Worldbuilding Realism Consultation Thread Mk. 4

[Taihei Tengoku]

Actually I find that both libertarianism and base Marxism have the absolute same problem. They rely on people being good by nature. And that is absolutely positively 1000% undeniably wrong. People are monsters, plain and simple. Being good is no more natural to us than presenting a paw to shake is to a dog. It's trained behavior.

Only if you have some highly unreasonable definition of 'goodness'.

Adam Smith, 1776: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
Purpelia, 2017: "They rely on people being good by nature. And that is absolutely positively 1000% undeniably wrong."

[Hyggemata]

I guess that's why we hope for the best but prepare for the worst. They're not contradictory.

[Gallia-]

Only if you have some highly unreasonable definition of 'goodness'.

Adam Smith, 1776: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
Purpelia, 2017: "They rely on people being good by nature. And that is absolutely positively 1000% undeniably wrong."

General you.

I could ban Purpelia from all these threads without harming a soul (except Purpelia).

When your ability to acquire services is threatened, sometimes through events or happenstance of no control of your own (such as a proprietor's perceptions or your skin tone), then the idea of relying people to simply want money in exchange for services and expect service to be returned to you is a bit absurd. You need greater protections to ensure that profit is, at least, the best option. Better if it's the only one. This isn't just obvious, it's axiomatic.

However, Purpelia is still wrong: Libertarianism and Marxism are bad because they promote free association and not because they rely on profit motive trumping moral motive.

[Kouralia]

I'll just continue sperging about police and law enforcement since I have no better thing to do ATM.

The Investigations Bureau of the Intelligence Branch of RN police agencies (whether local, county, state or federal) may include the following:

• Violent Crime Division [VC]
  
  • Homicide Sub-Division [HOMICIDE]
  • Rape, Child Abuse and Human Trafficking Sub-Division [R-C-HT]
  • Robbery and Kidnapping Sub-Division [ROB-KID]
  • Assault and Battery Sub-Division [AS-B]
  • Animal Abuse Sub-Division [A-AB]
• Property Crime Division [PC]
  
  • Economic and Financial Sub-Division [ECO-FIN]
  • Burglary and Theft Sub-Division [BUR-T]
  • Arson and Criminal Damage Sub-Division [A-CRID]
• Statutory Crime Division [STC]
  
  • Firearms and Explosives Sub-Division [F-EX]
  • Traffic Sub-Division [TRAFFIC]
  • Vice Sub-Division [VICE]
  • Environmental Sub-Division [ENVI]
• Special Crime Division [SPC]
  
  • Anti-terrorism Sub-Division [ANTI-TERRO]
  • Counterintelligence Sub-Division [CO-INTEL]
  • Sabotage and Treason Sub-Division [SAB-RE]
  • Abuse Brutality Corruption Sub-Division [A-B-C]

The Investigations Bureau can also be divided into Detectives and Forensics.

Many territorial watches in Kouralia are organised differently, depending on the size. Some of the largest follow the Royal Kurton Estates Watch in its organisation of its Criminal Investigation Command.

Criminal Investigation Command:

Divisional Investigation Branch:
Divisional Investigation Branch detectives are deployed within the territorial divisions/borough command units, spread throughout the stations. They consist of Reactive Teams (investigate crimes that have occurred, such as burglary), smaller Proactive Teams (investigate crimes that will occur, such as stakeouts on drug dealers), and Public Protection Unit Teams (manage risk and threat to the population, such as assisting victims of domestic violence or children exposed to the criminal justice system, and managing offenders released from prison. If specialist teams need to undertake inquiries in that area then they will usually assign actions to the local duty detective sergeant to assign to members of their team.

Serious Investigations Branch:
Officers of the Serious Investigations Branch are usually more senior and experienced specialists and case managers organised in specific teams. They will then utilise resources from the Divisional Investigations Branch, potentially directly supervised by officers from the SIB.

• The Homicide and Serious Crime Unit consists of 24 Major Inquiry Teams spread across the capital. They are responsible for investigation of major assaults, murders, attempted murders, and other such serious crimes.
• The Serious and Organised Crime Unit is responsible for investigating major Organised Crime Groups (gangs), drug smuggling, firearms crime, armed robberies, etc. etc.
• The Personal Exploitation Unit is responsible for investigating major sexual offences (like stranger rape), child exploitation, kidnapping, human trafficking and slavery, and serious domestic abuse cases.

