Almost started to write this comment about principles, but then you went there...so I'm with you.
That's what irks me most about the 'grifters' which is an ultimate psychopathic mindset. With principles you're willing to take a fall for the cause, while a grifter would advise you to always lean in.
Petain was an interesting fellow though. At first I would think that he was a hard-headed guy. He is the 'Lion of Verdun' after all. But wasn't Verdun a clear example of inaction and following orders? Nobody tried to take some additional risks to break the deadlock. That might have been foretelling this way on his later conduct. (And also a great lesson on, how inaction is also a choice and you can still pay for it dearly while that was the exact reason for you decline of choice)
Character tests. We need character tests to filter out the unsavory elements. At this point it is clear that credentialism is not enough, because people already learned how to game the system. How it should be done, I don't know.
I totally agree about credentialism. Personality tests are tough, because psychopaths are really good at imitating prosocial behavior. Ultimately, there's no substitute for human intuition.
At least that's something that we can't outsource to AI. Intuition though is only effective in short lines of command or direct nomination. Kinda like how I was invited to lunch by the company owner/founder after I was recommended in my current job. I was told later that I was in after that, the professional interview was only for the paperwork. It can be this easy, but you gotta get involved.
I know that bringin up Chesterton is already kind of cliché, but I do think that at least some of the apparent nonsense was about filtering out psychopaths. At least I remember hearing about something like this in a cultural context.
At least that's the only way I can see something like this introduced as Goodhart's law absolutely applies here. We can't just make a Kobayashi Meru like test and expect the people to don't figure it out, what it's about.
I think a lot could be gleaned from asking people 'tell me about an example of when you spoke truth to power/challenged the status quo'. The agreeable people would be stumped to find an example, or give an example of when they joined in a status-quo defending position i.e. went on an anti-trump/Brexit etc rally. Principled disagreeables would be able to give examples of true courage reciting their battles with psychopaths or corporate entities, and psychopathic disagreeables would deliver a charming fluff piece, based on what they think the other person wants to hear. I think I'd be able to tell each group apart from this, followed by some probing follow up questions!
The psychological warfare involved with covid was unlike anything the world has seen before. Despite that, you're right, the psychopaths using nudge units failed.
Degaulle was a traitor to France. Handed over Algeria to Communist Muslims. Said nothing when the British destroyed the French navy. Helped the Brits bomb France to smithereens. Very "agreeable" to the people who wanted to destroy France, for sure.
De Gaulle certainly had some contentious decisions but I think that he generally had the spirit. The destruction of the French Navy was completely unnecessary. The Vichy troops never put up a great resistance anyway. The true nazi loyalists were under Wehrmacht/SS controll(SS division Charlemagne). France was also spared of much of the destruction, except some strategic places I guess.
"How do you want me to integrate ten million Muslims who will be tomorrow twenty million and the day after forty million? My village would no longer be called Colombey-les-Deux-Églises but Colombey-les-Deux-Mosquées!"
As much as I sympathise with the Pied-noirs, I think it was only right to leave Algeria. The situation was untenable and it's not like you can just pacify a bunch of commie muslims. And as commie muslims tend to do, it descended into a civil war anyway.
De Gaulle was also the one who left the integrated NATO command. I know that they returned but that's not on him. As a first step I would be happy if US servicemen who commit crimes were sentenced and jailed in the country they commited the crime in. The agreement with the US about this(that US servicemen will be returned to the US if this happens) is something what really made me angry with Orbán. Sadly this one is also something that most people don't know the importance of until something happens
"France must regain full sovereignty over its territory. It cannot allow foreign forces to remain here without being under its authority."
"The American protectorate over Europe is not compatible with the independence of European nations."
I mean...this should be the baseline. But even the most basedest Poland is quick to run always to the US, while the talk is long since about how we should have an independent arms industry without the americans. And I didn't even talk about the french quota on american cultural imports, which worked somewhat until the advent of internet.
