= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kaj_Sotala comments on The Dark Arts: A Beginner's Guide - 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 (43)
I think we should define "Dark Arts" and "unethical" before we start labeling things as such. We've never really discussed what the term even means, and I don't think it's a good idea to start assuming that things are Dark Arts before we know what that means.
For instance, I'm not sure whether "make sure your partner thinks you are like them" should be classed as DA. Yes, it makes somebody more likely to accept your argument on non-rational grounds, but is it really more ethical to not seem like them, and thus take a non-rational penalty to your chances of having your argument believed?
The alternative isn't to not seem like them, the alternative is to not seem like anything. All of the examples are insincere, primarily because they're premeditated. To the degree that insincerity is unethical, they are also unethical.
Including "be simple"?
I think people put waaaay too much weight on the idea that people have and express intrinsic properties.
Sincerity in the way that you seem to be mentioning it (avoiding intentionally changing your behavior to achieve a particular goal) does not seem to me to be a priori good.
If that's the way you're using the word, then being considerate is being insincere, since the person decides to be considerate.
I don't think insincerity is as simple as that. It involves a value-judgement in itself. A simple way to look at it is, what if you were asked to explain what you're doing? What if you take somebody for a walk to increase their cognitive load or use a particular rhetorical tactic and get called on it? Could you give a reason, without lying, that the person would find acceptable?
Isn't "the dark arts" defined as "intentional use of modal failures of rational thought in people to achieve one's goals"?
I can't see how using "modal failures of rational thought" to cure these same failures can be a bad thing.
Exploiting other's irrationality needn't be irrational.
Tricking a bankrobber into thinking you're on his side so you can help the police capture him, for example. Using aggressive sales tactics to commit people to the idea of reading at least the "best" of the Sequences by first asking them to read all of the Sequences, for example (It's only fair, right? I mean, I'm cutting back on my wants, maybe you could do the same?) -- etc., etc..
And that's only if you're not being a dick. Nothing about rationality says you must be a good person.
The Dark Arts are not inherently unethical, but the way they are used often is.
This is not as clear as you think. Keep in mind Eliezer's objections to lying described here apply equally well to using the dark arts.