Further, it becomes very easy to corrupt institutions of the sort the Society of the Cincinnati was becoming – Jefferson notes that both wealthy people and people generally uninterested in the American government would seek to become honorary members if the organization was prestigious, paying in money to do so, and then expecting to get a return on their money – “in this case would probably procure an ingraftment into the government” – you know, graft, corruption, receiving paid roles and monies without doing anything effectively.
Jefferson also notes that Washington isn’t immortal, and regardless if his good intentions, the society being built was capable of being usurped after Washington’s death to produce that sort of corruption and degenerachy.
And thus, George Washington was persuaded. Chernow –
“In his inaugural speech, [Washington] stated categorically that the Society of the Cincinnati must mend its ways. In notes prepared for the speech, he listed his reform agenda: “Strike out every word, sentence, and clause which has a political tendency. Discontinue the hereditary part in all its connections . . . Admit no more honorary members into the society. Reject subscriptions or donations from every person who is not a citizen of the United States.” Delivering this blunt message, the ordinarily circumspect Washington was fiery and outspoken.”
***
GUIDANCE
You know, it’s funny being a writer – here I set out to write on the potential value of aristocracy as contrasted against its downsides, and I wound up writing a piece almost entirely against aristocracy. Perhaps I shall take another crack at this subject from another angle in a year or two.
For all his liberality, Jefferson did acknowledge that there was some heridatary aspect to inheriting morality and effectiveness; in his letter to Adams, he wrote – “For experience proves that the moral and physical qualities of man, whether good or evil, are transmissible in a certain degree from father to son.”
And there were a number of points form Nietzsche about superiority that did not fit into the each as-such; I have only painted a very small piece of this picture here.
Well, so it goes. As is the case with all of our series on Dubious Battle, the guidance is murky and ambiguous; there are less right answers and more tradeoffs.
A few things to consider –
1. Whither superiority? Is anything better or worse? You might think on this. I’ll say resoundingly “yes” – the discharge of commissioned duties, and discharging them more effectively, is superior to neglecting one’s duties or discharging them shoddily. I am comfortable saying that those who do good work, in their domain, are superior to those who shirk their work or do shoddy work. But you should think on this and form your opinion; mine is not the mainstream in 2016.
2. To the extent anything is better or worse, does it come from stasis or movement? Are things better because they’re better? Or are things better because of movement, action, effectiveness? This is actually worth thinking through, though after wrestling with this chapter for many days and with it growing in word length, I eventually gave up and wrapped it up without doing adequate justice to the “innate superiority” position. I lean towards movement, of course, but I haven’t adequately and fairly covered the “stasis” position. Nietzsche often does so, incidentally, you might read him if you don’t mind your brain rattling around inside your skull for a while afterwards.
3. Regardless, gradually remove abusive uses of the verb “to be” from your language and thinking. E-Prime – English without the word to be – can be profitable to study. While saying “Lincoln is superior” might trigger a natural resistance to it, oddly enough “the Republicans are evil and hateful” does not necessarily trigger the same. Abuses of the word “is” (are, be, been, etc) might more naturally apply to insults than positive characteristics in 2016, but both can lead to shoddy thinking. Does saying, “X is good” or “X is bad” serve you? This can be sneaky, and time spent studying it is worthwhile.
4. Consider very well the Iron Law of Oligarchy in all endeavors. In any distributed power structure, there is always a chance to ask for support to receive more formal rank and then pay off one’s supporters for doing so – hence, the natural tendency in power structures is towards oligarchy. If you are running an organization or influential in society, and you’re generally acting virtuously and discharging your duties, you might miss the chance that a successor of yours rises to power through promises of resources to those who support them politically, as opposed to those who likewise wish to discharge duties effectively. This is one of the great challenges and tragedies as organizations and societies mature – if you find yourself in a leadership position where you will be succeeded down the road, it’s worth thinking through what structures and safeguards can be put into place to mitigate this.
5. To the extent you’re trying to show off how great you are through consumption, consider reducing and eliminating that. Formal rank without effectively discharging duties is an unstable equilibrium – it prompts hatred; perhaps French Revolutions are inevitable when it happens. Conspicuous consumption is a dreadful thing; it’s an unwinnable game. It makes sense to decorate a space or adorn yourself in certain ways instrumentally from time to time; wearing a nicely-tailored business suit might help you in some circumstances to land a job or grant slightly more perceived authority with which you can discharge your duties – but beware of that path in general; seeking to consume to show what you are is a sucker’s game and a path to ruin. Do things; don’t be things.
