Saturday 30th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

free will.....

LET'S FACE IT. WE NEVER HAVE HAD FREE WILL. WE HAVE BEEN SHAPED BY LANGUAGE, HISTORY — OUR OWN AND THAT OF THE TRIBE IN WHICH WE EXIST — THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE TRIBE, RELIGIONS, PROPAGANDA, GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS, OUR PHILOSOPHIES AND EVEN OUR "FREE-WILLED" CHOICES WICH INFLUENCE THE NEXT. WE KNOW THIS.

CHOOSING TO DEFEND A SYSTEM VERSUS ANOTHER TENDS TO PLACE LIMITS ON OUR FREE WILL.

 

IN 2018, THE GUARDIAN, AN ORGAN OF MEDIA PROPAGANDA, PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE THAT SUMMED UP WHAT WE HAVE EXPLORED OVER THE YEARS ON THIS SITE IN REGARD TO DEMOCRATIC CHOICES. AT THE LIMITS OF OUR ERRANDS, HOW MUCH LIES, PORKIES, BULLSHIT ARE WE PREPARED TO ACCEPT IN OUR SYSTEMIC SHARINGS OR LACK OF THEM — AND IN OUR CONQUESTS OF "OTHERS" WHICH WE WILL DISGUISE AS PROTECTION OF OUR OWN SPACE? 

 

 

Governments and corporations will soon know you better than you know yourself. Belief in the idea of ‘free will’ has become dangerous

by 

 

Should scholars serve the truth, even at the cost of social harmony? Should you expose a fiction even if that fiction sustains the social order? In writing my latest book, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, I had to struggle with this dilemma with regard to liberalism.

On the one hand, I believe that the liberal story is flawed, that it does not tell the truth about humanity, and that in order to survive and flourish in the 21st century we need to go beyond it. On the other hand, at present the liberal story is still fundamental to the functioning of the global order. What’s more, liberalism is now attacked by religious and nationalist fanatics who believe in nostalgic fantasies that are far more dangerous and harmful.

 

So should I speak my mind openly, risking that my words could be taken out of context and used by demagogues and autocrats to further attack the liberal order? Or should I censor myself? It is a mark of illiberal regimes that they make free speech more difficult even outside their borders. Due to the spread of such regimes, it is becoming increasingly dangerous to think critically about the future of our species.

I eventually chose free discussion over self-censorship, thanks to my belief both in the strength of liberal democracy and in the necessity to revamp it. Liberalism’s great advantage over other ideologies is that it is flexible and undogmatic. It can sustain criticism better than any other social order. Indeed, it is the only social order that allows people to question even its own foundations. Liberalism has already survived three big crises – the first world war, the fascist challenge in the 1930s, and the communist challenge in the 1950s-70s. If you think liberalism is in trouble now, just remember how much worse things were in 1918, 1938 or 1968.

The main challenge liberalism faces today comes not from fascism or communism but from the laboratories

In 1968, liberal democracies seemed to be an endangered species, and even within their own borders they were rocked by riots, assassinations, terrorist attacks and fierce ideological battles. If you happened to be amid the riots in Washington on the day after Martin Luther King was assassinated, or in Paris in May 1968, or at the Democratic party’s convention in Chicago in August 1968, you might well have thought that the end was near. While Washington, Paris and Chicago were descending into chaos, Moscow and Leningrad were tranquil, and the Soviet system seemed destined to endure for ever. Yet 20 years later it was the Soviet system that collapsed. The clashes of the 1960s strengthened liberal democracy, while the stifling climate in the Soviet bloc presaged its demise.

So we hope liberalism can reinvent itself yet again. But the main challenge it faces today comes not from fascism or communism, and not even from the demagogues and autocrats that are spreading everywhere like frogs after the rains. This time the main challenge emerges from the laboratories.

