LESSWRONG
is fundraising!
LW
$

Comment Permalink
Eliezer Yudkowsky130

In this case? Yes. Even if the Nazis had Omega-like powers, you'd still want to fool them - they're not any sort of game-theoretic counterpart who you wish would trust your honesty. I'm not entirely sure I'm describing all the factors here, but this scenario doesn't even feel to me like it's about the quantity ordinarily known as honesty, there is no bond you are breaking.

The proper form of this scenario is if a Nazi soldier who's feeling conflicted comes to you and says he wants to talk to you, but only if you vow silence. You do, and he tells you that he suspects there's a Jewish family next door. He gives you a chance to talk him out of turning them in. You fail. Do you warn the family next door? Now that's a dilemma of honesty with someone else's life at stake.

And of course it can get even worse. E.g. Knut Haukelid.

Reply
Paul Crowley10

I don't see the Haukelid comparison. Haukelid maximised for expected lives saved; here it's clear what decision does that, but the cost is that you wouldn't be in a position to do that if the other party had known that's what you would do.

Reply
3Demosthenes
"To tell the truth is a duty, but is a duty only with regard to the man who has a right to the truth." Kant disagrees and seems to warn that the principle of truth telling is universal; you can't go around deciding who has a right to truth and who does not. Furthermore, he suggests that your lie could have terrible unforeseen consequences. Lie to the Nazis who you feel "don't deserve the truth" and then they end up treating everyone on the rest of the block like liars and sending all sorts of people to the concentration camps or outright killing them because its not worth trying to ferret out truth etc..etc..etc... Eliezer: When I was reading through your other article I thought the "fate of the world" part suggested that not lying should be the basis for a universalizable duty like Kant's. The existence of a future "Fate of the world" event makes it seem like you are getting at the same unforeseen consequences point as The Big K -is this accurate? I am concerned that deciding on who is rational enough to treat honestly is a slippery slope. Personally, this seems like a point where you take a metaphysical stand, rationally work your way through the options within your axiomatic system and then apply your rational program to the choice at hand. I am more utilitarian than Kant, but it is not hard to ignore "proximity" and come up with a cost/benefit calculation that agrees with him.
6MBlume
Can the world be so easily partitioned into those we simply wish to fool, and those with whom we might need to cooperate? Is there a simple, parsimonious precommitment to honesty that allows for fooling nazis, taking confessions, and being believed when we point out global risks? I guess that's what this post was getting at.
See in context
by CharlieSheen
1 min read
13

-26

Someone self immolates and explicitly states it is a form of political protest in Megdad. What a crazy regime! 
Someone self immolates and explicitly states it is a form of political protest in Hometown. What a crazy person!


Edit: What -5 already? What is giving an example of how people never take the outside view of their own society that bad a topic for the discussion section? Also disclaimer both Hometown State and Megdadistan Republic are fictional countries and no actual examples where given, to avoid mind killers.

2nd Edit: Wow I really need to spell this out? The media of Hometown are more likley to treat an immolation in Megdad as due to a legitimate grievance worthy of attention and down play any mental health problems or details that might paint the person in an unflattering light compared to someone who self-immolates in Hometown. And I think this effect is mostly not due to government enforced censorship or pressure.

 

Noble act of defiant self-sacrifice is far. Suicidal crazies are near.

 

The only way to get good coverage to acheive social change is to count on foreign media to paint a kind picture of you. And supposing your people care about what the media of Megdad say about your country.

3rd Edit: -15 Pretty clear that I'm wrong .

Personal Blog

-26

Only selfimmolate if you care about what foreigners think
New Comment
13 comments, sorted by
top scoring
Click to highlight new comments since:
[-]ArisKatsaris210

Self-immolation in Tunisia seems to be what recently provided the spark that caused the whole country to rise up against its rulers.

So frankly, you're being historically ignorant. Ludicrously so given how recent the real counterexample is. Moreover you're trying to provide fictional evidence in an attempt to support your point, and you somehow think you actually gave an "example".

No. If you want to open a discussion about the topic, either you ought use some actual evidence, or atleast you ought put slightly more effort to your fiction, to make it remotely interesting or believable or insightful.

You've just earned a downvote from me as well.

Reply
[-]CharlieSheen50

You do realize there have been plenty of self-immolations in the West and elsewhere that have sparked no such things in the past decades (example: an American man self-immolated to protest family courts not more than a little over a month ago)?

I'll say they can be a spark, but that's all they are. Sooner or later another one would be there. Had media censorship been more thorough, or had the Western media not picked up on it and showcased it as another example of how horrible those places are it would not have had such an effect. Or had the people simply not cared about what Western media say in the same way most Americans don't care about what Russian media say about them.

Well I suppose generalising from one example is better than fictional evidence... except that I assumed my fictional evidence was a summation of common knowledge. Apparently its not. The vast majority of people who self-immolate and explicitly state that it is for political reasons do not spark any kind of change. And the majority of those who have or at least become notable have had the sympathy and later foreign support for their causes.

Using it as an instrument of change even in unstable times is the equivalent of buying a lottery ticket. Due to media bias its only a usable tactic if foreign media pick up on it and people care what these foreign media say.

Reply
[-]ArisKatsaris30

You do realize there have been plenty of self-immolations in the West and elsewhere that have sparked no such things in the past decades (example: an American man self-immolated to protest family courts not more than a little over a month ago)?

But he probably sparked even less of a change in how foreigners think of America. The fact that nobody over here (in Greece) heard of this American man -- what does it suggest to you about the veracity of your claim that foreigners' opinions are the only valid reason for a self-immolation?

