= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ciphergoth comments on Raising the Sanity Waterline - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (207)
If you don't care about consistency, there's really no way to be argued into caring about it. Not rationally, anyway, and not even with unconscious logic. It can only be done by "pushing a motivational button", and without a very detailed model of how your mind works, someone else can only do that by flailing about at random.
Self-consistency is the most basic aspect of effective thought.
The contrapositive of this:
If you don't want people to be able to easily manipulate you, be irrational and inconsistent.
Is this right?
If you were to try this, you would instead be irrational in a consistent way described by well-known cognitive biases, and therefore unusually easy to manipulate.
How manipulable do you find the determinedly irrational in practice?
Mostly I just find them deeply painful and try to avoid dealing with them except by occasionally poking them with sticks.
Depends on what I'm trying to get them to do, and how well I understand the framework of their irrationality. In many cases, I find them highly manipulable; in other cases, not at all.
Extremely. But when people are already acting against their own interests it is sometimes more convenient to exploit their current practice without trying to influence them significantly.