Liberalism is founded on the belief in human liberty. Unlike rats and monkeys, human beings are supposed to have “free will”. This is what makes human feelings and human choices the ultimate moral and political authority in the world. Liberalism tells us that the voter knows best, that the customer is always right, and that we should think for ourselves and follow our hearts.

Unfortunately, “free will” isn’t a scientific reality. It is a myth inherited from Christian theology. Theologians developed the idea of “free will” to explain why God is right to punish sinners for their bad choices and reward saints for their good choices. If our choices aren’t made freely, why should God punish or reward us for them? According to the theologians, it is reasonable for God to do so, because our choices reflect the free will of our eternal souls, which are independent of all physical and biological constraints.

This myth has little to do with what science now teaches us about Homo sapiens and other animals. Humans certainly have a will – but it isn’t free. You cannot decide what desires you have. You don’t decide to be introvert or extrovert, easy-going or anxious, gay or straight. Humans make choices – but they are never independent choices. Every choice depends on a lot of biological, social and personal conditions that you cannot determine for yourself. I can choose what to eat, whom to marry and whom to vote for, but these choices are determined in part by my genes, my biochemistry, my gender, my family background, my national culture, etc – and I didn’t choose which genes or family to have.

This is not abstract theory. You can witness this easily. Just observe the next thought that pops up in your mind. Where did it come from? Did you freely choose to think it? Obviously not. If you carefully observe your own mind, you come to realise that you have little control of what’s going on there, and you are not choosing freely what to think, what to feel, and what to want.

Though “free will” was always a myth, in previous centuries it was a helpful one. It emboldened people who had to fight against the Inquisition, the divine right of kings, the KGB and the KKK. The myth also carried few costs. In 1776 or 1945 there was relatively little harm in believing that your feelings and choices were the product of some “free will” rather than the result of biochemistry and neurology.

But now the belief in “free will” suddenly becomes dangerous. If governments and corporations succeed in hacking the human animal, the easiest people to manipulate will be those who believe in free will.

In order to successfully hack humans, you need two things: a good understanding of biology, and a lot of computing power. The Inquisition and the KGB [SAY THE CIA, YUVAL — DON'T BE SHY] lacked this knowledge and power. But soon, corporations and governments might have both, and once they can hack you, they can not only predict your choices, but also reengineer your feelings. To do so, corporations and governments will not need to know you perfectly. That is impossible. They will just have to know you a little better than you know yourself. And that is not impossible, because most people don’t know themselves very well.

If you believe in the traditional liberal story, you will be tempted simply to dismiss this challenge. “No, it will never happen. Nobody will ever manage to hack the human spirit, because there is something there that goes far beyond genes, neurons and algorithms. Nobody could successfully predict and manipulate my choices, because my choices reflect my free will.” Unfortunately, dismissing the challenge won’t make it go away. It will just make you more vulnerable to it.

It starts with simple things. As you surf the internet, a headline catches your eye: “Immigrant gang rapes local women”. You click on it. At exactly the same moment, your neighbour is surfing the internet too, and a different headline catches her eye: “Trump prepares nuclear strike on Iran”. She clicks on it. Both headlines are fake news stories, generated perhaps by Russian trolls, or by a website keen on increasing traffic to boost its ad revenues. Both you and your neighbour feel that you clicked on these headlines out of your free will. But in fact you have been hacked.

If governments succeed in hacking the human animal, the easiest people to manipulate will be those who believe in free will

Propaganda and manipulation are nothing new, of course. But whereas in the past they worked like carpet bombing, now they are becoming precision-guided munitions. When Hitler gave a speech on the radio, he aimed at the lowest common denominator, because he couldn’t tailor his message to the unique weaknesses of individual brains. Now it has become possible to do exactly that. An algorithm can tell that you already have a bias against immigrants, while your neighbour already dislikes Trump, which is why you see one headline while your neighbour sees an altogether different one. In recent years some of the smartest people in the world have worked on hacking the human brain in order to make you click on ads and sell you stuff. Now these methods are being used to sell you politicians and ideologies, too.

And this is just the beginning. At present, the hackers rely on analysing signals and actions in the outside world: the products you buy, the places you visit, the words you search for online. Yet within a few years biometric sensors could give hackers direct access to your inner world, and they could observe what’s going on inside your heart. Not the metaphorical heart beloved by liberal fantasies, but rather the muscular pump that regulates your blood pressure and much of your brain activity. The hackers could then correlate your heart rate with your credit card data, and your blood pressure with your search history. What would the Inquisition and the KGB have done with biometric bracelets that constantly monitor your moods and affections? Stay tuned.

Liberalism has developed an impressive arsenal of arguments and institutions to defend individual freedoms against external attacks from oppressive governments and bigoted religions, but it is unprepared for a situation when individual freedom is subverted from within, and when the very concepts of “individual” and “freedom” no longer make much sense. In order to survive and prosper in the 21st century, we need to leave behind the naive view of humans as free individuals – a view inherited from Christian theology as much as from the modern Enlightenment – and come to terms with what humans really are: hackable animals. We need to know ourselves better.

Of course, this is hardly new advice. From ancient times, sages and saints repeatedly advised people to “know thyself”. Yet in the days of Socrates, the Buddha and Confucius, you didn’t have real competition. If you neglected to know yourself, you were still a black box to the rest of humanity. In contrast, you now have competition. As you read these lines, governments and corporations are striving to hack you. If they get to know you better than you know yourself, they can then sell you anything they want – be it a product or a politician.

It is particularly important to get to know your weaknesses. They are the main tools of those who try to hack you. Computers are hacked through pre-existing faulty code lines. Humans are hacked through pre-existing fears, hatreds, biases and cravings. Hackers cannot create fear or hatred out of nothing. But when they discover what people already fear and hate it is easy to push the relevant emotional buttons and provoke even greater fury.

If people cannot get to know themselves by their own efforts, perhaps the same technology the hackers use can be turned around and serve to protect us. Just as your computer has an antivirus program that screens for malware, maybe we need an antivirus for the brain. Your AI sidekick will learn by experience that you have a particular weakness – whether for funny cat videos or for infuriating Trump stories – and would block them on your behalf.

But all this is really just a side issue. If humans are hackable animals, and if our choices and opinions don’t reflect our free will, what should the point of politics be? For 300 years, liberal ideals inspired a political project that aimed to give as many individuals as possible the ability to pursue their dreams and fulfil their desires. We are now closer than ever to realising this aim – but we are also closer than ever to realising that this has all been based on an illusion. The very same technologies that we have invented to help individuals pursue their dreams also make it possible to re-engineer those dreams. So how can I trust any of my dreams?

From one perspective, this discovery gives humans an entirely new kind of freedom. Previously, we identified very strongly with our desires, and sought the freedom to realise them. Whenever any thought appeared in the mind, we rushed to do its bidding. We spent our days running around like crazy, carried by a furious rollercoaster of thoughts, feelings and desires, which we mistakenly believed represented our free will. What happens if we stop identifying with this rollercoaster? What happens when we carefully observe the next thought that pops up in our mind and ask: “Where did that come from?”

For starters, realising that our thoughts and desires don’t reflect our free will can help us become less obsessive about them. If I see myself as an entirely free agent, choosing my desires in complete independence from the world, it creates a barrier between me and all other entities. I don’t really need any of those other entities – I am independent. It simultaneously bestows enormous importance on my every whim – after all, I chose this particular desire out of all possible desires in the universe. Once we give so much importance to our desires, we naturally try to control and shape the whole world according to them. We wage wars, cut down forests and unbalance the entire ecosystem in pursuit of our whims. But if we understood that our desires are not the outcome of free choice, we would hopefully be less preoccupied with them, and would also feel more connected to the rest of the world.

If we understood that our desires are not the outcome of free choice, we would hopefully be less preoccupied with them

People sometimes imagine that if we renounce our belief in “free will”, we will become completely apathetic, and just curl up in some corner and starve to death. In fact, renouncing this illusion can have two opposite effects: first, it can create a far stronger link with the rest of the world, and make you more attentive to your environment and to the needs and wishes of others. It is like when you have a conversation with someone. If you focus on what you want to say, you hardly really listen. You just wait for the opportunity to give the other person a piece of your mind. But when you put your own thoughts aside, you can suddenly hear other people.

Second, renouncing the myth of free will can kindle a profound curiosity. If you strongly identify with the thoughts and desires that emerge in your mind, you don’t need to make much effort to get to know yourself. You think you already know exactly who you are. But once you realise “Hi, this isn’t me. This is just some changing biochemical phenomenon!” then you also realise you have no idea who – or what – you actually are. This can be the beginning of the most exciting journey of discovery any human can undertake.

There is nothing new about doubting free will or about exploring the true nature of humanity. We humans have had this discussion a thousand times before. But we never had the technology before. And the technology changes everything. Ancient problems of philosophy are now becoming practical problems of engineering and politics. And while philosophers are very patient people – they can argue about something inconclusively for 3,000 years – engineers are far less patient. Politicians are the least patient of all.

How does liberal democracy function in an era when governments and corporations can hack humans? What’s left of the beliefs that “the voter knows best” and “the customer is always right”? How do you live when you realise that you are a hackable animal, that your heart might be a government agent, that your amygdala might be working for Putin, and that the next thought that emerges in your mind might well be the result of some algorithm that knows you better than you know yourself? These are the most interesting questions humanity now faces.

Unfortunately, these are not the questions most humans ask. Instead of exploring what awaits us beyond the illusion of “free will”, people all over the world are now retreating to find shelter with even older illusions. Instead of confronting the challenge of AI and bioengineering, many are turning to religious and nationalist fantasies that are even less in touch with the scientific realities of our time than liberalism. Instead of fresh political models, what’s on offer are repackaged leftovers from the 20th century or even the middle ages.

When you try to engage with these nostalgic fantasies, you find yourself debating such things as the veracity of the Bible and the sanctity of the nation (especially if you happen, like me, to live in a place like Israel). As a scholar, this is a disappointment. Arguing about the Bible was hot stuff in the age of Voltaire, and debating the merits of nationalism was cutting-edge philosophy a century ago – but in 2018 it seems a terrible waste of time. AI and bioengineering are about to change the course of evolution itself, and we have just a few decades to figure out what to do with them. I don’t know where the answers will come from, but they are definitely not coming from a collection of stories written thousands of years ago.

So what to do? We need to fight on two fronts simultaneously. We should defend liberal democracy, not only because it has proved to be a more benign form of government than any of its alternatives, but also because it places the fewest limitations on debating the future of humanity. At the same time, we need to question the traditional assumptions of liberalism, and develop a new political project that is better in line with the scientific realities and technological powers of the 21st century.

Greek mythology tells that Zeus and Poseidon, two of the greatest gods, competed for the hand of the goddess Thetis. But when they heard the prophecy that Thetis would bear a son more powerful than his father, both withdrew in alarm. Since gods plan on sticking around for ever, they don’t want a more powerful offspring to compete with them. So Thetis married a mortal, King Peleus, and gave birth to Achilles. Mortals do like their children to outshine them. This myth might teach us something important. Autocrats who plan to rule in perpetuity don’t like to encourage the birth of ideas that might displace them. But liberal democracies inspire the creation of new visions, even at the price of questioning their own foundations   

 Yuval Noah Harari’s 21 Lessons for the 21st Century is published by Cape. To order a copy for £13.99, saving £5, go to guardianbookshop.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online orders only. Phone orders min. p&p of £1.99

 

