Vladimir_M comments on Offense versus harm minimization - Less Wrong

60 Post author: Yvain 16 April 2011 01:06AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (417)

Tags: utilitarianism

Comments (417)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: Vladimir_M 17 April 2011 11:27:52PM 15 points [-]

But I understood VM to be discussing someone who claims offense where no offense (or negligible offense) actually exists.

The crucial point is that the level of offense at a certain action -- and I mean real, sincerely felt painful offense, not fake indignation -- is not something fixed and independent of the incentives people face. This may seem counterintuitive and paradoxical, but human brains do have functions that are not under direct control of the conscious mind, and are nevertheless guided by rational calculations and thus respond to incentives. People creating drama and throwing tantrums are a prime example: their emotions and distress are completely sincere, and their state of mind couldn't be further from calculated pretense, and yet whatever it is in their brains that pushes them into drama and tantrums is very much guided by rational strategic considerations.

Comment author: Perplexed comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

Comment author: Vladimir_M 18 April 2011 12:48:42AM * 21 points [-]

You are now sneering instead of making an honest attempt to understand what I'm writing. (Although, just to be clear, it wasn't me who downvoted your comment.)

My point is not some arcane insight open only to a superior intellect. On the contrary, examples of it can be seen everywhere in regular life. Kids will throw more tantrums if it always gets them what they want -- and a kid throwing a tantrum is not acting, but under genuine distress. Similarly, when you have to deal with people who create drama over petty things, do you think a better strategy is to appease their every whim or to ignore their drama (and thus disincentivize it)? Again, people of this sort are typically not consciously calculated manipulators who fake their distress when they create drama.

Comment author: steven0461 18 April 2011 11:42:45PM 2 points [-]

So perhaps in these situations a good way to reduce hostility is to emphasize that while you're opposed to what the other party's subconscious status calculations are trying to do, you have no beef with their conscious selves. (Though often their conscious selves aren't completely innocent either.)

Comment author: drethelin 27 December 2014 01:43:45AM 1 point [-]

I think this is probably a great way to increase hostility if you say it like that, equivalent to "I know it's your time of the month but you should try to look at this reasonably"

Comment author: TobyBartels 18 April 2011 03:58:35AM 7 points [-]

And you feel that you can create disincentives against their performing this self-modification by making the annoyances even more common.

Even as a snide caricature, this is wrong. A lot of commenters here don't seem to acknowledge three responses possible to claims of offence: to capitulate to them, to ignore them, and to flout them. The last two should not be conflated; the difference between them is the difference between illustrating an article on Muhammad with pictures (scroll down, since this example leans a little bit in the direction of capitulation) and participating in Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.

Comment author: Perplexed 18 April 2011 02:29:01PM * 5 points [-]

Respectfully, I do not conflate ignoring and flouting. In a g-g-grandparent, I call these responses 'not feeding the utility monster' and 'poking it with a stick'. Capitulation would correspond to 'feeding the monster'. I implicitly advocated not feeding the monster; i.e. ignoring the claims of offense.

What I may have done, though, is to conflate VM with one of the many people here who advocate 'poking them'. If so, I plead guilty with extenuating circumstances; I was seduced by the formal beauty of a side-by-side comparison of two diagnoses of mental malfunction:

They dislike us; we dislike them.
They therefore gain utility by annoying us; we gain utility by annoying them.
They annoy us by inducing us not to draw Mohammed; we annoy them by drawing Mohammed.
But that only annoys if we want to draw Mohammed; and the other only annoys if they despise having people draw Mohammed.
So we self-modify to want to draw Mohammed; and they self-modify to feel real pain when people draw Mohammed.
We accomplish this self-modification by convincing ourselves using arguments involving slippery slopes, lines in the sand, and the defense of freedom, together with an intuitive understanding of their devious psychology and a grasp of game theory. They accomplish this self modification using arguments involving slippery slopes, lines in the sand, and defense of the faith, together with an intuitive understanding of our Satanic psychology and a grasp of game theory.
And a jolly time is had by all.

Comment author: TobyBartels 20 April 2011 08:37:32PM 0 points [-]

What I may have done, though, is to conflate VM with one of the many people here who advocate 'poking them'.

I think that this is what happened. There are people here who have advocated poking them, and I agree with you about that. But VM is not one of them.

I like your comparison.

Vladimir_M comments on Offense versus harm minimization - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (417)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (417)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login