Funny AND affirms my worldview? How can I lose?

[evil_mr_tim]

While reading over some old articles in The Onion today, I couldn't help but chuckle relentlessly at this little gem.

"Skeptic Pitied"

I adore how it so clearly describes this astonishing (to me) and ubiquitous worldview, where people modularise their understanding of the world to such a degree that they will understand and embrace rational and

Comments

[soul_harvester]

I would say "Communism works on paper" is intended with that exactly inflection. "Yes, that would totally work...except that it DOESN'T! Idiot."

You can't change HALF an analogy, and I stand by mine. The bridge may very well hold up cars. It's designed to hold up cars, and it does so admirably. Whether there's a comparison between hurricane-level weather patterns and the human spirit, I'd say they're about equally predictable. Psychology, like Meteorology, is quite often wrong. Of course its a real science, but regardless, quite frequently inaccurate.

Karl Marx' error in judgement regarding the human psyche is VERY comparable to the errors of "noobish" engineers who foolishly assumed that hurricanes were "just a bunch of water." In fact, I bet Stalin at LEAST once said "come on, they're just peasants! What the hell are they going to do?"

Even with today's advances in human knowledge regarding the mentality of the masses, its not a stretch for people to overlook the glaring issues with communism in favour of the paradise it promises to unwashed masses.

To the non-psychology student, a brief glance over the manifesto looks very promising indeed...just to your average person not well schooled in engineering and weather sciences, a bridge that simply goes across a gap and holds up cars probably looks just peachy.

[evil_mr_tim]

This again comes down to the issue of the designing process, and the ignorance of important subject matter that goes into it.
I will of course not challenge the claim that communism does appear to work on paper to many people who read it (you can find the evidence for this in any sociology class in the western hemisphere, the occurrence is overwhelming). But even in the realm of design-space (referred to here as 'paper') there is a fundamental difference between working and appearing to work.

When any design is taking place, a reasonable assumption to make is that the information that goes into the design process will be information pertinent to the function of the design. One expects reliable bridge-designs from an engineer, but would not hold similar expectations for a bridge-design penned by an investment-banker.
The very process of crediting that a design may in fact "work", is based on the assumption that the design was carried out in a sufficiently informed manner. The reality of this as an "assumption" becomes all the more clear in situations where one (as the indefinite 'responder' to a design) does not personally possess the knowledge or expertise necessary to discern a workable design from a non-workable one.
With few exceptions, we are not engineers, and lack engineering knowledge. And as such, if we were to look at the 'on paper' design of a bridge, much of our assessment would have to be based on assumptions of informed design on behalf of the engineer, on vital details that we would simply not know how to look for.

This is the problem with the 'design' of communism. Whatever minds went into the designing of communism (Marx?), obviously did not possess the domains of expertise necessary to design a functional social system. To those who possess such expertise (psychologists, statistical sociologists, theoretic anthropologists, etc.), the non-functionality of the design is blatant. But these aren't always the people we hear from. It seems most responders simply don't realise that they shouldn't credit the claims of non-experts on such matters.

In the same sense that someone with no engineering background could not tell a good bridge-design from a bad one (within reasonable constraints), your average freshman sociology student, layperson, or hippie, simply does not know enough to recognise the implausibility of the communist design when they see it.
This is the essential difference between saying that something 'works on paper', and 'seems to work on paper' to many.

As such this is not so much an indication of the efficacy of communism, as an indication of the inability of many people to admit (or perhaps even realise) that they don't know what they're talking about.
Again, you'll find any proposition will 'work' if you take it to sufficient abstraction and present it to a sufficiently ignorant group. But it would hardly be sensible to say that this makes it 'work on paper', would it?

P.S: The predictive power of psychology and meteorology are hardly comparable. Claims like that make the baby Steven Pinker cry...

[soul_harvester]

I thought that's what we were talking about here?

Why do so many people say that "Communism works well on paper, but not in real life"?

Was the question, and the answer is because people AREN'T schooled in sociology. They are, in fact, ignorant; which is the entire point of saying to someone "yes, but on paper COMMUNISM works!" If you're asking how anyone educated, well-informed person can put any stock in communism as its presented on paper, then I'm as boggled as you. My point is simply that for whatever reason, whether it be ignorance on the part of the onlooker or the lack of research done by the designer, communism looks perfectly feasible from a theoretical standpoint.

You're treating "communism works on paper" as an absolute. As in, "this design for a system of government, shown here on paper, is totally infallible. But for some reason when applied to reality, for inexplicable reasons, it fails!"

But that's the very POINT of saying to someone that "on paper, communism works." Its a roundabout way of saying that "your plan, while it may appear feasible at a glance, is quite frankly lacking in any vision and thorough research. This would quickly become apparent to you were you to apply this theory to any real-world scenario...for instance, Russia."

If saying something "works on paper" quite literally means "this will work in reality, no question" then the entire meaning of the phrase is lost. The core inference of the statement suggests that there is in fact a very real difference between the theory (paper) and real world execution of said design.

I would argue that "something works on paper" does in fact equal "something seems to work in reality." The design plan is a simulation of reality, therefore if in design it works, for whatever reason, it SHOULD therefore work the same way in reality.

But of course it doesn't, as we now well know with the benefit of hindsight and higher education...giving rise to the phrase "communism works on paper" as a chastisement to those who assume that for whatever reason a simulation of an event being successful automatically means it will function the same way in reality. For another example, the previous sentence looked good in my head, but having typed it out I now discover that, much like communism, its a fucking train wreck run-on sentence of death.

