= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
saliency comments on Coercion is far - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (13)
This post is written in a stream-of-consciousness style which is hard to read. It could use a paragraph break or two. I'm still not entirely sure of exactly what "if the immediate short-term costs are what most often repress long-term action then those not saddled with the short-term costs of their long-term actions will be prone to engage in more long-term action" is trying to say in the context of this post, despite reading it multiple times.
The style makes it seem not particularly well thought-out, especially since little evidence is provided in support of the conclusions. It seems like a transcript of the way you jumped from one thought to another, without really pausing to subject those thoughts to criticism. One could just as well construct an equally flimsy explanation with the opposite conclusion: "I thought about the cliche of a school kid being forced to give up his lunch money to bullies. I thought about how he'd need to go hungry while the bullies had a good time with his cash, and thought how it is easier to force others to sacrifice then to sacrifice yourself. I thought about the visceral way in which the threat of coercion is always be present in the lives of some people, and how they have to take into account in everything they do. I also thought of the way the bullies get constant sadistic pleasure out of it and a regular infusion of extra money. Coercion is near."
Even if we were to accept the chain of reasoning, it doesn't really provide much useful information. Okay, coercion is near or it's far. So what? What should this make us anticipate that we didn't anticipate before?
Thanks for the feedback.
On readability when I say the below what do you think? "I thought that coercion may be one of the mechanisms that have enabled humans to engage and execute long term plans."
I thought of the below as a continuation of the above thesis statement. "If the immediate short-term costs are what most often repress long-term action then those not saddled with the short-term costs of their long-term actions will be prone to engage in more long-term action."
To say it a different way. People often don't engage in long-term action that are good for them because they are unable to overcome their resistance to paying the short term costs. Leaders, those in a group able to exercise coercion, are no different but have the ability to coerce members into paying the short-term costs leading them to engage in more long-term action.
This particular sentence was easy to read. The next one was not.
And this is much better than the original. In particular, the role of leaders was not originally clear.
"families patriarch"......"sacrifice for the greater good of the family that she would be coerced into making"
Is it not clear I am talking about group level dynamics?
"I'm also not sure that "short-term" and "long-term" are a good way of classifying things into near and far. For instance, ideals about improving and ennobling yourself in school are "far" and part of what motivates one to go to school, and this is a long-term objective. But the actual task of going to school in the present and actually attending the lectures and doing the exercises is "near". (And effectively studying is difficult because the near and far modes don't necessarily pull in the same direction.)"
umm yes that is what this is all predicated on.... and I am saying "coercion may be one of the mechanisms that have enabled humans to engage and execute long term plans."
It's not obvious. Certainly that's one possible interpretation, but the "I thought" structure of the post muddles this.
You started off with the sentence "I was in the subway about a month ago when saw an advert for a new show The Bourgeoisie". Obviously, the fact that you had this thought a month ago in a subway is not relevant for the rest of the post - it's just background on what started this train of thought. However, it was not clear that the forced marriage bit was not likewise just background on what led you to the next thought.
Instead, it looked like the post was just a string of separate thoughts, with no clear way of telling which ones happened to belong together and which ones were just there by accident.