lukeprog comments on The Power of Agency - Less Wrong

60 Post author: lukeprog 07 May 2011 01:38AM

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

Comments (73)

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

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 07 May 2011 04:31:02AM 21 points [-]

I radically distrust the message of this short piece. It's a positive affirmation for "rationalists" of the contemporary sort who want to use brain science to become super-achievers. The paragraph itemizing the powers of agency especially reads like wishful thinking: Just pay a little more attention to small matters like fixity of purpose and actually acting in your own interest, and you'll get to be famous, rich, and a historical figure! Sorry, that is entirely not ruthless enough. You also need to be willing to lie, cheat, steal, kill, use people, betray them. (Wishes can come true, but they usually exact a price. ) It also helps to be chronically unhappy, if it will serve to motivate your extreme and unrelenting efforts. And finally, most forms of achievement do require domain-specific expertise; you don't get to the top just by looking pretty and statusful.

The messy, inconsistent, and equivocating aspects of the mind can also be adaptive. They can save you from fanaticism, lack of perspective, and self-deception. How often do situations really permit a calculation of expected utility? All these rationalist techniques themselves are fuel for rationalization: I'm employing all the special heuristics and psychological tricks, so I must be doing the right thing. I've been so focused lately, my life breakthrough must be just around the corner.

It's funny that here, the use of reason has become synonymous with "winning" and the successful achievement of plans, when historically, the use of reason was thought to promote detachment from life and a moderation of emotional extremes, especially in the face of failure.

Comment author: lukeprog 07 May 2011 05:40:37AM *  8 points [-]

You also need to be willing to lie, cheat, steal, kill, use people, betray them.

This if false.

most forms of achievement do require domain-specific expertise; you don't get to the top just by looking pretty and statusful.

Yes. And domain-specific expertise is something that can be learned and practiced, by applying agency to one's life. I'll add it to the list.

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 07 May 2011 06:31:49AM 9 points [-]

You also need to be willing to lie, cheat, steal, kill, use people, betray them.

This is false.

If we are talking about how to become rich, famous, and a historically significant person, I suspect that neither of us speaks with real authority. And of course, just being evil is not by itself a guaranteed path to the top! But I'm sure it helps to clear the way.

Comment author: lukeprog 07 May 2011 06:38:08AM 6 points [-]

I'm sure it helps to clear the way.

Sure. I'm only disagreeing with what you said in your original comment.

Comment author: wedrifid 07 May 2011 06:44:08AM *  8 points [-]

You also need to be willing to lie, cheat, steal, kill, use people, betray them.

This if false.

I would say 'overstated'. I assert that most people who became famous, rich and a historical figure used those tactics. More so the 'use people', 'betray them' and 'lie' than the more banal 'evils'. You don't even get to have a solid reputation for being nice and ethical without using dubiously ethical tactics to enforce the desired reputation.

Comment author: katydee 07 May 2011 08:19:49AM 4 points [-]

Personally, I find that being nice and ethical is the best way to get a reputation for being nice and ethical, though your mileage may vary.

Comment author: wedrifid 07 May 2011 11:02:44AM *  13 points [-]

Personally, I find that being nice and ethical is the best way to get a reputation for being nice and ethical, though your mileage may vary.

I don't have a personal statement to make about my strategy for gaining a reputation for niceness. Partly because that is a reputation I would prefer to avoid.

I do make the general, objective level claim that actually being nice and ethical is not the most effective way to gain that reputation. It is a good default and for many, particularly those who are not very good at well calibrated hypocrisy and deception, it is the best they could do without putting in a lot of effort. But it should be obvious that the task of creating an appearance of a thing is different to that of actually doing a thing.