Nick_Tarleton 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: 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.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit