MACHINA

by Sebastian Marshall

  The Gracchi brothers – Caius Gracchus and Tiberius Gracchus – were reformers from the Populare party between 150 BC and 120 BC. They proposed many policies and reforms to increase land ownership among the unemployed and discharged military veterans.

  Many of these policies were basically wise and sound, but the two men served as tribunes – a lower rank than the Senate – and the Senators did not want to have these two men seen as saviors and gain in relative political power as a result.

  Both Gracchi brothers were murdered as a result; eventually, peaceful reform became impossible, and eventually a fierce Populare military commander – Caesar – marched on Rome and took command of the city as dictator-for-life. The refusal, among the Senate, to have you Popularis tribunes gain in relative standing eventually lead to the complete subordination of both the tribunes and the senators under the Roman Empire system.

  This course happens again and again in history – when Chancellor Otto von Bismarck proposed the first workman’s compensation laws in case of injury and the first social insurance laws in Germany, the socialists vehemently opposed him – they did not want a conservative getting credit for solving the problems of the day.

  Bismarck railed on this point in his famous “Practical Christianity” speech in 1884 –

  “That the Social Democratic leaders wish no advantage for this law, that I understand; dissatisfied workers are just what they need. Their mission is to lead, to rule, and the necessary prerequisite for that is numerous dissatisfied classes. They must naturally oppose any attempt of the government, however well intentioned it may be, to remedy this situation, if they do not wish to lose control over the masses they mislead.”

  The more famous takeaway from that speech is that the socialists need dissatisfied workers – but look at the second sentence.

  “This mission is to lead, to rule…” – classical ordinal inclinations.

  Bismarck dealt with both fanatic radicals to his left and to his right – he reigned both of them in, forcing through social legislation to improve working conditions in Germany, and ensuring that the Prussian nobles wouldn’t be led down to a path to ruin with foolish and risky military adventures after the Unification of Germany.

  ***

  THE KAISER AND THE FUHRER WERE ORDINAL

  Alas, Bismarck was dismissed in 1890. In 1891, Kaiser Wilhelm II announced a new policy direction – he shifted from Bismarck’s policy of Realpolitik to the new (and eventually fatal) Weltpolitik –

  “The aim of Weltpolitik was to transform Germany into a global power through aggressive diplomacy, the acquisition of overseas colonies, and the development of a large navy. The origins of the policy can be traced to a Reichstag debate on 6 December 1897 during which German Foreign Secretary Bernhard von Bülow stated, "in one word: We wish to throw no one into the shade, but we demand our own place in the sun." ("Mit einem Worte: wir wollen niemand in den Schatten stellen, aber wir verlangen auch unseren Platz an der Sonne.")

  “Nancy Mitchell says that the creation of Weltpolitik was a change in the appliance of German foreign policy. Up until Wilhelm's dismissal of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, Germany had concentrated its efforts on stopping the possibility of a two-front war in Europe. Prior to Weltpolitik, there was a greater focus on using its army and subtle diplomacy to maintain its status. In particular, Bismarck had been wary of acquiring overseas colonies and wished to reserve the role of Germany as honest broker in continental affairs. Under Weltpolitik, despite a two front war still being at the forefront of Germany's concerns as proven through the Schlieffen Plan, Kaiser Wilhelm II was far more ambitious.”

  Of course, this led to the complete destruction and ruin not just of the German Empire, but of the entirety of Europe in World War I.

  Germany got one last decent Prime Minister – Gustav Stresemann – who was flexible, moderate, cardinally-inclined, and who won the Noble Peace Prize in 1926 for reconciliation with France and Germany’s entrance into the League of Nations.

  Alas, he died at the age of 51 in 1929 from a stroke – Hitler rose to power shortly afterwards, adopting the max-ordinal position of “Deutschland Uber Alles” – henceforth, it would not be enough for Hitler’s Germany to thrive, but everyone else must suffer, be embarrassed, be conquered, be destroyed.

  Well, we know how that story ended.

  ***

  ORDANILISTS IN YOUR LIFE

  “Ordinal and Cardinal Inclinations” started first being talked about in my social circle a couple years ago; I’ve had noteworthy conversations on the topic with many terrific thinkers and doers.

  The opposite of ordinal inclinations might be a line often attributed to Harry Truman – “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.”

  Obviously, the Roman Civil Wars, Bismarck’s reforms, the German Empire, the World Wars, Nazi Germany – these are large scale things that effect the whole arc of history. Ordinalists, it seems, account for much of the world’s problems.

  But on a much smaller scale, ordinally-inclined people often hold their friends and allies back from success. If you’ve ever had a friend, colleague, or family member who seemingly got distraught and even sabotaged you while you were doing things in the world, it might be due to some subconscious ordinal inclinations on their part.

  This is one of the chief reasons that people rising in the world are often forced to find new friends. If you ask around, the phenomenon is incredibly common – people can be good friends until one of them starts going up rapidly in the world. Then, the person who is doing “just okay” can start get very weird and freak out rather a lot at their former friend’s newfound success.

