EvoLensArt on Nostr: “Tell me,” Wittgenstein asked a friend, “why do people always say it was ...
“Tell me,” Wittgenstein asked a friend, “why do people always say it was natural for man to assume that the sun went round the earth rather than that the earth was rotating?”
His friend replied, “Well, obviously because it just looks as though the sun is going round the earth.”
Wittgenstein replied, “Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the earth was rotating?”
The answer, of course, is it would have looked exactly the same. The Sun would still rise and set.
Wittgenstein’s point? People don’t just observe reality—they interpret it. We assume that truth should look different from falsehood, that if we’re fundamentally wrong about something, the world should announce it loudly and obviously. But more often than not, we’re all just making sense of the same data through different frameworks.
So let’s ask a modern version of Wittgenstein’s question:
What would it look like if an outsider actually took on government reform?
Would it be neat? Polite? Would the institutions of power simply roll over and accept accountability? Would the media calmly explain, Finally, a competent administrator has arrived to streamline operations!?
Of course not. It would look like a billionaire wielding enormous power. It would look like bureaucratic institutions pushing back hard. It would look like headlines screaming about reckless destruction, leaks from government agencies, and half the country treating it as an existential crisis.
In other words, it would look exactly like what’s happening right now.
Right now, two completely different interpretations of reality are playing out.
One side sees: An unelected billionaire dismantling decades of governance with no oversight, running roughshod over institutions.
The other side sees: A competent outsider executing a clear campaign promise, facing exactly the kind of resistance you’d expect from a system that doesn’t want to be reformed.
Same events. Same facts. But depending on which framework you start with, they mean completely different things.
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt describes two ways people process new information:
When a fact aligns with their worldview, they ask the low-threshold question: Can I believe this? (If the answer is yes, they accept it.)
When a fact contradicts their worldview, they ask the high-threshold question: Must I believe this? (They will only accept it if there is no possible way to deny it.)
This is exactly what’s happening now.
If you already believed government was bloated but resistant to reform, you ask Can I believe that this is finally the shake-up we needed? And the answer is obviously yes.
If you believed the system was flawed but fundamentally stable, you ask Must I believe that this is necessary?—and unless you’re dragged there kicking and screaming, the answer is no.
But the best test of a worldview isn’t how comfortable it makes you feel. It’s how predictive it is.
If the federal government were corrupt, bloated, and resistant to reform, what would it look like if someone actually tried to fix it?
You’d expect bureaucrats to fight back hard.
You’d expect the media to frame every change as reckless destruction.
You’d expect a wave of good-faith and bad-faith criticism—some sincere, some self-serving.
You’d expect institutions to leak, sabotage, and retaliate.
That’s exactly what’s happening.
Now let’s ask another Wittgenstein question:
What would it look like if a highly competent, multi-talented, systems-oriented genius existed?
It would look like Elon Musk.
And yet, depending on who you ask, Musk is either:
A brilliant, hands-on problem solver who has revolutionized industries and knows how to make things work in the real world, or
A glorified rich kid who buys companies, extracts value, and takes credit for other people’s work.
One person sees a tech visionary who built PayPal, SpaceX, Tesla, Starlink, and now the Department of Government Efficiency. Another sees a government-subsidized fraud who gets rich off taxpayer money.
One person sees a competent leader who knows how to run large, complex organizations. Another sees an egomaniac whose wealth insulates him from consequences.
So let’s ask again:
What would it look like if a highly competent administrator were put in charge of reforming government?
Would he be a serene, soft-spoken philosopher? Would he live in a humble monastery, wearing simple robes, untouched by material wealth?
No. It would look like a ruthless, ambitious operator who understands power, scale, and efficiency—who knows how to break things and rebuild them better. It would look exactly like Elon Musk.
And if a person like that chose, voluntarily, to take on one of the most entrenched bureaucracies in the world, what would you expect to happen?
Exactly this.
If the Earth were really rotating, it wouldn’t look any different than it does now.
If real government reform were happening, it wouldn’t look any different than what we’re seeing today.
And if one of the most competent administrators of our time took on a seemingly impossible bureaucratic task, it wouldn’t look any different than Elon Musk running DOGE.
None of this is simple. None of this is clean. But pretending the problem isn’t there doesn’t make it go away. As Neil Peart put it, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
So here we are. If your expectations keep failing—if the world keeps surprising you—maybe it’s worth asking yourself:
What would it look like if you were wrong?
