steven0461 comments on Open Thread: May 2010 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: Jack 01 May 2010 05:29AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (543)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (543)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: steven0461 02 May 2010 09:26:13PM *  5 points [-]

I think there's something to be said for not posting opinions such that 1) LW is likely to agree with the opinion, and 2) sites perceived as agreeing with the opinion are likely to be the target of hate campaigns.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 02 May 2010 11:48:03PM *  5 points [-]

I share your concern. Literal hate campaigns seem unlikely to me, but such opinions probably do repulse some people, and make it considerably easier for us to lose credibility in some circles, that we might (or might not) care about. On the other hand, we pretty strongly want rationalists to be able to discuss, and if necessary slay, sacred cows, for which purpose leading by example might be really valuable.

Comment author: mattnewport 02 May 2010 10:35:02PM *  8 points [-]

This is the best exposition I have seen so far of why I believe strongly that you are very wrong.

On a Bus in Kiev

I remember very little about my childhood in the Soviet Union; I was only seven when I left. But one memory I have is being on a bus with one of my parents, and asking something about a conversation we had had at home, in which Stalin and possibly Lenin were mentioned as examples of dictators. My parent took me off the bus at the next stop, even though it wasn’t the place we were originally going.

Please read the whole thing and remember that this is where the road inevitably leads.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 02 May 2010 11:40:50PM *  12 points [-]

Yes, self-censorship is Prisoner's Dilemma defection, but unilaterally cooperating has costs (in terms of LW's nominal purpose) which may outweigh that (and which may in turn be outweighed by considerations having nothing to do with this particular PD).

Also, I think that's an overly dramatic choice of example, especially in conjunction with the word "inevitably".

Comment author: mattnewport 02 May 2010 11:53:42PM -1 points [-]

Also, I think that's an overly dramatic choice of example, especially in conjunction with the word "inevitably".

I don't, which is why I posted it.

In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?

  • Winston Smith in George Orwell’s 1984
Comment author: JoshuaZ 05 May 2010 01:30:52AM 3 points [-]

It isn't inevitable. There's a trivial demonstration that censorship self-censorship don't form necessarily form a collective downward spiral: There are societies that at one point had much heavier censorship and now don't. That's not easily made consistent with your claim.

Censorship is bad. Self-censorship is very bad. Especially on a website devoted to improving rationality we shouldn't censor what we have to say. But the notion that small bits of self-censorship will eventually lead to believing that 2+2=5 if the Party says so is simply not called for. This is a classic example where a strong argument can be made for a claim but that claim is being inherently undermined by the use of a very weak argument for the claim instead of the strong one.

(Incidentally, generalization from fictional evidence also comes up here).

Comment author: mattnewport 05 May 2010 02:27:09AM 3 points [-]

It isn't inevitable. There's a trivial demonstration that censorship self-censorship don't form necessarily form a collective downward spiral: There are societies that at one point had much heavier censorship and now don't. That's not easily made consistent with your claim.

I am claiming that this road leads to totalitarianism. That is not the same as claiming that the road is one way with no exits and no U-turns. If I thought otherwise there would be little point in me expressing my concerns. As long as society keeps its foot on the pedal and fails to realize it is heading in the wrong direction however that is where it will end up. Inevitably.

(Incidentally, generalization from fictional evidence also comes up here).

This is not generalizing from fictional evidence. It is using a literary quote to express an idea more eloquently than I can myself. Since the book can be seen as a parable illustrating the same concerns I am emphasizing I believe it is quite appropriate to quote from it. I am not using the fictional story as proof of my claim, I am quoting it to elaborate on what it is I am claiming.

Comment author: steven0461 03 May 2010 03:15:21AM 8 points [-]

I'm sympathetic to this as a general principle, but it's not clear to me that LW doesn't have specific battles to fight that are more important than the general principle.

Comment author: jimmy 04 May 2010 11:33:58PM 3 points [-]

Perhaps there should be a "secret underground members only" section where we can discuss these things?

Comment author: RobinZ 05 May 2010 01:19:15AM 5 points [-]

Logic would suggest that such a section would be secret, if it existed. It would be simple enough to send private messages to trusted members alerting them to the existence of a private invitation-only forum on another website where such discussions could be held.

Naturally, I would say none of this if I knew of such a forum, or had any intention of creating such. And I would not appreciate any messages informing me of the existence of such a forum - if for no other reason than that I am the worst keeper of secrets I have ever known.

Comment author: mattnewport 05 May 2010 02:31:10AM 3 points [-]

The first rule of rationality club is: you do not talk about rationality club.

Comment author: jimmy 05 May 2010 02:22:20AM 3 points [-]

There could still be a lower level of 'secrecy' where it wont show up on google and you cant actually read it unless you have the minimum karma, but its existence is acknowledged.

It's not where you'd plan to take over the world, but I'd hope it'd be sufficient for talking about race/intelligence issues

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit