Philosophy : How to Conquer

From bitrary
(Redirected from Philosophy: How to Conquer)
Jump to: navigation, search



Due to wide variety of reasons this is a topic, where I do not know, what I'm talking about. However, I am able to pile together some thoughts that seem relevant in the context of this topic.

Some Semi-random Sayings From Various Sources

  • No leader can be big without big subordinates. (Ükski juht ei saa olla suur ilma suurte alluvateta.)

  • A car can not be controlled, but it is possible to influence its trajectory. (Autot ei saa juhtida, kuid on võimalik mõjutada tema trajektoori.)

  • Let us have the wisdom to distinguish things that we can change from things that we can not change. (Et meil jätkuks tarkust eristamaks asju, mida me saame muuta, asjadest, mida me ei saa muuta.)

  • If You treat a person like dirt, then it will start to behave like a villain. (Kui kohtled inimest seana, siis seaks ta ka muutub.)

A Sidenote: think about Russian culture, the disrespect that they impose on each other and the strict hierarchy. Corruption in such an arrangement is a necessary self-protection reaction to counter the mistreatment. Problems occur, when the defensive action is applied in situations, where the assaulting party is missing, e.g. Russian behaviour in a corruption/mistreatment free situation.

  • Law is an opinion with a gun.

Stefan Molyneux on "The Joe Rogan Experience with Stefan Molyneux" talking about the principle immorality of states, which stems from the fact that states initiate force.

Some Semi-random Lines of Thought

  • One of the parameters of people, addition to height, weight, hair colour, is consistency. Consistency shows, how much time, how many seconds, must, "in average", pass till a person forgets, dismisses, ignores, the results of a contemplation and reverts to emotions, automatic thoughts.

Examples of stereotypical extremes: Mexican people versus Germans. An example of an inconsistent behaviour: a person authentically agrees that X is most useful to him and then chooses Y, because the fact that X is more useful to him than Y does not occur to him in the situation, where he has to make the choice.

A hypothesis: psychologically designed communication methods are designed to counteract the lack of consistency, e.g. inconsistency.

  • People, who are smart enough to avoid being plain useful idiots (e.g. specialists that are smart at their speciality, but dumb enough to work for people, who will abuse them) are smart enough to think about their own interests and how the interests are met in the present and in the future. The truly smart people will join only teams that are never abusive, even towards enemies, because even enemies can be right and to have an open, technically direct, discussion, anyone must have the option to become an enemy without being mistreated, because, it might be, that the position of the enemies was right at the first place. On the other hand, if the team does not contain the smartest people or some paths of discussion is a taboo, then the successful achievement of the goals of that team is limited.

  • Consistent people can probably (according to the level of their consistency) be stopped from conducting activity X if the activity X is destructive towards themselves and they have noticed that at least once. "Sufficiently" inconsistent people can probably be stopped from conducting activity X only by applying brutal force. An example: it's not possible to negotiate with a pack of wolves and explain to them that if they do not leave, they will be shot, specially if they are already running towards the armed people. (Read: biologically limited humans can have a chance against smart artificial intelligence, biologically limited animals can have a chance against humans.)

  • A situation, where aliens that have far greater intelligence than humans have meet the humans, can be somewhat modelled by the analogue, where humans meet ants. Humans do what they want with the ants, eradicate whole colonies, torture them at will, etc. but the humans are not at war with the ants, because the humans just do not care, have other things to do, despite their capabilities. With the exception of robbing (taxation) and enslavement, the same relation holds with the leaders of super-mafias (states) and "civilian population".

  • If there are no more shark victims, sharks will become extinct. People can get away with abusive behaviour, because there are other people, who let it happen, love to be slaves. The less abusive person P_1 is, the more capable, smart, people person P_1 is probabilistically capable of forming a team with.

  • Voting does not guarantee that stupid people can come up with a smart solution. Smartness is relative, e.g. every person is pretty stupid in some context. Some people are considerably more stupid than "average" in almost every context. On the other hand, smartly conducted calculations that use false data will likely produce an answer that is false to the extent that dumber calculations with correct data produce more accurate answer. Dumb people can have more correct, up to date, data than smart people.

  • Both, extra stupid and extra smart people are in the minority. Therefore the more capable people should never hope for popular support or understanding from the majority.

  • Voting loses its point, if the people, who vote, can not themselves nominate the statements that are being voted on.

  • My ( team members should be such that they help me during times when I have difficulties, am down and I am at the losing side. If the team members are lackeys that obey the side that threatens them the most, then they will not help me during times, when I am at the losing side and need help.

An example from my ( life experience: twice, at two different companies, after the announcement of my dismissal Russian colleagues were afraid to talk to me at the office, where I was packing my things. One of them even declined to say good bye to me, when I went personally to say farewell to him. Estonian colleagues acted differently by giving an open, public, farewell-greeting and they did not avoid me after the announcement of my dismissal.

  • Controlling, enforcing hierarchy, eliminates the usage of solutions that the controller is too stupid or time-constrained to see beneficial to the causes of the controller. Even if it were possible to determine, what is "smart", the smart people should not enforce hierarchy. That is to say, control makes sure that solutions are not smarter than the ones that the controller considers acceptable, unless the solution creators outsmart the controller.

Examples are Russia and Asian countries, including Japan, that are really good at replication and production, but practically never lead technological development, with a few exceptions, where the controller, for example, Soviet Leadership, has given a few scientists a rank that is politically high enough to have actual creative freedoms.

  • The reason, why military branch must obey the "civilian" branch in any mafia organization, including super-mafias, generally called "states", is that military activities are a cost and extortion is a complex process that is very ineffective in the form of labor camps, prisons. Labor camps, prisons are a form of planned economy and the collapse of the Soviet Union demonstrated, how planned economy fails. Herding slaves, including tax slaves, is a very different task than winning a battle. A general that wants to keep its army economically furnished and functional, has to start working on economic issues after obtaining the top position at the mafia, but if the general spends more of its time on the slave herding in stead of working on military planning, he/she is more of a "civilian" than a "military person". From that point of view there is no difference between the "military people" and "civilians", because the moment the "military person" obtains the top position in the mafia, it either transforms to a "civilian" or the dynasty falls due to economic problems.

Ideas to be used, when Observing this World

One should not waste one's time on analysing, why cows chose to walk into the slaughterhouse. That also holds in situations, where the cow has enough talents to gather a whole herd to join her and the herd tries to force other, smarter, animals to follow the herd to the slaughter house. A thing to keep in mind is that scorpions and cobras can be stupid, but deadly.

There actually exist people, who

  • watch soap operas;
  • take SMS-loans;
  • spend their last dimes on fashion goods that they could do without;
  • do not have almost any thoughts, opinions, on processes that determine their daily, immediate, well being.

Things that can be Scary from a Leader's Perspective

In organizations that get their income trough robbing others, the number one threat to the leader is assassination. In organizations that are not based on physical violence or social abuse, the scary situations might be:

  • Lack of verification of the quality of the decisions of the leader in situations, where people just rush to implement the idea that the leader proposes by ignoring the warning issued by the leader that the implementers should always look at ideas with at least certain amount of criticism.
  • Fanatic supporters, who do not take their time to evaluate their actions and carry out stupid, but eager, actions against the opponents of the movement or the opponents of the leader.