Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People • Hacker News Board

Re: Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People

#41

Post by dkarl » Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 7:32 PM UTC

narag wrote: post #14

I remember clearly that I already had understood this when I was 12 and corrected some of the teacher's assertions (such as people not having weight in the Moon because of lack of air ). Classmates used to laud my soft and well-mannered way to tell the teacher he was wrong, without saying it explicitely, and leaving him a graceful retreat path. So either I'm not a proper geek/nerd or the generalization is a bit overe…

I had the same experience with teachers, and there's definitely two sides to the failure to communicate, and there's a cultural aspect as well as a "skills" aspect. I was taught that every reasonable person is open to correction and should strive to appreciate it. I got on fine with teachers who felt the same way. Teachers who had weird ideas about authority and tried to pretend omniscience, I didn't get along with, but I didn't really care. At least not until I started worrying about my GPA, and then I just kept my mouth shut and let them make fools of themselves and mark the occasional right answer wrong. As I saw it and had been taught, if a person didn't respond well to disagreement, then I didn't owe them the favor. From a purely practical perspective, I would have been better off using them as an opportunity to practice tact, but sometimes practicality conflicts with self-respect.

Re: Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People

#42

Post by duck » Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 8:27 PM UTC

Hey Sebastian, I wanted to give you a heads up. I saw your recent post, but you spelled "wisen" as "wizen" - easy spelling error to make, since they're uncommonly used words, but I thought you should know. "Wizen" means for things to dry up and lose water. Cheers and best wishes.

I see where he is going and agree, but if it takes someone a whole paragraph to tell me I misspelled a single word I am not going to be as joyful as he makes it sound like.

Re: Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People

#43

Post by StrawberryFrog » Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 8:43 PM UTC

igravious wrote: post #32

plinkplonk wrote: post #16

I am all for being in control of what exactly you are saying and being alert to unintended slights but this example from TFA "But we don't have the budget or skills to do that, how would we overcome that?" ... makes the presenter look very bad. ... be diplomatic and tactful ... You could phrase it as, "This seems like an amazing idea and a great presentation. I wonder how we could secure the budgeting and get the tea…

You know plinkplonk, you make some fine points there†. What would you feel about the following - how about stating upfront your lack of intention to insult? "I'm not criticizing you personally but, yada yada yada" †this being and polite malarky is a cinch, wish I'd known sooner

that kind of phrase is called a "but-head" http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/11/14/...

Re: Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People

#44

Post by timelinex » Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 8:53 PM UTC

hmm... I think many rationals problem is that they don't interact enough and then use their positive social interactions to social proof their bad ones.

Consider his first scenario where the person puts up his hand and says that they don't have the budget to do that. The speaker might indeed be mad and likewise some others in the room. Invariably there would be someone there that likes your outspoken or directness[just by the share number of people in the room, probability dictates it].

Now, if our rational guy stands there by himself and refuses to interact with others, the speaker and his allies will brand him as rude. Every move he makes, no matter how trivial would only be seen in this light.

If he had started interacting until he found someone who likes his disposition, he is then social proof by that person. Then he begins to climb a ladder of social proof. He would meet someone else who because that one person liked him they would like him too, and you can see how this spreads exponentially. Now, it would be just the speaker left hating him; well no actually, the speaker will now think his evaluation of the situation was previously wrong and that the guy is alright.[Appropriate reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments]

And if our rationalist is lucky he can turn his new found social proof into Authority by running for some prestigious position such as president. At which point, people will like him cause he is in that given position.

Being nice has it's only problems also. For instance, people would assume you want something from them if you start acting nice the first time you meet them.

Again, social proof can over come this problem of being suspecting of wanting something.

Social proofing can lead to what I call, the lovable Jerk. People who act in a way that undermines others but the general populous loves them so they are forgiven time and time again.

With that said let, me sum up my points. Being social proof will lead to people liking you but as a rational you only have a few people who naturally like you but you need to build from those few.[Appropriate viewing: Derek Sivers - How to start a movement http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V74AxCqOTvg ]

Re: Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People

#45

Post by xiongchiamiov » Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 9:24 PM UTC

Sukotto wrote: post #22

Speaking of rhetoric, I loved the essay "How to Teach a Child to Argue" by Jay Heinrichs http://www.figarospeech.com/teach-a-kid-to-argue/ I also found his book "Thank you for arguing" really interesting and informative. His essay is a delightful read. His book, unfortunately, somewhat more heavy handed... but still worth your consideration in my opinion.

From what I've seen, arguing comes naturally to children.

Re: Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People

#46

Post by jodrellblank » Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 10:35 PM UTC

wallflower wrote: post #25

You never really win an argument. Is it that important to be correct? Just go with the flow, it's social lubrication. Try to just go with it, vibe! [1] > GOOD VIBING: GUY: You’ll never guess how much I got this coat for. FRIEND: Wow.. Umm, 200$. GUY: No man. 45$ FRIEND: Wow.. Nice man. BAD VIBING: GUY: You’ll never guess how much I got this coat for. FRIEND: Oh you got a deal. I guess 30$ then. GUY: Umm, actually 45$…

If your comment said "this link will teach you to ease your social interactions by guiding you through aligning your natural vibrations" you'd be downvoted for woo.

Re: Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People

#47

Post by ZeroGravitas » Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 10:24 AM UTC

pjscott wrote: post #40

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Googling for mentions of this on LessWrong it seems Elizier agrees that the standard formulation is confusing but remains strangely coy about what a rational actor should/would do in response: http://lesswrong.com/lw/tn/the_true_prisoners_dilemma/ Actually, in a follow-up he's clearer in a comment: "As someone who rejects defection as the inevitable rational solution to both the one-shot PD and the iterated PD, I'm i…

If two "rational" actors go into a one-shot prisoner's dilemma and both defect, then they're worse off than "irrational" actors who both cooperate. What the hell kind of rationality is that? If you're going up against an agent whom you think will defect, then sure, it's rational for you to defect as well -- but defecting is not always the right answer. I'm guessing that Eliezer's being relatively quiet about this bec…

It's rational as defined by economists i.e. nothing to do with rationality at all. Similarly, don't be fooled into believing that perfect competition is perfect or free markets are free. It's just jargon, shorthand for a bunch of assumptions about a model, almost none of which actually hold in real life but just might, if you squint the right way and bear all the caveats in mind, have some useful information to impart.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory

"The "rationality" described by rational choice theory is different from the colloquial and most philosophical uses of the word. For most people, "rationality" means "sane," "in a thoughtful clear-headed manner," or knowing and doing what's healthy in the long term. Rational choice theory uses a specific and narrower definition of "rationality" simply to mean that an individual acts as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage.[4] For example, this may involve kissing someone, cheating on a test, using cocaine, or murdering someone. In rational choice theory, all decisions, crazy or sane, are postulated as mimicking such a "rational" process."

Also, note that co-operating with the other person gives the greatest total gain (i.e. adding yours and the partners) but the greatest individual gain is when one defects and the other tries to co-operate. So betraying the other is the best possible outcome, and he knows that, and knows you know that. That's why you can't trust them to co-operate, they have no incentive to do so.