https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger
Not holding the bearer of bad news personally responsible is a fairly common practice to ensure the safety and survival of envoys from warring nations and other messengers of bad news. To protect them, even if they seem like Old Testament prophets of doom with emotional outbursts. The outbursts of those in power with pain in their stomachs. Necessary because, as a political leader, you would otherwise be deprived of the right information, which could be detrimental to the outcome of your actions. We saw where that led with the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Due to incorrect information about the strength and fighting spirit of the Ukrainian army, Putin made the wrong decision, which has so far cost the lives of 250,000 Russians. Blindly trusting yes-men is stupid! Conclusion: Please do not shoot the messenger, as you will only be shooting yourself in the foot.
The latest case of political incompetence, mental imbalance, and childish vindictiveness is the dismissal of Erika McEntarfer, chair of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Why? According to this pathological liar and fantasist, Ms. McEntarfer manipulated the employment figures. To his personal disadvantage, of course. That didn’t suit him, because it shows that his lies about a booming economy are starting to show cracks. And for this boor, the simplistic fallacy applies: if you’re not with me, you’re against me. With a memory like an American elephant in heat, he drags every opponent before the courts, mainly based on false accusations, gossip, and slander. Fortunately for him, his intimidation tactics have earned him free legal assistance, although ambulatory mental health care would have been more appropriate. Unfortunately, that has been cut back!
This week, I read an article in The New York Times that said that jobs for economists, even those who graduated from prestigious institutions, are no longer something to brag about. The cause: the hype surrounding these troubled times and the growing pains of artificial intelligence. Software programs can now handle the bulk of data analysis. All that’s missing is a human touch to check the results. It provides ready-made answers for the board of directors on which course to follow blindly with the company based on the figures and those of its competitors. It’s all wonderful; as a conspiracy theorist, you can rejoice that the (intellectual) elite is phasing itself out and making itself redundant.
Furthermore, it’s just a pity that there is a law, Louis’s law, which states that the new is always welcomed because of the signs of wear and tear on the old. Because of the ravages of time. As a result, the new is embraced and welcomed as the savior of humanity. The primary function of God, in essence. Glorified into the afterlife because its flaws are still in the future. It’s the same with your new lover, so to speak, although this knowledge does not prevent us from remaining in love with the new, because it stimulates our imagination with new, unknown possibilities. In addition to the strange leap of thought that the new will rejuvenate and renew us. Wishful thinking instilled by revitalizing capitalism. By the time we discover that the new is sour vinegar in old bottles, it is usually too late for the old bottles that we have remaining.
As a democrat in heart and soul, I see another obstacle. Let me be transparent in my thinking. My reader can discover the flaws in my reasoning, the assumptions. Not that I am afraid of that, because shared intelligence is double intelligence.
The humanistic advantage of most people is that they have something like a conscience and morals. They adhere to a system of values and norms. They internalize these. Furthermore, they set boundaries for themselves between what is good and what is bad. The good is preferred because of the inner peace that comes with doing good and leads to a balance between personal and community interests. Democratic equality. This ability also brings with it the possibility of self-correction, at least for those who are sound of mind. Being able to admit and correct mistakes. To be able to identify mistakes, honesty , and transparency of the information on which you base your actions are prerequisites. Correct knowledge of how decisions are made distributes responsibilities fairly. This requires transparency and free access to all relevant information; otherwise, you have to blindly trust those in power. This puts you in a disadvantageous position, in which you can be manipulated by incorrect data. It can be seen, for example, in the rulings of the US Supreme Court, which does not provide any explanation for its preliminary rulings. Puts the defense at a disadvantage in terms of the free opportunity to present correct evidence. And with that, legal inequality. Massaged information that only highlights the positive aspects of something. That is asking for the bankruptcy of your morals and your judgment, of which the hermetically sealed and incomprehensible decision-making process of what we call artificial intelligence is a shocking example. Certainly, as long as it does not provide footnotes, making peer review impossible. Relying entirely on artificial intelligence instead of human work inevitably leads to moral illiteracy. And half-baked policy-making, of which Trump and his queue of half-baked yes-men are the most glaring example!
LUDO 02-08-2025