THE GUARDIAN, THIS AWFUL PROPAGANDA OUTLET OF A WEIRD BROWN COLOUR LET YOU KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN CAPTURED, BECAUSE YOU NEVER LEFT THE PRISON. AND YOU BETTER DO AS SAID AND ENJOY IT. NO PROBLEMO HERE, EXCEPT WHEN SYSTEMS BECOME VICIOUS AND USE THE KILLING OF OTHER TRIBES AS A PHILOSOPHICAL AND MORAL SUPERIORITY. UNFORTUNATELY, PRESENTLY THE BIGGEST SYSTEM OF DECEPTION AND MILITARY FORCE IS THE AMERICAN EMPIRE. WE CAN CHOOSE....

AS WELL WE NEED TO KNOW THAT  HAS JOINED THE OTHER DESPOTS AT THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM. THIS ORGANISATION IS TRYING TO BECOME A PSEUDO-WORLD GOVERNMENT, UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE (WESTERN) "ELITES" WHO KNOW BETTER THAN YOU DO ABOUT YOUR LOUSY EXISTENCE — WHICH WILL END UP IN A WHISPER WHILE THE GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS WILL CARRY ON. 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

sterility.

The main challenge liberalism faces today comes not from fascism or communism but from the laboratories

THIS IS LIBERAL BULLSHIT, REALLY. IT'S ACTUALLY FASCIST.

THE AUTHOR OF THE PIECE ABOVE, , IS MANIPULATING YOUR GARRDEN OF THOUGHTS BY MOWING THE LAWN, CUTTING YOUR FLOWERS AND PRUNING YOUR TREES TO "HIS" OWN VISION, NOT YOUR SENSE OF BEAUTY IN WHICH YOU ACCEPTED THE WEEDS THAT FEED THE BEES AND THE BIRDS. HE WILL USE INSECTICIDE AND HERBICIDE TO CONTROL THE GROWTH, WHICH BECOMES STERILE. NEW PLANTS CAN ONLY COME FROM HIS (THAT OF THE WEP) NURSERY.

 

HERE ARE A FEW PLANT VARIETIES THAT THE WEP WOULD SPRAY TO DEATH:

 

 

by Erno Renoncourt

A breather in the shitty cacophony of the world.

From my shit-hole of a place, I watched on a French channel, an expert — coming from one of those innumerable scientific research institutes [SEE LABORATORIES IN 'S ARTICLE] of which the West boasts as proof of its cultural and academic superiority — explain, to one of those many journalists-specialists in the freedom of expression clamoured by the West, that if China were to deliver weapons to Russia, it would make it a co-belligerent in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

And, to my great astonishment, neither the journalist questioned to find out, nor the expert explored the end of this reasoning, that by saying so, NATO, Europe, the US and those who send arms to Ukraine are in fact co-belligerents — in this war which only brings happiness to the empire.

There, I understood why, in my shit-hole of a country, those who end up with high-sounding university titles issued by the West, are so insignificant and have led Haiti to this abyssal impasse of dehumanization. Human thoughts have collapsed above the septic tanks that store crap in abundance. Disgusted, I plunged back into reading Diego Gambetta's text, " The value of incompetence in the college mafia and the mafia itself. An ideological approach". 

I came out relieved, by rediscovering the basics of critical thinking: in the world of crime, as in the academic world, in order to progress, one must not frighten one's leaders… One must constantly pledge one's incompetence, one's obedience and of showing allegiance by being indebted to one's sponsors. That's how you win prizes, titles, grants and glory.

Incompetence, obedience, allegiance and backscratching are the fashionable systems of honour in the world of the mediocre. A world populated by mobsters and academics.

For a mobster, a henchman or a gun for hire, success comes by being stupid (Couillon Assumé — GENITAL REJECTED) so as not to frighten the boss. The crook pledges incompetence and shows loyalty by contenting himself to stay within the limits of his specialty to the letter: aim, shoot, kill. He takes no initiative.

