MarkusRamikin comments on Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People - Less Wrong

86 Post author: lionhearted 01 December 2010 08:25AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (420)

Comments (420)

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

Comment author: MarkusRamikin 03 July 2011 04:55:36PM *  0 points [-]

Hm... okay, that's not a bad example to work with. Let me see if I can make sense in response.

It seems to me that your argument would apply if I were saying that gender equality isn't an issue to make a big fuss about. Re-reading myself, I can see that perhaps you could in good faith think so, that that's what I believe. I will clarify that it is not the case. Equality, in general, is something I see as a Big Deal. There are real issues with gender discrimination that could use looking at: women not getting equal pay for equal work, men being denied custody rights over children unfairly, etc. This stuff matters.

However, using your analogy, I don't object to Gauls clamoring for their territorial souvereinty. I object to Gauls making a fuss because some Roman thinker used an example of a Roman citizen in some mathematical problem or philosophical parable of his, rather than a Gaul. Which is a trivial thing to make a big deal of, wouldn't you say? (Especially if - by analogy - the language they're using doesn't let him just say "a man", he has to specifiy -some- nationality if he wants to use singular). It's not one of the things that matter, it's not relevant to their territorial souvereinty except in a way so remote, that to try to impose cultural norms on how you should speak based on such weak relevance is something I find silly, and when it gets aggressive, offensive.

Consider the ideal society where genders and races are equal. To members of such a society, equality would be obvious, wouldn't it? Now I, following the ideal of equality, try to emulate such an ideal citizen ("If I can predict what i'll think in the future, I might as well think it now"). I find I have little trouble taking women on their merit without needing to let others tell me how to choose my pronouns, so I obviously resist people trying to tell me how to speak in the name of "political correctness" because it doesn't strike me as doing anything useful.

In fact I suspect one could make a case about this sort of a thing reinforcing the image of woman as the second class citizen, in need of special protections and norms, rather than to be treated straightforwardly as a fellow human being.

Comment author: Alicorn 03 July 2011 05:29:29PM *  2 points [-]

Consider the ideal society where genders and races are equal. To members of such a society, equality would be obvious, wouldn't it? Now I, following the ideal of equality, try to emulate such an ideal citizen ("If I can predict what i'll think in the future, I might as well think it now").

This is not a correct application of the reflection principle you invoke. 1) You do not have reliable information to the effect that the ideal society you have in mind is on the horizon. 2) Some policies might be necessary or appropriate in some circumstances but not others, even if the goal of the policy is to bring about the counterfactual circumstance. 3) I find it unlikely that you have enough information about what an ideal citizen would be like that you can unbiasedly choose features of such a person to emulate.

I find I have little trouble taking women on their merit without needing to let others tell me how to choose my pronouns, so I obviously resist people trying to tell me how to speak in the name of "political correctness" because it doesn't strike me as doing anything useful.

There's a quote somewhere... I can't seem to dig up the exact wording, but it's something about how if there's an (obviously artificial) object lying around and you don't see the use of it, you shouldn't discard it; only when you know what it was supposed to be for (and can say that the task is no longer necessary or is being better accomplished by something else) is that safe to do.

In fact I suspect one could make a case about this sort of a thing reinforcing the image of woman as the second class citizen, in need of special protections and norms, rather than to be treated straightforwardly as a fellow human being.

This looks to me like bottom-line thinking (starting with the conclusion that going out of one's way to choose gender-neutral pronouns is a bad idea).

Comment author: Unnamed 03 July 2011 05:53:57PM *  2 points [-]

There's a quote somewhere... I can't seem to dig up the exact wording, but it's something about how if there's an (obviously artificial) object lying around and you don't see the use of it, you shouldn't discard it; only when you know what it was supposed to be for (and can say that the task is no longer necessary or is being better accomplished by something else) is that safe to do.

Sounds like you're thinking of Chesterton's fence. "Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up" is the concise version, commonly attributed to him (although those don't seem to actually be his words). The longer version that he did write:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

  • G.K. Chesterton, The Thing: Why I am a Catholic
Comment author: Alicorn 03 July 2011 06:01:42PM 1 point [-]

Yes! That's it. Thank you.

Comment author: CuSithBell 03 July 2011 05:32:51PM 1 point [-]

There's a quote somewhere... I can't seem to dig up the exact wording, but it's something about how if there's an (obviously artificial) object lying around and you don't see the use of it, you shouldn't discard it; only when you know what it was supposed to be for is that safe to do.

Yes yes yes yes yes yes YES YES YES. Exactly this. And don't be too quick to think you know, either.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 04 July 2011 03:22:15AM *  0 points [-]

Sorry, I posted the Chesterton quote without scrolling down far enough.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit