Archives for category: Bounded rationality

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,
to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand,
and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground from whence he was taken.

“They’re extremely simple and accessible objects, which is not always the case with math research,” Schwartz said. “It’s the kind of thing that you could explain … to an eight-year-old.”

This doesn’t make much sense, does it?
Driving ‘man’ “forth from the garden of Eden”, that is… The Mobius band, as stated above, is a simple thing!

After all, knowing good and evil is a natural thing. For humans… ‘Man’ doesn’t need to ‘raise a hand and eat some fruit’… Living among like-minded peers is enough. As long as they talk to each other, of course.
As for ‘living for ever’… that’s impossible. Not only for ‘men’ but also for gods. So many of them are nothing more than memories… like ‘ordinary’ deceased people, right?

So.
Somebody mentioned it in one of the most interesting books known to ‘man’. Not only interesting but also extremely consequential.
Then it must mean something. Despite not making much sense, on the face of it…

What if we look at the whole thing as a metaphor?
As the story of how ‘man’ has become a conscious human being? Instead of a mere historical rendition…

‘But I was under the impression that all cosmogonies were exactly that. Stories meant to impart sense to the Universe. To make it acceptable to the conscious ‘man’…’

Indeed. That’s exactly what cosmogonies do. Did…
Only calling them cosmogonies shreds the magic. To use another metaphor, using the wrong name transforms a swan into a lame duck.

OK, the Bible is a cosmogony. One of many.
But there are many ways to read it.
From the inside, as a ‘bible’. And from the outside. As a cosmogony…

Which brings us to the point.
Science – cold, rational observation performed by conscious agents – can be made only from the ‘outside’. Any personal involvement of the observing agent, any feelings towards the observed subject, will only add layers of bias on top of the ‘desired’ knowledge.

Ouch?!?

How can a ‘rational conscious agent’ observe the world they live in as if they were on the outside?!?
Not only ‘banished outside’ but also made ‘to till the ground from whence he was taken’? …

No hard feelings allowed!
No feelings at all, actually…

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PUT GOOD PEOPLE IN AN EVIL PLACE?
DOES HUMANITY WIN OVER EVIL, OR DOES EVIL TRIUMPH?
THESE ARE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WE POSED IN THIS DRAMATIC SIMULATION
OF PRISON LIFE CONDUCTED IN 1971 AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY.

“How we went about testing these questions and what we found may astound you. Our planned two-week investigation into the psychology of prison life had to be ended after only six days because of what the situation was doing to the college students who participated. In only a few days, our guards became sadistic and our prisoners became depressed and showed signs of extreme stress. Please read the story of what happened and what it tells us about the nature of human nature.”

–Professor Philip G. Zimbardo

1971

A group of California students was divided in two. Half were told to act as prison guards and the other half to obey the first. The experiment was meant to last for two weeks but was cut short after six days.
“I ended the study prematurely for two reasons. First, we had learned through videotapes that the guards were escalating their abuse of prisoners in the middle of the night when they thought no researchers were watching and the experiment was “off.” Their boredom had driven them to ever more pornographic and degrading abuse of the prisoners.” Professor Philip G. Zimbardo.

2025-2026

People living in the US have been told that some of them don’t belong there. That if and when those who do not will have been removed, the rest will resume their previously ‘great’ lives.


Some forty odd years ago, a co-worker asked me: ‘What do you think about the UFO-s?’.

Romania, while Ceausescu was still running the show.
People had time on their hands to consider subjects like that. Unidentified Flying Objects. No TV to watch. Only two hours each day. Most of it repeating what Ceausescu had just said. No vacation to plan. People didn’t have enough money. Nor were allowed to go abroad. No books worth reading. No new books worth to be read, anyway… So people spent their time discussing ‘safe’ subjects.

‘Well, I’m not sure they actually exist. I haven’t seen one myself.
But if they do… that might mean we’re under surveillance.
Not that different from what we do in the jungle. Study the chimpanzee. Without interfering in their evolution!’

?!?

‘Do you feel exploited?’