Dubious Battle #6: The Legible and the Illegible
A SCENE FROM A FILM
A scene from a film:
The entire screen with racing columns of numbers. Shimmering like green-electric rivers, they rush at a 10-digit phone number in the top corner.
CYPHER (MANV.O.)
You weren't supposed to relieve me.
TRINITY (V.O.)
I know but I felt like taking a shift.
The area code is identified. The first three numbers suddenly fixed, leaving only seven flowing columns.
CYPHER (V.O.)
You like him, don't you? You like watching him?
We begin MOVING TOWARD the screen, CLOSING IN as each digit is matched, one by one, snapping into place like the wheels of a slot machine.
TRINITY (V.O.)
Don't be ridiculous.
CYPHER (V.O.)
We're going to kill him. Do you understand that? He's going to die just like the others.
TRINITY (V.O.)
Morpheus believes he is the One.
Only two thin digits left.
CYPHER (V.O.)
Do you?
TRINITY (V.O.)
I... it doesn't matter what I believe.
CYPHER (V.O.)
You don't, do you?
TRINITY (V.O.)
If you have something to say, I suggest you say it to Morpheus.
CYPHER (V.O.)
I intend to, believe me. Someone has to.
The final NUMBER POPS into place --
TRINITY (V.O.)
Did you hear that?
CYPHER (V.O.)
Hear what?
On screen: "Trace complete. Call origin: #312-555-0690.
TRINITY (V.O.)
Are you sure this line is clean?
CYPHER (V.O.)
Yeah, 'course I'm sure.
We MOVE STILL CLOSER, the ELECTRIC HUM of the green NUMBERS GROWING into an ominous ROAR.
TRINITY (V.O.)
I better go.
She hangs up as we PASS THROUGH the numbers, entering the nether world of the computer screen. Suddenly, a flashlight cuts open the darkness and we find ourselves in --
2 INT. HEART O' THE CITY HOTEL - NIGHT 2
The hotel was abandoned after a fire licked its way across the polyester carpeting, destroying several rooms as it spooled soot up the walls and ceiling, leaving patterns of permanent shadow.
We FOLLOW four armed POLICE OFFICERS using flashlights as th
ey creep down the blackened hall and ready themselves on either side of Room 303.
The biggest of them violently kicks in the door. The other cops pour in behind him, guns thrust before them.
BIG COP
Police! Freeze!
The room is almost devoid of furniture. There is a foldup table and chair with a phone, a modem, and a powerbook computer. The only light in the room is the glow of the computer.
Sitting there, her hands still on the keyboard, is TRINITY; a woman in black leather.
BIG COP
Hands behind your head! Now! Do it!
She slowly puts her hands behind her head.
3 EXT. HEART O' THE CITY HOTEL - NIGHT 3
A black sedan with tinted windows glides in through the police cruisers.
AGENT SMITH, AGENT BROWN, and AGENT JONES get out of the car.
They wear dark suits and sunglasses even at night. They are also always hardwired; small Secret Service earphones in one ear, the cord coiling back into their shirt collars.
AGENT SMITH
Lieutenant?
LIEUTENANT
Oh shit.
AGENT SMITH
Lieutenant, you were given specific orders --
LIEUTENANT
I'm just doing my job. You gimme that Juris-my dick-tion and you can cram it up your ass.
AGENT SMITH
The orders were for your protection.
The Lieutenant laughs.
LIEUTENANT
I think we can handle one little girl.
Agent Smith nods to Agent Brown as they start toward the hotel.
LIEUTENANT
I sent two units. They're bringing her down now.
AGENT SMITH
No, Lieutenant, your men are already dead.
***
DUBIOUS BATTLE #6: THE LEGIBLE AND THE ILLEGIBLE
“Legibility: A system is legible if it is comprehensible to a calculative-rational observer looking to optimize the system from the point of view of narrow utilitarian concerns and eliminate other phenomenology. It is illegible if it serves many functions and purposes in complex ways, such that no single participant can easily comprehend the whole. The terms were coined by James Scott in Seeing Like a State. Illegible systems are generally more robust than legible ones, and Scott’s model is mainly about the failures caused by imposing legibility on an initially illegible reality.” – Venkat Rao, Glossary: Legibility
“Calculative rationality: The classical approach to decision-making, based on goals, plans, utilities and means-end reasoning methods. Calculative rationality does not usually encompass mental models, background narratives or situational tempo.” – Vekat Rao, Glossary: Calculative rationality
Legibility was one of the most important concepts I came across in the last half-decade. Right away, it helps you identify failure cases in your thinking – as well as the world at large.
