-down approach will produce the best, most efficient system. The 'open' model proponents state that the better approach is to open up the system to anyone who wants to poke at it, and that an influx of ideas from a number of a priori unknown sources will give rise to the most efficient and highest quality system through trial and error. From this point of view, closed software is decried as a fool's errand. "Modern software systems are too complex to be controlled in an absolute manner." Closed software production = guidanceist, open software production = randomist.
Consider economics. At the two ends of one spectrum are free market and communist, the epitomes of lack of, and complete, economic control. Again, this maps fairly easily onto randomist, and guidanceist. A free market has a constant influx of 'random ideas' into the context of the marketplace via entrepreneurs, investors, and new products and businesses. A communist market has one source of ideas and changes: the top. Socialism is, in many ways, 'communism lite', in that it restricts the control of the market to certain subsets, but the principle remains the same. A staunch communist or socialist will assert that a free market is unfair to the individual, and that only through careful control can fairness be assured. The system is too important to be left to sheer chance.
Consider biology again, but this time human-driven. Genetics engineering (not to mention eugenics) is anathema to a large number of people. They simply cannot accept the idea of directed change, and instead believe that the best organisms are those that have developed through pure natural selection. Even directed breeding programs of crops, without direct DNA manipulation, is suspect. Control over the complexity of the genetic structure of an organism is seen as impossible... it's too complex. These are the randomists. At the other end, you have those that feel that we can have absolute control over that coding, and that is through directed design that these organisms will be made the most efficient. These are the guidanceists
And the payoff...
Many of the religious right are anti-evolution (guidanceist), yet believe in the free market (randomist).
Many of the liberal left in the US are evolutionist (randomist), yet lean towards communist (guidanceist).
In Europe, the Green Party is not an insignificant force. Anti-GM (randomist), yet a strong overlap with left economics (guidanceist), and (it is my understanding) strongly evolutionist (randomist).
Heck, just in software, look at the schism between hardcore MS fans: closed (guidanceist), free market (randomist), and many OSS leaders: open (randomist), communist (guidanceist).
Is it really just a matter of picking which area you are more comfortable with randomness in? From my perspective, if evolution is considered to be a successful mechanism in biology, then why is it considered by so many to be 'unfair' and 'regressive' in social situations? Are we really so concerned with the individual that we will ignore the species?
On the other hand, if a system such as an eye is 'too complex' to be possible through chance, then how in the world can an economic system be thought to be efficient when subjected to similar randomness?
If a software system is "too complex to be successfully managed from within", then how the hell are you going to manage an economy? OTOH, if closed development produces the best product, then wouldn't a controlled market be better?
This cognitive dissonance absolutely baffles me. It took me the longest time to figure out why I think most people are twits, and this is a big part of it. There's a willful inconsistency in expressed beliefs, and justifications, depending on the cultural situation they're in. I just don't get it. I really don't.
Anyone want to try and explain it to me?
Evolution is a mechanism by which the best {genes, ideas, code} get passed along and propagated in a {population, market, society}. It's a messy mechanism, but a proven one. When provided with the natural world, people tend to fall into one of two groups: "Well of course, it just makes sense." and "No, there must have been a controlling force behind this - it's too complex." We'll call these 'random-ists' and 'guidance-ists' to keep things neutral.
Alright, so one of the basic beliefs of the randomists (and evolution is but one example of this) is that random actions within a system, leading to changes of that system, will, *over the long run* give rise to a more efficient system *with regards to a context*. In evolution, this context is the environment that species adapt to. Those who are comfy with evolution have a personal acceptance of this philosophy on some level - it makes sense to them.
One of the basic beliefs of the guidanceists is that any efficient system must have a guiding force behind it, making conscious decisions and altering the system in some manner. In a religious view of biology, this is God, and a process such as evolution makes no sense. It simply cannot be that complex, efficient systems can be produced out of random actions with feedback from a context. This entire philosophy is rejectable as obviously absurd.
Folks tend to have one or the other core beliefs, and on a personal philosophy level, this is fairly easily extended to athiest vs. religious. Athiests see no need to introduce a deity, while religious folk see no other way. Athiest = randomist, religious = guidanceist. Kind of self evident.
Now it gets fun.
Consider software production. The two models being waged against each other in the marketplace are 'closed' and 'open'. The context is the quality of the software being produced (where success in the marketplace is an unspoken proxy for quality). The 'closed', or proprietary model, maintains that the best software is produced via closed design decisions made by a single body. Input is minimized, and a top-down approach will produce the best, most efficient system. The 'open' model proponents state that the better approach is to open up the system to anyone who wants to poke at it, and that an influx of ideas from a number of a priori unknown sources will give rise to the most efficient and highest quality system through trial and error. From this point of view, closed software is decried as a fool's errand. "Modern software systems are too complex to be controlled in an absolute manner." Closed software production = guidanceist, open software production = randomist.
Consider economics. At the two ends of one spectrum are free market and communist, the epitomes of lack of, and complete, economic control. Again, this maps fairly easily onto randomist, and guidanceist. A free market has a constant influx of 'random ideas' into the context of the marketplace via entrepreneurs, investors, and new products and businesses. A communist market has one source of ideas and changes: the top. Socialism is, in many ways, 'communism lite', in that it restricts the control of the market to certain subsets, but the principle remains the same. A staunch communist or socialist will assert that a free market is unfair to the individual, and that only through careful control can fairness be assured. The system is too important to be left to sheer chance.
Consider biology again, but this time human-driven. Genetics engineering (not to mention eugenics) is anathema to a large number of people. They simply cannot accept the idea of directed change, and instead believe that the best organisms are those that have developed through pure natural selection. Even directed breeding programs of crops, without direct DNA manipulation, is suspect. Control over the complexity of the genetic structure of an organism is seen as impossible... it's too complex. These are the randomists. At the other end, you have those that feel that we can have absolute control over that coding, and that is through directed design that these organisms will be made the most efficient. These are the guidanceists
And the payoff...
Many of the religious right are anti-evolution (guidanceist), yet believe in the free market (randomist).
Many of the liberal left in the US are evolutionist (randomist), yet lean towards communist (guidanceist).
In Europe, the Green Party is not an insignificant force. Anti-GM (randomist), yet a strong overlap with left economics (guidanceist), and (it is my understanding) strongly evolutionist (randomist).
Heck, just in software, look at the schism between hardcore MS fans: closed (guidanceist), free market (randomist), and many OSS leaders: open (randomist), communist (guidanceist).
Is it really just a matter of picking which area you are more comfortable with randomness in? From my perspective, if evolution is considered to be a successful mechanism in biology, then why is it considered by so many to be 'unfair' and 'regressive' in social situations? Are we really so concerned with the individual that we will ignore the species?
On the other hand, if a system such as an eye is 'too complex' to be possible through chance, then how in the world can an economic system be thought to be efficient when subjected to similar randomness?
If a software system is "too complex to be successfully managed from within", then how the hell are you going to manage an economy? OTOH, if closed development produces the best product, then wouldn't a controlled market be better?
This cognitive dissonance absolutely baffles me. It took me the longest time to figure out why I think most people are twits, and this is a big part of it. There's a willful inconsistency in expressed beliefs, and justifications, depending on the cultural situation they're in. I just don't get it. I really don't.
Anyone want to try and explain it to me?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-15 05:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-15 05:25 am (UTC)It was actually this group, the quasi-socialist/OSS crowd, that first got me thinking along these lines.