  There are some basic measures you can take to minimize the chances of falling-out – don’t get arrogant or showy, give lots of credit and appreciation and gratitude to the people who help you get there, things like that – but the phenomenon seems somewhat unavoidable for the majority of people who go up in the world.

  Interestingly, most people don’t seem to compare themselves to everyone – just people in their reference group. From that Science Daily piece quoted above, difference emphasis added –

  “They found however that satisfaction was much more strongly related to the ranked position of the person's income (compared to people of the same gender, age, level of education, or from the same geographical area).”

  You’re very likely to fall out with ordinally-inclined people who see you in their reference group, if you’re going up rapidly. It, literally, makes them unhappy and dissatisfied.

  ***

  CAN WE JUST SHOOT ALL THE ORDINALISTS?

  The case for it seems clear enough – people like Hitler do so much damage and are willing to wreck so much havoc to be “#1” (ordinal), as opposed to merely developing as best as they can without hurting others.

  The opposite end of the spectrum is much more appealing.

  One of the things I’m most personally proud of is my ability to remain friends with people who go through a period of huge growth and become incredibly successful; I’m naturally very strongly cardinally-inclined, as are some of my closest friends like Kai Zau and Stepan Parunashvili. The benefits are obvious – when a friend of mine goes through hyper-growth and has lots of success, often many of their old friends start getting weird. Me, on the other hand, I’m always incredibly pleased when my friends are succeeding, almost no matter what. I’ve never lost a friend because they became more successful, and I’m very proud of that.

  Meanwhile, you see people trying to get out of poverty and make a great life for themselves get held back, denigrated, even outright sabotaged by formerly good friends. You see ordinally-inclined people on the grandest stage adopt Hitlerian policies of not just trying to go up, but trying to destroy and put down everyone else.

  So, can we just shoot all the ordinalists?

  No.

  Aside from the fact that shooting people with bad beliefs is completely inappropriate in 2016, it would a
lso be a rather empty world.

  It seems like both strongly introverted people and especially those who have mild to severe autism are more likely to be cardinal; they don’t relate with “normal human stuff” as much, and both don’t understand status games and typically eschew them.

  But this is not the norm – the vast majority of people have at least some ordinal inclinations, if not being outright dominated in their thinking by ordinalism.

  But while pure ordinalism is a recipe for disaster – both for the individual caught up in its spirals of misery, and for leaders who pursue destructive and sabotaging policies towards any other possible movement regardless of it being valuable – there are, actually, a few advantages to ordinalism and a few disadvantages to cardinalism.

  ***

  AUCTORITAS AND PRIMACY

  “Auctoritas is a Latin word and is the origin of English "authority” … In ancient Rome, Auctoritas referred to the general level of prestige a person had in Roman society, and, as a consequence, his clout, influence, and ability to rally support around his will. Auctoritas was not merely political, however [… it] symbolized the mysterious "power of command" of heroic Roman figures. […] The 19th-century classicist Theodor Mommsen describes the "force" of auctoritas as "more than advice and less than command, an advice which one may not safely ignore."”

  -- Wikipedia: Auctoritas

  “Among the senators with speaking rights, a strict order defining who could speak and when was established, with a patrician always preceding a plebeian of equal rank. The speaking order was similar to that of the seating arrangement, in which the princeps senatus held the first chair, followed by the consuls, censors, praetors, aediles, tribunes and finally, the quaestors.”

  -- UNRV: The Roman Senate

  You and your roommate are almost certainly not in direct competition. (If you are, you should probably move elsewhere. That would be dreadful.) In those circumstances, there is basically nothing concrete and valuable to be gained by your roommate having less money than you.

  Earning and saving more yourself is good for its own sake – cardinally, all else being equal, it makes sense to have larger amounts of money in the bank. How much your roommate has in the bank is largely irrelevant.

  In fact, actually, you should be happy and pleased when your roommate gets more money in the bank, as you should be when any of your friends, colleagues, or allies rise – it’s only a good thing for you if you’re not in direct competition.

  But this is not true in all things.

  The Cardinal Numbers run: One, two, three…

  The Ordinal Numbers run: First, second, third…

  In the era of the Roman Republic, as with today, whoever spoke first in a debate got to frame the terms of the whole debate.

  This was determined both by formal rank and informal auctoritas.

  Auctoritas is an interesting word – it’s worth studying sooner or later. Translating it purely as “authority” is incorrect; while formal types of authority (such as holding an office in the Republic) certainly increased auctoritas, so did doing brave and meritorious civic improvements, winning honor and serving nobly on the battlefield, building alliances and coalitions, and even just speaking in an elegant and polished way.

  Auctoritas, thus, might be translated as a mix of “prestige,” “formal power,” and “soft power.”