‘No…’

‘Well… We, humans have been exploiting those who were weaker than us. Remember what happened when the Spaniards had discovered America. Or when the English had managed to conquer India. Control China. When the Americans ‘opened up’ Japan…
Now let’s accept the UFO’s as being real.
They must be controlled by very powerful agents. The kind of people which could, if they so wished, very easily control the entire Earth. Transform it into a colony. Which didn’t happen.
Which means they’re not like us. Like we used to be, anyway.
And let me go further.
If they do exist, and do have a certain technological prowess, they may behave in two ways. Peacefully or aggressively.
We’ve already established that they seem to be peaceful. And probably have been so for quite a while.
Then they’re no longer able to fight. Ready to risk their lives in battle.
Hence they’ll be using their technological prowess to protect themselves. Against ‘fresh’, immature, civilizations. Whose members continue to believe it’s worthwhile to risk their lives if the reward is big enough. Who are still ‘ready to fight’.
According to this scenario, the UFO-s are here to make sure we don’t get out in the space until we learn to behave.

A couple of years ago, I stumbled upon Liu Cixin’s Trilogy. In which he exposes the ‘Dark Forrest Hypothesis’. A couple of weeks ago, I came across the final book of the trilogy, the Death’s End.
Reading it, I remembered the discussion I had with my co-worker.

So, which will it be?
And, even more importantly, will we learn from our own mistakes?

Direction, protection and order.
These are what a leader is supposed to provide.
According to the current lore, that is.

Until the start of the previous century, drivers used to drive horses. Then cars.
Since computers have come of age, drivers enable the OS – operating system – to run the hardware. To drive the printer, for example.
Which makes sense. A driver – a person or a computer script – makes the link between the problem which has to be solved and the means which will be used to accomplish the task.

Furthermore, a driver – regardless of its nature – must act inside a certain ‘perimeter’. Certain things must be balanced in order for the drivers to be able to accomplish their tasks. For instance, horses – or donkeys, oxen or even camels – must be harnessed to the carriage. But not zebras! Despite zebras being very much similar to horses…
Same thing for computers. No matter how well written, no driver will ever be able to cajole a printer to perform the task fulfilled by a mouse.

Comparing human and computer drivers, they share one thing. And are set apart by another.
Human drivers must assume the task, despite the fact that they are never sure – not even after reaching the destination – about the final consequences of what they’re doing. Just as the computer drivers. Only the computer drivers don’t care. ‘Cause they cannot care…

Then how come human drivers … ?!?
Human drivers, like their computer counterparts, have their ‘orders’. The direction of the journey, the rules they have to follow… and they are even shielded from some of the consequences.
How many of you would start a journey into a completely anarchic ‘unknown’, just for the fun of it? Into a real life completely anarchic unknown, not into a computer generated virtual reality experience pretending to give the impression…

For the fun of it, into a place you know nothing about but the fact that there’s no established rule you can count on…. and without any form, whatsoever, of insurance.

I encourage you to click the picture and to read the post. Highly illustrative for the points I was trying to make. Direction, protection and order… making possible the interaction.
My gratitude goes to Jess3152.

Communism failed. Like all other totalitarian regimes.
Some people, most living in countries where it has never been experimented, consider communism to be an interesting idea. They also believe that what took place in the communist lager was not the real deal. Not what Marx had in mind!

First things first.
According to Marx’s Communist Manifesto, communism – as in the communist regime – was going to be instated by “the most advanced elements of the working class”. The communist activists… And the regime was going to be imposed by revolutionary means.
For a very simple reason…

The whole rationale of communism was that everything bad came from private property.
Abolish private property and everything will be just fine.
Yeah but… who in their right minds would accept that? Those who have only their chains to lose, right, but what about the rest? Hence the need for revolution! Which revolution was to install the dictatorship of the proletariat…

Forget about the proletariat and focus on the idea of dictatorship. Top down decision making, at its worse.
Remember the ‘who in their right minds would accept anything like that’ part…

You might have already recognized Brancusi’s Endless Column. World famous sculpture built in Targu Jiu, Romania. Considered to be ‘decadent’ by a local communist activist in the 1950’s. So, being ‘decadent’, it had to be removed. The recovered iron was going to be melt and used in the industry.

Fortunately, the activist running the show was an idiot.
A smarter guy would have attached those chains higher. Far higher. The results may had been different.
The rig pictured above didn’t accomplish anything. The chains broke and the column didn’t budge.

The whole thing is a perfect example.
For what happens when an ignorant nincompoop tries to remodel the reality.
Nothing if the reality is lucky.
Nothing good in all other instances…


Neo-liberalism – a ‘folly’, to be polite – was, and continues to be, a reaction to an all-encompassing left wing etatism. A reaction to the overbearing attitude of the government. Of too many of the governments around the world.
The fact that neo-liberalism has ‘gone too far’, way too far ‘in the right direction’, doesn’t excuse etatism. One folly doesn’t justify another.
Since Milei’s Argentina is a particularly poignant example of neo-liberalism, I may very well point out that ‘it takes two to tango’…
As for the root of all our problems… that’s ideology itself. Left, right… each and everyone of them. Each of every pre-scripted attitudes we tend to adopt when trying to cope with the excesses we need to survive on a daily basis.
We no longer examine the factual reality whenever we need to figure something out. To solve a problem. To cope with a situation.