Professional Standards Branch:
Professional Standards Branch is responsible for ensuring that those officers within the Estates Watch conform to the highest possible ethical and professional standards. This means that it is responsible for publishing guidelines on how to act without bringing the Watch into disrepute, vetting applicants, reacting to complaints by members of the public, and even conducting proactive investigations into officers' actions. There are a number of specialist teams within PSB.

• The Central Vetting Unit is responsible for vetting all candidates for employment within or by the Estates Watch. To do this they will check up on the behaviour, records and associations of the candidates family, and potentially also their friends.
• The Complaints Investigation Unit is responsible for following up any external or internal complaint made against a member of the Royal Kurton Estates Watch. They will then conduct any investigation as necessary, disregard it as unsubstantiated, forward the complaint to the officer's line manager for local resolution, or forward it to the Anti-Corruption Unit if it is believed to be serious enough. The CIU's investigations are overt, and officers are informed when a complaint is made against them.
• The Anti-Corruption Unit conducts covert investigations informed by intelligence of misconduct in the force. They may react to serious complaints passed on from the CIU without the knowledge of the officer, they may act on intelligence received from an outside source or from passive data generators, or they may conduct proactive investigations such as random drugs testing.

Scientific Support Branch:
Scientifi Support Branch manages and trains the central forensic science laboratories for the territorial watch. They also deploy crime scene investigators as appropriate, store evidence and related property, destroy things like drugs post-trial, and review policy etc.

Intelligence Branch:
The Intelligence Branch is responsible for conducting long-term investigations and gathering intelligence on targets, events, and crimes. They often inform investigations by other commands, and have information passed to them for analysis by other units ranging from the Intelligence and Security Agency to local neighbourhood policing teams.

• The Covert Intelligence Unit is responsible for gathering intelligence through the use of undercover officers and covert human intelligence sources (informers). Their work is amongst the most secretive in all the service due to the need to safeguard its officers and sources.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

The Republica Newland Police Service DCP (Deep Cover Program) was initiated as a result of unsatisfactory performance with plainclothes and undercover police procedures and protocols, with the stated purpose of revamping these 2 areas of policing and thus allowing for effective inconspicuous operations when required.

The DCP is an extensive program which comprises new vehicles, equipment, operating procedures and protocols. The program seeks to dissimulate police officers by mimicking civilian and even criminal appearance and behavior with the purpose of infiltrating the public or criminal groups. It has been speculated that RN's FIA (Foreign Intelligence Agency) has been implicated in developing this program, but this remains unconfirmed.

DCP standards contain the following:

Plainclothes & undercover clearance levels:

• 0 - Uniformed.
• P1 - Plainclothes #1. Clearly identifiable as police officer - at all times clearly visible badge e.g. around the neck or on the belt, identification from the back also advised but not mandatory (like a police jacket or backwards cap). Virtually every police officer qualifies (as long as they don't have a disciplinary record).
• P2 - Plainclothes #2. Clearly identifiable as police officer whenever actively exercising police duties - same as above, only this time they don't have to be identifiable when simply idling around. Basically standard for detectives.
• P3 - Plainclothes #3. Clearly identifiable as police officer whenever exercising police powers - e.g. arrest, use of force, etc. Most closely matches the traditional definition of "plainclothes".
• S - Special. Unidentifiable. Only identifies him/herself verbally whenever exercising police powers like use of force or arrest, and is essentially a short term undercover police officer without much actual cover.
• U - Undercover. Self-explanatory.

Unmarked and undercover vehicle types:

• Conspicous unmarked: are essentially the exact same as standard marked vehicles but with stock colors and no lightbar or markings. They retain all remaining telltale signs such as steel rims and push bars.
• Inconspicuous unmarked: are typically based on models not used as standard police cruisers which may include smaller sedans and SUVs, minivans, crossovers, sports or luxury vehicles, etc. Absolutely no external visual cues are present - all equipment is tucked away inside behind tinted windows (or e.g. inside grilles/bumpers for sirens) and depending on the level of kit, this type of vehicle may only be identified from the front (where there is only a strip of tint on the top of the windshield to hide ANPR cameras/radar antenna/lights) and typically only in certain lighting conditions and/or from peculiar angles and/or on close inspection.
  