  A Roman Senator or Consul who made many achievements in the Senate or during their Consular term would likely be acknowledged with additional formal honors; equestrian knights who served well might be promoted to the Senate; and so on.

  This would effect what order a Senator got to speak in the Senate during debates, and whoever spoke first got to frame the terms of the entire debate.

  Thus, if the son of a family broadly hostile to your family won a major award like the Civic Crown, it meant a decrease in relative standing in the Senate, and it made it less likely you could get your laws and policies passed.

  It thus made a sort of morbid sense, in this system, to resist both adversaries and even neutral unaligned people receiving honors, prestige, or anything else that would increase their auctoritas – it made it less likely that your family and your children could make the achievements they wanted to make.

  ***

  WINNER-TAKE-ALL EFFECTS

  In Ries and Trout’s famous “22 Immutable Laws of Marketing,” the first law is listed as the “Law of Leadership: It’s better to be first than to be better.”

  “You can demonstrate the law of leadership by asking yourself two questions:

  1) What’s the name of the first person to fly the Atlantic solo? Charles Lindberg, right?

  2) What’s the name of the second person to fly the Atlantic solo? Not so easy to answer, is it?

  The second person to fly the Atlantic solo was Bert Hinkler. Bert was a better pilot than Charlie – he flew faster, he consumed less fuel. Yet who has ever heard of Bert Hinkler?”

  Ries and Trout list many examples along those lines –

  “After World War II, Heineken was the first imported beer to make a name for itself in America. So four decades later, what is the Number 1 imported beer? The one that tastes the best? Or Heineken? There are 425 brands of imported beer sold today in America. Surely one of those brands tastes better than Heineken, but does it really matter? Today, Heineken is still the Number 1 imported beer, with 30 percent of the market.”

  And those two marketing geniuses seem to think it applies to basically everything –

  “The law of leadership applies to any product, any brand, any category. Let’s say you didn’t know the name of the first college founded in America. You can always make a good guess by substituting leading for first. So what’s the name of the leading college in America? Most people would probably say Harvard, which is also the first college founded in America. (What’s the name of the second college? The College of William and Mary, which is only slightly more famous than Bert Hinkler.)”

  So – in the case of market share for companies, aiming for ordinal supremacy – being first – appears to also lead to cardinal success.

  Hmm.

  ***

  HUMAN POTENTIAL AND REFERENCE GROUPS

  Finally, for whatever strange reason, humans often have a hard time improving their performance against objective cardinal milestones if no one else is pushing them… and seeing another person succeed at a certain level also gives impetus to want to be better.

  Roger Bannister’s four-minute mile is often pointed to in this regard – it took nine years for the world record to fall from 4 minutes and 1.5 seconds to 3 minutes and 59.4 seconds… but the next record break happened less than two months later.

  There is, I suppose, a good reason to believe that if no one was ordinally inclined, human performance would not progress as fast in a variety of disciplines where everyone seeks to do better than the person that came before them.

  ***

  GUIDANCE

  I’m naturally cardinally inclined – and I’m grateful for that fact. Every time I see a friend, colleague, or ally advance, it makes me smile. I figure, my friends should be succeeding and it’s entirely appropriate and proper.

  But it’s not so simple as to say “cardinal is better” – neglecting auctoritas and primacy, winner-take-all effects, and the effect of reference groups on human potential – these things all point to take ordinalism seriously.

  And thus, we’re again at the point in Dubious Battle where we not make definitive statements about one being better or worse, and instead must look to general guidance of when each is appropriate.

  Guidance, then –

  1. A default “cardinal” position is healthier and saner; train yourself to go cardinal in the absence of a good reason not to be. Being cardinally-inclined lets you focus on gaining at the best rate for yourself, and doesn’t make you miserable when others are succeeding. Highly ordinal people will get destructive and spiteful, “keep up with the Joneses,” and often make des
perate gambles to be #1… often, with predictable outcomes. Being “ordinal everywhere” is a recipe for a miserable, unhappy, bitter, destructive life. Hitler was max-ordinal. If you find yourself comparing yourself to everyone in everything you do, that should be immediate cause to pause and reflect, and to gradually restrain and scrub those inclinations out of yourself. You can be great at many things, and perhaps the very best at a few things, but you can’t fight and conflict every single thing, in everything, everywhere. Aside from being a foolish dissipation of energy and highly destructive, it’s also a surefire way to be miserable.

  2. Adopt “ordinal” positions instrumentally for clear reasons. In winner-take-all competitions, being first also leads to the most cardinal gains. But pick the areas you go ordinal very, very carefully. It’ll make you miserable, spiteful, and prone to all sorts of potentially dumb and destructive behavior… you should only adopt ordinal positions when they’re very clearly necessary or superior for getting results, you should know exactly why you’re adopting them, and you should regularly double-check your assumptions in those regards. It’s too easy to get bogged down in a foolish ordinal competition while neglecting a bunch of very cardinally valuable and important things.