= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pedanterrific comments on 9/11 as mindkiller - 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 (111)
That's an interesting article and I thank you for linking it, but the issue was never the truth value of any particular factual claim. It's just, when I offer as a synthesis of your point "You have more to lose than you stand to gain" and your response amounts to "Too specific", I have to think you're actually saying something along the lines of "All altruism is counterproductive" which is horribly depressing whether or not it's true.
Again, I'm just remarking on how something appears to me. And maybe implicitly asking you to refute the point or explain how you deal with it.
It's not all counterproductive, I'm not saying that for two reasons.
First, I was only speaking about decision making and considering the odds of various future outcomes. Obviously, no mater what one's intentions are or how poorly decisions are made, things may work out very well.
Second, I am claiming that it is usually the case that there is more to lose than to gain, that building things takes more work than destroying things. It can still be best to be altruistic.
Consider two six sided dice, one with sides numbered 6-5-4-2-1-1 and one with sides numbered 3-2-2-2-2-2. If I offered you dollars equal to the result of the roll of a die, and the opportunity to roll either, you would probably choose to roll the first, even though its worst case scenario is worse.