Normal_Anomaly comments on The Trolley Problem: Dodging moral questions - Less Wrong

13 Post author: Desrtopa 05 December 2010 04:58AM

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

Comments (129)

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

Comment author: TheOtherDave 05 December 2010 06:27:25PM 6 points [-]

There is, I think, some wisdom exhibited in resisting systematizers armed with trolley problems.

Nicely put.

This seems to me a special case of the "bar bet" rule: if someone offers to bet me $20 that they can demonstrate something, I should confidently expect to lose the bet, no matter how low my priors are on expecting the thing itself. (That said, in many contexts I should take the bet anyway.)

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 06 December 2010 12:31:55AM *  0 points [-]

(That said, in many contexts I should take the bet anyway.)

I realize that this is off topic, but why?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 06 December 2010 01:02:09AM 0 points [-]

It has to do with the social exchange of "bar bets" (I don't actually hang out at bars, but that's the trope; similar things happen in a lot of contexts). If I'm among friends (that is, it's an iterated arrangement) and I flatly refuse to participate just on the grounds that there has to be a catch somewhere, without being able to articulate a good theory for what the catch is, I lose status that may well be worth more to me than the bet was.

Comment author: DSimon 06 December 2010 02:28:40PM 1 point [-]

Also, if someone says to you "I'll bet you $20 I can <whatever>", what they're really saying is "I'm going to do <whatever>, and it'll be super interesting and fun for all involved, especially if you put in $20 so as to add an element of risk to the proceedings".

The expectation is that some other night, you can bet them $20 about some interesting thing you can do.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 06 December 2010 02:32:31PM 0 points [-]

Agreed. I think we're kind of saying the same thing here, though your explanation is a lot more accessible. (I really should know better than to try to talk about social patterns when my head has been recently repatterned by software requirements specification.)