= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Peterdjones comments on Scientific Self-Help: The State of Our Knowledge - 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 (493)
That's a virtually meaningless comment. There are many kinds of lying, and many are socially approved of.
There are also many kinds of stupidity, violence, and other potentially-bad things that are socially approved of. If we grant that social approval is evidence that those kinds are net good, that's still not very relevant to whether the grandparent is meaningful.
The content / meaning I got from the grandparent is approximately: "Don't think of facebook tweaking as a free +1 agreeableness potion, think of it as more like (closer in conceptspace) lying and less like traditional costly sociability signaling". Perfectly valid and meaningful, as far as I can tell.
No judgment from me as to whether that's good advice, since I don't know well how facebook profiles tie in to social dynamics and all that, though.
I wasn't arguing "net good, therefore meaningless", i was arguing that lying of various kinds is pervasive and sometimes beneficial, it is far too simplistic to argue "lying degrades the signal, and is therefore bad".
And I argued that this is irrelevant to the claim that you were apparently arguing against.
I don't see that claim being made directly, and there's only a hint of it in connotation. Going further up the comment thread, I can see that MugaSofer apparently believes that having correct information on this is important and that lying is in this case bad, but this is not (as far as I can tell) appealed-to anywhere as argument for the claims in the comment you called "meaningless".
So I don't see the two claims as being causally related, and certainly not something of the form quoted above. If this is implied, it is not obvious to me and I would ask for clarification or more explanation, rather than assume it implicitly and argue against (what is then most likely) a strawman.
Lying, in general, is considered Bad. Of course, Bad Things may have benefits that outweigh their Badness, such as telling kids Santa is real or their pet hamster went on holiday. Whether society is right to consider lying itself Bad or these examples as net wins regardless are not the point; the point is that we should treat "false signals" the way we treat lies (as Bad, generally, but if you think lies are inherently good my point still works.) Lying, of course, is simply a verbal "false signal".
I'll say it again:both false non-verbal signals and verbal lies are asbsolutely pervasive in some contexts, eg most women wear makeup.There is a syndrome whereby lying degrqades infromation for everybody, and there is another syndrome where everyone exagerates their posiive atttributes, so that honest people end up looking worse than they are since a certain quantity of exageration is expected and compensated for. That applies to facebook. Everyone on FB has exagerated their sociability, and everyone takes that into account.
If everyone is taking it into account, then exaggerating your sociability in your profile is sending an accurate signal, and not doing so will mislead viewers into underestimating your sociability.
Not necessarily. What can happen is that there are two functions that rely on sociability, one of which is relative/zero-sum and the other of which isn't. So you wind up in situations where, if you overreport your sociability, you send out signals that cause others to correctly gauge your relative sociability but incorrectly overestimate your static sociability, whereas if you don't overreport, they correctly gauge your static sociability but incorrectly understimate your relative sociability.
Basically, if everyone is exaggerating their signals, you can't just assume that it gets corrected for if there are any non-zero-sum aspects to the signaled-for trait, since you get a Lake Woebegone Effect.
I was not assuming that the only kind of correction is through zero-sum effects. if all men over-report their heught (to be polite) that is not zero zum, but listeners can still substract the extra inch or whatever.
Peterdjones specifically claimed that people were taking the universal exaggeration into account in their estimations. If he is correct in this, then it's not deceptive to exaggerate. If he is incorrect, then it is deceptive, which is the hypothetical I was discussing in the first place, so see my comments above.