thomas

In addition to the left/right (economic scale), authoritarian/libertarian (social scale), and utilitarian/deontologist (ethical scale), I propose adding one more dimension to the political compass that guides our understanding of social governance: reflexivity preference. 1/10

Aviator, diver, Etherean, nexialist, PhD in aviation ∩ climate science | Host of /diving /ethfinance /eth-staker /geopolitics /science /singapore /thomas

The highly reflexive individual wants to add new rules every time a crime is committed, a macroeconomic indicator gets out of whack, a tech innovation disrupts the market, or a new neighbor disrupts the peace. Regulations are his/her friend; they are easy to update with low agreement. 3/10

The dimly reflexive individual, at the other end of this spectrum, believes that only after eons have passed should the situation be reassessed, and if the problem persists, then we should maybe consider changing the rules. Constitutional law are his/her friend; requires almost unanimous consensus to change. 4/10

We see this on a micro scale with HOAs reflexively countering the offensive new neighbor’s Halloween decorations, even when they will be gone a week later anyway. 5/10

We see this on a meso scale with political administrations that measure their success by how many executive orders they pass and how many norms they erode. 6/10

Millennials after their boomer parents die and they get hit with the death tax

We see this on a macro scale with generations changing the rules to favor themselves, conveniently forgetting why these rules existed in the first place. 7/10

We see this on a macro scale with generations changing the rules to favor themselves, conveniently forgetting why these rules existed in the first place. 7/10

https://warpcast.com/eulerlagrange.eth/0xf64b4633

Chesterton’s fence:

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it". 8/10

One may argue that the lower time preference (favoring the long-term view of making as few changes to governance rules as necessary) is a trait that broadly aligns with conservatism, but I’d argue back that the recent US example has shown this not to be the case, with the flurry of executive orders and fast-paced norm-shifting. 9/10

Hence I believe that one’s preference for rapid changes (what they might favorably call adaptability & responsiveness) is at odds with another’s preference for fewer but more meaningful changes (what they might call thoughtfulness & predictability). And that it is its own dimension on the political compass. 10/10

What I mean by that is one’s revealed preference for knee-jerk reaction vs. equanimity. 2/10

Alchemist. 
Block Builder. 
Creator.
Degen. 
Ethereum dev. 
Farcaster Framer.

Really? I had you tagged as “alchemist”

But also, while I agree with you that we can’t reduce people to tags, the more ideological dimensions we measure, the more accurate an idea we get about someone’s politics.

It is precisely because I find the “left/right” dichotomy comically sterile that I try to think of additional slices that are meaningful

yeah, but the compass does not worlk xd it is naive to be honest, more like something for kids than real politiks, people cannot reduced to tags.