Plans you're not supposed to talk about • Hacker News Board

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#401

Post by mensetmanusman » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 4:42 AM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #297

pdonis wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> society is in a fragile equilibrium, and any change is dangerous and could be for the worse. That's not what the GP said. He only said the consequences of societal change are unknowable. That doesn't mean we should never change society because we're afraid it will break. It means we should change society slowly, gradually, recognizing the limitations of our knowledge, instead of forming grandiose plans and trying t…

> "Women didn't insist all at once on changing everything" Are you sure about that? I think they felt quite strongly about their cause "The suffragettes had invented the letter bomb, a device intended to kill or injure the recipient, and an increasing amount began to be posted... the former home of MP Arthur Du Cros was burned down. Du Cros had consistently voted against the enfranchisement of women, which was why he…

Women’s rights historically aligned well with gdp/capita growth.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#402

Post by ganbatekudasai » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 4:43 AM UTC

czbond wrote: post #361

ganbatekudasai wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can make up arbitrary properties about the god you believe in all day. Some very mainstream beliefs include such ideas as "you have to spread your religion over others". You cannot chose which arbitrary properties you make your wager on.

>"you have to spread your religion over others". That just seems like growth hacking (to put it in startup parlance). I find it illogical that a creator would see someone with a good heart, pure intentions, and kick them off to their "hell" because they didn't "spread your religion over others".

But you find it logical that a creator with absolutely no evidence of their existence would, if existing, care or even perceive that you are "not worshipping god in general".

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#403

Post by mensetmanusman » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 4:43 AM UTC

GhettoComputers wrote: post #308

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Consequences of societal change are inherently unknowable" Let's imagine for a second that we really believe is this idea - society is in a fragile equilibrium, and any change is dangerous and could be for the worse. Well, first obvious effect is that any change regarding woman rights, etc. would not have happened the way it did. That's in line with the Conservative viewpoint. But more importantly, the society chang…

>Let's imagine for a second that we really believe is this idea - society is in a fragile equilibrium, and any change is dangerous and could be for the worse. Surely you see the problems with technology, you don't think that the world was more social, people less polarized, and less isolated? Why do we have to assume its not when its obviously true, smartphones did change society greatly, so did online dating apps. T…

> They think aborting which is killing an unwanted baby is murder, but they ignore who takes care of the child after, its something I have a problem with too.

But this also seems like sloganeering since the data suggests they also donate more to poor children. It’s a good slogan though.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#404

Post by baking » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 4:45 AM UTC

salt-thrower wrote: post #230

mherdeg wrote: post #54

Reading 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…

What's the difference between: A) smugly telling them to do it so that they won't do it, and B) genuinely telling them to do it because you care about public health, but they interpret it as smug? Also, the kind of reverse psychology you're describing generally only works on children.

Imagine you have a close relative (parent, sibling or child) that you love very much and don't want them to die or get very sick but they are refusing to get vaccinated. You could either keep pestering them about getting the shot, tell them they are stupid for not getting the shot, etc. Or you could sit down with them and listen carefully to their reasons and talk to them about why you decided to get the vaccinated. The first approach will most likely make them defensive and not likely to get vaccinated. The second approach may or may not work, but you would have made your best effort.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#405

Post by shkkmo » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 4:50 AM UTC

the_doctah wrote: post #179

shkkmo wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That claim is pretty widespread and ubiquitous among the scientific literature. You might consider reassessing your news sources if they have been telling you otherwise. I believe that the emphasis on the reduction of the chance of serious illness & hospitalization is because people believe that all the people who would be motivated to get vaccinated out of altruism are already vaccinated.

Pretty crazy how every single vaccinated person I know has tested positive for Covid since. I guess I and they must be outliers. If there is some protection from spread, it's garbage protection.

Meanwhile, among the many people I know who have been vaccinated, there's been just a single breakthrough case, and that case was due to catching covid from an unnvaccinated co-worker.

Since you seem a bit confused, here's what we know and don't know AFAIK:

1) Vaccination reduces your chance of getting infected. The efficacy depends on the strain of covid and the vaccine, but I have yet to see any science indicating that any vaccine has no efficacy against any strain.

2) Vaccination may or may not reduce your infectiousness while you are sick

3) Vaccination does reduce the average duration of infection, which means that while you may be as infectious as a non-vaccinated person while you are sick, you have a shorter window in which to spread that sickness.

