Viswanathan K's Thoughts

What do the terms, “left” and “right”, as used in politics, mean? Let’s start with the origin of those terms because that gives a general feel of those terms – the underlying theme, so to say.   In The Righteous Mind , Jonathan Haidt says that the two sides diverge wrt a fundamental question of governance: “Preserve the present order, or change it?” In 1789, at the French Assembly, the delegates who favoured ‘preservation’ sat on the right, while those favoured ‘change’ sat on the left. “The terms right and left have stood for conservation and liberalism ever since.” From that, it is obvious why the terms “conservatives” and “liberals” are used as synonyms for the right (preserve) and the left (change) respectively.   The terms are a bit unfortunate because the word “conservatives”, even when used in a political context, gets mistaken for religious conservatism. Even though the side that favours retaining the existing system may not be religious at all. Somet...

For some time now, the EU has been calling for Internet access to be made a universal right for all mankind. Anyone who opposes making it a right gets tarred with the brush of supporting government censorship by withholding Internet access: think China in Xinjiang, Iran when protests break out, or India abrogating Article 370. Proponents of the idea, however, are mixing up two different issues: (1) That everyone needs Internet access today is obvious. (2) But that doesn’t mean it should be a right . Why not? What’s the problem here? Look no further than Alex Tabarrok’s piece on what happens when people treat electricity a right… in India. He quotes this study to explain what happens gradually: “Because electricity is seen as a right, subsidies, theft, and nonpayment are widely tolerated.” Inevitably then, the electricity companies bleed money. If selling/ transmitting more units of power means greater losses, it is but rational that: “Distribution companies try to se...

When I see the shell shocked reaction of traditional media to the rise of social media as the way to voice and influence opinions, it reminds me of these lines by Scott Alexander : “People very reasonably ask – hey, I notice my side kind of controls all of this stuff, the situation is actually asymmetrical, they have no way of retaliating, maybe we should just grind our enemies beneath our boots this one time. And then when it turns out that the enemies can just leave and start their own institutions, with horrendous results for everybody, the cry goes up “Wait, that’s unfair! Nobody ever said you could do that!” Another trend driving this transition is what Freddie deBoer cites : “Conservatives have been arguing for years that liberals essentially want to write them out of shared cultural and intellectual spaces altogether.” (Replace “conservatives” and “liberals” with the relevant words from your context). And the reaction of traditional media that is being marginaliz...

Many people react to the whole problem of “fake news” saying that they’re not so dumb as to believe anything they see or hear. Of course, they’d check up on what they read, they say. The mistake in that stance should be obvious. If that’s all it took to identify fake news, why are so many people falling prey to it? Is it even remotely possible that you alone are the kind who questions and checks while others are suckers who fall for whatever lie is told to them? Danah Boyd points out that fake news operates in a far more subtle manner : “It’s subtle content that is factually accurate, biased in presentation and framing, and encouraging folks to make dangerous conclusions that are not explicitly spelled out in the content itself. That’s the beauty of provocative speech: It makes people think not simply by shoving an idea down their throats, but inviting them to connect the dots.” On the Net, Facebook and Google are most people’s sources of news. They want you to come back, s...

Is the majority always wrong, simply because it is the majority? Conversely, is the minority always to be excused, simply because it is the minority? These questions are increasingly becoming the major fault line between the left and the right in more and more countries. Things have gone so far that Roger Scruton says that: “The great difference between left and right, in every matter that impacts on our survival, is that the left turns against us, whereas the right believes that, on the whole, we are not to blame for wanting to hold on to our way of life.” Remember the mass scale molestation of German women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve? Sadly, for many, it was unacceptable to call out the ethnicity of the perpetrators (Arab and North African). Turns out reports of a similar assault on women in Sweden during the We Are Sthlm music festival were suppressed because the assaulters were ‘so-called refugee youths primarily from Afghanistan’. In Sweden: “If you mention anything n...

Is there an absolute standard of ethics? About everything, not just many things? Obviously not, and no, the reason people don’t agree on issues of ethics isn’t always politics or religion or bigotry or one side being stronger than the other. I will cite a couple of instances. The first one is the miners scenario : “Imagine 100 miners who are stuck in a mine. They are divided in two groups. You can either rescue 50 (with certainty), but then the other 50 will be lost (this is strategy 1). Or you can try a different rescue strategy, which may potentially save all of them, but only at a 50% probability; there’s another 50% chance that all will die (strategy 2). Which strategy would you choose?” Many variants of this question exist. But here’s the key point: people have conflicting views on which is the more ethical choice and neither side can cite a reason to convince the other! The other instance I have in mind is about medical trials. Joanna Monti-Masel wrote a great artic...

My dad and I disagree on whether things are ever wrong. Nope, the topic isn’t moral wrongs or nonsensical beliefs based on no justification. Rather the topic was about views or theories built upon available data which later proved to be…well, not correct. To me, such views or theories are wrong. (Just to be clear, I don’t mean the people who came up with those ideas were idiots). My dad disagrees: to him, if the view or theory was based on all available data of the time, then it isn’t right to call it wrong just because you got more data later on. I suspect that my dad believes that my stance is, to quote Issac Asimov: “Everything that isn’t perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.” But I don’t believe that all wrongs are “equally wrong”. In fact, I fully agree with Isasac Asimov’s point about the relativity of wrong: “When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you thi...

Everybody tells white lies. We usually don’t feel bad or guilty about them. But do we have the right to lie ? The question is rooted in free speech. If everyone has the right to free speech, does that also include the right to lie? Outside of committing perjury, that is. An America judge, Judge Kozinski, spoke very well about this: “Saints may always tell the truth, but for mortals living means lying. We lie to protect our privacy ("No, I don't live around here"); to avoid hurt feelings ("Friday is my study night"); to make others feel better ("Gee you've gotten skinny"); to avoid recriminations ("I only lost $10 at poker"); to prevent grief ("The doc says you're getting better"); to maintain domestic tranquility ("She’s just a friend"); to avoid social stigma ("I just haven't met the right woman"); for career advancement ("I'm sooo lucky to have a smart boss like you"); to avoid...

“Give people the facts and they’ll do the right thing.” -          Bono I remember this Scientific American article stating why traders at investment banks take the crazy risks they take: -          Fact #1: Bonuses depend on profits made : The more risks you take, the more profits you might make which would then translate into a bigger bonus. Ergo, take big risks. -          Fact #2: Bonuses can be insanely high : Bonuses can run into millions. Even one good year can have you set for life; so who cares about the long term? -          Fact #3: Sticking your neck out can be suicidal : If every trader at every other bank takes insane risks and makes money while the going is good, then you would get fired for playing it safe because hey, you bring in less money. How could everybody be wrong? How big an ego do you hav...