thomblake comments on Five-minute rationality techniques - Less Wrong

55 Post author: sketerpot 10 August 2010 02:24AM

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

Comments (231)

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

Comment author: sketerpot 11 August 2010 07:13:43PM 12 points [-]

"How dare you disrespect my authority you little terr..."

You raise an interesting point here. When a parent or teacher imposes their authority on a child, there are two very different goals they could have:

  1. To get the child to comply, and/or

  2. To establish their own dominance.

When you ask why you're being ordered to do something, and you happen to be beneath the age that society considers you a real person, that's taken as an attack on the dominance of the person bossing you around. Obedience isn't enough; a lot of people won't be satisfied with anything less than unquestioning obedience, at least from mere children. I suspect that this is what people are thinking most of the time when they use "because I say so" as a 'reason' for something. (The rest of the time, they're probably using it because they're feeling too harried to explain something to a mere child, and so they trot out that tired old line because it's easy.)

I remember when I was young enough that adults dared to treat me that way. (Notice the emotionally charged phrasing? I'm still irritated.) Someone who gave reasonable orders and provided justifications for them on request, got cooperation from me. My parents were like this, and they say I was very well-behaved. Someone who told me to do things "because I said so" automatically gained my resentment, and I felt no need to cooperate with them. They were less effective because they insisted on unquestioning obedience.

I realize that not every child is as reasonable or cooperative as I was, but providing a reason for your instructions doesn't hurt anything; at worst it's useless, and at best it reinforces your authority by making people perceive you as a reasonable authority figure worthy of listening to.

Comment author: thomblake 11 August 2010 07:22:02PM 8 points [-]

I realize that not every child is as reasonable or cooperative as I was, but providing a reason for your instructions doesn't hurt anything; at worst it's useless, and at best it reinforces your authority by making people perceive you as a reasonable authority figure worthy of listening to.

Not true. In many cases, there isn't time (or some other resource) for spelling out your reasons. And when it's a life-or-death situation, you want your child to comply with your orders unquestioningly, not stand there asking "why" and get eaten by a lion.

Comment author: jimrandomh 11 August 2010 07:30:15PM 11 points [-]

These concerns can be balanced better than they usually are by using something like a "Merlin says" rule.

Comment author: RobinZ 12 August 2010 01:18:47AM 7 points [-]

Such a rule would include an expectation of later justification, of course.

Comment author: sketerpot 11 August 2010 07:32:03PM 4 points [-]
Comment author: thomblake 11 August 2010 07:54:58PM 2 points [-]

That sounds plausible, but I've never seen it attempted in practice.

Though it doesn't sound very different from "Because I say so!" so I don't see why it would work worse.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 12 August 2010 05:01:05PM *  3 points [-]

"because I say so" invokes the very fact of the demand as the supreme reason, rather than acting as a promissory note, saying "no time to explain now, but trust me there's a good reason that I'll explain later"

ie, "because I said so" is "bow to my authority, underling" rather than "in this specific circumstance, just do it, trust me (for now) there's a reason, and ask later if it's not obvious to you by then"

Comment author: sketerpot 11 August 2010 07:29:57PM *  1 point [-]

Okay, I will admit that there are some situations where telling someone why is impractical. I don't think they're too frequent, though, unless you live in a place with a lot of lions (or whatever).

Comment author: thomblake 11 August 2010 07:55:42PM 6 points [-]

Most parents and children live in places with a lot of potentially-deadly situations.

Comment author: khafra 12 August 2010 05:32:01PM 4 points [-]

For a comparison with modern adults who live in places with a lot of potentially-deadly situations requiring swift obedience, US military personnel are required to obey all lawful orders from those appointed over them, but have (from the order follower's side) several channels for reporting abuses of authority, and (from the order giver's side) official guidance with ways of explaining orders when time permits.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 12 August 2010 04:10:44PM 4 points [-]

I think that statement becomes a lot stronger if you say "most of your ancestors".

Comment author: RobinZ 16 August 2010 06:56:18PM 4 points [-]

Possibly, although most parents and children live in places with automobiles.