Where do you put your chips?

Posted on by

Imagine that there is another San Bernardino. This might raise a number of concerns. Three of these concerns are listed below. Decide which ones matter the most to you. Mentally, take 99 chips and place them on the concerns. You could put all 99 on one concern, or you could spread them in varying amounts among the three. You cannot put less than 0 chips on any option. You cannot add a fourth option or modify the wording of the three options. If you don’t like the game, then you don’t have to play.

a) I would be concerned that Muslim intolerance of non-Muslims threatens our way of life.

b) I would be concerned that backlash against Muslims will get worse, empowering radicals and provoking more conflict.

c) I would be concerned that the media will blow the incident out of proportion and that politicians will use it as an excuse to expand surveillance, restrict gun rights, or restrict immigration.

In the comment section, just say how you allocated your chips and how well your allocation lines up with where you see yourself on the three-axes model.* Please do not add other comments. Please do not leave multiple comments. On Sunday, I will give my own answers in the comment section and perhaps add a post with further remarks.

*If you are not familiar with the three-axes model, just say that. If you want to become familiar with it, you can look at previous posts in the category (scroll down to get to older posts) or get the Kindle edition of the book.

143 thoughts on “Where do you put your chips?”

    • A: 3
      B: 57
      C: 39

      Can’t decide whether I identify with the oppressed-oppressor or freedom-coercion axes.

  2. a. 1 chip

    b. 3 chips

    c. 95 chips

    I’m a libertarian on the 3 axis scale (though I’m not big on freedom/coercion as a framing device).

  3. A: 20
    B: 10
    C: 69

    I’m only vaguely familiar with the three axes model but I am a longtime reader.

  4. A: 3
    B: 33
    C: 63

    I am most sympathetic to, and most inclined to make, freedom/coercion arguments.

  9. a) 8
    b) 16
    c) 75
    I am a libertarian. I like this game. It was not as easy to allocate my chips as I first thought.

  10. A) 62

    B) 6

    C) 31

    If I had to put my chips on the three axes (I find it difficult to identify with just one), it would look like:
    Civilization: 51
    Freedom: 24
    Oppression: 24

  15. A) 19

    B) 8

    C) 73

    It doesn’t line up very well with my 3 axis inclinations (civ-barb). I don’t see the current state of Islamic radicalism in the US as posing an existential threat. Essentially that novel Submissions i’ve been hearing so much about misses that Islam isn’t actually a viable alternative given the forms we are talking about. and i’m low on B because i see western civ as strong enough to inculcate against “barbarism” the left assumes america already gives in to constantly against minorities.

    San Bernadino isn’t a worldview shaping event

  17. a) 49
    b) 1
    c) 49

    Freedom axis: cos(55 degrees)
    Civ axis: cos(25 degrees)
    Oppression axis: Orthogonal

    • How many more San Bernardino’s (or imagine an attack similar to 9/11 in magnitude) would it take for you to change this for you?

      (Entirely curious, no malice intended. I think of myself as a libertarian but would not put down 0 for the first two.)

  19. 1. 35
    2. 15
    3.49

    I end up mostly on the conservative(civ-barb) side of your 3 axis model, but I tend to be somewhat optimistic that this moment for islam and the world will pass, like the anarchist terrorist attacks from a century before.

    • I like that comparison. That said, anarchism (even in its heyday) was a very much niche political ideology. Islam, (at least in the radical variety that fuels terrorism) is backed up by very large socio-political institutions and states. Surely it’s far stronger and more resilient than anarchist terrorism ever could be? (Although again, I do like your comparison – it’s definitely one that had not previously come to mind)

  20. 9 on a, 30 on b, 60 on c.
    I’m about 10% liberal, 25% conservative, 65% libertarian. You could interpret my outcome on Haidt’s tests that way.

  23. A: 5
    B: 70
    C: 24
    freedom/coercion

    Note I’m interpreting “backlash” to include “military escalation in the Middle East.” If all you mean is “Trump supporters waving guns outside of mosques” then swap my scores for B and C.

  24. A). 30 chips
    B). 19 chips
    C). 50 chips

    On the three axes-model, I’m roughly:

    60% Freedom vs. Coercion
    30% Civilization vs Barbarism
    10% Oppressor vs Oppressed

    I’d say they line up pretty closely.

  26. 5 / 5 / 89

    This does line up rather well with my libertarian leanings, but not for the obvious reason (that is, it’s not that I don’t think A & B are unimportant or wouldn’t be very bad, it’s just that I think they’re highly improbable).

  29. 1. 0

    2. 60

    3. 39

    Gravitate towards either the oppression or freedom axis, depending on issue.

    I interpreted 3 to not include increased military adventures. If it is meant to, I would weigh it much more heavily.

  32. 10
    30
    59

    I consider my self a libertarian first and conservative second. I am certainly not a progressive at all. Given that, I did not put enough on option A.

  35. A. 66
    B. 0
    C. 33

    I’m mostly on the barbarism/civilization axis, with some sympathy for the liberty/coercion.

  38. A) 5
    B) 47
    C) 47
    That’s probably more “freedom/coercion” and less “civ/barb” than average for me.

  40. A: 11
    B: 22
    C: 66

    About 85% freedom/coercion, 15% civilization/barbarism (though not defining civ-barb in the same way that many US conservatives would), 0% oppressor/oppressed.

  43. a=6 b=6 c=87

    I think I am 80% libertarian and 20% conservative. You might also call me “long term libertarian” – or “long term conservative” – more concerned about how choices affect society over the long term than the short. (But isn’t that mostly on the libertarian axis?)

  44. a: 11
    b: 22
    c: 66
    though all three outcomes seem to amount to the same thing, provoking conflict between communities I am a part of.

  47. a. 6
    b. 3
    c. 90

    Libertarian. I feel 10 times more concerned about the last one than both of the other two. I feel twice as concerned about the first one than the second one.

  49. A. 70
    B. 10
    C. 20

    Should point out I’m strongly pro gun rights and think govt has a snowballs chance in hell restricting them. But I think by heavily restricting immigration we will weaken the argument for increased surveillance killing two birds with one stone.

  50. A: 20
    B: 30
    C: 49

    I think a lot along the civ-barb axis which is why after careful consideration I spread 60% of my chips* across the three choices– I think an unusual proportion of domestic Moslem conduct is barbarous and provokes barbarities from our many ill-civilized non-Moslem citizens. I don’t approve of either. My second lens is freedom-coercion and that mostly drives the rest of my allocation; I think our domestic freedom is degraded by the response to Moslem behaviour, which is exploited by politicians as an excuse for bad things they always want to do. I am not much driven here by oppressor-oppressed concerns as you typically define them (I feel oppressed by my politicians, not so much by Moslems, and believe Moslems are oppressed elsewhere in the world but not in the USA).

    *I actually distributed the chips before thinking about what proportion was driven by each considerations along each axis.

    • Now I will elaborate. Surprised? None are all that likely. C is more likely in that ‘something must be done’, but would be a waste of effort, money, and time than anything else rather than a concern. In B they may suffer discrimination or violence but only an apologetic could think this a source or justification of violence, or anything other than a rationalization of pre existing feelings, though you could call an increase in random violence against them terrorism or reverse terrorism or just revenge, I am not sure that is what is meant. A, while unlikely in any dramatic or immediate sense, is a risk by 10000 cuts, as people retrench, screening becomes more wide spread and intrusive, limits are expanded, self limits are imposed, and trust declines.

  55. A: 03
    B: 61
    C: 35

    ISIS (and radical Islam in general) is far too weak to threaten our way of life.

    Muslims I know in the US are already feeling the heat. They’re good people and have nothing to do with any of this. As a Christian, I don’t like people judging my religion by the lowest common denominator, so I really don’t like people doing that to Islam.

    It’s already blown out of proportion, at least by Trump. Before the San B incident, I argued that we should let in families, reasoning that parents want to take care of their children–not commit acts of terrorism. I was wrong. Blocking Syrian refugees may by the way to go right now (or maybe not). However, blocking all Muslim immigrants is ridiculous.

    • Generally, I see myself along the civilization/barbarian and freedom/coercion axes, but apparently I am more oppressor/oppressed than I thought.

      (Sorry Arnold for being terrible at following directions. I wish I had done this better. Please forgive me.)

  56. A) 40
    B) 4
    C) 55

    (C) wins because it has much more attractive and practiced power at the moment. (A) gets a high score because the fact that conflict and violence are part of Islam (not the only part, and not universally taken, but certainly a live option) from the beginning is largely ignored by the largely post-religious West, which has become emphatically incapable of believing a religious motive could be sufficient to explain any action.

    When the elites in the West think of religion at all, it is some vague and fuzzy sentimentality about being inclusive (since being exclusionary is the only true sin). It is an absolute dogma that all religions–rightly understood–have inclusivity as their sole moral imperative, and consequently are all the same; except perhaps Christianity, which is mean-spirited.

    Being an old-school Catholic and somewhat studied in history, I rather come down in the Eric Voegelin view that this is a kind of “pneumo-pathology” where “non-recognition of reality is a matter of principle” and is replaced by a “transfigured dream world” where such statements are true.

    • I should say also that (C) would be near term, while (A) only in the long term, perhaps generations. (A) is most disturbing to me largely because of the mental paralysis and unreality which seems to accompany our responses to it, not its immediacy.

      • OOOOPS, I should have read to the end. Feel free to delete my comments and just leave the numbers.

        For axes, it lines up pretty well. High freedom/coercion and civilization/barbarism, low oppressor/oppressed.

    • If I had to pick a second axis, it would be the civilization-barbarism axis, which makes my second choice of chips interesting. I just don’t think that terrorism is nearly as threatening to freedom as the reaction to terrorism.

  60. A: 90
    B: 5
    C: 5

    Where I am on the axes varies a lot by issue, averaging out maybe at 45/10/45. On this issue, I’m with the civ/barb mugged by reality viewpoint: A is causing huge problems now, B and C are more (not entirely) potential. A to a large degree causes B and C; solve A, we solve B and C. People are “on” the B and C issues and we know how to prevent them spiraling out of control ( granting that whether we will is another story). I have no idea what to do about A, and no one else seems to have any realistic ideas either. A 90 of despair. I devoutly wish (if an agnostic can be devout) that Islam was truly a religion of peace. Unfortunately there seem to be a few strains or sects that claim to be Muslim who do not share that view. I probably lowered B and C a bit because I don’t see much point in semantic or theological disputes about whether those sects do or do not deserve the name Muslim that more peaceful strains use.

    • I may have read the answer more internationally than intended . In seeing the present scale of the A problem, I am worried about the next Paris and the present Syria, not just the next San Bernardino. Agree that A somewhat less concern if question is limited to U.S.

      By the way, if the sects of violence are identifable, then use the identifiers. If there was a Lutheran extremism problem, the Baptists and Catholics would be all over letting you know it wasn’t a Christian problem. I don’t know whether Muslim world breaks down so identifiable. But , if so, a counterweight to B worries.

  62. I believe people are underestimating the mental impact of another Islamic terror attack specially if it happens pretty fast.
    You are looking for the following answer.

    66
    11
    22
    Fake Liberal

  68. a) 29

    b) 10

    c) 60

    That is indeed where I see myself on the 3-axis model (knowing the model probably affected how I answered. It was pretty obvious that c) was the “libertarian” answer, a) was the “conservative” one, and b) was the “liberal” one.)

  69. a. 10
    b. 4
    c. 85

    moderately libertarian, but these answers make me look perhaps more libertarian than I feel

  73. a: 0
    b: 10
    c: 89

    This means I am about 90% freedom/coercion axis and about 10% oppressor/oppressed axis. And yet before I answered, I would have thought I’d have a bit more civilization/barbarism in me.

  76. a) 10
    b) 4
    c) 85

    Conservative with libertarian leanings.

    I don’t see Muslim intolerance of non-Muslims as a significant problem until either a) Muslims make up a significant portion of your country’s population or b) a hostile Muslim state has ‘great power’ military capabilities. For the United States, these aren’t concerns in the near-term.

    I also don’t think speaking the truth regarding the source of Islamic violence will change many Muslims from being peaceful to violent, though on the margin there probably is some risk of this hence my decision to allocate a few chips.

    Suppose, however, that Muslims were 15% of the American population, and that Islamic State had successfully conquered Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UAE, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt and Libya. In that scenario, my allocation would be as follows:

    a) 87
    b) 2
    c) 10

  79. A) 33
    B) 33
    C) 33

    I see all these as inter-related with only a small subset of Muslims participating in A, which causes both B and C, which leads to more A…

    We have already seen a big response in the form of C, a little from B (the FL gun shop being one) – but C seems to be gaining strength and acceptability with Trump. Add in that the last shooting was workplace related and I can imagine it just got a harder to find a job if you are Muslim.

    Libertarian on the 3 axis

  80. a) 44
    b) 45
    c) 1

    Low probability, in my opinion, that #3 will amount to actual negative effect. I don’t think any immigration restrictions will be significant, and I don’t think that any remotely plausible gun control would infringe upon even the most generous reading of the 2nd amendment in the slightest.

  87. 1. 5
    2. 35
    3. 60

    I do not see myself represented on the three-axis model. Any threat posed to Western civilization by Muslim intolerance is based entirely on the manner in which Western civilization responds to intolerance of any sort, roughly proportional to the degree that the economic model of the media (both liberal and conservative) relies on fostering fear and intolerance.

    The fault lies not in our models, but in ourselves.

  94. A) 2
    B) 1
    C) 96

    Mainly libertarian, but more than anything I try to have evidence-based views. I think A and B are both extremely unlikely outcomes in comparison to C, so I put the vast majority of my chips there.