It’s simple enough on the surface – given that the world is vast and complex, we humans often look to both simplify the world and impose structure on it, so that we can understand it, manage it, govern it.
From Rao’s seminal piece on it –
“High-modernist aesthetics necessarily lead to simplification, since a reality that serves many purposes presents itself as illegible to a vision informed by a singular purpose. Any elements that are non-functional with respect to the singular purpose tend to confuse, and are therefore eliminated during the attempt to “rationalize.” The deep failure in thinking lies is the mistaken assumption that thriving, successful and functional realities must necessarily be legible. Or at least more legible to the all-seeing statist eye in the sky (many of the pictures in the book are literally aerial views) than to the local, embedded, eye on the ground.
“Complex realities turn this logic on its head; it is easier to comprehend the whole by walking among the trees, absorbing the gestalt, and becoming a holographic/fractal part of the forest, than by hovering above it.”
It’s very, very likely you have some natural inherent biases in favor of legibility and against illegibility – that are very likely holding you back.
Of course, there are times when more legibility thrives – and missing those cases can lead to underperforming too.
We’ll dive into legibility in this chapter.
***
WORLD OF WARCRAFT IN CHINA
“The prohibition on foreign companies, which includes foreign-invested companies that are incorporated in the PRC, from operating online games is not unusual for China. In fact, the country’s entire corporate legal regime is based upon this very clear distinction between domestic companies and foreign companies, with detailed rules indicating which segments of the economy are open or closed for each type of company. For the purpose of foreign investment restrictions, China’s entire economy is divided into four categories: encouraged, permitted, restricted and prohibited.
“The online game business, like most internet related businesses, is regarded as a part of the telecommunications industry, which is an area where foreign investment is restricted. The online game business is, however, also regarded as an internet cultural activity and a form of internet publishing, both of which fall into the prohibited category where foreign investment is not allowed. As a result, foreign investment in an online game business is not permitted in any form.”
-- Pillar Legal: Regulation of China's Video Game Industry, 2015
We have a number of readers who are attorneys or involved in government; I’m sure they will find the legal and regulatory parts of this at least mildly interesting.
For the rest of us, though, there’s a lot of value in understanding how China and the Chinese government differs significantly from the West and Western government.
Of course, it’s interesting in a historical and legal context, but more importantly, it provides an excellent mental model for legibility.
“In recognition of China’s powerful government authorities, before discussing any specific laws, we first introduce the two primary regulators of the game industry – the Ministry of Culture (文化部) (“MOC”) and the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (新闻出版广电总局) (“SAPPRFT”). In the past, these regulators have clashed in their attempts to assert a dominate role in regulating this very lucrative industry, which is an important fact to consider when interpreting rules issued by MOC or SAPPRFT.”
In 2005, World of Warcraft came to China by partnering with a domestic Chinese company. In 2009, they wanted to switch which domestic company they worked with on the game.
When a new online game is to be released in China, it needs a few different government licenses approved before doing so –
“In practice, this prohibition is carried out through a licensing regime. As noted in the section entitled “Online Game Operator Licenses” below, each operator of online games in China must obtain three licenses, including the internet culture operating license issued by MOC and the internet publishing license issued by SAPPRFT.”
This leads to some things are frankly puzzling to Westerners –
“Although MOC and SAPPRFT are the primary regulators for China’s online game industry, their powers and responsibilities are not clearly defined and the two authorities have frequently clashed when attempting to assert regulatory control over the lucrative video game industry. Some regulatory actions in recent years, such as the anti-fatigue rules issued by SAPPRFT in 2007 and the virtual currency rules championed by MOC in 2009, are easier to understand when viewed in this competing regulator context.”
This is, again, incredibly strange for Westerners to try to understand.
Consider –
“MOC’s interpretation of SAPPRFT’s pre-publication approval authority for online games, as confirmed during our 2012 informal interview with MOC personnel, is that this authority is limited to the elements of the game distributed in physical form, such as CDs and DVDs. Accordingly, MOC argues that SAPPRFT’s approval authorit
y will diminish as use of physical media decreases and more games are distributed exclusively in digital format over the internet without the use of any client side software provided on physical discs.
"SAPPRFT, however, interprets its approval authority broadly, extending not only to publication in physical form but also to online publication in purely digital form. In addition, SAPPRFT believes that its approval is required whenever there is any change to the content of a previously approved game and whenever the domestic online game service for an imported game is switched from one operator to another. This position, however, appears to conflict with the statement from the SCOPSR circular noted below, that once a game is available online MOC shall assume full regulatory authority.”
MACHINA Page 51