For PhD academics, literate or cultured, success is obtained on the same bases of accredited crookery: stick to the dominant narrative, and the present unintelligence by following the mediocre media discourse.

So goes the world! Should we laugh or cry? Me, I cry with laughter, because I always knew that shit-hole-earth has been dangerous for a worthy being.

 

--------------------------------

 

For the mafia, the regulation of criminal markets by violence is not a satisfactory economic choice. It is better to regulate by a link of dependence. Doesn't the university mafia come under the same principle? As one is all the more indebted to someone that one is incompetent, the temptation is strong for a mandarin to choose only incompetents in order to remain master of the game. Loyalty then becomes more important than merit. In such a system, woe to those approaching retirement; they will no longer have time to return the favor, they will no longer be anything, they will no longer have any power. But there is one last question: what happens when you pretend to be incompetent?

 

By Diego GAMBETTA

On December 9, 2005, the doctoral seminar of the Center for the Sociology of Organizations (CSO) welcomed Diego Gambetta, professor of sociology at Oxford and known for his work analyzing the mafia (1), who presented chapter 9 of his book (forthcoming): Crimes and Signs: Cracking the Codes of the Underworld. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006.

A first version of this text appeared in the Libellio d'Aegis n° 2, February 2006, downloadable at the address: http://crg.polytechnique.fr/reseaux/aegis.htm

 

Diego Gambetta's approach is based on four fundamental points. First, you can only make a good theory by breaking with the obvious common sense. Then, to break with this evidence, nothing beats the use of theories, concepts and economic models. Not that these describe reality (after all, economists pay little attention to reality), but because, subtly applied, they have precisely this function of allowing the researcher to break with the obvious. The important thing is to apply business models imaginatively. Third point, to build the theory, it is necessary to start from the facts themselves, but unexpected facts, the least obvious, the most surprising facts, which must be sought. Finally, it is enriching to take an interest in extreme situations, characterized in particular by the pressure then exerted on individuals.

 

THE PROBLEM

The mafia has a series of interesting characteristics (but they are also common to all forms of organized crime). Mafiosi are prone to “accidents”. They are always ready to disappear to escape their potential pursuers. They enjoy no possibility of legal protection. They normally have more selfish orientations than the average population. They are inclined to take risks (especially that of prison), and they are not deterred by the threat of penalties.

Hence a paradox: mafiosi need mafia partners to achieve their ends, but it is very difficult for them to trust them. How do they do it? The “obvious” answer to the question of trust in such a context is that of the threat and use of violence.

 

THE DECONSTRUCTION OF THE EVIDENCE, THROUGH THE USE OF ECONOMIC CONCEPTS

Let's think economically. The cost of resorting to violence, in the event of a breach of trust, falls on the one who has been betrayed, not on the betrayer. Moreover, this cost is high – the risk is high (although criminal deterrence does not necessarily work as well as with honest people, it works to a certain extent). And then, if we go back to the list of the characteristics of mafiosi, we see that these make it difficult to regulate by violence: for example, as we have pointed out, mafiosi are normally apt to disappear in order to escape to those who pursue them (police or other mafia). More profoundly, economics sheds light on this difficulty of regulation through violence. Indeed, if it is violence that regulates the market, its development is hampered. Many prefer not to go there. And those who enter are those who have overcome the barrier to entry: they are therefore people for whom violence is not a problem, that is to say the most dangerous and the least reliable – we have there is a phenomenon of inverse selection. A little economic reasoning easily shows that the obvious – the use of violence as a regulator – cannot work. We must therefore look for something else, alternatives to violence, more subtle and less obvious.

