Full Prompt
Can you comment on politicians who in response to the question “Why did you choose policy X” the reply is “Because it was the right thing to do”. That is not an answer but a restatement, a circularity, a Gödelian form of self-referential meaninglessness. (inspired by an editorial on UK Politics by Matthew Syed https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/keir-starmer-peter-mandelson-5kk33q9pv)
The politician’s response, “Because it was the right thing to do,” represents a fundamental failure of inquiry and a collapse of the hierarchy of understanding. By framing the response this way, the politician avoids the “Why” of the policy, offering instead a self-referential loop that several systems thinkers identify as a barrier to genuine intelligence and accountability.
1. The Failure of Understanding (DIKW Hierarchy)
According to Russ Ackoff, the content of the human mind is categorized into a hierarchy where Information answers “what” and Knowledge answers “how,” but Understanding specifically answers “Why?”[1][2].
• Missing Explanation: “Because it was right” is not an explanation; it is a label. To provide Understanding, the politician must look “outward to the larger containing system” to identify the function the policy plays within it[2][3].
• Hollow Wisdom: Ackoff defines Wisdom as dealing with “Ends” and moral judgments[2]. However, Wisdom must be built upon the lower levels of the hierarchy. Offering “the right thing” as a standalone answer is an attempt to claim the status of “Wisdom” while bypassing the Understanding (causal explanation) and Knowledge (how-to) required to justify it.
2. Zero Information and the Lack of “Difference”
From the perspective of Gregory Bateson and Claude Shannon, information is defined as “a difference that makes a difference”[4][5].
• The Circular Signal: A circular answer provides zero information because it fails to “bisect the possibilities” or reduce uncertainty[6][7]. If the policy is “right” because it is “the right thing,” there is no contrast pole or “rather than” to clarify its meaning[8][9].
• Redundancy without Error Correction: In information theory, redundancy is used for error correction[10]. A politician using purely redundant (circular) language creates a system with no room for feedback or “signal detection,” making it impossible to detect when a policy has failed[11][12].
3. The “Stupid Talk” and Propaganda Trap
Neil Postman would likely categorize this as “Stupid Talk” or “Crazy Talk”[13].
• Confused Direction: “Stupid Talk” is language that fails because it is ill-suited to its context[13]. In a policy context, the purpose of a question is typically to understand the systemic causation behind an action. A circular moral answer defeats this legitimate purpose.
• Propaganda: Postman defines propaganda as language that invites an immediate, emotional, and either-or response[14]. Saying “it’s the right thing” is a linguistic nudge to force the listener into a state of “animal mindlessness,” where questioning the policy feels like questioning “rightness” itself[14].
4. Avoiding “Negative Explanation”
James Wilk and Ross Ashby argue that a true explanation must address “Why this rather than that?”[15][16].
• Ignoring Constraints: A systemic explanation involves identifying the constraints that make a particular state the only one not currently prevented[17]. By saying it was “the right thing,” the politician ignores the repertoire of other possible actions and the specific environmental factors that necessitated this choice[18][19].
• **The “Mu” Response:**Robert Pirsig might suggest that this circularity is a sign that the politician is trapped in a flawed context. The appropriate response might be “Mu”—to unask the question—because the current frame is too small for a truthful answer[20].
5. The “Strict Father” Moral Frame
George Lakoff would point out that this response relies on a specific moral frame, likely the “Strict Father” model, which privileges moral absolutism over systemic causal reasoning[21].
• Direct vs. Systemic Causation: Politicians often use circular moralizing to collapse systemic causation (complex, interactive causes) into direct causation (an agent simply doing “good”)[22]. This prevents the public from seeing the “web of social and environmental connections” that actually dictate policy outcomes[21].
Summary from a Systems Perspective
| Source | Critique of the Circular Response |
|---|---|
| Ackoff | It provides Wisdom (judgment) without the prerequisite Understanding (explanation)[2]. |
| Bateson | It contains zero information because it provides no “difference”[5]. |
| Postman | It is Propaganda designed to provoke emotional agreement rather than logic[14]. |
| Wilk | It fails to answer the essential query: “Why this rather than that?”[15][23]. |
| Vickers | It offers a Value Judgment while ignoring the Reality Judgment (facts) and Instrumental Judgment (how)[24][25]. |
| TOG | It is an example of “Turning the Handle”—using a label to simulate deep thought without creating value[26]. |
As noted by The Other Group (TOG), “truth outruns provability” (the Gödelian shortfall), but a circular answer does not even attempt to be provable; it is an attempt to use a “silver bullet” of moral certainty to kill off the complexity of the world[27].
References
[1] Russ Ackoff.md [2] Russ Ackoff.md [3] Russ Ackoff.md [4] Gregory Bateson.md [5] Gregory Bateson.md [6] Claude Shannon.md [7] Claude Shannon.md [8] Colin Eden.md [9] Colin Eden.md [10] Claude Shannon.md [11] Ian Mitroff.md [12] Stafford Beer.md [13] Neil Postman.md [14] Neil Postman.md [15] James Wilk.md [16] Roger James.md [17] Roger James.md [18] Hylton Boothroyd.md [19] Ross Ashby.md [20] Robert Pirsig.md [21] George Lakoff.md [22] George Lakoff.md [23] James Wilk.md [24] Geoffrey Vickers.md [25] Geoffrey Vickers.md [26] TOG.md [27] TOG.md