  • Type 1: interior equipment (somewhat) visible looking in. Bogus civilian plates - return "not on file" if run.
  • Type 2: interior will look completely standard looking in. Plates return matching but fake information if run. True identity will only be revealed if e.g. they cause a serious accident or something.
• Undercover: are impossible to discern from civilian cars because they are civilian cars. These will show no tell-tale sign whatsoever even if broken into, inspected closely or even taken apart. Can easily function as unmarked cars by using temporary lights and sirens such as exterior mounted magnetic/suction cup beacons or interior lights and the like. If you want to be pedantic, when used as such they can be further broken down into 2 subcategories: identifiable with kit mounted or unidentifiable with kit mounted (e.g. lights hiding under tinted windows).

Unmarked and undercover vehicle anonymity measures:

• Color and trim. A common sign of an unmarked vehicle IRL is color. Dark, plain or the cheapest colors are the most common. Inconspicuous unmarked cars avoid this by using randomly selected colors or better yet replicating civilian consumers' choices. Other parts to consider are wheels and interior color.
• Cleanliness and condition. Another common sign IRL is how clean and well maintained police vehicles typically are. You will most probably never see an unmarked vehicle that's obviously dirty or somehow damaged or poorly maintained (e.g. cracked bumper, missing a light, etc.) Again, anonymity is achieved by mimicking the civilian population, but mainly through not washing a car every time a bird shits on it. But minor repairs and bits of maintenance can also be intentionally delayed sometimes.
• Driving behavior. Although operating fully within the law and according to the normal driving code unless running lights&sirens, cops are told not to be overly anal when driving unmarked cars. This can include the occasional 5-10 mph over the speed limit or whatever. Or like not hesitating to step on it every once in a while if driving a sports car and going for the douchebag look and feel.
• Equipment. All equipment is hidden underneath tint and may typically only be identified in certain lighting conditions and/or from peculiar angles and/or on close inspection. This includes radar antennas, a rear dot matrix display, emergency/flood lights all around and ANPR cameras all around. All can be stealthily fitted with a civilian-legal tint scheme: all-around tint (except windshield) plus a windshield visor/top strip. Alternatively a car can be specially fitted such that even identification through the windshield is avoided, although it will limit available equipment. I'm looking for a good way of mounting sirens stealthily. Inside the car is problematic because the sound gets muffled out by the car's soundproofing. Behind the grille is pretty good, but not perfect. I was thinking inside bumpers, or a fancier solution would be to mount them replacing fog lights and disguise them as such, like with a cover that looks like one.
• Comms. No 10 foot aerials. All communication antennas are integrated into the interior or body of the car. How exactly, I haven't figured out
• Plates. We go hella fancy on plates. Conspicuous unmarked get police plates. Inconspicuous unmarked type 1 get bogus civilian plates that come up "not on file" if run. Type 2 get civilian plates that return matching but fake information if run, with the true identity only being revealed if they cause a serious accident or something. Similar for undercover plates. Extra steps include periodically exchanging plates between agencies and binning them after a preset amount of time or if they appear to have been compromised. We don't stop here though. Countries that we have a good relationship with agree to let us use fake plates that appear to be registered there, those who don't we don't really give a shit about and just use "their" bogus plates too lol. The closest allies even support the whole fake info when run thingy.
• Home base / parking. Inconspicuous unmarked vehicles may use one or a number of, well, inconspicuous "safehouses" as home base (as with some plainclothes officers) or simply be parked on the street at seemingly random locations. The point is that any wannabe mobster with a $20 camera phone could simply stake out the local PD station/HQ and basically compromise each and every single unmarked car going in or out (granted, some may actually be personal cop cars or civilian cars, but this could probably be figured out on closer inspection of frequency/behavior/whatever over time, and in any case, as a crook you could just play it safe and tell your buddies to look out for all the given vehicles/plates, compromising e.g. police surveillance efforts).

Don't mind me, just centralizing shit

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

What pistols, revolvers, SMGs, PDWs are the most popular for civvies/LE in your nation and in what cartridges?

The most popular cartridge in RN is the 7.62x25mm Tokarev. This is used by both the military and law enforcement as a standard cartridge because of its superior penetration abilities which are considerable even with ball ammunition (thus allowing for a cheap, effective cartridge for the engagement of unarmored or lightly armored targets). Suffice to say, steel cored and especially tungsten cored ammunition will offer even greater AP potential. Adding to this modified high pressure loads and even different, spitzer-shaped bullets allows for the projection of this AP capability at great range relative to other handgun/small cartridges, especially when fired out of longer/SMG barrels.