(And when the chinese are limiting hollywood and outsider movies, they are perfectly right to do so. This is not even about whether I like them or hate them.)
When it's a life 'er death situation (as in Vive La France) behavin' like a jerk kin be noble 'er at least praisewurthy as with De Gaulle (with a few reservations ;-)... I'd say today in the UK Tommy Robinson would be a good example today (tho' he does seem like a purdy nice bloke) an' Mark Steele (re the 5G/ ditto).... neither of whom'll git airports named after 'em but both are bein' VERRRRRY disagreeable on the issues that are of paramount importance.
BUT fergawdsakes when it ain't life er death (fightin' fer yer country 'n all) unpleasant people are just PIAs an' there are too dang many've 'em now (ha ha). Soivice with a smile ia now soivice with a sneer! An' don't git me started on my fellow "acteurs" when they git "difficult" i.e. disagreeable.... oh my lordy..
That said, a couple of my fave-o-rite professors were the most cantakerous cusses ya'd wanna meet (one was a female actually but she had brass cojones anywayz!)--YET I learned a heck of a lot from 'em both where others "blew 'em off" fer bein' diffy-cult....
As fer the compliant "agree-a-BULL" Churr-muns who went along ta git along I have leeetle respect....
Fritz, Fritz come hier! It's zo vunderbar you told Offizer Krappenhooper our neighbors were joos. Heute, I hier from de lundlord zat ve vill git zair flat zoon!--an' zey have a disch-vaster Fritz (zwo...ackchually...).... Oh BOY!
Helga mein sus, such gut nooze--ja, Herr Roobinschtein has a nize vood bureau I vood like fer mein paperz!
Let's kuss an' make a toast to our Deer "Furor" an' hiz helfing zave us and our high-matt! Heil!
(oy)
Lennon was the most "diffy-cult" Beatle...an' yup, my fave-o-rite one too...
You are exactly on point. This should be required reading.
Many thanks!
Almost started to write this comment about principles, but then you went there...so I'm with you.
That's what irks me most about the 'grifters' which is an ultimate psychopathic mindset. With principles you're willing to take a fall for the cause, while a grifter would advise you to always lean in.
Petain was an interesting fellow though. At first I would think that he was a hard-headed guy. He is the 'Lion of Verdun' after all. But wasn't Verdun a clear example of inaction and following orders? Nobody tried to take some additional risks to break the deadlock. That might have been foretelling this way on his later conduct. (And also a great lesson on, how inaction is also a choice and you can still pay for it dearly while that was the exact reason for you decline of choice)
Character tests. We need character tests to filter out the unsavory elements. At this point it is clear that credentialism is not enough, because people already learned how to game the system. How it should be done, I don't know.
I totally agree about credentialism. Personality tests are tough, because psychopaths are really good at imitating prosocial behavior. Ultimately, there's no substitute for human intuition.
At least that's something that we can't outsource to AI. Intuition though is only effective in short lines of command or direct nomination. Kinda like how I was invited to lunch by the company owner/founder after I was recommended in my current job. I was told later that I was in after that, the professional interview was only for the paperwork. It can be this easy, but you gotta get involved.
I know that bringin up Chesterton is already kind of cliché, but I do think that at least some of the apparent nonsense was about filtering out psychopaths. At least I remember hearing about something like this in a cultural context.
At least that's the only way I can see something like this introduced as Goodhart's law absolutely applies here. We can't just make a Kobayashi Meru like test and expect the people to don't figure it out, what it's about.
I think a lot could be gleaned from asking people 'tell me about an example of when you spoke truth to power/challenged the status quo'. The agreeable people would be stumped to find an example, or give an example of when they joined in a status-quo defending position i.e. went on an anti-trump/Brexit etc rally. Principled disagreeables would be able to give examples of true courage reciting their battles with psychopaths or corporate entities, and psychopathic disagreeables would deliver a charming fluff piece, based on what they think the other person wants to hear. I think I'd be able to tell each group apart from this, followed by some probing follow up questions!
Would I stand up to a psychopath? I didn’t think so but Covid proved my bullshit detector was more powerful than my agreeable nature.
Psychopaths running nudge units failed on this one.
The psychological warfare involved with covid was unlike anything the world has seen before. Despite that, you're right, the psychopaths using nudge units failed.
Degaulle was a traitor to France. Handed over Algeria to Communist Muslims. Said nothing when the British destroyed the French navy. Helped the Brits bomb France to smithereens. Very "agreeable" to the people who wanted to destroy France, for sure.
De Gaulle certainly had some contentious decisions but I think that he generally had the spirit. The destruction of the French Navy was completely unnecessary. The Vichy troops never put up a great resistance anyway. The true nazi loyalists were under Wehrmacht/SS controll(SS division Charlemagne). France was also spared of much of the destruction, except some strategic places I guess.
"How do you want me to integrate ten million Muslims who will be tomorrow twenty million and the day after forty million? My village would no longer be called Colombey-les-Deux-Églises but Colombey-les-Deux-Mosquées!"
As much as I sympathise with the Pied-noirs, I think it was only right to leave Algeria. The situation was untenable and it's not like you can just pacify a bunch of commie muslims. And as commie muslims tend to do, it descended into a civil war anyway.
De Gaulle was also the one who left the integrated NATO command. I know that they returned but that's not on him. As a first step I would be happy if US servicemen who commit crimes were sentenced and jailed in the country they commited the crime in. The agreement with the US about this(that US servicemen will be returned to the US if this happens) is something what really made me angry with Orbán. Sadly this one is also something that most people don't know the importance of until something happens
"France must regain full sovereignty over its territory. It cannot allow foreign forces to remain here without being under its authority."
"The American protectorate over Europe is not compatible with the independence of European nations."
I mean...this should be the baseline. But even the most basedest Poland is quick to run always to the US, while the talk is long since about how we should have an independent arms industry without the americans. And I didn't even talk about the french quota on american cultural imports, which worked somewhat until the advent of internet.
(And when the chinese are limiting hollywood and outsider movies, they are perfectly right to do so. This is not even about whether I like them or hate them.)
When it's a life 'er death situation (as in Vive La France) behavin' like a jerk kin be noble 'er at least praisewurthy as with De Gaulle (with a few reservations ;-)... I'd say today in the UK Tommy Robinson would be a good example today (tho' he does seem like a purdy nice bloke) an' Mark Steele (re the 5G/ ditto).... neither of whom'll git airports named after 'em but both are bein' VERRRRRY disagreeable on the issues that are of paramount importance.
BUT fergawdsakes when it ain't life er death (fightin' fer yer country 'n all) unpleasant people are just PIAs an' there are too dang many've 'em now (ha ha). Soivice with a smile ia now soivice with a sneer! An' don't git me started on my fellow "acteurs" when they git "difficult" i.e. disagreeable.... oh my lordy..
That said, a couple of my fave-o-rite professors were the most cantakerous cusses ya'd wanna meet (one was a female actually but she had brass cojones anywayz!)--YET I learned a heck of a lot from 'em both where others "blew 'em off" fer bein' diffy-cult....
As fer the compliant "agree-a-BULL" Churr-muns who went along ta git along I have leeetle respect....
Fritz, Fritz come hier! It's zo vunderbar you told Offizer Krappenhooper our neighbors were joos. Heute, I hier from de lundlord zat ve vill git zair flat zoon!--an' zey have a disch-vaster Fritz (zwo...ackchually...).... Oh BOY!
Helga mein sus, such gut nooze--ja, Herr Roobinschtein has a nize vood bureau I vood like fer mein paperz!
Let's kuss an' make a toast to our Deer "Furor" an' hiz helfing zave us and our high-matt! Heil!
(oy)
Lennon was the most "diffy-cult" Beatle...an' yup, my fave-o-rite one too...