 

OTHER CLASSIC FORMS OF CRIMINAL MARKET REGULATION

The mafia – but it is not the only criminal market to operate in this way – is ultimately quite economical in violence. Other forms of regulation are involved. First, there is the establishment of a code of honour. In an article in the Kathmandu Post (March 3, 1998), the teachers of the largest flight school in the capital of Bangladesh explain how they inculcate in their three thousand students the "ancient and honorable art of flight": the work pick-pocketing, how to break into a private home without doing too much damage and with minimal violence, etc. One can also increase the costs of betrayal of trust. For example, tattooing, which is practiced in many mafia-type organizations, is a way of raising the costs of leaving the system. There is also the acceptance of transparency: the fact of giving one's telephone number, or the fact of exchanging hostages (we remember that the phenomenon of reciprocal hostages was studied from an economic point of by Oliver Williamson (2)). But there is, according to Diego Gambetta, another form of regulation, based on incompetence.

 

REGULATION BY INCOMPETENCE

Methodologically, Diego Gambetta thinks that the theory must be built on the identification and analysis of discreetly dissonant facts (3). By reading and re-reading the testimonies of the Mafia during the trials in Italy, the autobiographies written in the depths of prisons, the testimony of Joseph Pistone (the only FBI agent to have succeeded in infiltrating the Mafia and to have remained there six years – a movie was made of his experience, Donnie Brasco with Al Pacino and Johnny Depp), something ended up hitting the researcher. In a world where the ego has an important dimension, where it must inspire respect, where honor is put forward, we see a strange capacity for leaders to be self-mockery about their intelligence. Mafiosos very easily say they are incompetent, in a joking tone. They often highlight their lack of intelligence. They only claim one thing: they are there to enforce the rules, and in this area they mean business. There, they are respected. For the rest, they say they don't know anything about anything, and that seems to be true. The Mafia is often thought to run activities. This is false: the mafia “protects”, which is very different. The mafia does not practice….

 

THE CASE OF CORRUPTED UNIVERSITY MARKETS

Sometimes academic markets also operate on the value of incompetence. The rules are:

– fidelity to a mandarin is more important than merit (research or teaching);

– “credit” is the essential dimension of market operation. When a commission meets for nominations, the mandarins pass on the foals of their colleagues, knowing that they will return the favor in a similar future situation. If they don't, they know they will be retaliated against. The system can last for years, even decades, which corresponds to the time horizon for the completion of exchanges, the materialization of credit certificates;

– a mandarin approaching retirement is suddenly nothing. Everyone knows that he will no longer be able to return in the future a credit made in the present. He no longer has any power.

In such a market, the academics who allocate the positions are not just bad: they are usually the worst. They form a kakistocracy: the power of the bad. For what ? Is it simply because of an arbitration: the best in research do not have the time to devote themselves to power games, and those who devote themselves to power games can no longer do research? Of course there is that. But this is not the only explanation, nor even the central explanation. Incompetence is a signal sent to colleagues: they see that without the system, you have no chance of a career, so that you will be loyal. When a good is rewarded, he feels that it is only a natural recognition of his talents and he is not so inclined to loyalty – Machiavelli theorized this. The worse the candidate, the higher the power of the one who managed to get him appointed. Incompetence is a way of tying one's hands in certain areas, of showing that one will owe everything to the system, and therefore of assuring it of one's future loyalty. One of his teachers had told Diego Gambetta: “when you are good at what you do, you always have to apologize”. An economist colleague had the following dynamic vision: from generation to generation, we choose worse and worse, until we have reached a level of incompetence such that the system is no longer able to distinguish between an incompetent and a good one, so to give the post to the first. At this point, a reversal is possible.

[MISSING BIT] incompetence myself, so I suspect that others are doing the same – everyone suspects the hidden intelligence of the others, and the system can no longer work. Do you think that the mafia are aware of this dimension of incompetence and that they play on it? But if they play it, again, the system cannot work as you analyze it.

