wedrifid comments on We are not living in a simulation - Less Wrong

-9 Post author: dfranke 12 April 2011 01:55AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (211)

Comments (211)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 13 April 2011 07:46:30PM 2 points [-]

I am only agreeing to the specified point, which is that the stress caused to AstroCJ is a bad thing independently of social rules.

It does not follow that dfranke necessarily made a mistake of rationality, given what dfranke knew at the time, and even given what dfranke was responsible for knowing at the time (to take the criterion of responsibility up a notch).

Would it be a normal psychological reaction for dfranke now to feel guilt and apologize for the stress caused, even if dfranke has genuinely done nothing wrong? Maybe. Recall this post. Quoting:

Fourth, guilt sometimes occurs even when a person has done nothing wrong.

As a matter of fact - and here I'm re-introducing the idea of the social norm - it may be a social norm for dfranke now to apologize even if dfranke has done nothing wrong. Such a social norm could be built on top of the psychological regularity that Yvain pointed out.

Comment author: wedrifid 13 April 2011 08:01:02PM 0 points [-]

Dfranke apologising would be faux pas. Or at least it would be a strategically poor social move.

Comment author: Swimmer963 14 April 2011 01:55:51AM 2 points [-]

Dfranke apologising would be faux pas. Or at least it would be a strategically poor social move.

Really? If I unintentionally do something to offend someone, I apologize. If that holds for unintentionally bumping into someone, or spilling coffee on their shoe, then as a logical extension it holds true for things I say, whatever medium I use to say them. The relevant aspect in this case isn't what I say, it's what effect that has. If I said (or wrote) something that seemed reasonable at the time, but offended someone or hurt their feelings, then I'm sorry to have hurt their feelings. I won't necessarily censor myself forever after, or even change the things I say, but I will apologize because it's a social ritual that hopefully makes me feel less guilty and the hurt/offended party feel less offended or hurt.

Comment author: wedrifid 14 April 2011 10:09:31AM *  4 points [-]

(For the sake of abstract curiosity:)

If that holds for unintentionally bumping into someone, or spilling coffee on their shoe, then as a logical extension it holds true for things I say, whatever medium I use to say them.

I would apologise for spilling coffee on someone but not in this situation. The analogy is not a good one and definitely not one of logical deduction! Some relevant factors:

  • Astro was being obnoxious and disrespectful. (Barring a couple of exceptions that would not apply in this case) apologising to people when they are being obnoxious and disrespectful legitimises people behaving that way to you.
  • This isn't direct personal interaction going on in good faith. It's an absurd public spectacle. It's an entirely different situation and one in which people's judgement changes drastically, losing perspective. An apology here wouldn't just be
  • Give an inch and they'll take a mile. See JGWeissman's behaviour here with Constant for an illustration. An apology would be twisted into a confession of guilt. As though Dfranke actually did something wrong. (Apart from spam the forum with Qualia nonsense - I'd appreciate an apology for that!)
  • Dfranke didn't call Astro a dude - it was a guess that it was even one distinct individual and picking an arbitrary gender for the hypothesised individual isn't saying anything about Astro at all. In fact the unknown downvoter could just as easily have been me. My voting patterns (everything by Dfranke in this thread down whenever I noticed it) match exactly what he described.
  • Dfranke apologising would be a (minor) slight to all those who have defended him from perceived unjust accusations. The clear consensus (by voting pattern) is that Astro was behaving inappropriately and there was a solid base of support for Dfranke at least as far as pronoun use goes. You don't undermine that without good reason.
  • Dfranke basically isn't involved in this discussion. That's a good way to be. Some people have taken it as an excuse to push their spivak related political agenda but he has chosen not to try to desperately justify himself. Staying uninvolved is a wise move and if he did choose to make a statement it would be significant primarily as a political feature, not an instrument of furthering interpersonal harmony.
  • If Dfranke did feel guilt (or, more realistically given that it would be a response to public criticism, shame) then that is a problem of miscalibrated emotions and not something to submit to. Guilt would not be serving him in this instance and he has the opportunity to release that feeling and move the stimulus response pattern (disapproval -> shame -> supplication) one step closer to extinction.
  • Even if an apology is met with approval in the moment it is not necessarily producing an overall good outcome for you. It may get an apparently encouraging response from a minority but would not lead to being treated with respect in the future either by those people doing the encouraging or by others. You apologise when you have actually done something wrong, not because someone else tries to emotionally bully you.
Comment author: [deleted] 14 April 2011 05:52:51PM 1 point [-]

See JGWeissman's behaviour here with Costanza for an illustration.

I may have missed something, but I think the bulk of the interaction was with me, though Costanza added a comment at the end. The username similarity is pure coincidence.

Comment author: wedrifid 15 April 2011 03:03:55AM *  0 points [-]

I may have missed something, but I think the bulk of the interaction was with me, though Costanza added a comment at the end. The username similarity is pure coincidence.

That's the one! Fixed.

Comment author: Swimmer963 14 April 2011 11:29:56AM 0 points [-]

Astro was being obnoxious and disrespectful. This isn't direct personal interaction going on in good faith. It's an absurd public spectacle. It's an entirely different situation and one in which people's judgement changes drastically, losing perspective.

I guess maybe I did not read the entire comment string, since I didn't notice any 'obnoxious' comments from Astro, or much of an 'absurd public spectacle'. You may be right about that.

Dfranke basically isn't involved in this discussion. That's a good way to be. Some people have taken it as an excuse to push their spivak related political agenda but he has (wisely) chosen not to try to desperately justify himself.

Agreed!

Guilt would not be serving him in this instance and he has the opportunity to release that feeling and move the stimulus response pattern (disapproval -> shame -> supplication) one step closer to extinction.

I would still apologize. That is the person I've chosen to be (and by extension, the person I've chosen to represent myself as). It may not produce an overall 'good' outcome, but I'm not sure what you define as 'good'. I've never been treated with disrespect by people I've apologized too.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit