Why does it take me something like one paragraph to recognize that someone is from the Lesswrong sphere? (I was myself a part of the community at one point, before it became a cult)
Plans you're not supposed to talk about
201–210 of 675 posts
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#202Reading this gave me a kind of horrifying idea that goes something like: You know about a deadly disease whose most serious outcomes can be avoided by getting a shot. Many members of a group in your society have decided they don't want to get the shot. You are annoyed by the way they talk about a lot of things, including the way they talk about avoiding the shot. They, in turn, call you "smug" for the way your group…
That would be a very, very bad plan we are not talking about, because it would make people so radical, that in the end they rather shoot people of the other tribe, than getting the shot. (and that already happened) It would make them form secret circles, where they only talk or listen to each other further radicalising themself. And they do not have a choice, because they have their dogma of vaccine == poison - so th…
So I mean, the very first antivaccine movement involved firebombs (https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/13/1/82) not to mention some questionable research ethics; maybe none of this is really new.
Your comment reminds me of something I read a few years back and CANNOT find again which I think said something like:
* The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria for a delusional disorder have sort of a carve-out for religion.
* Specifically if a lot of people live together in a community and all believe something disconnected from reality but it isn't hurting their day-to-day life this isn't a mental illness, it's just part of their culture and it should not be diagnosed as a mental illness.
* Modern use of the Internet has made it easy for people who share common interests to come together in a community and hang out together, where previously they would have formed an extreme minority of their community and had what were obviously non mainstream views.
* For example, people who believe that radiation causes terrible illness (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) can all live together in a city with no cell phones or power lines and maybe none of them would have any kind of mental illness because their beliefs were a norm - which previously would have been impossible.
I was struck by this observation but could never find it written down again.
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
but why are you so adamant on making everybody so perfectly safe? there used to be something about freedom and risk; heck, about life and risk. it's risky to be alive but it was more risky live way back in the day at what point does safety begin to stifle the drive to live? we as humans originally evolved in a risky environment, we thrived in it, we made it safer for ourselves; but maybe, just maybe, we also acquired…
Ok but what's the point of taking risks for its own sake? It makes sense to take risks if you stand to gain something. But a risk with only downside is just a bad idea.
some people, mostly young people, might consider it 'fun'.
also, at a certain point, a real experiment may yield nothing in return, i.e. a risk was undertaken yet nothing at all was gained.
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#204The author presents the idea that "you may be born into a culture with social practices that you don't understand but that work for your benefit; they may work better if you don't understand them!" I find this idea a little repellant, but it's something Friedrich Hayek wrote about too. (In my mind Hayek is the person most associated with distributed knowledge.) ~"You may not understand the forces that have led societ…
>You may not understand the forces that have led society to be organized the way that it is, but you should respect that sometimes the order of things reflects knowledge you may not have
sounds like Chesterton's fence to some degree
https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Chesterton%27s_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.
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#205This part sort of looks like a real life SCP-style [0] anti-meme:
Even more interesting are plans that work best if you yourself don’t understand them. For these, your best hope is that you inherit a culture that’s figured them out for you (and also forgotten about the reasons for you) so you can get the benefits just by going with the flow.
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#206I would really appreciate it if someone could help me understand what the last few sentences of it meant, it kind of flew over my head: "So I guess this is kind of an argument in favor of humility, or against open-mindedness. If you have high openness to experience (and if you read this without a gun to your head, you probably do) you might wonder why so many people have low openness. Maybe this is part of why." What…
People might be less open to questioning certain things, because those things work well for them, and they work well because they aren't questioned. There is an adverse selection for questioning them.
For example, let's say everyone in your society has an arranged marriage. The marriages produce children who then get arranged marriages themselves. This keeps the society going by providing a steady supply of new people. If someone starts to question it, they don't get an arranged marriage, and don't have any children. The questioner does not get promulgated.
(Note this is not an argument for or against arranged marriage. There are obviously many ways to arrange society and raise children.)
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#207The underlying issue, and one that bugs the hell out of me, is Policy vs Truth. You can say true things all day, and convince nobody. You can enact policy based completely on Truth (e.g., Trust the Science), and completely fail. People don't care about Truth, they care about what changes they need to make, and who is asking them to make them. Good policy is only partially based on truth, it's more based on easy imple…
The power and foolishness of democracy lies therein. A good story is more motivating that the complicated truths of life. It is probably better for all of us to link every tornado and hurricane to climate change in a neat little story than refrain from doing so because we cannot link the particular storm on man-made climate change. The story has power to effect positive change.
> It is probably better for all of us to link every tornado and hurricane to climate change in a neat little story
And then when someone points out that the number of severe tornados per year was larger a couple of decades ago ....
Thanks to improvements in monitoring equipment, we know about tornados and hurricanes now that we wouldn't have recorded before.
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
but why are you so adamant on making everybody so perfectly safe? there used to be something about freedom and risk; heck, about life and risk. it's risky to be alive but it was more risky live way back in the day at what point does safety begin to stifle the drive to live? we as humans originally evolved in a risky environment, we thrived in it, we made it safer for ourselves; but maybe, just maybe, we also acquired…
Less about making those people safe and more about making you safe by making those other not spread the disease to you. For example: Go ahead and drive drunk, I don’t care, just do it on your private property so you don’t kill me. Similarly: Go and don’t get vaxed, honestly I don’t care. But viruses don’t respect borders like cars do, so if you are going to do it then make sure you are isolated on a private island wh…
But if you've already gotten the shot, you're protected from the disease. So, what is someone else not getting the shot going to do to you?
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to be clear, you are saying that you know what makes people happy better than people know themselves. And even if you are right, people's current behavior shows that they disagree with you on what is best. Therefore they won't voluntarily give up buying new shoes. You will have to force people to agree with you and this type of paternalistic "I know what is best for you better than you do" leadership is rather d…
I’m not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. I talked about carbon taxes to make people pay the true price of their consumption so the market forces can find the right equilibrium, which they can’t when the price doesn’t include all the information.
> I’m not talking about forcing anyone to do anything.
What's your plan for folks who refuse to pay the carbon tax?
Remember, Eric Garner was killed as part of enforcing NYC's cigarette tax. (He was selling "loosies".)
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#210Even if G*d didn't exist, one probably can't prove either way. So, from a risk/reward payoff, it seems believing is a higher payoff than not. And from a purely emotionless approach, if you're a Western religion (Christian) you don't have a high bar to cross. Just believe, no deeds or acts are required. That is a high ROI trade either way. [Edit: I am not endorsing a specific Western Religion, I'm giving an example. I…
What if believing in one specific god pisses off the “real” god when you die and you go to hell for believing in the wrong god, while not believing in any god gets you a free pass? If we’re making up unfalsifiable claims then this seems just as likely to happen as not.
Any enlightened G0d would know that humans minds are limited, and thus the worship of any G*d is actually meant for them. Thus no problem. [Italics are being inserted by HN]