[Atlas667]

If you were to truly do a science of people would you not take into account all of the circumstances that person was in, in order to understand them?

You say: "One achieved it, but the other person in similar circumstances didn't achieve it"

Well how do their circumstances differ? Don't you think it's important how they differ? Actually, couldn't how they differ be the key?

Why, then, do you draw the line at an incomplete analysis? Maybe because it is convenient? Maybe because we'd rather not destroy our illusions of ourselves? Maybe its convenient not to understand others?

What is real in regards to ones self and others? There shouldn't be a loss of pride with understanding.

[roarcher]

What level of analysis would you consider "complete"? Certainly if we accounted for every neuron in their brain we could reduce their achievements to whatever configuration of gray matter produced the thoughts and actions that led to their success, and whatever external events produced that configuration. But then we would be at a level of analysis that regards us all as automatons, where nobody, including the group, is accountable for anything at all. This may or may not be technically correct, but I would argue that it is not useful. The question of who gets "credit" for an achievement would be entirely moot, as would the achievement itself and everything else any human has ever done.

I would think the correct level of analysis for this conversation is the lowest one that still allows people to be accountable for their own actions. Lower than that, and the central question of this thread is irrelevant.

[Atlas667]

> could reduce their achievements to whatever configuration of gray matter

Even if we could do that it would not "reduce" any personal value. I think these are biases you may have. Accountability can be defined, even in that total view.

And right now, even in the incomplete view that we have, it is defined socially and politically. And that's what my real take is:

That the ideas that most people have of self, person-hood, achievement, merit and value, are political ideas.They are not necessarily true/accurate ideas. They serve a political purpose.

> What level of analysis would you consider "complete"?

We can go further than what we have now. In fact I think we MUST go further in order to make the world a better place.

Our current analysis is really just a cheap political tool that serves to preserve a sort of caste-system, most employed for classism and racism. That vague notion that "some people are just different" is the base for many political violations.

If anything the ideal, final form of what I am saying is this: Real Incorruptible Democracy.

So we don't need a scientific model describing of a persons thoughts in real, chemical, atomic detail, we need a world that can take peoples individual circumstance into real political consideration and action.

This could be what a real science of people is.

[roarcher]

> They serve a political purpose.

Indeed.

> That vague notion that "some people are just different" is the base for many political violations.

As is the idea that everyone is an interchangeable unit of labor, all producing the same outputs if only they were given the same inputs.

> If anything the ideal, final form of what I am saying is this: Real Incorruptible Democracy.

I don't know what you mean by this, but I am highly skeptical of anything that claims a title like "incorruptible". Such things are usually the exact opposite, sort of like countries with "Democratic Republic" in their name or ships billed as "unsinkable".

[Atlas667]

> As is the idea that everyone is an interchangeable unit of labor, all producing the same outputs if only they were given the same inputs.

Agreed. That's why I don't believe in that. And actually that's kind of what I'm criticizing: the fake science used to judge peoples behavior.

But I do know we're way WAY more similar than our cultures would have us believe.

> I don't know what you mean by this, but I am highly skeptical of anything that claims a title like "incorruptible". Such things are usually the exact opposite, sort of like countries with "Democratic Republic" in their name or ships billed as "unsinkable".

I'm saying we can devise a political system that is incorruptible. Just like we generate mathematical proofs that underpin technologies which handle our worlds economy. But the creation of an incorruptible democracy can ONLY be done by the people who benefit from it. As in, the rich would never help us do it, only the poor. In fact, the rich would probably view us as enemies if we seriously tried.

[pdonis]

> I'm saying we can devise a political system that is incorruptible.

Please show your work. All human history says this can't be done.

[Atlas667]

Could cryptographic voting/blockchain, which is already a reality, be a part of this new system?

I believe it will, or something similar at least.

But I am a programmer, not a cryptographer. I'm not THE guy. I'm just some random bloke trying to think about something other than making money.

if this is a possibility then we as a people should start taking it seriously. Get open source standards, software and hardware (open chips) and put it to practice.

Though I'm sure the rich would hate this. So would anyone else who has a lot to gain from controlling public offices.

[atmavatar]

A big hurdle to proper analysis is that people are unreliable narrators.

Let's take a person who made it rich betting big on bitcoin early on. Were they a savvy investor who made their own fortune, did they merely think it sounded cool and thought why not while bitcoin prices were so low that snatching them up was super cheap, did they rely on a tip or tips from friends/family, or was it some other reason?

If you come back and ask them years later after they've become worth 10^7 or better, how likely is the person who merely got lucky to admit it was dumb luck in an environment that lionizes the wealthy as self-made superhumans?