For the purpose of engaging unarmored targets, 7.62x25mm Tokarev FMJ ammo has a significant potential of overpenetration. For this reason, and for increased terminal effects, JHP is typically used instead. Even if the JHP projectile overpenetrates (which could potentially be mitigated, to a point, with reduced pressure or lighter bullets, but taking into consideration expansion performance), its mushroomed shape (assuming proper expansion) tends to be non-aerodynamic and not give very effective penetration. Coupling this with the significant reduction in velocity caused by penetrating and exiting the initial target and the relatively low mass of the bullet should generally ensure that 7.62x25mm Tokarev JHP ammunition offers good and appropriate performance against unarmored targets and does not pose a very significant overpenetration risk.

However, for a number of reasons, principally offering improved performance against unarmored targets, a variant of the 9x25mm Mauser cartridge has also been standardized with the military and law enforcement. This cartridge should, compared to the 7.62x25mm Tokarev, offer improved performance (including terminal effects and less overpenetration) against unarmored and lightly armored targets with JHP (but also with ball) ammo, better performance in subsonic loads for suppressed applications, and generally compliment the 7.62x25mm Tokarev in being a more civilian-minded cartridge by offering reduced overpenetration risk and not focusing as much on armor penetration.

Whilst probably a good multipurpose cartridge given the widely accepted 9mm caliber, and with plenty of potential for high muzzle velocities implying high energy allowed for by the relatively large case capacity, this cartridge may prove to be relatively heavy on the recoil side (being, dimensionally at least, similar to a magnum auto cartridge in a way). For this reason, reduced recoil loads exist, similar to the FBI's 10mm Auto (actually, this cartridge and the 10mm Auto are dimensionally fairly similar, featuring about the same OAL and case length, but with a 9mm instead of 10mm diameter). These reduced recoil loads are used along with standard pressure and +P/+P+ in LE, military and civilian use for differing applications. The reduced recoil may appeal to smaller or weaker individuals or use in smaller/lighter guns which have significant felt recoil and muzzle rise as a result of lacking mass, and also for handguns. The standard pressure loads are good all-around and appropriate for use in both handguns and SMGs/PDWs. +P and +P+ ammo is typically designed for shouldered applications thus SMG/PDW use, giving increased velocity/range/energy, although some handguns are designed to fire it as well. The recoil with such a pistol or revolver wouldn't normally be for the faint of heart though. Subsonic ammunition can provide satisfactory performance compared to that in 7.62x25mm Tokarev, because the main driving force behind energy projection behind the latter is velocity, which is taken away by the subsonic load, leaving mass to do the job which is normally not sufficient given the small caliber/bullet size.

Another popular "duo" in RN is that of the .380 ACP and something like a .32 NAA (which is basically a .380 ACP necked down from 9mm to .32 or around 8mm) variant. The .380 ACP as a base cartridge is typically the largest common cartridge that small, concealed carry simple blowback pistols are chambered for, whilst at the same time being one of the smallest common cartridges offering good performance for self-defense and even in a LE/military context for short ranges. Thus, it is considered to be a good compromise between performance and convenience in a compact, small OAL package, allowing for very small and light weapons to be chambered in it because of its small physical size and mild recoil. It also has potential for close range suppressed applications because of its relatively mild sound and muzzle flash. For the reasons stated above, in the military&LE realm it is sometimes chosen over the 9x25mm for concealed carry or special applications, including as a back-up or deep carry gun by some police officers (respectively, undercover police officers) or by some Foreign Intelligence Agency personnel or special forces for similar purposes or silenced applications. For the same reasons, civilians may choose .380 ACP for concealed carry. The not!- .32 NAA would be intended for applications where increased velocity/range is desired, and possibly armor-penetration capability. A vaguely similar real-life cartridge would be the Russian 5.45x18mm. Well I guess I could have the option of going with both a .32 NAA as purely a .380 ACP general-purpose/flatter-flying, longer range improvement AND a microcaliber, dedicated AP cartridge.

A third and final couple is represented by the rimfire .22 LR and .22 WMR. These serve a multitude of purposes, including hunting small game or pests and live-fire training. These cartridges have limited but notable potential of being employed in a mostly defensive capacity, but possibly offensively as well, at relatively small ranges. The .22 WMR is generally considered to be better in every regard compared to the .22 LR, save for concealablility (the .22 WMR has a relatively big OAL whereas the .22 LR can be chambered in the same small pistol frames as .380 ACP concealed carry pistols) and to a marginal degree, cost. Thus, in RN, the most popular rimfire cartridge is the .22 WMR, with the .22 LR reserved mainly for concealed carry purposes. The .22 WMR offers considerably better performance at range, energy transfer, and in general first-hit stopping potential in a self-defense situation. .22 rifles can prove to be reasonably accurate to 200-300 meters but this is beyond the scope of defensive or offensive use against human targets as, at these ranges, the bullet is very unlikely to produce sufficient penetration or terminal effects against a man. Nevertheless, the .22 rimfire cartridges should not be underestimated - they have proved deadly in the hands of assassins (and not only) countless times throughout history, with many famous examples. Their diminutive muzzle flash and sound compared to bigger cartridges gives potential for discrete use, especially when fired from a silenced gun. At close and very close range, with accurate shot placement (or, alternatively, a lot of bullets), .22 can be very lethal. Also, because of their small physical size and relatively low energy, they allow for use in very small and light pistols and revolvers, whilst additionally commonly featuring a relatively high ammo capacity. All of these arguments have ensured that .22 LR and .22 WMR have their place with the LE & military for training, special operations or specialist roles, silenced applications, use as a back-up or deep carry gun, use as a survival weapon or for distribution with the purpose of inexpensively arming resistance groups. Same goes for the civilians who may select the purpose-made self-defense JHP loads, attracted by the large ammo capacity, mild recoil and small/light potential size of the guns, or who choose them for training, hunting or recreation. In this regard, for concealed carry .22 WMR snubnosed revolvers are preferred over the pistols as the bigger OAL which negatively impacts the latter because of their magazine-in-grip design does not affect the former. They are also generally preferred over the .22 LR revolvers because they typically retain the same ammo capacity whilst offering additional benefits over .22 LR without considerably worse recoil. As far as use in survival weapons is concerned, .22 WMR is perfectly capable of accurately and humanely effectively killing most small game and birds at ranges around 100m, while retaining the capability to kill even bigger animals, especially with multiple shots, although possibly foregoing the "humane" bit (allegedly this would only occur in emergency situations, as "survival weapon" would imply). Maximum effective range is around 200-300 meters depending on the barrel length, specific ammunition and target. As stated above, .22 WMR is a viable choice for self-defense in the context of a survival weapon, either directly (especially with multiple shots) or by providing a deterrent.

The main firearms chambered for "handgun cartridges", thus, the following:

• USH - Universal Service Handgun: Short recoil-operated pistol chambered in 7.62x25mm Tokarev and not!-9x25mm Mauser. Available in 4 main sizes, Full, Carry, Compact, Sub-Compact and 1-sub-model, "Slimline" which is a single-stack subcompact. Includes long barreled and fully-automatic variants with barrels up to about 7-8" in length to make for an ad-hoc SMG/PDW with the addition of a vertical grip, stock and sight or a clamshell conversion kit.
• USG - Universal Service Sub-machine Gun: short stroke gas-operated SMG chambered in 7.62x25mm Tok and not!-9x25mm Mauser. Is designed to fire hotter and longer OAL rounds (including pressure handling capacity and appropriate magazines).

###WIP

[Purpelia]

However, Purpelia is still wrong: Libertarianism and Marxism are bad because they promote free association and not because they rely on profit motive trumping moral motive.

The only way you could twist what I said to match what you think I did is if you use the word "profit" to denote form of personal gratification. And given that you are quoting Smith in context to me I would say that this is likely not the case.

Basically the way I see things humans are just animals. That's it. And we are ruled over by the same animalistic instincts when it comes to the newer ending struggle for limited resources. The only reason why every human is not actively out to rob, cheat and steal his way to victory is the same one that stops lions or wolves or ants doing the same. We happen to be a social species and thus we tend to prefer forming tribes instead of going it alone. But that's it. Overall the behavior of Nazis invading Russia for land and resources is no different than that of one pack of lions chasing another pack of lions off their watering hole. It's just natural pack behavior.

Really it all boils down to one simple fact. You need to accept humans are not special. Humans are not unique. We are not some sort of pinnacle of evolution special snowflake. Whether you're playing Battlefield 1942 or Sim Ant you're playing the same game.