We check what ‘our’ ideology has to say about the subject…

Corruption kills.
Sometimes literally.

Some ten years ago – 2015, October 30 – a fire broke out in a Bucharest night-club.
64 people died on the spot, including 4 members of the band. “The day we give is the day we die” was one of the tunes Goodbye to Gravity played that night.

The inquiry had determined that corruption was the main cause for what had happened. Safety certificates issued outside any norms, dysfunctional health care, unresponsive authorities… Massive popular protest forced the prime-minister to resign.
Things are better now, in Romania, but only slightly. Too slightly…

The point being that we’ve been warned.
Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.“
Frank Herbert: “It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.“

Both were right.
Power both corrupts and is a magnet for the corruptible!
Hence we need to keep it in check…

Nothing moves without power. We need it. To make things happen.
We also need to survive. To remain alive after things will have happened!

In order to do that, we need to understand something.
About the thing which may derail the whole thing.
About corruption!

Current events – Andriy Yermak resigning his post in Ukraine and Federica Mogherini being detained – are hailed as being ‘flaws’. As highlighting the weakness of Ukraine and the EU, respectively. Their ‘unworthiness’.

I forcefully disagree.
Corruption, like decay, is a natural thing.

Let me put it in a different perspective.
Decay may happen in an abandoned fridge. A closed space in which all kind of ‘unnatural things’ will happen if left unattended.
Decay naturally takes place in a forest. Where ‘no longer living’ organisms ‘turn back to dust’.

A fridge – which is a dead thing, specially when abandoned – is incapable of managing anything. Including a process of decaying.
A forest – which is a meta-living organism, if you’ll allow this expression – thrives as long as natural processes can take place. Decaying being one of the most important ones.

Same thing goes for societies.
Open societies – the ones known as democracies – are no more and no less ‘corrupt’ than the closed ones. The ones usually known as autocracies. In the sense that those in powerful positions are equally tempted by corruption. Equally tempted to misuse their power…
The difference being that the open societies deal with corruption in an open manner. Above the board. In public. In a court of law.
While autocracies deal with the corrupt people only when the autocrat allows it. Only when the autocrat feels that a particular act of corruption is detrimental for his own well being…

So.
Every time an open society exposes an act of corruption, that society becomes stronger.
While autocratic regimes are corrupt from top to bottom. By definition. Very much similar to an abandoned fridge brimming with ‘hairy’ things.

‘Revolution’ might be sexy and hype but our lives are shaped by counter-revolution.
Ilie Badescu, PhD

Marx, Karl Marx, is considered the quintessential revolutionary philosopher.

Ilie Badescu – a Romanian Professor of Sociology, proud of his reactionary convictions – makes a very poignant argument. ‘We live in counter-revolutionary times. Almost always. After each revolution, whatever was changed during the upheaval has been mitigated by the survivors to fit with the existing circumstances.’

“The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:
1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.

2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole. The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.
They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.
”

The Communist Manifesto

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote this in the first half of the XIX-th century. During quite revolutionary times… Or rather?!?

‘The communist ideas have not been invented or discovered by this or that would-be universal reformer’…

Those familiar with the history of communism know – or should – that both Marx and Engels had been born and raised in Prussia. At that time, until 1848, Prussia was run as an absolute monarchy.
Engels came from a wealthy merchant family who owned textile factories in both Barmen, Prussia, and Salford, England.
Marx was born into a well off family. His father, Heinrich, owned a number of vineyards and was an attorney. Eventually, after an engagement spanning 7 years, Marx married the educated daughter of a liberal aristocrat, but not before befriending his future father-in-law.

Neither had any blue-collar experience. Yet they co-authored the Communist Manifesto…

Things – every’thing’, actually – are/is relative.
Relative to the agent evaluating each of those things
.
Accordin’ to Einstein, that is.
He was the one who taught us to use whatever reference frame suits our needs.

Do you reckon anybody wasted any time or energy thinking about freedom before the advent of slavery?
Me neither.
Forget about the fact that, in those times, people didn’t have much time left for abstract thinking. Finding food and enjoying it with friends kind of drains your energy when you have to do it yourself… The point being that, in those times, everybody was free. Hence ‘had’ nothing to compare freedom with… No lack of freedom, no reason to speak/think about it.
No reason to notice the thing and no reason to coin the concept…

Hunter-gatherers have no use for ‘property’. Personal objects are just that and everything else either belongs to Mother Nature or to the entire group. And this goes without saying. Or thinking about it. People share everything as a matter of fact and common sense discourages the others to use anybody’s personal objects unless in an emergency.
Agriculture – either herding animals or growing crops – changed everything. Property, both as a concept and as an everyday manner of dealing with ‘things’, was invented and introduced in daily use. Productivity increased dramatically. Which made it possible for people to have ‘spare time’. For thinking.
And for planning…

‘The neighbors have better crops. Let’s go take some for us. And while we’re at it, let’s take some of their women too’.
The first slave was probably the first person to long for freedom…

‘Cheap’ slave work coupled with the increased social productivity induced by a markedly improved technology for obtaining food meant that some individuals could afford the luxury of thinking.
The Ancient Athenians had both slaves and philosophers. The slaves did whatever was needed to be done while some of the ‘beneficiaries’ had enough time, and energy, to let their minds ‘free’. To roam free in search for meaning.
To coin the concept and to explore freedom…

Relative “To whom”? To us!
We’re responsible for freedom and freedom is relative to us.
We have invented it. We’re the ones using it. In the sense that we’re the ones who need to notice that freer communities fare a lot better than the less free.

So freedom is relative both to those thinking about it and to each particular community.
To each particular community which puts freedom into practice!

“How is capitalism better than socialism and communism?”

First of all, capitalism, socialism and communism are four different things.
Socialism, per se, is two things.
Funny, right?

There is the democratic socialism. A social arrangement where ‘nobody is left behind’ and where the economy is run according to capitalist principles.
And there is the ‘stepping stone’ socialism. The ‘prep class’ a Marxist society was supposed to graduate from before acceding to communism. In fact, the former USSR – as well as all the other former ‘communist’ countries had never reached that stage. Stepping stone socialism is something nobody has yet been able to graduate from.

‘Stepping stone’ socialism and communism are bad. For the simple reason that both are authoritarian regimes. Run by a small group of people according to their own whims. Pretending to mind the best interests of the entire people but, in reality and like all other dictatorships, minding exclusively their own businesses.

Capitalism? Nazi Germany was capitalist. Not good. Because it was Nazi…

‘Capitalism’, the entire gamut covered by the blanket term, is neither good nor bad. People collaborating using capitalist principles can reach for the stars – literally – while people obsessed with amassing money will, eventually, end up in a cul de sac. Remember what happened in 2008?
Free market capitalism, run by a democratic society, makes wonders. The USA until 2008, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea after they had regained their freedom, W. Europe. Great Britain.
The problem with free-market capitalism being the freedom of the market. In order to make wonders, the market must remain functionally free. Free from obsessions, free from monopolies, free from political heavy handed interventions. And equipped with a sturdy social safety net. The US used to have one. W. Germany also. Unfortunately, that kind of capitalism is very hard to find nowadays… Too many oligopolies have cornered too much of the former free market and too many safety nets have been transformed into pampering devices for dependent people. Some of whom are already rich!

We’re currently experiencing a tug-of-war.
Frustrated people have been harnessed to pull in diametrically opposed directions.
Some have somehow been convinced that the free market should be allowed to become a MMA cage. A no holds barred free for all fighting place. And what if the whole thing will eventually be dominated by your local bully? We’ll deal with that if/when it will happen.
Others have been duped to believe that capitalism is bad. That usury is not an abuse but the defining characteristic of capitalism. Hence a compelling reason for capitalism to be rejected lot, stock and barrel!

OK, for the sake of the argument, let’s look for a replacement. A replacement for Adam Smith’s capitalism.

Let me remind you that bona fide socialism relies on redistributing wealth created using capitalist principles.
That stepping stone socialism is a mockery. An undercover capitalism where all significant property is owned by the state. Where all decisions are made by the government. By the revolutionary government which pretends to know better, as advertised by Marx. Karl, not Groucho.
And that ‘real communism’ is nothing more than a thought experiment! Wouldn’t it be nice if? Yes, it might have been nice if the practical aspects of the whole thing didn’t prevent those who have tried it from reaching their goals.