 

Answers from Diego Gambetta – There is a series of very good questions there. Are the mobsters aware of how the system works and are they feigning incompetence? They have a practical understanding of the system (I never said that they were totally incompetent on all levels. It is selective incompetence: in terms of supervision and their role as arbiter , they are competent): they visibly know (even if they do not play it consciously) that it is in their interest to position themselves in a certain way in the game, this positioning being that of incompetence . They know – again with a practical intelligence – that they will not be reproached for their incompetence, that this does not threaten the respect due to them, but rather favors it. Moreover, there is a phenomenon of specialization: some specialize in competence, others in incompetence, there is a form of specificity of assets (asset specificity). Switching from one to the other becomes more and more expensive over time. Finally, the university case illustrates another important point. In a corrupt system, the worst corruption comes from the fact that no one knows where they stand on the scale of incompetence. The incompetent find themselves among themselves and there is no longer any point of reference. We can believe ourselves to be competent playing the game of incompetence when we have really become incompetent. The only way to find out is to get out of the system by trying to publish in peer-reviewed journals or prestigious university presses (but can't the corruption of the system go so far as to create journals between incompetent running on corrupted system mode?).

 

Question – Your analysis makes little room for institutions.

Answer – To do good theory, you have to move away from common sense, obvious answers. Institutions provide an all-too-obvious answer when one wonders about the phenomena of trust and reciprocal loyalty. By their obviousness, they hide more subtle and interesting phenomena. This is also why I am interested in a case as extreme as the mafia: we are faced with the most “raw” individuals who exist and who have few institutions. As a result, its functioning reveals original mechanisms that are more fundamental than that of institutions.

 

READ MORE:

 The value of incompetence in the college mafia and the mafia itself. An ideological approach

 

ROUGH TRANSLATION BY JULES LETAMBOUR FROM A FRENCH VERSION OF A TEXT IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE. 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

 

 

weed control.....

 

Bezos, Gates To Back Mind Control Research Company

 

Bezos and Gates join monetary forces with the original funders of Australia-based Synchron, U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Department of Defense (DoD). So, this is a project of the U.S. military? It’s one step closer to having a “super-soldier” of the future. — Technocracy News & Trends Editor Patrick Wood

By: Ashley Capoot via CNBC

  • Synchron is part of an emerging crop of companies testing technology in the brain-computer interface industry.
  • The system is implanted through the blood vessels and allows patients to operate technology using only their minds.
  • “It helps them engage in ways that we take for granted,” Synchron CEO Tom Oxley said.

In a Brooklyn lab stuffed with 3D printers and a makeshift pickleball court, employees at a brain interface startup called Synchron are working on technology designed to transform daily life for people with paralysis.

 

The Synchron Switch is implanted through the blood vessels to allow people with no or very limited physical mobility to operate technology such as cursors and smart home devices using their mind. So far, the nascent technology has been used on three patients in the U.S. and four in Australia.

“I’ve seen moments between patient and partner, or patient and spouse, where it’s incredibly joyful and empowering to have regained an ability to be a little bit more independent than before,” Synchron CEO Tom Oxley told CNBC in an interview. “It helps them engage in ways that we take for granted.”

Founded in 2012, Synchron is part of the burgeoning brain-computer interface, or BCI, industry. A BCI is a system that deciphers brain signals and translates them into commands for external technologies. Perhaps the best-known name in the space is Neuralink, thanks to the high profile of founder Elon Musk, who is also the CEO of Tesla, SpaceX and Twitter.

But Musk isn’t the only tech billionaire wagering on the eventual transition of BCI from radical science experiment to flourishing medical business. In December, Synchron announced a $75 million financing round that included funding from the investment firms of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

 

READ MORE:

https://www.activistpost.com/2023/02/bezos-gates-to-back-mind-control-research-company.html

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

BECAUSE THERE ARE SEVERAL "COMPANIES" WORKING ON MIND CONTROL, IT IS LIKELY THAT THEY WILL ENHANCE DIVERSITY, BUT NOT NECESSARILY SO. THE CIA WORKED ON THIS IN THE 1950-60s. 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....