= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jimrandomh comments on Akrasia, hyperbolic discounting, and picoeconomics - 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 (83)
Dark art argument. It is better to treat underlying diseases than symptoms, but akrasia is neither a disease nor a symptom, except by analogy. Using the analogy to argue that we should address things that cause akrasia, rather than akrasia itself, is a circular argument: the conclusion justifying the analogy and vise versa.
If there are things which cause akrasia which can be addressed directly, then addressing them could be an effective way of addressing akrasia. However, if the only reason these things are bad is because they cause akrasia, then whether it is better to address them or to address akrasia directly depends on which is more effective, which depends on specifics and practicalities that can't be generalized away.
A recommendation: be careful not to use "dark art argument" as a fully general counter-argument. If you see a logical flaw, state it; if you detect an attempt to manipulate, dissect it. (You did do this, but it's still a useful recommendation.) Not only is the term "dark arts" jargon and prejudicial, but the Dark Arts are such a grab-bag of tricks and traps that merely labeling some argument as "dark arts" barely adds any information at all.
Yes, I got the same impression. Annoyance's advice is vague, useless, condescending, trying to sound like it has something profound to say without being specific, sonorous-sounding, promising help without offering any. It is not, however, particularly Dark Side Epistemology.
I was thinking of your Dark Side Epistemology and Yvain's Dark Arts as two more-or-less separate things, the key difference stemming from the fact that Dark Arts are perpetrated on others and Dark Side Epistemology is perpetrated on one's self.
You're right that the phrase 'dark side' (and all other phrases of the form 'dark X') should probably be avoided. That bit was in reference to Defense Against The Dark Arts, which Annoyance's post reminded me of.
"Dark art argument."
Shibboleth applause light.
Nothing causes akrasia. There is no such thing as akrasis. 'Akrasia' is the label you apply to a phenomenon you don't understand and you really need to think about more deeply.
Here, I'll make this simple: Socrates was right. What argument is unspoken but necessary to make Socrates' statement correct?
It would probably help if you pointed out that the reason we have the illusion of akrasia is because people's built-in systems for modeling the intentions of other people, generate mistaken predictions about motivation and decisions when applied to one's self. It's sort of like looking at yourself in a funhouse mirror, and mistakenly believing you're fatter or thinner than you actually are.
In reality, it's not that you don't follow through on your will, it's that you've failed to understand (or even observe) how your behavior works in the first place, let alone how to change it. Most descriptions of akrasia and how to deal with it (including what I've read of Ainslie's so far), strike me as trying to explain how to steer a car from the back seat, by tying ropes to the front wheels, or by building elaborate walled roads to keep the car going in the right direction.
It makes me want to scream, "but you're not even looking at the dashboard or touching the controls!" Those things are not even IN the back seat.
They're looking for information in the human parts of the mind, while entirely ignoring the fact that the secrets of our behavior and decisions CAN'T be there, or animals couldn't live their entire lives without ever having a single rational, logical, or "economical" thought.
Thought is not the solution here, it's the problem. And the answers are in the FRONT seat -- in the mind-body connection. In emotions, and their somatic markers. In the internal sensory (not verbal!) representations of available choices and expected outcomes. All that equipment that was (evolutionarily) there LONG before the back-seat driver showed up and started critiquing which way the car is going.
And the back-seat driver is only confused because he thinks he's the one who's supposed to be driving... when he's really only there to wave out the window and yell at the other drivers.
And maybe persuade them... that he knows where he's going.