In light of that the reason why both Libertarianism and pure Marxism fail is because they deny this fundamental aspect of human nature. They fail because they presuppose that humans are the exact opposite of every animal on earth. We are supposed to be the lion that refuses to eat the sheep because it has lambs at home. We are supposed to be the cat that shares with the dog, the virus that refuses to infect because that would be just plain mean. And unless you live in the world of children's books that ain't happening.

---

Any rational concept for a potential social model that wants to stand a chance of working well in real life needs to be based not off moral ideals or wishful thinking but off a meticulous scientific analysis of human behavior. It should be created by behavioral scientists, evolutionary psychologists and others not constrained by the chains of human specialness. And its tools of choice should not be to push against the grain of human nature but to use its understanding of it in order to train humans into behaving in ways beneficial to all just like we do to every other domestic animal.

[Gallia-]

Adam Smith is more advanced than Thomas Hobbes.

I'm still not seeing any problems modern social engineers have with conditioning people towards lawn order though.

[Kazarogkai]

Adam Smith is more advanced than Thomas Hobbes.

I'm still not seeing any problems modern social engineers have with conditioning people towards lawn order though.

Their both kinda meh, though i'm a little more partial to hobbes admittedly.

Henry George for the win!

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

However, Purpelia is still wrong: Libertarianism and Marxism are bad because they promote free association and not because they rely on profit motive trumping moral motive.

The only way you could twist what I said to match what you think I did is if you use the word "profit" to denote form of personal gratification. And given that you are quoting Smith in context to me I would say that this is likely not the case.

Basically the way I see things humans are just animals. That's it. And we are ruled over by the same animalistic instincts when it comes to the newer ending struggle for limited resources. The only reason why every human is not actively out to rob, cheat and steal his way to victory is the same one that stops lions or wolves or ants doing the same. We happen to be a social species and thus we tend to prefer forming tribes instead of going it alone. But that's it. Overall the behavior of Nazis invading Russia for land and resources is no different than that of one pack of lions chasing another pack of lions off their watering hole. It's just natural pack behavior.

Really it all boils down to one simple fact. You need to accept humans are not special. Humans are not unique. We are not some sort of pinnacle of evolution special snowflake. Whether you're playing Battlefield 1942 or Sim Ant you're playing the same game.


In light of that the reason why both Libertarianism and pure Marxism fail is because they deny this fundamental aspect of human nature. They fail because they presuppose that humans are the exact opposite of every animal on earth. We are supposed to be the lion that refuses to eat the sheep because it has lambs at home. We are supposed to be the cat that shares with the dog, the virus that refuses to infect because that would be just plain mean. And unless you live in the world of children's books that ain't happening.

---

Any rational concept for a potential social model that wants to stand a chance of working well in real life needs to be based not off moral ideals or wishful thinking but off a meticulous scientific analysis of human behavior. It should be created by behavioral scientists, evolutionary psychologists and others not constrained by the chains of human specialness. And its tools of choice should not be to push against the grain of human nature but to use its understanding of it in order to train humans into behaving in ways beneficial to all just like we do to every other domestic animal.

>implying beneficial to all is a goal

=> be purp

[Purpelia]

>implying beneficial to all is a goal

=> be purp

I will admit that I have permitted my own dogooder tendencies to bleed into that.

Bottom line is that, at this point in time, the state of social engineering, in other words the way we design and maintain our societies is such that it is very much at a pre-scientific level. What I mean by this is that, much like alchemists of old, we are working based off information gained from experience rather than an understanding of the underlying principals that shape that experience. And much like alchemists this lack of understanding, what ever its reasons may be*, prevents us from achieving our full potential as a society creating species.


* I would argue that the chief reason is us refusing to use the scientific method because that would require we accept the fact we are not special at all and that things such as sentience and free will are potentially just completely false. And that's a too bitter pill for most to swallow.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists, political scientists, economists, and many others have been applying the scientific method to human group behavior for upwards of a century. The main problem is that they disagree on everything. A lot of very important findings have come out of the various fields, and the state of knowledge about human behavior has come leaps and bounds since Smith and Hobbes, but universally generalizable laws of human behavior that can optimize any society with any history in any context remain a holy grail at best and a mirage at worst.

