wedrifid comments on Rationality Quotes: March 2011 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Alexandros 02 March 2011 11:14AM

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

Comments (383)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 04 March 2011 06:57:05AM 0 points [-]

And if, as in the social situations where I have heard the phrase applied, the system emerges from the various players, then changing the players is ultimately the only way to change the game.

Not so. At least, not without redefining the game such that the 'players' include all those that would otherwise have been considered the external social environment.

Comment author: TobyBartels 04 March 2011 07:55:07AM *  2 points [-]

Yes, that depends on how widely you take "the game". Nevertheless, in the contexts where I run across the phrase, changing the players in question would suffice.

There are definitely situations where it goes differently, however. One example that came up in conversation today (without this phrase) is a draftee in a war, who is forced to shoot at people to avoid being shot. Changing all of the players in this position would work, but only if the players on both sides change at once. I would not blame such a person, if they don't actually want to be there.

So I seem to have just come to this conclusion: It's illegitimate to blame (to state the ethical culpability of) any player who doesn't want to play the game but is unable to quit. That includes a lot of examples, just not the ones where I've met this phrase.