Hacker News Reader

Comment by peller | Hacker News Reader

Not only that, but if we start dumping dirt, who knows what secrets our adversaries might choose to drag out of the closet and parade down main street. It's a loosing proposition.

View on HN

I say it is time for the governments of the world to publicly display those secrets. Maybe then we can move forward into a world where humanity isn't constantly stabbing everyone else in the back.

In the long run, perhaps, you may (I hope) be right. There's an interesting analogy that Nate Silver lays out in the beginning of The Signal and the Noise where basically, after the printing press, the availability of information to masses that didn't before have it exponentially increased way faster than "humanity" could adjust. (Obviously, this is massively simplified and leaves out all sorts of important things etc) Early on, much of what was (popularly) printed was religious. Then, the world was at war for a couple centuries before the enlightenment happened and some semblance of stability arose from the changed complex system humans had found themselves in.

Now, with the internet, we're at the beginning of another such monumental shift in information access. The cynic in me finds it likely that shit gets worse before we, as a species, find a new balance point. I mean, either we learn to live with all varieties of each other in peace (which is what I think you're saying), or we end up blasting ourselves into extinction. No?

Maybe then we can move forward into a world where humanity isn't constantly stabbing everyone else in the back.

I don't think it's really possible without a major change to cognitive capabilities. The human biological system and the resultant communities aren't built to handle truth.

This is kind of nit-picky, but I think it might be closer to the collective we can't ever really know The Truth (about any big meta issues), but just about everybody is convinced they know and have that truth right (and by extension, most other peoples have that truth wrong).

Which is to say, the brain equates beliefs to truths, which is an extremely difficult-to-overcome fallacy. (And, I suspect, therein lies the solution, if there is one.) Paradoxically, of course, life also wouldn't really be all that practical to live out if our brains didn't make such an overly simplistic jump.

So, yea, not really disagreeing with you on the cognitive capabilities part. But I'm also not convinced there's no such belief structure out there that isn't capable of solving this pickle. Implementing and spreading said system of beliefs - if it exists and without starting a bunch of wars in the process, of course - is the harder part.

Which is to say, the brain equates beliefs to truths, which is an extremely difficult-to-overcome fallacy.

In fact this construct is the basis for the illusion of the self - so it's inextricably linked to the human experience. The idea of an unbroken consciousness relies on a forward projection of a "future self" that is consistent with past experience. Practically, this construct is incompatible with objective experience because of our limitations for recall and "objective" evaluation of experience.

But I'm also not convinced there's no such belief structure out there that isn't capable of solving this pickle.

I don't think it's a belief structure that is needed - it's deeper than we can manifest so we need something to augment our limited capability.

[edit] On your first point: we can't ever really know The Truth (about any big meta issues)

I think that's true from an epistemic perspective, but I think we can reduce the uncertainty of variability around truth with enough inputs about causal factors in whatever event/issue is being evaluated.

Most of these issues seem to stem from identity and the ego. We wear many identities but at the root they all work in concert to strengthen the ego. People think they are their thoughts.

The system of mindfulness, and Eckart Tolle, in particular talk about looking for the consciousness behind the thoughts, removing attachment from your ego and possessions (not to ignore the utility, just in the sense of identity through consumption) and living in the present moment, free of the depression from the past or anxiety of the future.

Bureaucracy is a hard to manage 4th branch of government.

If legal or other changes were made to do what you suggest, most of the juicy stuff would be destroyed... more to cover the asses of the people involved than anything else.

I can't even begin to comprehend a country whose citizens don't want the dirt on their government. There is exponentially less incentive to lie to citizens of other countries than your own.

Wow, how well put. It is appalling that citizens are scared of the dirty laundry that might come out, and are instead prepared to look the other way :(

Just to be clear, I was speaking from (what I imagine is) the perspective of America's leaders.

Regardless, there is a non-zero chance that the result of unknown secrets being exposed could be anarchy instead of a better-functioning democracy.

Deniability is a powerful thing. How many disputes have been settled in the shadows?

Remember this is 2016, not 1916. Revelation and escalation don't lead to a mere slaughter of soldiers, but potentially destruction of civilization as we know it.

That happens when you link your identity with your tribe's identity. A lot of people in the US bought into the propaganda that we're the best or better than others. All that dirt surfacing would be an attack against that identity. It would force us to reconsider and reevaluate, which is a painful process if it requires changing one's identity.

Not wanting your elections to be hacked doesn't mean not wanting dirt on the government. It's not like we got to read all the juicy dirt on both parties, in which case I'd be more OK with it, though not completely. But when you're only selectively provided with dirt as some external actor sees fit to reveal then you're being played to some extent.

I feel I've been pretty consistent about this as opposed to being partisan; I had a minor spat with Assange over his choices about his approach to editorial framing back when WL was first revealing helicopter footage from Iraq. Wl is a new kind of publishing outlet, but no more neutral or disinterested than the more traditional kind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com