[evil_mr_tim]

I should really clarify that I by no means intended to take on some design->absolutism argument here. I'm not saying that function in reality is the criterion by which one judges if something works 'on paper' or not. A workable design is (in principle) one that takes into account reasonable and foreseeable issues, and has made a well-reasoned attempt to address these prior to execution.
What it really comes down to is, similar to when we were talking about a bridge design differentially accounting for traffic or a hurricane, it would be wrong to say than an idea 'doesn't work on paper' because it didn't consider an extreme improbability or insurmountable inconvenience, and it is also wrong to say that an idea 'does work on paper' when it didn't consider instances both highly predictable and central to its function.

Interpretations on behalf of a responder withstanding, 'working on paper' is an assessment of design. As such one's only real criteria for judging this potential workability, is the degrees to which the design itself addresses (or realistically, attempts to address) what should be the most important information regarding the design goal.

As I see it, the design of communism was akin to someone (let's just say Marx) deciding to build a revolutionary new kind of bridge, coming up with general designs and shapes that seemed sensible to him, but then not undertaking further research or inquiry as to whether or not such a general design would actually be plausible under contemporary limits of engineering (material tensile-strength, realistic joints, ultimate cost, etc.).
Without doing so, it is an intrinsic misrepresentation to anyone (laypeople especially) who may look at your bridge-design, since to even qualify as a 'bridge-design' one would assume that vital engineering specifics were considered at the drawing-board stage.

Communism, in reality, is just such a misrepresentation to the masses, who one would not expect to know any better.
I would argue that the reason it is sensible to say communism doesn't 'work on paper', is because insufficient investigation was done into the vital 'nuts and bolts' of such a proposition, and in this sense communist theory does not really qualify to be what it proports to be, an 'appliable theory of society'.
It doesn't actually do the explanatory 'work', on paper, that it is implied it should do, and as such should ideally not be taken seriously 'on paper'.

All in all, though, I suppose the question has been answered, in terms of why the people think what they do.
The only lingering ambiguity is, in the realm of 'paper' design-space, how workable does something have to be before it can be said to 'work' in the absolute sense? I suppose, as with many quantified judgements, the best answer is "Just use the contrast space most illustrative for what you happen to be talking about".

[evil_mr_tim]

In fact, if we were to take a Darwinist perspective on this matter, the most useful criteria for decided whether or not an idea 'works on paper', is whether or not it can convince people to execute it.
Under this non-principled understanding, I suppose one definitively could argue that communism works on paper. The only question that remains would be, "Should it?"

[soul_harvester]

This was more or less my argument.

While my understanding of the communist manifesto is somewhat limited, it strikes me as glossing over a number of key factors. Regardless of these oversights, people did it. While belief =/= function, nevertheless the plan, in design, was workable enough for people, no matter how retarded, to get behind it. I mean in all honesty, the damn thing could probably have said "overthrow the Tzar and I'll make sure you don't have to eat your shoes anymore" and people would have jumped in with both bare feet though, which still leaves the question of just how workable something has to be before its considered theoretically sound.

I guess for me its contextual. In the case of communism, I obviously believe its solid enough to be considered workable "on paper". If it HAD said "Vote Marx and never eat shoes again", obviously as a rich white guy in a condo I'd scoff and lynch one of my niggers. Were I an unwashed pleb eating my shoes, though...could be a very different story.

Hell, if I were an existentialist, I could even reason that simply because I think the theory works on some possibly real piece of paper, it already HAS worked. Ugh.

Sticking to semantics though, the original phrase is pretty broad in its meaning. What constitutes "workable" enough to be considered actually believable is entirely up to the beholder. Due to your psychological learnings, obviously to you communism is utterly ludicrous to the point of INSANITY! whereas with my layman's knowledge and a solid backing of cynicism, its merely implausible. Again, show it to someone eating their shoes and its genius that can't HELP but succeed? Who's correct?

Which kind of leaves us...nowhere, I suppose. :( At least, I don't have a definitive answer.

[evil_mr_tim]

Well, when considering different interpretations of the same material, one would consider value-judgements to be irreconcilable between starkly different perceptual paradigms (barring some kind of bridging of viewpoints, which can be harder than it sounds).
There are, however, rational arguments, which (excluding specific situations of inflexible ideologies) are equally accessible, or at least learnable, to everyone. From the viewpoint of rational argument, you're in the best position to be right when you have more information, and a cohesive logical framework to make sense of it.

These are the best arguments, ultimately, as they will offer the closest approximations to an 'objective reality' on the situation. I suppose that's why the scientific ideal is to reduce paradigm-laden value judgements, wherever possible, to rational arguments of literal fact and process. Then we get somewhere.

[soul_harvester]

I'll need this in layman's if you're actually after a response...doing my best here, but I didn't even finish year 11 if you'll recall.

[evil_mr_tim]

Well, I'm just saying, that when people have different opinions on the same subject, it's difficult to reconcile their opinions when they place different subjective value in their interpretations.
Which is why the best arguments are those engaged on the rational level, where we all speak the same 'language' of reason, and there is no denying a superior point.
To summarise, if science were a person, I would never stop blowing him/her.

[soul_harvester]

So basically, while this discussion is a fun diversion, its like a blow job with no happy ending. Ultimately unfulfilling, as both parties have a subjective viewpoint that can't be settled with Absolute Truth.

[evil_mr_tim]

Or some reasoned attempt at absolute truth.
I don't.. know what people have against those... >_>

[soul_harvester]

The basis of the discussion was semantics...you can't attain Truth via semantics, everyone knows that!

[evil_mr_tim]

You can obtain relational or logical truth through semantic interactions!

[soul_harvester]

You mean, "if you talk well enough, you can make someone see your point of view?"

[evil_mr_tim]

Well, what I meant was truths that are nomological, true by interactions of abstract meanings, are entirely semantic.
Take mathematics, for example.

[soul_harvester]

One thing plus another thing results in a total of two things.

I always took this truth to be Total, regardless of semantics.