Our capacity to generate knowledge pertaining to complex societal systems is comically insufficient. Political science, sociology and so on are functionally useless. The only worthwhile investigation into these systems is one that seeks to create better mechanisms for knowledge production. Here’s why.
If one were to direct 10 independent truth seekers to study political science to determine both what is true about the world, and to find the best possible prescriptions for how societies should be run; and these individuals were to dedicate their entire lives to this study, you would end up with 10 different answers. Though some commonalities may exist amongst certain individuals, others would disagree about the fundamental nature of reality so strongly that their prescriptions would be literal opposites. A discipline whose experts disagree on even the most simple and fundamental truth claims is useless. If the answers provided to the question, “what is the sum of 2 + 2?” Are, “9”, “14”, “-4”, “7”, “12” and “4”, and that we have no reliable mechanism for determining which of these answers is true, or even which is most likely to be true — the discipline is practically useless. We might as well just pick ideas out of a hat. (A reasonable hat of course, as ‘common sense’ constrains the spectrum of thought to reasonableness — no one is advocating that all arms should be amputated).
That these fields of study are practically useless is very unfortunate, as these are the systems that impact our lives the most and yet our capacity to understand them is unfathomably poor.
The reason for this circumstance is simple. These systems are sufficiently complex such that they cannot be understood fully. As such, we rationalise them through simplification and abstraction. Given this inherent uncertainty, numerous reasonable arguments can be created based upon the same information. And so numerous factions emerge that extrapolate forth from their base of beliefs — both descriptive and prescriptive — into broader views of the world that are utterly irreconcilable. We have no corrective mechanism that reliably converges these arguments toward truth. They are unfalsifiable. That which the individual takes to be true is determined by their psychological predisposition, various environmental influences and the nature of their exposure to different ideas.
The only worthwhile study of these systems is one that looks at the knowledge production mechanism itself. Or at least more accurately expressing our degree of uncertainty. It might not even be possible to do this well. But in any case, this is the only approach that has the potential to produce reliably useful outputs.
for individuals
Okay, so whilst that may be true of our institutions of knowledge production, of course YOU, paragon of wisdom and virtue that you are, YOU have the REAL truth. All of the others are simply mistaken. If only your ideas could be manifested maximally, the world would be beautiful.
Or perhaps your ideas are merely those that are most psychologically favourable to you. The selective pressures that determine your beliefs are a complex mix of psychophysiology and environmental influence that have bestowed a vision of truth upon you. These selective pressures have nothing to do with truth, despite your earnest insistence that they do. You may indeed be right, you may be more right than all the others, but to the extent that you are — you are lucky.
If your ideas were to be manifested maximally, not only would the outcome be entirely dissimilar from that which you have envisioned given the latter order effects that occur upon making changes to complex systems; even absent this, the favourability of the changes are suspect, as they depend on your precise perception of human psychology and the appropriate structure of human organisation.
You are probably painfully differently-abled (mentally), having shunned the uneasiness of uncertainty through oversimplification and assumption. Having latched onto a batch of beliefs such that you have a grand cause to fight for! If only others were so moral and wise as you, society could at last be ridden of its oppressive vice! And what righteous indignation is justified! Those delusional scoundrels! Do they not understand that they are bad and wrong, and that we are right and good?
This — of course — is very cringe. Politics for most is a fun game where we can have our team and do good and stop the bad guys and watch the news and be impassioned and fill the void. It involves more faith than religion itself, whilst considering itself to be absolutely rational. Your politics is likely your religion, only a ragged and dishevelled misappropriation of your need for it. Religion, at least, has a multi-thousand year historical record as a successful orienting function for individuals and societies — yours and your friends’ musings are utterly unproven. And how well have they been working out for you?
Again, the only respectable inquiry into politics is that which aims to create better mechanisms for producing knowledge. Or at least more accurately expressing our levels of uncertainty. Almost all else is mental, emotional and spiritual masturbation.
Forget politics. Your capacity to understand these systems, and to generate useful prescriptions regarding them is comically insufficient. Your common sense constrains your interpretation of what is reasonable. Though within the bounds of reasonableness, you have no way of converging upon what is optimal. If you were to dedicate the entirety of your life to studying these systems, the quality of your prescriptions would be unlikely to improve significantly. In many cases (for those unlucky souls who are drawn to falsehood!), the quality of your prescriptions will degrade. It is a disastrous waste of your time and energy.
Even if you are a superior assessor of truth, the likelihood that your efforts will influence these systems in even the most infinitesimally significant way is virtually zero. And yet how much of your existence is consumed by this uselessness?! How much of your time has been wasted, attempting to converge upon truth without a sound mechanism for doing so, and attempting to affect change without even a modicum of success?
I know, it’s embarrassing.
But it’s okay. You probably have the big brain. Many such people have the big brain. And you can do great things if you cast aside this nonsense and direct your attention instead to the immediacy of your own consciousness, your own life, your own friends, family and community. Things that are real and absolute. Some old geezer once said, “accept the things you cannot change, change the things you can, and have the wisdom to know the difference.” Ol’ mate was onto it. Cast off this great unwise-ness, change your actual life, and be done with this lunacy.
notable exceptions
There are a few obvious caveats that should be mentioned.
Localism. A 2000 person locality is generally better poised to make decisions regarding itself than those same 2000 persons are to make decisions for the entire nation or globe.
Advocacy for the present orthodoxy. To the extent that one is greatly contented with the present state of things, desiring that the present order persists is reasonable; irrespective of how poor one’s understanding of the structure and function of that order may be.
Further, it is possible that we do improve upon the various prescriptions that different ‘initial conditions’ extrapolate out into. And that although we have no mechanism for knowing which is best; assuming societal whims change over time, we may eventually stumble into ‘better’ politics. So although we don’t know whether libertarianism is better than socialism, if we were to enact either; it would be a better version for our study of it. This of course is highly speculative.