At this point, philosophers who tout humanity as a special snowflake with sentience and free will are hardly at the cutting edge of social science, any more than Freud is at the cutting edge of psychology. Opposition to the application of the scientific method to human behavior does exist in social science, but usually on the grounds that human social behavior is extremely complex and contextual such that ceteris paribus never holds, rather than out of some emotional infatuation with free will as such. Even then, though, only the most radical scholars have rejected science as such, with most moving on to approaches like grounded theory and methodological falsificationism which still draw meaningful conclusions and sometimes propose general laws. (At least this is the case in political science and sociology, which I'm more familiar with; I can't speak for the other disciplines).

The irony behind all this is that you're lamenting the state of knowledge on human social activity, then going on to reject the actual observation of human behavior embedded in societies in favor of personal musings gathered from reading old philosophers, and suggesting that the latter can be used as grounds for a universal theory that is readily applicable to optimal social engineering. Weber and Durkheim would scoff at this. The 1950s empiricists would scoff at this. Even people still doing formal models, which is about as "theorize about universal principles" as it still gets today, would scoff at it. There's a good reason that the overall trend in the social sciences has been away from abstract thought experiments and toward detailed observation, whether qualitative or quantitative.

Really though I wouldn't encourage an engineer to become a sociologist, any more than I would encourage a sociologist to become an engineer.

[Korva]

"engineers" think they know everything about everything

:/

[The Soodean Imperium]

Full disclosure, my own work mostly lies in the comparative (-historical) subfield, and anything I say about the other paradigms should be taken with a grain of salt. Formal modeling, classical economics, and game theory have their places, and aren't as simplistic as their critics make them out to be.

But reading Smith, Hobbes, or Marx and speculating about human behavior for a while doesn't make you an expert on social engineering, any more than reading Newton, Galileo, and Archimedes and doing some practice problems makes you an expert on quantum physics.

[Allanea]

I'm not sure that is fully true - so far, unless our understanding is much improved in the future, hard empiricists have run into some serious limits of their predictive ability.

[Gallia-]

Embrace dualism!

[Purpelia]

Sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists, political scientists, economists, and many others have been applying the scientific method to human group behavior for upwards of a century. The main problem is that they disagree on everything. A lot of very important findings have come out of the various fields, and the state of knowledge about human behavior has come leaps and bounds since Smith and Hobbes, but universally generalizable laws of human behavior that can optimize any society with any history in any context remain a holy grail at best and a mirage at worst.

At this point, philosophers who tout humanity as a special snowflake with sentience and free will are hardly at the cutting edge of social science, any more than Freud is at the cutting edge of psychology. Opposition to the application of the scientific method to human behavior does exist in social science, but usually on the grounds that human social behavior is extremely complex and contextual such that ceteris paribus never holds, rather than out of some emotional infatuation with free will as such. Even then, though, only the most radical scholars have rejected science as such, with most moving on to approaches like grounded theory and methodological falsificationism which still draw meaningful conclusions and sometimes propose general laws. (At least this is the case in political science and sociology, which I'm more familiar with; I can't speak for the other disciplines).

The irony behind all this is that you're lamenting the state of knowledge on human social activity, then going on to reject the actual observation of human behavior embedded in societies in favor of personal musings gathered from reading old philosophers, and suggesting that the latter can be used as grounds for a universal theory that is readily applicable to optimal social engineering. Weber and Durkheim would scoff at this. The 1950s empiricists would scoff at this. Even people still doing formal models, which is about as "theorize about universal principles" as it still gets today, would scoff at it. There's a good reason that the overall trend in the social sciences has been away from abstract thought experiments and toward detailed observation, whether qualitative or quantitative.

Really though I wouldn't encourage an engineer to become a sociologist, any more than I would encourage a sociologist to become an engineer.

I am going to answer the whole post without quote sniping. But I will break my answers down into thesis in order to make them as easy to interpret as possible.

1. My complaints are mostly not directed against the scientific community as much as against the whole of society. If I, a complete layman, can come up with a basic understanding of these things odds are that, as you say, the actual scientists are doing (or at least trying to do) good work. My problem is that, like with a lot of scientific things, the general society just flat out rejects them because it disturbs their comfort zone. This really ties into #2 which you'll read in a moment. But just think about them in context.

---

2. I am not lamenting our lack of understanding of human behavior as much as our refusal to tackle the problem properly using the understanding we have. Right now we have scientists doing their science and policy makers doing their policy making and they ain't talking to one another. Where as what should happen is that our policy makers should be "social engineers" trained by scientists like any other engineer is. Because it is just plain fact that any and all decisions, plans, projects or belief systems born from an unscientific mechanism will by definition be wrong.

That's why we get such stupid debates such as tough on crime vs reform vs vengeance vs deterrence vs.... In such situations everyone is wrong because they are all eyeballing it. And nobody ever asks the only people who have any chance of being right.


Also, here we return to the question raised in #1.Who would accept being told that his vote should not count because he is not a qualified social engineer and therefore can not make a proper decision? And yet this is exactly what needs to happen if we are to use scientific principals to engineer our societies. At best, you could have people vote to set up generalized goals such as "We want less crime." or "We want more guns but without raising crime." and than these would be passed on to the engineers.

---

3. Before we continue let me just make a note here. I do not expect science to perfectly map out the human mind and all possible social interactions to the point where politics become math. It is debatable if this can even be done. But we don't need to go nearly that far. And using what knowledge we do have is still better than eyeballing it like we do today.

---

4. I do not deny ancient thinkers implicitly. But I do hold that they are wrong. We can, after all, still learn from Socrates even if we no longer believe in the 4 elements.

However just because we can learn from ancient thinkers does not mean they are any less wrong. And conversely just because they are wrong does not mean we can not learn from them. We just have to be cautious and understand that they were working from incomplete knowledge and in an unscientific way and that therefore we have to examine every single conclusion they make with a full understanding of the bias they introduce to the discussion.

---

4. I mentioned bias before, and I wish to go into it a bit further. Simply put, the way all social ideologies, no matter how complex, arise is that you have a man with a "dream". And that "dream" is essentially the end outcome state he wants to put society in. It can be as simple as having less crime or as complex as Marx's classless utopia. But it's always just a goal. Knowing that goal, the person than proceeds to engage in activity preaching its merits and designing ways to achieve it. And it is at this stage that problems arise.

Every thinker who acts upon unscientific principals introduces, knowingly or not, his own personality as a bias. And these biases than in turn distort and damage your decision making process which means that both your observations and your conclusions will be flawed. To give an example, if you are like Marx and you want a classless society of equals odds are you like human beings. And if you like human beings you will be predisposed to see them as good. And this predisposition will therefore skew your analysis of human nature to the point where you will conclude that people are good. When you than proceed to critically analyze your own "dream" and engineer the means to achieve in order to see if the goal is worth it, if it can be achieved and how this may be done, you will fail because you are now working with data that is tainted. And therefore your results will be tainted.

---

5. Finally, we come to what you call " actual observation of human behavior embedded in societies". And as far as that is concerned I reject it for the very same reason I reject all the other observers. The data we have has been gathered and processed unscientifically.

Historical human observation has always been tainted by personal bias of all sorts including but not limited to ideological, religious or emotional twist and a tendency for people to throw the baby out with the bath water for various reasons. And even if the data was good we simply lack enough understanding of most of human history to properly process it in the context it originates from.

So what we are left is effectively a bunch of hearsay and rules of thumb. And in engineering a rule of thumb can be a decent crutch but it's newer a replacement for proper understanding.

[Gallia-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect

[Purpelia]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I am not sure how that applies here. Like, I know I am not nearly competent enough to actually work on a social engineering project. I am just realistic about it and willing to do the smart thing and call in the experts as opposed to eyeballing it.

[Gallia-]

If I, a complete layman, can come up with a basic understanding of these things

[Purpelia]

If I, a complete layman, can come up with a basic understanding of these things

Oh, I get it now. Basically you are referring to my stance that we should apply a base level of scientific reasoning as taught in elementary school to things by default. Yes, I guess it is rather smug of me to assume people would do that.

[Gallia-]

Oh, I get it now.

You don't.

That's the point. ):

[Purpelia]

Oh, I get it now.

You don't.

That's the point. ):

I genuinely do not think you understand my position than.

I am not a social engineer. If you asked me now what my proposal for a perfect society would be or how to achieve it I would tell you that I do not know. Because I can not know. I am not qualified. The only thing I am qualified to do and am doing is look at the construction site we call society and ask "Why the bloody hell are there no engineers here?"

[Allanea]

There is a basic problem:

We don't have an agreement of what things are desirable, nor what we are willing to give up for those things.

[Gallia-]

You don't.

That's the point. ):

I genuinely do not think you understand my position than.

I am not a social engineer.

That's obvious.