jimrandomh comments on Coercion is far - Less Wrong

-6 Post author: saliency 16 May 2011 12:37AM

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

Comments (13)

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

Comment author: jimrandomh 16 May 2011 03:05:57AM 12 points [-]

I think that by the time you get to asking "is coercion near or far", you have already gone astray; it seems like a type error. There is no particular reason for coercion, which is a broad category of actions, to be connected to the near/far distinction, which is a fuzzy classification of modes of thought. It's also a very particular, familiar type error - it's Robin Hanson's trademark confusion. I can't downvote when he does it, since Overcoming Bias doesn't have that feature, but I would.

Comment author: saliency 16 May 2011 03:55:49PM 0 points [-]

Can you give me an example of short term coercion being of benefit at the group level?

Comment author: nazgulnarsil 16 May 2011 04:00:28AM 0 points [-]

it's not so fuzzy if the dividing line has to do with which of the two main reward chemicals used by your brain is administered for different types of actions.

Comment author: Miller 16 May 2011 11:17:58AM 1 point [-]

Are you suggesting such a thing is the case?

Comment author: gjm 16 May 2011 02:02:29PM 0 points [-]

And, if so, what evidence do you know of for and against it?