JRMayne comments on The Value (and Danger) of Ritual - Less Wrong

29 Post author: Raemon 30 December 2011 06:52AM

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

Comments (68)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: JRMayne 31 December 2011 01:09:14AM 1 point [-]

If we feel an urge to hit the enemy tribesman with a huge rock and take their land, we can and should say “No, there are >complex game theoretical reasons why this is a bad idea” and suppress the urge.

I may be misreading this, but I don't see it that way. There aren't complex reasons not to do that; there are relatively simple reasons not to kill people and take their stuff. The phrase sounds, to me, like, "Something bad may happen to me by engaging in this warlike behavior," but I think this is wrong both practically and normatively. Practically, whomping people has been successful for those with superior whomping power. Normatively, it's a utilitarian net loss to whomp people and take their stuff.

It's surely possible that I've misread this in some important way.

Comment author: Raemon 31 December 2011 09:08:14AM 2 points [-]

Practically, whomping people has been successful for those with superior whomping power. Normatively, it's a utilitarian net loss to whomp people and take their stuff.

I don't think we're disagreeing on anything important. "Normatively, it's a utilitarian net loss to X" seems relatively complex to me, but the statement wasn't hinging on how complicated the reason was.

Comment author: [deleted] 05 January 2012 12:12:26PM *  0 points [-]

Normatively, it's a utilitarian net loss to whomp people and take their stuff.

Not really, if you are better at using their stuff.

Comment author: homunq 19 April 2012 03:26:57PM 0 points [-]

By more than a whomp-worth. Or two whomp-worths, if they whomp back. Or maybe more if there's multiple retaliations.