H/t @ Alan Farrington for adding “Wittgenstein Question” to my toolkit!
His friend replied, “Well, obviously because it just looks as though the sun is going round the earth.”
Wittgenstein replied, “Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the earth was rotating?”
The answer, of course, is it would have looked exactly the same. The Sun would still rise and set.
Wittgenstein’s point? People don’t just observe reality—they interpret it. We assume that truth should look different from falsehood, that if we’re fundamentally wrong about something, the world should announce it loudly and obviously. But more often than not, we’re all just making sense of the same data through different frameworks.
So let’s ask a modern version of Wittgenstein’s question:
What would it look like if an outsider actually took on government reform?
Would it be neat? Polite? Would the institutions of power simply roll over and accept accountability? Would the media calmly explain, Finally, a competent administrator has arrived to streamline operations!?
Of course not. It would look like a billionaire wielding enormous power. It would look like bureaucratic institutions pushing back hard. It would look like headlines screaming about reckless destruction, leaks from government agencies, and half the country treating it as an existential crisis.
In other words, it would look exactly like what’s happening right now.
Right now, two completely different interpretations of reality are playing out.
One side sees: An unelected billionaire dismantling decades of governance with no oversight, running roughshod over institutions.
The other side sees: A competent outsider executing a clear campaign promise, facing exactly the kind of resistance you’d expect from a system that doesn’t want to be reformed.
Same events. Same facts. But depending on which framework you start with, they mean completely different things.
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt describes two ways people process new information:
When a fact aligns with their worldview, they ask the low-threshold question: Can I believe this? (If the answer is yes, they accept it.)
When a fact contradicts their worldview, they ask the high-threshold question: Must I believe this? (They will only accept it if there is no possible way to deny it.)
This is exactly what’s happening now.
If you already believed government was bloated but resistant to reform, you ask Can I believe that this is finally the shake-up we needed? And the answer is obviously yes.
If you believed the system was flawed but fundamentally stable, you ask Must I believe that this is necessary?—and unless you’re dragged there kicking and screaming, the answer is no.
But the best test of a worldview isn’t how comfortable it makes you feel. It’s how predictive it is.
If the federal government were corrupt, bloated, and resistant to reform, what would it look like if someone actually tried to fix it?
You’d expect bureaucrats to fight back hard.
You’d expect the media to frame every change as reckless destruction.
You’d expect a wave of good-faith and bad-faith criticism—some sincere, some self-serving.
You’d expect institutions to leak, sabotage, and retaliate.
That’s exactly what’s happening.
Now let’s ask another Wittgenstein question:
What would it look like if a highly competent, multi-talented, systems-oriented genius existed?
It would look like Elon Musk.
And yet, depending on who you ask, Musk is either:
A brilliant, hands-on problem solver who has revolutionized industries and knows how to make things work in the real world, or
A glorified rich kid who buys companies, extracts value, and takes credit for other people’s work.
One person sees a tech visionary who built PayPal, SpaceX, Tesla, Starlink, and now the Department of Government Efficiency. Another sees a government-subsidized fraud who gets rich off taxpayer money.
One person sees a competent leader who knows how to run large, complex organizations. Another sees an egomaniac whose wealth insulates him from consequences.
So let’s ask again:
What would it look like if a highly competent administrator were put in charge of reforming government?
Would he be a serene, soft-spoken philosopher? Would he live in a humble monastery, wearing simple robes, untouched by material wealth?
No. It would look like a ruthless, ambitious operator who understands power, scale, and efficiency—who knows how to break things and rebuild them better. It would look exactly like Elon Musk.
And if a person like that chose, voluntarily, to take on one of the most entrenched bureaucracies in the world, what would you expect to happen?
Exactly this.
If the Earth were really rotating, it wouldn’t look any different than it does now.
If real government reform were happening, it wouldn’t look any different than what we’re seeing today.
And if one of the most competent administrators of our time took on a seemingly impossible bureaucratic task, it wouldn’t look any different than Elon Musk running DOGE.
None of this is simple. None of this is clean. But pretending the problem isn’t there doesn’t make it go away. As Neil Peart put it, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
So here we are. If your expectations keep failing—if the world keeps surprising you—maybe it’s worth asking yourself:
What would it look like if you were wrong?
H/t @ Alan Farrington for adding “Wittgenstein Question” to my toolkit!