The major conflict that I see in social debates is that of trade-offs vs. utopia.
Some people recognize the reality of trade-offs and try to find ways to balance them. These analyses have names like costs/benefits, risks/rewards, etc. The core idea is always the same, "If we do this, what is the downside?" Businesses must do this all the time if they want to survive. Governments not so much.
The other view is that utopia - the notion that with the correct set of actions, especially those of government since it has the power of force, we will improve society and eventually make it perfect. This approach tends to take minimal account of downsides but rather focuses only on the positive outcomes of the actions.
It is this utopian view that has led to the situation you've stated in that outstanding statement I highlighted above. And sadly, it is the view that animates many discussions these days.
One way I've found occasionally helpful is to ask someone proposing a solution to something, "what is the downside?" Their answer will tell you a lot about who you're dealing with.
5
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
4 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.The problem in today's world is cost-benefit analysis is often done with a specific outcome in mind. I believe X is true and will find all the benefits and ignore anything that cautions against that goal. Our country is committing suicide by hubris. The people on both sides who consider themselves right with no other option are getting all the coverage and those who want to see what works and what does not work are lost in the noise.
Pand0ro
Level 7
June 10, 2021
2
Absolutely right! I try to do a cost vs benefits analysis with most of my decisions, especially when entering uncharted territory or when the initial cost or known sustainment cost is high. Along with the cost vs benefits analysis, I usually try to “foresee” potential 2nd order effects that add weight to one side of the “pros and cons” list.
Although the military is part of the Government, there are many who have learned to do this (and far more that haven’t.). I used these techniques to increase success rates within businesses i owned and/or managed and also in the military organizations i was responsible for leading. (Although I received a lot of resistance from superiors who frequently said, “cost is of no concern” (until about a year before I retired, at which time I started seeing a gradual change in their perspective.)
The only thing I’d add to your approach is a focus on synergies over resistance or even over compromise . When trying to convince others of your perspectives, it is insufficient to focus on the other side’s failure to consider downsides; it is necessary to counter-propose a synergistic alternative that highlights benefits to the other side along with reduced risk of catastrophic failure. This way you reduce the high potential of being seen as a pessimistic roadblock that must be overcome (or silenced) at any cost.
Daveclark5
Level 8
June 10, 2021
3
Trade-offs vs. Utopia.
You have questions about a vaccine---you want to kill our most vulnerable. (The irony is palpable).
You believe every human life matters---you're a racist. More irony.
Based on any analysis other than wishful thinking, you have reason to believe that the Wuhan Virus originated in the only place it could have---oops, racist again.
You look at the plan and the numbers for the Green New Deal and ask, "What's the return on this?"
You want to kill off the future generation. Again, irony alert AND racist.
If I were to offer anything more, it could only include Trade-offs vs. Hell.
Terence57
Level 7
June 10, 2021
2
"trade offs vs utopia" is another way of saying "factual vs fantasy" or "facts vs feelings"...
The masses are moved (manipulated) easily with emotionally appealing language.
iThink
Level 9
June 10, 2021
2
@lonethinker I have a new way of describing a lack of common sense.
I don't think it is fair or reasonable to say that "the masses" are so moved/manipulated. Let us no forget who is controlling the out-in-the-open conversation here, the MSM. They are totally biased, have been for years. There could be almost total agreement on some issue, but if the MSM refuses to report, nothing will happen. Speech is no longer free if all reported speech is filtered to benefit someone.
The reported folks speechifying thru the MSM are essentially puppets. Many are indoctrinated rather than educated. Ask them to prove anything, sustain their theory, and you get a blank or an accusation. Have you ever tried reasoning with a 2-yr old, or a dog?
Those that don't engage, don't back up their position must be ignored or laughed at. This is far worse than a "go along to get along" scenario wherein basic principles were readily sacrificed to achieve a questionable compromise. It is surrender to unreason.
@lonethinker reminds me of a line from K in the movie "Men in Black"
K says "a man is smart - people are stupid"
makes sense to me...there is some wisdom in that line.
@iThink
There are at least 2 ways to look at that quote. The first is obvious and is sort of a slam against humanity generally.
The 2nd is more in line w/ this quote from SciFi writer Harlan Ellison---Art by committee is never Great and most of the time, not even good.
Two different and well qualified ship captains who are not in accord are not going to steer a true course. One will do just fine.
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.