I read you as arguing that we should always be keeping the consequences of a virtue/heuristic in mind (does democracy actually lead to better outcomes?) rather than selecting for the virtue itself. Is that about right?
Good stuff - I always smile when I see your posts arrive in my inbox. They may not be numerous, but they always spark thoughts, reactions, provocation, internal debate. Thank you.
Thanks so much Stephanie! I've been dealing with some medical issues since October last year, which definitely slowed my writing pace. Hoping to improve on both fronts in the second half of this year 🤞
Good wishes and looking forward to your writing! Health issues are tough, it's like getting a second job you didn't even apply for :-/ at least that's how I experienced it.
Re Congressional transparency: one could also still have transparency by just having published transcripts. A lot of the congressional grandstanding plays well on TV but would just fall flat in print.
Canadian parliament is televised, and the manipulation of proceedings for the television cameras is sort-of funny given that nobody's really watching. Despite that, all the parties make sure to manipulate the seating and who speaks for the camera shots (if attendance is poor, somehow the camera never shows it).
Good read, although I think you could've compressed sections 2 and 3 into a paragraph or two and mostly just linked to other blog posts on super stimuli, given how much has already been written about them.
It is, to be clear. It's the subscription rate options. Even if you're looking to subscribe just to support stuff you are enjoying for free, $20 per article is very high. I think you might get more if you lowered it. Of course, you may not be looking for any.
Nice article with well-chosen examples.
I read you as arguing that we should always be keeping the consequences of a virtue/heuristic in mind (does democracy actually lead to better outcomes?) rather than selecting for the virtue itself. Is that about right?
Exactly, that's a concise summary of the overall point.
Good stuff - I always smile when I see your posts arrive in my inbox. They may not be numerous, but they always spark thoughts, reactions, provocation, internal debate. Thank you.
Thanks so much Stephanie! I've been dealing with some medical issues since October last year, which definitely slowed my writing pace. Hoping to improve on both fronts in the second half of this year 🤞
Good wishes and looking forward to your writing! Health issues are tough, it's like getting a second job you didn't even apply for :-/ at least that's how I experienced it.
All things in moderation, including moderation.
Re Congressional transparency: one could also still have transparency by just having published transcripts. A lot of the congressional grandstanding plays well on TV but would just fall flat in print.
Canadian parliament is televised, and the manipulation of proceedings for the television cameras is sort-of funny given that nobody's really watching. Despite that, all the parties make sure to manipulate the seating and who speaks for the camera shots (if attendance is poor, somehow the camera never shows it).
Good read, although I think you could've compressed sections 2 and 3 into a paragraph or two and mostly just linked to other blog posts on super stimuli, given how much has already been written about them.
As an entirely separate note re your pricing: are you sure this essay is worth $20 to read? Because that's effectively what it would cost.
Sorry, where is the $20 appearing? I wasn't aware I was charging anything, anywhere, for any posts. It should all be free.
It is, to be clear. It's the subscription rate options. Even if you're looking to subscribe just to support stuff you are enjoying for free, $20 per article is very high. I think you might get more if you lowered it. Of course, you may not be looking for any.