New Year's Resolutions Followup 2014

I didn't do the best job of keeping my New Year's Resolutions. 

I did a fairly good job flossing the first half of the year, and fell apart after that. I didn't come close to posting weekly, though I averaged around one every 10 days. When you consider the gaps, however...

And the periodic calendar--I never used it to any degree worth mentioning. Instead, it offers a clear example of why these Resolutions often fail: no true change in behavior or environment to facilitate them. It wouldn't have been difficult to bookmark an adequately large image or save it to my desktop. Then, I could have consulted it easily. As it was, my poster was hung in a very inaccessible corner of my dorm.

My resolutions for 2015 are yet to be determined, but once I've chosen, these are things to keep in mind.

Ignorance and Individualism

Confusion is an important tool in our cognitive inventory. It tells us when to pay more attention. Let me give you an example.

A month or two ago, I chanced upon an unusual synthesis: libertarianism and social justice. I didn't bookmark the article in question, but this one covers the same material. The argument in question states that we fundamentally can't know what it's like to be another person--correct--and therefore white, heterosexual men should check their privilege.

At this point I found myself quite confused. I'd seen Fundamental Ignorance of Others used many times in the past. Usually, it's employed by libertarians, arguing for individualism and against state control over our lives. What was it doing here?

If we can't know other's lives, then how are we supposed to figure out who has it better off? Now, it's undeniable that an individual of European descent, male gender, or heterosexual persuasion is statistically more likely to be better off than someone who isn't. (I spent a semester in Social Problems listening to a self-described Marxist, believe me, I know.) There're a few problems with this approach however.

First, most disadvantages associated with race and gender are caused by the culture one is raised in, and by misguided government policies.  Active discrimination plays a relatively small role in determining life outcomes in most cases. Nevertheless, as a rationalist and a libertarian, I'm trying to combat both bigotry and the structural causes of racial and gender inequality. Why should I be feeling guilty?

(If you don't think "privilege" implies guilt, you probably haven't spend much time on tumblr.)

More importantly, acknowledging that certain traits are statistically correlated with better outcomes doesn't tell us anything definite about the individual in question, nor how to compare two individuals in particular. You can generalize, sure, but that's kinda how this whole racism/sexism/homophobia thing started in the first place.

So why, then, are we expected to check our laundry list of privileges? How do you come so close to true individualism, and then swerve right into biocollectivist territory?

My confusion should have been a giant neon sign saying "PAY ATTENTION TO THIS." Instead of trying to figure it out, I wandered off to other posts. It never stopped bothering me, and finally I realized we were dealing with an Isolated Demand for Rigor.

Fundamental Ignorance of Others applies to everyone. Unless you're a telepath, you can only infer what other's lives are like from exterior evidence. This particular argument, however, makes strong assumptions about broad categories of people, and only then invokes Fundmental Ignorance as a defense.

This is incredibly convenient for social justice types. It allows them to shield off an entire group from criticism, on the grounds that their critics are unaware of their privilege. It may be the case that a particular individual does not appreciate the hardships [oppressed group] endures, but all too often privilege is used as a fully general counterargument.

Fundamental Ignorance of Others should not be a fully general counterargument. There will be times when insufficient data is present to make an accurate deduction, but that shouldn't stop us from evaluating each case to the best of our ability. If we're going to truly understand one another, we need to remember that inessential features are not determining factors, regardless of statistical correlation. Probabilities are just that: probabilities. This is the crux of individualism.

Obligatory December Post

I want to meet my goal of making three more posts before the year ends, but I've got nothing. Which is to say, I've got 15 drafts but not the willpower to finish any of them. Instead, I'm going to ramble a bit and you're free to ignore me.

Part of my problem is that I've got all these grandiose notions and no good way to implement them. Take, for instance, my forthcoming post on the Single Transferable Vote. I'd be just thrilled if every state of the union adopted it tomorrow, but that's not going to happen. No one with the power to do it, has the incentive. Indeed, many of them have a strong incentive against it. Minor parties love the idea, but Republicans and Democrats--not so much. How do we convince them to put it in place? I haven't the foggiest.

It's a great deal like issues of drug legalization. Despite widespread support, it moves along at a snail's pace. Part of that can be blamed on the federal government, which will pull highway funding and continue to conduct drug raids to confiscate legal substances. To end the drug war, we have to challenge the existing laws and regulations made in Washington.

That's basically impossible because a plurality, if not majority, of Congressmen will be voted out of office for seeming "soft on drugs." Even if they know a policy will be good for the country in the long term, their constituents don't know (or worse, don't care).

This is, incidentally, the reason that nobody ever cuts spending without a showdown. "We saved the country from a government shutdown!" goes over better than "We agreed to raise your taxes and cut your benefits," even if the latter is a smarter plan.

Scott Alexander calls this Moloch, the demon of perverse incentives. It basically rules our society, and there's no easy way to combat it.

There's a few things you can do, of course. First of all, extend your time horizon. If I ever run for a legislative office, I'm not going to plan on reelection. Unless the polls are in my favor, I won't even run for a consecutive term. I would rather do a good job, that people remember later, than gain their benefit at the time.

To put it another way: statesman should not be a career.

Another thing is to donate to charity. Yes, an Objectivist is telling you to be altruistic. But I do it a somewhat unconventional way. There's a browser extension for Firefox and Chrome called Tab For a Cause, which displays a few ads every time you open a new tab. Proceeds are directed towards reputable charities like Human Rights Watch, Water.org, and Conservation International.

Individual tabs aren't worth much, but they add up. Since I started in mid-September, my tabbing alone has raised about $7.30--or enough to give a year of clean water to six people in the developing world. This is without any significant time, money, or behavior change on my part.

(Also, if you follow the specific link there, I get more tabber points, called "hearts," which I'll be donating to Educate!)

Probably the most important thing you can do, though, is the recognize your own strengths and weakness (then improve on both). As much as it pains me to admit, one person can't make society rational, peaceful, and prosperous. However, you can increase your own rationality and productivity, and help those around you do the same.

Notes on Spaceflight Economics

[ICYMI: First Flight Test Is Successful for NASA’s Orion Spacecraft]

Since NASA decided to retire the space shuttle, it seems the trend in spacecraft design has been more intimidating rockets, with more intimidating price tags, for single use missions. I'm pretty much alone over in my corner says "smaller, simpler, reusable."

(If you follow space news, they you probably realize I'm not quite alone in advocating reusable launch vehicles, and there's exciting progress on that front. Yet most NASA fans haven't quite gotten the memo.)

After today's Orion test flight, I discussed frustrations about the dominant approach with my friend Ben. Once finals are over I'll follow up this post with a more detailed explanation, but I want to record the main insights--along with my own thoughts--before they're buried in the chat logs.

• Getting materiel out of the gravity well is most important.
• One large rocket is less efficient (with regard to fuel) than many small rockets.
• Launching one large rocket is less efficient (with regard to materials) than launching many small rockets provided the smaller rockets can be easily reused.
• Smaller payloads would be financially viable if they can be easily assembled in orbit.
• My aerospace aesthetic is "design with an emphasis on 'nothing that explodes and flies away'"

That's all for the time being