So despite the unclearness of #2, we are very clearly able to say that vaccines reduce transmission because of #1 and #3.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#406

Post by ninorata » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 4:50 AM UTC

mherdeg wrote: post #54

Reading 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…

We just have to wait till the mid terms to see how much the tribe has been reduced... I mean you have to be right, the TV said the same thing!

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#407

Post by codeisawesome » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 4:54 AM UTC

csours wrote: post #257

ren_engineer wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 p…

The good form is protective, the bad form just normalizes something that is common at the time. Is there any particular reason a woman cannot lead a prayer? Is there any particular reason why we exchange work for money? Is there any particular reason why not to eat pigs? For each of those, the answer may be yes or no depending on your time and place. The reason yes or the reason no may also be different.

> the bad form just normalizes something that is common at the time.

Exactly. I think there should be a blanket negative to customs, practices or systems that objectively cause harm. It would be reprehensible to see someone try to defend, say, Female Genital Mutilation… using “Chesterton’s Fence”. Just don’t fucking do it to people; stop doing it right now, the “why” might be for anthropologists to ponder at a later date.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#408

Post by axby » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 4:57 AM UTC

zwkrt wrote: post #341

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #242

This reminds me of CEO-speak. A CEO cannot speak their true mind or their true assessment of a situation. They can't say "wow we're in trouble here" because then people will jump ship and then the company will be even more in trouble (and the CEO would get sued for breaching Fiduciary Duty) What a CEO says is merely wishful thinking for a goal they want people to follow. They can never speak their true plan. (And of…

This reminds me of the Wallfacers in the Three Body Problem, the (totally contrived) leaders of humanity that for plot reasons must plan to save humanity from the aliens without ever elucidating what the plan is so the aliens can’t figure it out.

To give a bit of credit to the book (hints of a spoiler ahead), the aliens were different from humans in a few ways, so it made a little more sense than what someone might think from your description.

But yes, "contrived" is a great term for a lot of it. I loved the descriptions of how humans would react to aliens and in the future, the build up was amazing (or maybe I hyped it up in my head), but I felt like some of the physics got a little unbelievable, and I did not find the ending satisfying.

Overall I'd recommend it though. I had meant to read it for years, then accidentally read the 2nd book (Dark Forest) and got hooked because of the first few pages, which explains the "differences" that I'm referring to above.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#409

Post by wolverine876 » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 5:01 AM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #213

tshaddox wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sentiment seems completely useless (actually incredibly dangerous) without at least some attempt at explaining how we might distinguish between aspects of society which seem terrible but are actually secretly good even though no one knows why, and aspects of society which seem terrible because they're terrible.

You ask a difficult and important question. The two relevant ideas I know are: 1. Chesterton's Fence: "I don't understand why this exists, so let's tear it down" is an big and tempting error. Wait until you understand. 2. Consequences of societal change are inherently unknowable, which is why revolutions usually end in tragedy. The sane approach is to change society incrementally, see what happens, and adjust and lea…

> Consequences of societal change are inherently unknowable, which is why revolutions usually end in tragedy. The sane approach is to change society incrementally, see what happens, and adjust and learn as you go.

> The educated reader may notice that 1+2 is pretty much the sane version of Conservatism.

Incremental slow change sounds good if you are reasonably happy with the current situation. If you children are getting killed, beaten, and imprisoned by the legal system, and have no access to good education, you might want to move a little quicker.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#410

Post by czbond » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 5:02 AM UTC

ganbatekudasai wrote: post #402

czbond wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"you have to spread your religion over others". That just seems like growth hacking (to put it in startup parlance). I find it illogical that a creator would see someone with a good heart, pure intentions, and kick them off to their "hell" because they didn't "spread your religion over others".

But you find it logical that a creator with absolutely no evidence of their existence would, if existing, care or even perceive that you are "not worshipping god in general".

No. Personally, I believe a creator would be busy with the countless other universes and couldn't care mostly about people's day to day.

What I mainly suggested was the ROI of believing in a creator vs not was a high ROI, low effort return (a la Pascal's wager) - but that I also believe Pascal stopped too soon in the next logical step to heavily weight the probabilities towards a conclusion.