= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Oscar_Cunningham comments on The Santa deception: how did it affect you? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (200)
The reason why the reversal test so often defeats status-quo bias is that the defender of the status-quo inevitably thinks that we currently have just the right level of whatever (they don't want it to move in either direction) and therefore has to provide some plasible mechanism as to how we arrived at a local optimum.
However here there is an obvious such mechanism, society just added fictions until parents decided we had enough. Note that there are several such fables: the Tooth Fairy, the Bogeyman, the Easter Bunny, and the various superstitions people often teach to children, such as not stepping on the cracks in the pavement.
However, were the parents optimizing for what it is we'd actually want them to optimize for regarding that?
Yes I can imagine someone defusing my challenge that way. Good point. I'll get you yet Santa Claus!
So what if we removed all such fable stories (in the sense that we allow our kids to believe them)? Would it be a good idea to add them back into society?
I am enough of a consequentialist to be reluctant to answer ethical questions about counterfactuals so different from reality that they destabilize my intuitions about likely consequences.
This strikes me as such a counterfactual: not only can I not imagine any way of removing such "fable stories" in the first place, I can't imagine any way of preventing humans from creating a new set of myths.. at least, not without altering human social cognition in sufficiently major ways that the removal of fable stories became inconsequential by comparison.
I'd be convinced otherwise by a credible account of a culture that had no such stories, though.
So all I can really say is, it would be a good idea to add them back in if doing so made life better for people, and not otherwise, and I have no idea which would be the case.
I infer from the question, perhaps incorrectly, that you have a firmer ethical belief about this than I. If I'm right: is that because you have a clearer belief about the likely consequences (if so, I'm interested in your model), or because you're a deontologist on the matter, or for some other reason?
I was honestly just curious to hear you expand on the topic. I don't have an answer that's better than yours. Thank you.