![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Where I say the obvious!
With complex beings with complex opinions, one can't simply draw a demarcation line and toss the beings on one or the other side of that line.
Take, for instance, someone I found while cleaning up my Firefox tabs. Here's an interesting post about how emotions are also "logical" (useful and internally consistent) that can tend to get missed when one puts too much emphasis on what's usually considered rational logic.
Then, on the very same site, you have posts like these. Here we have something which I would not agree with at all: "Democracy does not and has never worked", which he then backs up with links to the von Mises Institute.
I can't simply say "yay, he's interesting" or "eww, he's talking about market democracy again". He's both!
(Though in practice, one ends up reading a few people whose posts are mostly-interesting, because there isn't enough time in the day to look at those who are only somewhat interesting. The risk is then that one doesn't go out there and look what's elsewhere because what one has already is "good enough".)
There's a general pattern, actually. Heuristics (like assigning "eww" or "yay" because one doesn't have all the time in the world) are useful, but not necessarily true. What is true does not need to be useful and vice versa.
Take, for instance, someone I found while cleaning up my Firefox tabs. Here's an interesting post about how emotions are also "logical" (useful and internally consistent) that can tend to get missed when one puts too much emphasis on what's usually considered rational logic.
Then, on the very same site, you have posts like these. Here we have something which I would not agree with at all: "Democracy does not and has never worked", which he then backs up with links to the von Mises Institute.
I can't simply say "yay, he's interesting" or "eww, he's talking about market democracy again". He's both!
(Though in practice, one ends up reading a few people whose posts are mostly-interesting, because there isn't enough time in the day to look at those who are only somewhat interesting. The risk is then that one doesn't go out there and look what's elsewhere because what one has already is "good enough".)
There's a general pattern, actually. Heuristics (like assigning "eww" or "yay" because one doesn't have all the time in the world) are useful, but not necessarily true. What is true does not need to be useful and vice versa.