The vast majority of people who self-immolate and explicitly state that it is for political reasons do not spark any kind of change.

A rather obvious observation.

But that's not the position you took in your post. You stated instead "Only selfimmolate if you care about what foreigners think" -- clearly indicating that you believe self-immolation has more of an effect of foreign opinion than on local opinion.

That's a far different and far stronger claim than "most self-immolations don't lead to revolutions".

Had media censorship been more thorough, or had the Western media not picked up on it and showcased it as another example of how horrible those places are it would not have had such an effect. Or had the people simply not cared about what Western media say in the same way most Americans don't care about what Russian media say about

Are you positing that the Tunisians had their revolution primarily because they cared what western media would think of Tunisia? Is this the claim you're making?

Reply
[-]CharlieSheen00

But he probably sparked even less of a change in how foreigners think of America. The fact that nobody over here (in Greece) heard of this American man -- what does it suggest to you about the veracity of your claim that foreigners' opinions are the only valid reason for a self-immolation?

I didn't say that such protest always sparks interest abroad, only that when it does its far more likley to receive sympathetic coverage than when it sparks interest at home.

But you do have a point. Perhaps Greece isn't really foreign? It probably has family court practices not that different in their basic premsies. A criticism of say American principles is a also a criticism of Greek family court practices. Also Greek media probably take their ques from major respectable Western sources on what to emphasise, at least the media in my country do. Western media share a pretty uniform outlook when it comes to institutional criticism compared to kinds of instiutional criticism that say Iranian or Chinese media would emphasise.

Or maybe Greeks have far more pressing issues dominating the media landscape at this point?

But that's not the position you took in your post. You stated instead "Only selfimmolate if you care about what foreigners think" -- clearly indicating that you believe self-immolation has more of an effect of foreign opinion than on local opinion.

That's a far different and far stronger claim than "most self-immolations don't lead to revolutions".

When it has effected change in the past this has been true.

Are you positing that the Tunisians had their revolution primarily because they cared what western media would think of Tunisia? Is this the claim you're making?

Tunisians would have not revolted had all the media they where following told them there is nothing to get worked up over.

Reply
[-]ArisKatsaris30

Perhaps Greece isn't really foreign?

It's your theory, what does "foreign" mean in your theory? Right now you seem to me to be fudging the evidence so that they fit into your theory, instead of letting the evidence verify or reject the theory.

A criticism of say American principles is a also a criticism of Greek family court practices.

So is your theory now that it's not about whether something is near or far, local or foreign, but rather about the specific principles attacked or supported by said self-immolation?

Tunisians would have not revolted had all the media they where following told them there is nothing to get worked up over.

And yet you imply that Tunisians are mainly following Western media? Your argument might make sense if it specified Al Jazeera instead, which the Arab world indeed follows and which is indeed foreign media to Tunisia (it's Qatar-based) -- but if you consider Greece non-foreign to America, even though Greece and America have different religions, different languages, even different alphabets... you probably don't consider Qatar foreign to Tunisia (both Sunni Muslim-majority nations that speak Arabic).

Reply
[-][anonymous]70

What Aris said. Also, outside view is predicting behavior based on typical cases of a reference class. If you think, "This self-immolation will trigger a successful revolution because from the last 20 self-immolation cases, 15 did just that.", then you're taking the outside view.

Reply
[-]CharlieSheen-20

Its overwhelmingly obvious that most people who feel that they are selfimmolating as a form of poltiical protest, and most people who state that they are selfimmolating as a form of poltiical protest acheive nothing, unless...

Reply
[-]orthonormal40

I might have retweeted the original four sentences if they came up on Twitter, but a tweet usually isn't enough for a good Less Wrong post. I think that many of these downvotes are due to the form rather than the content.

Reply
[-]ArisKatsaris40

3rd Edit: -15 Pretty clear that I'm wrong .

The main problem isn't that you're wrong in your conclusion (though I think you are) , but that you don't bother telling us how the evidence ought lead to that conclusion. You just make unsupported assertions both in your claims of what is, and your claims of what people ought do.

LessWrong is a site about refining the art of rationality -- in both the discovery of truth, and the pursuit of utility. Explain to us how your conclusions are correct about the former and the latter: don't just make unsupported assertions and expect us to applaud.

Reply
[-]ArisKatsaris30

I really need to spell this out? The media of Hometown are vastly more likley to treat an immolation in Megdad as due to a legitimate grievance worthy of attention and down play any mental health problems or details that might paint the person in an unflattering light compared to someone who self-immolates in Hometown.

So basically your position summarizes to "a nation's establishment is more likely to control the media of that same nation instead of the media of a foreign nation?" That's indeed highly probable, yes.

Noble act of defiant self-sacrifice is far. Suicidal crazies are near.

Does that mean that Palestinians are more likely to see Palestinian suicide bombers as "suicidal crazies" and less likely as "noble and defiant self-sacrificing heroes" than an American is? Palestinians are far from America, and near to other Palestinians, so isn't that the sort of prediction that your near/far theory about sacrifice vs crazies would make?

Reply
[-][anonymous]20

Someone self immolates and explicitly states it is a form of political protest in Megdad. What a crazy regime! Someone self immolates and explicitly states it is a form of political protest in Hometown. What a crazy person!

I actually like this quote. But this isn't something you write by itself as an article, even on discussion. Also what ArisKatsaris said.

Reply
[-][anonymous]00

You could do with less certainty for your evidenceless claims

Reply
[-]Dorikka00

Failure to parse.

Reply
Moderation Log
13Comments