Thread by @kamilkazani

Opposition Trap

On Twitter, you see not dumb people falling into the Grilling Trap

There are two problems with grilling

1. It gives you cheap dopamine -> very addictive

2. It destroys your brain

In this regard Grilling Trap is just a particular case of the Opposition Trap🧵

Grilling is a social game taking place in the argumentative space. Now the thing about the argumentative space is that it is not identical to the real space. A true zealot of course, believes that his own argumentative space is (more or less) identical to the real space

It's not

There is always a gap between what makes a good argument and what makes a good decision. It may be wider or narrower, depending on circumstances, but it always exists

Making a decision =/= justifying a decision

First is optimised for the real space, second for the argumentative

In the real space you have:

Constraints
Tradeoffs
Horse trades
etc

Most importantly, you don't know results of your actions in advance. The real future is surprisingly untransparent

In the argumentative space, you can easily ignore all of the above

Real world-optimisation and argumentative optimisation are inherently contradictory. Still, you have to do both and you have to find a balance. It is autistic to presume you can just fully optimise for the real world, ignoring the argumentative space. In the long term, you can't

Now the problem with grilling is that it is 100% argumentative optimisation. You optimise, and optimise, and optimise for a smarter, more virtuous and ideologically pure argument, eventually forgetting that the real world with all of its impurity does even exist

Many such cases

Now why would you even do that? Well, because you have no leverage and your views are inconsequential. This inconsequentiality liberates you. Not being forced to deal with the impure real world, you can fully optimise for what constitutes virtue within your argumentative space

Now the argumentative optimisation works very differently from the real world optimisation. When optimising for the real world, you usually have to think in the terms of a tradeoff. But the tradeoff logic often makes a suboptimal argument. In most cases, dichotomy works better

As the powerlessness liberates you (from dealing with the real world constraints), it simultaneously corrupts your brain. Hence the Opposition Trap. The more an opposition group is isolated from taking the real world decisions, the harder it grills (optimises for the argument)

Now the gap between real world logic and the argumentative logic exists even for the most civil, nuanced, good faith discussions among the most intelligent people. Most debates are not held in that good faith and most audiences are not that intelligent

For this reason, successful political agenda has to be optimise for the dumbest. Your argument must be dumbed down sufficiently for almost all the audience to get it. Otherwise, it won't work out. The more nuance you add, the worse it works

Now the thing is that the authoritarian regime can't do 100% argumentative optimisation. If it does, it faces consequences. When your actions are consequential, you can't lose touch with reality above a certain degree

Sufficiently powerless opposition though absolutely can

We like to think of authoritarian countries in terms of dichotomy between the corrupt regime and the valiant opposition. More often than not, however, it is a dichotomy between the corrupt regime and the rotten opposition, infantilised by the former

If power corrupts, powerlessness infantilises. This infantilisation may be one of the most detrimental effects of autocracy. Sheltered from the consequences of its own actions, opposition is allowed to harbour the most absurd, delusional ideas of what is happening and why

It can't be any other way. They're fighting the argumentative battle -> optimise for it -> fully settle in the virtual world dumbed down to the far below average intelligence level. They have no incentive to keep any touch with reality at all

The end