Are people the best judges of their own interests?

[bigfield]

To paraphrase Chomsky: people vote against their best interests because they don't know what their best interests are, and because society's elites tell people what their interests are via propaganda.

Is this an accurate description?

 

[ronburgundy]

To paraphrase Chomsky: people vote against their best interests because they don't know what their best interests are, and because society's elites tell people what their interests are via propaganda.

Is this an accurate description?

Beyond the rather vague notion of wanting to be happy, what exactly will help one achieve that is based on sets of assumptions that are usually wrong and typically based in a combo of inaccurate knowledge and conditioned associations that people aren't even aware they have and much of which does come from "propaganda".

So, I'd say Chomsky is mostly correct in what he said.

 

[fromderinside]

The problem of all this philosophizing on the social science thread is it contradicts existing scientific evidence. Humans are designed to trust their inclinations first, usually last, and often always. Its those damn mirror cells. ....and being so evolved we seem to be thriving .......

 

[ronburgundy]

The problem of all this philosophizing on the social science thread is it contradicts existing scientific evidence. Humans are designed to trust their inclinations first, usually last, and often always. Its those damn mirror cells. ....and being so evolved we seem to be thriving .......

That's some rather invalid abuse of "science". The fact that the human species is "thriving" overall says absolutely nothing about whether most individual humans are making choices that optimize their well being. First all, happiness and most aspects of "well being" have almost nothing to do with how we evolved or how we are biologically "thriving". We did not evolve to optimize our happiness, and despite our species "thriving" a huge % of humans are not very happy and almost all of them are far from optimal happiness.

If you want to limit human "interests" only to those which are neccessary for maintaining bodily functions long enough to procreate, then sure we are doing just well enough at satisfying those interests to achieve those functions of life. But most people acknowledge that we have interests well beyond that and that in fact many people's interests don't even include procreating at all.

 

[Valjean]

I'd say mostly accurate. During our formative eons there was no need for long term planning or consideration of complex ramifications. Our brains are not wired for it.

That's some rather invalid abuse of "science". The fact that the human species is "thriving" overall says absolutely nothing about whether most individual humans are making choices that optimize their well being. First all, happiness and most aspects of "well being" have almost nothing to do with how we evolved or how we are biologically "thriving". We did not evolve to optimize our happiness, and despite our species "thriving" a huge % of humans are not very happy and almost all of them are far from optimal happiness.

If you want to limit human "interests" only to those which are neccessary for maintaining bodily functions long enough to procreate, then sure we are doing just well enough at satisfying those interests to achieve those functions of life. But most people acknowledge that we have interests well beyond that and that in fact many people's interests don't even include procreating at all.

In what way are we "thriving?"
We're not integrated into the ecosystem and our current lifestyles aren't sustainable. We're thriving as plague bacilli can be said to thrive -- just before they kill their host.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To paraphrase Chomsky: people vote against their best interests because they don't know what their best interests are, and because society's elites tell people what their interests are via propaganda.

Is this an accurate description?

I don't think it's so much that they don't know what their interests are, but that they don't know what will accomplish that.

Thus, for example, a lot of Trump voters who wanted the good things he promised without understanding that those promises are impossible.

 

[untermensche]

To paraphrase Chomsky: people vote against their best interests because they don't know what their best interests are, and because society's elites tell people what their interests are via propaganda.

Is this an accurate description?

It is not that people don't know what is best.

Everybody knows it is best that all people have health insurance.

What the elites do is pit people against each other.

So instead of people looking at taxes to fund a universal health system as a great thing, they look at it as a system where they are paying for freeloaders.

When in a country of hundreds of millions that probably amounts to a few dollars a year.

A delusion, huge costs on me to pay for freeloaders, has replaced the reality, health care costs go down because everybody is covered.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To paraphrase Chomsky: people vote against their best interests because they don't know what their best interests are, and because society's elites tell people what their interests are via propaganda.

Is this an accurate description?

It is not that people don't know what is best.

Everybody knows it is best that all people have health insurance.

What the elites do is pit people against each other.

So instead of people looking at taxes to fund a universal health system as a great thing, they look at it as a system where they are paying for freeloaders.

When in a country of hundreds of millions that probably amounts to a few dollars a year.

A delusion, huge costs on me to pay for freeloaders, has replaced the reality, health care costs go down because everybody is covered.

No. Some people only care about themselves, they aren't interesting in paying something that provides more benefit to others than to them.

 

[iolo]

To paraphrase Chomsky: people vote against their best interests because they don't know what their best interests are, and because society's elites tell people what their interests are via propaganda.

Is this an accurate description?

In normal times, the vast majority are kept brainwashed but are prosperous enough not to have any notion what their interests are, or care. In time of crisis they are encouraged heavily to become active in working against their best interest, as with the trumpite fartsmen, but as the crisis grows deeper, a sizeable minority begin to grasp the truth, which is when things get interesting.

 

[bigfield]

To paraphrase Chomsky: people vote against their best interests because they don't know what their best interests are, and because society's elites tell people what their interests are via propaganda.

Is this an accurate description?

I don't think it's so much that they don't know what their interests are, but that they don't know what will accomplish that.

Thus, for example, a lot of Trump voters who wanted the good things he promised without understanding that those promises are impossible.

Good point. Perhaps it's better to say that people don't know what's in their best interests rather than saying they don't know what their best interests are.

 

[rousseau]

To paraphrase Chomsky: people vote against their best interests because they don't know what their best interests are, and because society's elites tell people what their interests are via propaganda.

Is this an accurate description?

Beyond the rather vague notion of wanting to be happy, what exactly will help one achieve that is based on sets of assumptions that are usually wrong and typically based in a combo of inaccurate knowledge and conditioned associations that people aren't even aware they have and much of which does come from "propaganda".

So, I'd say Chomsky is mostly correct in what he said.

Good summation.

People's reasoning ability only extends so far, and is constrained by the amount of knowledge they have. So it's not a given that those two variables will always land on the best decision.

This is why phenomena like 'lying' exists. Some people want to infect others with incorrect knowledge for the very purpose of forcing them into the wrong decision.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think it's so much that they don't know what their interests are, but that they don't know what will accomplish that.

Thus, for example, a lot of Trump voters who wanted the good things he promised without understanding that those promises are impossible.

Good point. Perhaps it's better to say that people don't know what's in their best interests rather than saying they don't know what their best interests are.

I'll agree with that way of putting it.

 

[ronburgundy]

Good point. Perhaps it's better to say that people don't know what's in their best interests rather than saying they don't know what their best interests are.

I'll agree with that way of putting it.

Yeah, but they only know what their interests are in the most vague and general sense like a cat "knows what its interests are". People know they prefer pleasure to pain, and food to starvation. But they know little beyond that. The difference between and interest and how one pursues that interest can get rather fuzzy and is largely a relative concept. Ask most people to list their core interests and almost everything they list will really be things they assume with help the most basic interest of pleasure seeking and pain avoidance.

 

[fromderinside]

The problem of all this philosophizing on the social science thread is it contradicts existing scientific evidence. Humans are designed to trust their inclinations first, usually last, and often always. Its those damn mirror cells. ....and being so evolved we seem to be thriving .......

That's some rather invalid abuse of "science". The fact that the human species is "thriving" overall says absolutely nothing about whether most individual humans are making choices that optimize their well being. First all, happiness and most aspects of "well being" have almost nothing to do with how we evolved or how we are biologically "thriving". We did not evolve to optimize our happiness, and despite our species "thriving" a huge % of humans are not very happy and almost all of them are far from optimal happiness.

If you want to limit human "interests" only to those which are neccessary for maintaining bodily functions long enough to procreate, then sure we are doing just well enough at satisfying those interests to achieve those functions of life. But most people acknowledge that we have interests well beyond that and that in fact many people's interests don't even include procreating at all.

When one changes the basis for analysis as you did from basis for surviving to basis for having a good life, I argue you are changing the the discussion from science to social history or, ugh, philosophy.

 

[ronburgundy]

That's some rather invalid abuse of "science". The fact that the human species is "thriving" overall says absolutely nothing about whether most individual humans are making choices that optimize their well being. First all, happiness and most aspects of "well being" have almost nothing to do with how we evolved or how we are biologically "thriving". We did not evolve to optimize our happiness, and despite our species "thriving" a huge % of humans are not very happy and almost all of them are far from optimal happiness.

If you want to limit human "interests" only to those which are neccessary for maintaining bodily functions long enough to procreate, then sure we are doing just well enough at satisfying those interests to achieve those functions of life. But most people acknowledge that we have interests well beyond that and that in fact many people's interests don't even include procreating at all.

When one changes the basis for analysis as you did from basis for surviving to basis for having a good life, I argue you are changing the the discussion from science to social history or, ugh, philosophy.

I didn't change anything, you did. The OP is referring to "interests" that relate to all of human desires and goals, which go way beyond the extremely narrow notion of an interest in mere survival. Pretending that the science of biological survival has anything meaningful to say about the realities of human interests more broadly is both bad science and bad philosophy.

In the modern world, survival and procreation are as easy as falling down the stairs. People have to go out their way to try to kill themselves in order to not survive, and the people who have the least knowledge and skills they would need to survive on their own are the ones "thriving" the most in terms of reproducing. Thus, what it takes to survive has almost no relevance to what most humans do today or why they do it, or how good they are at ensuring that what they do optimizes the emotional states that most motivate them to continue surviving as a mere means to the end of living a life they enjoy.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

People suck at judging what's in their best interests. One of the few things that we as a species are worse at than that is judging what's in the best interests of other people, so things don't improve if you let someone else judge what's in your best interest for you.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

To paraphrase Chomsky: people vote against their best interests because they don't know what their best interests are, and because society's elites tell people what their interests are via propaganda.

Is this an accurate description?

Yes. But nothing nefarious is going on. It's just that we're an odd species in that we like to pretend. We go as far as to pay professional pretenders to pretend things for us that we like to have pretended, and we pay them hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to do that. We pretend so much that we think it's real when it's not because we want it to be real. No wonder we're so easily misled.

 

[DrZoidberg]

To paraphrase Chomsky: people vote against their best interests because they don't know what their best interests are, and because society's elites tell people what their interests are via propaganda.

Is this an accurate description?

While true it's still the best way to come close to what is in their best interest. It's a dilemma.

 

[EricK]

People suck at judging what's in their best interests. One of the few things that we as a species are worse at than that is judging what's in the best interests of other people, so things don't improve if you let someone else judge what's in your best interest for you.

Spot on. People are the best judges of their own interest, even if they are mistaken a lot of the time.

On a side note, when people say that others vote against their own interests, it seems to me that they mean they are voting against their own financial interests. But those same people are generally also the kind to bemoan people who only, or primarily, care about money. Maybe people who vote against their own financial interest are voting for reasons other than what will benefit them financially.

 

[bigfield]

On a side note, when people say that others vote against their own interests, it seems to me that they mean they are voting against their own financial interests.

No, it's not limited to financial interests. For example, people will sacrifice personal liberty for the sake of security theatre.