On Twitter’s Alleged Left Leaning Bias, Crypto-Anarchy, and (False) Duality
This image seems like a proper place to start:
It’s a meme that spreads as people try to apply the order of operations rules they learned in high school that are compressed into the term “BEDMAS”. People get a rush when they use the rules and they seem to work and unbeknownst to them conflict ensues as a result of the emotionally based behavior.
Argument ensues between different types of “BEDMAS” users who come to find different results. Each player wants to argue how the rules should be applied given the “order of operations” BEDMAS instructions suggest.
Consider however if we re-write the formula like this:
8/((2(2+2)) or (8/2)(2 + 2)
Some people might suggest that there is a translation error as the original question is not properly represented by one or the other of these expressions. However I would suggest that a random sample/class would converge better on either of the latter two expressions compared to the original.
It’s not necessarily true to suggest that convergence to an answer to the “simplification” of the expression makes the converged-upon answer (objectively) correct, however, we can see how the evolution of language could sort out arguments based on semantical ambiguity.
“Because all the same tests would be all the same results”
Here we return to an argument of science versus religion and a point made by Ricky Gervais that I think a lot of people might view as perfectly rational and unarguable-namely that science is self proving because it uses experiments to verify its assertions (and these experiments can be reproduced in different space-times).
But in regard to the debate of religion versus science explaining our nature I think it is quite relevant to point out that we can’t perfectly agree on what we are observing (even in regard to a simple math question). And so it’s not as simple as Gervais tries to cut it since there is observation and interpretation involved and so there must be considerations on the biases of the observer and interpreter.
I think here we have highlighted a type of “political” view that sees science as perfectly objectively observable and means to accuse those that don’t share such observations as being in a state of lunacy.
What’s Eating Szabo?
Nick Szabo is is considered by many to be the number one contender for being the main driving intelligent behind Satoshi Nakamoto. For those that followed his twitter account, however, in order to lean more about the worlds most significant APOLITICAL technology they got more than they bargained for.
Szabo is outspokenly anti-left and (at least implicitly) self-identified right leaning. Here he is in conflict with any perceived left leaning sentiments that are against race-based studies:
On The Crypto-Anarchist Narrative Of Bitcoin
Now I am starting to understand the reason for the existence (and prominence) of the crypto-anarchist perceptive of what bitcoin is. As well as the “political” debate that seems to pervade the dialogues around the technology.
The observation comes from understanding the question of “How do I know if I am using correct bitcoin chain?”
This is obviously a philosophical question but very relevant and significant nonetheless (and one that was exploited by multiple parties trying to usurp the movement and attract the network to a chain controlled by them).
The crypto-anarchist has their perfect answer that comes in the form of 2 related replies:
- The chain you choose is correct for you
- If you don’t know what the real bitcoin is then you are an idiot
For the crypto-anarchist this is the perfect opt-in movement and explanation as to what the correct chain to follow is, however, from a practical standard point we can see a threshold where this just sends most of the people in the world into a state of trusting authority which makes the crypto-anarchist answers self inconsistent for those without the required technical prowess. As Paul Sztorc points out complexity becomes a barrier to bitcoin’s non-authoritative claims:
Grandma User does know that: “Bitcoin Core has been running for 6 years, it seems fine so far”.
Grandma User can not know that her money will be safe under the new rules of “Bitcoin Core II Duo”. She doesn’t have what it takes (150+ IQ points, technical inclination / CS PhD, a network of experts, and 100+ hours of free time), so, she must trust an authority. A hard fork elevates those who are Technical, Persuasive, or Endorsed, to “non-peer” status.~Paul Sztorc http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/#counting-full-nodes-is-irrelevant
And the problem is exacerbated by the notion that spreading disinformation can be near free and the source is seemingly boundless.
Here we call attention to a central theme of Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral sentiments which is man’s relationship to propriety:
And this in tandem to an observation by John Nash in his memo to Rand called Parallel Control in which he describes an advance computation technology which would be designed such that it could locate malfunctioning aspects of it self and be able to (self-)repair them:
He likens his design to the human brain as if he got his ideas from observation our thinking processes and how they might have evolved:
But there is an interesting point here that comes from a philosophical question I think is very useful:
How does a broken mind/computer heal itself?
To put it another way isn’t it the diseased mind that is constantly fixated on problems that it cannot solve? When the reasoning centers/processes are corrupt how does such a brain then use reason to identity and fix the corrupted region(s)?
Of course with predetermined intelligent design the entire state of the system could be held tacitly in all regions (or many regions) but it might be difficult to argue this would be a natural evolution.
How can the brain, that is broken, see its own disorder and come to relieve itself?
I think here we can see a hint of the answer an institutionally based solution that although is technically faith based also has come to be used through its empirically based evidence (ie the best solution we have proved to date):
So we see that broken minds first step towards healing becomes the surrender to some external (or non-corrupt) source (whether Christianity can be considered such a source is irrelevant).
Propriety and the “What is Bitcoin” Network
The crypto-anarchist wants to define bitcoin by the consensus rules that are allegedly implicit in its design. Once these are established the user simply needs to choose a node implementation that only observes blocks that follow these rules.
But like the observation of a phenomenon does not necessarily provide strong consensus on what was observed (like the Gervasian’s would have you believe) the implicit consensus rules that represent the true bitcoin (over time) are themselves subjective extrapolations that not everyone agrees on.
And for this the sincere user must query an external source in order to find out “what is bitcoin”. In other words there is no programmatic solution to this question baked into Satoshi’s code.
If one queries the internet or different social media one will at best be very confused or overwhelmed and might eventually decide on a node implementation that runs counter to the reason for running it.
Social Media and Politics
“One of the biggest threats Russia, Iran, China…they’re trying to meddle in our elections using your platform…and they’re effective…”
“Essentially you have a privately owned public space…”
“As a private platform you have become too powerful to not be regulated if you refuse to allow people free speech.”
“Our elections are being threatened…”~Tim Pool
I find a lot of self identified anti-left/anti-marixst loud and outspoken accounts on twitter and other social media platforms who seem to share the idea that platforms like twitter (or wikipedia) etc have a hard left bias.
That wikipedia is often said by such people to be a bias source means it can be difficult to share a common meaning. Here we can at least observe wiki’s definition together:
Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy. It typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished. The term left-wing can also refer to “the radical, reforming, or socialist section of a political party or system”.
Jordan Peterson is one of those anti-left/anti-marxist/implied right wing thinkers that is outspokenly against twitters policy of banning far leaning (hate) speech offenders. His anti-marxist sentiments often lead him to speak out against those that claim that governments (or hierarchies) oppress the people causing the need to mobilizes against such governments). Here he goes into the idea that the self-identified oppressed are simply putting themselves in a position of convenience:
I think nothing can be more representative than this type of attitude than the yellow vest movement supported by self implied anti left/anti marxist personality Nick Szabo:
Although one can argue that wiki is itself left bias it really comes full circle when we consider the major themes behind the movement (and the intention to usurp the constitutional infrastructure of the French parliament):
The yellow vests movement or yellow jackets movement (French: Mouvement des gilets jaunes, pronounced [muvmɑ̃ de ʒilɛ ʒon]) is a populist, grassrootsrevolutionary political movement for economic justice that began in France in October 2018. After an online petition posted in May had attracted nearly a million signatures, mass demonstrations began on 17 November. The movement is motivated by rising fuel prices, a high cost of living; it claims that a disproportionate burden of the government’s tax reforms were falling on the working and middle classes, especially in rural and peri-urban areas. The protesters have called for lower fuel taxes, a reintroduction of the solidarity tax on wealth, a minimum-wage increase, the implementation of Citizens’ initiative referendums, as well as the resignations of President Emmanuel Macron and the Second Philippe government.
There seems to be no perfect convergence on what political spectrum the movement represents…most notably that most participants here are said to either not be voters or to be from either of both extremes:
The movement spans the political spectrum. According to one poll, few of those protesting had voted for Macron in the 2017 French presidential election, and many had either not voted, or had voted for far-right or far-left candidates.
One would have to suggest wiki is a biased source in order to support the yellow vest movement and identify as anti-left/anti-marxist with assertions such as this one:
The yellow vests movement has been described as a populist, grassroots movement for economic justice, opposing what it sees as the wealthy urban elite and the establishment.
Re-turning to Order
In poker or game theory in general when there is not definitive information in regard to the circumstances of the decision to be made there is known to be a balanced action that exists which becomes a best case, unexploitable, response. If we raise this concept to our inquiry of unbalanced political perspective and start from a theoretically objective view there can only be the observation that the propriety of the entirety of participants is what is social order.
Put another way what is the most safe stance is to query the entirety of the network and adhere to the most popular position.
For the vocal left/marxist opponent (and probably the opposing self-identified right etc.) this is terrible news. It means the very division they have been working on solidifying and deepening becomes the very incorrect effort in regard to seeking what is “truth”.
For the crypto-anarchist this also encroaches on their core beliefs suggesting that they have a very limited view in regard to “what bitcoin is”. It’s not a fatal observation however (for “bitcoin”).
It means that “what bitcoin is” in regard to the average person wanting to be on ‘the chain that serves them honestly to their honest wants’ they need to continually ask the different kind of peers for advice (here this could be actual IRL friends or exchanges or media sources etc).
This suggests that all coins (ie alt-coins) are at least in part to be considered as part of bitcoin (probabilistic etc) and only become not bitcoin, to the sincere inquirer) as more information is conveyed clearly.
Bitcoin then, as defined by crypto-anarchists, really does not scale socially in the sense that there are very few people that hold the nuanced and unbalanced ideology that a very limited political view will win out over the consensus that general population adheres to.
The idea that the left can win over the right, or the right over the left, becomes the similar view that politically leaning intellectuals share regardless of their orientation.
It is only those, that seek to balance their own views by understanding how it is perspective only that divides them from their natural counter opponents, who will understand the importance of this re-solving viewpoint. And of those that don’t adhere to the dualistic perspective and conflict their action of seeking balance is quite identifiable from the action of perpetuating duality.
In other words the anti-Twitter censorship crowd is neither anti left nor anti right (nor pro left or pro right) but rather a crowd that seeks to solidify the existence of duality by nourishing and frequenting platforms that perpetuate debate.
Its not the balancing of the ‘unbalanced perspective of Twitter’, they claim is oppressing them, that is really their motive but rather these opponents mean to take away Twitter’s ability to control the conditions that create and foster the dualistic setting-they want to be able to fight for fighting sake so they don’t have to confront their own bias and dualistic conditioning.
For this Twitter will very much affect (future) elections as in the future the meta-data will begin to help evolve how we convey and receive information (ie evolve our communication/language) such that we can re-solve the differing sides of the political spectrum (inspiring convergence towards balance).
Something that scares the shit out of people like Nick Szabo.