David_Gerard comments on Human errors, human values - Less Wrong

32 Post author: PhilGoetz 09 April 2011 02:50AM

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

Comments (135)

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

Comment author: David_Gerard 10 April 2011 05:49:55PM *  4 points [-]

I don't see how this is any different for folk morality than for folk physics, folk medicine, folk sociology, or any other aspect of human psychology. For my own part, I find that formalizing my intuitions (moral and otherwise) is a useful step towards identifying the biases that those intuitions introduce into my thinking.

Oh yeah. My point - if I have a point, which I may or may not do - is that you can't do it on the level of the morality itself and get good results, as that's all cached derived resuits; you have to go to metamorality, i.e. game theory (at least), not to risk going over the edge into silliness. It's possible this says nothing and adds up to normality, which is the "may not do" bit.

I'm currently reading back through abstruse game theory posts on LessWrong and particularly this truly marvellous book and realising just how damn useful this stuff is going to be in real life.

the dynamic whereby a structure that remains covert is thereby protected from attack and can operate without accountability. Moral intuitions are frequently used this way.

Free will as undiscoverability?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 10 April 2011 05:52:27PM 1 point [-]

Oh!

(blink)

That's actually a very good point. I endorse having it, should you ever do.

Comment author: David_Gerard 18 April 2011 01:51:39PM -1 points [-]

Looks like proper philosophers have been working through the notion since the 1970s. It would be annoying to have come up with a workable version of libertarianism.

Comment author: David_Gerard 10 April 2011 08:46:59PM *  -1 points [-]

Found a bit of popular science suggesting I'm on the right track about the origins. (I'm ignoring the Liberal/Conservative guff, that just detracts from the actual point and leads me to think less of the researcher.) I don't want to actually have to buy a copy of this, but it looks along the right lines.

The implication that overextending the generated rules without firmly checking against the generator's reasons leads to trouble - and is what often leads to trouble - is mine, but would, I'd hope, follow fairly obviously.

Comment author: David_Gerard 10 April 2011 05:54:39PM *  -1 points [-]

That's actually a very good point. I endorse having it, should you ever do.

I'm hoping not to have to read the entirety of LessWrong (and I thought the sequences were long) before being able to be confident I have indeed had it :-)

May I particularly strongly recommend the Schelling book. Amazing. I'm getting useful results in such practical fields as dealing with four-year-olds and surly teenagers already.

Comment author: cousin_it 11 April 2011 01:08:07PM 1 point [-]

Same here. I think Schelling's book has helped me win at life more than all of LW did. That's why I gave it such a glowing review :-)

Comment author: David_Gerard 11 April 2011 02:05:17PM -1 points [-]

Now you need to find a book that similarly pwns the field of dog training.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 10 April 2011 05:57:28PM 1 point [-]

Awesome!

I also found "Don't Shoot The Dog" very useful in those fields, incidentally.

Comment author: David_Gerard 10 April 2011 06:05:04PM 1 point [-]

"Every parent needs to learn the basics of one, avoiding a nuclear holocaust and two, dog training."