  99. 5
    20
    74

    Primarily concerned with freedom-coercion, also concerned with oppressor-oppressed when it lines up with freedom-coercion.

  101. a) 1
    b) 1
    c) 97

    I’m rarely concerned about protecting civilization against barbarism.
    I rarely find value in framing things as oppressors vs. oppressed.
    I’m deeply interested in coercion vs. freedom for ethical and pragmatic reasons.

    I determined the numbers as naively as I could before reflecting on how neatly they mapped onto my three-axes posture.

  108. A. 1
    B. 40
    C. 59

    Aligns fairly well with where I am on the three axis model. My main difference is really a problem that I have with the model generally. I think that me personally, and a lot of liberals, have more of a concern with civilization/barbarism than you assume – we just don’t always come to same conclusions as to just who is civilized.

    Even apart from this, I don’t think that IN FACT another San Bernardino would “threaten our way of life,” so that, even if one is concerned about barbarism, that is not a weightly concern IN THIS CASE.

    That’s also why I put more weight on “C.” While generally I tend to weight oppressed/oppressor concerns a little (not a lot) more heavily than freedom/coercion, in THIS case I think that reaction C is more likely than reaction B, and hence I put more weight on it.

  109. Another mass shooting won’t change my opinion:

    a) 99 << Islam as a "religious state", without respect for human rights and especially killing humans who want to stop being Muslim, is incompatible with Christian-Capitalist Civilization, as we enjoy it in "the West".

    Civilization vs Barbarism, totally.
    With the caveat that, thanks to success, too many elites in our Civ are now indulging in "magic thinking" — like all the Dem Socialists.
    Most of the "noble Barbarian vs Magician" battles have the barbarians winning.

    … but, after Tel Aviv is nuked, and the surviving Israelis go crazy revenge, the current world order will become hugely changed. (I'm hoping to create a self-negating prophecy.)

  111. a) 10 chips
    b) 10 chips
    c) 79 chips

    It was not as easy to assign my chips as I first thought it might be. Nevertheless, my allocation lines up well with where I see myself on the three-axes model. I am most inclined to discuss issues in terms of freedom-coercion and am most sympathetic to freedom-coercion arguments. On the test at the beginning of your book I score 1 P, 1 C and 7 L’s.

  112. a. 24
    b. 9
    c. 66

    I think it lines up with a libertarian freedom – coercion axis, but with a touch of civilization-barbarism concern. I would have given 0 points to b prior to given the lack of anti-Muslim activity in the face of 9/11 and subsequent events, but the recent Trump outbursts make me less certain here. My allocation of points to a. could go to c. in that I think the threat is that over-concern for Muslim sensitivities could lead to limits on liberty for others.

  113. a) 1
    b) 49
    c) 49

    I usually see myself as lining up squarely with the libertarian axis while sometime’s being sympathetic with the conservative axis. I rarely identify with the progressive axis.

    However, in this instance, I see myself as aligning with the libertarian and progressive axes equally while shunning the conservative axis.

  114. I would allocate:
    a.0
    b. 100
    c. 0
    I am a top of the Nolan chart libertarian, so I favor freedom, the oppressed (anyone who’s freedom is interfered with, and barbarians (to the extent they oppose people interfering with freedom).

    My main concern is that it will provoke expenditure of infinite military resources in the middle east, thus recruiting the next generation of extremists.

    I don’t gun control could pass any congress and mass shootings favor concealed carry as much as bans. Republicans have already come out against mass surveillance and most technologists are moving to do the right thing with 100% encryption, even within components of systems. While immigration restriction is a concern in theory, in practice anyone can just immigrate illegally and legal immigration has been interfered with for a long time. I don’t see any proposed changes as substantive, just empty rhetoric.

  116. I’d do something like:
    4
    10
    85

    I align most closely with the oppression axis, but note that the state can (and obviously does) participate in oppression, and I think civic republican views square libertarianism with anti-domination.

  118. A. 90
    B. 2
    C. 8
    This would be far different if I did not know that apostasy is a death-penalty offense(This is straight from the big M) and that Islam requires submission OF ALL to sharia and the other muslim nonsense.

  121. A 7
    B 82
    C 10

    Conservative, Sykes-Picot sympathizer, Arab human capital optimist. I am skeptical about many liberties, but I do worry about human suffering and business conditions, a lot. I interpret “backlash” to mean wars like Iraq Afghanistan Libya Syria, not just hotter prejudices

  127. A: 5
    B: 80
    C: 14

    I am generally aligned with the freedom/coercion axis, but my thoughts on terrorism specifically were strongly influenced by Alistair Horne’s “Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962”, which very much emphasizes the dangers of B.

Comments are closed.