Eugine_Nier comments on I've had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions - Less Wrong

26 Post author: Multiheaded 25 January 2012 05:43PM

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

Comments (857)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Multiheaded 19 March 2012 10:48:28PM *  0 points [-]

Akrasia's a big problem for me.

Me too, but I'd hate, hate, hate someone running my life beyond the basic (friendly) pressure to study and give a helping hand that my parents put on me, so I'd consider it hypocritical to support a system of direct coercion in society, like the apprenticeship in medieval guilds.

Of course it's a shame if people, through mistakes or demotivation, can't set foot upon a path contributive to society, but I consider it to be beneath the modern civilization to just drag people to where some expert wants them to be. There should be some kind of positive stimulus for everyone that's simultaneously not turning things into a ruthless meritocratic race (e.g. the government coaxing some performance out of unmotivated young people with harmless drugs instead of the career and status they don't care about would still be unethical at the core).

That's one of the reasons why I'm so attracted to Socialist thought; it has wrestled long and hard with the problem of motivation, although it has produced nothing solid but various criticism of the existing solutions.

a more authoritarian parent who set goals and boundaries and so on

It's very understandable that you don't want to disclose private things, but this sentence tells nothing. What kinds of "goals" or "boundaries" would you consider acceptable, and from whom? (If the answers are like "Don't smoke weed while you live with your parents if they order you not to, although it shouldn't concern the government", then your view is utterly mainstream, of course. If it's "Parents can forbid you to look at any porn until you're 18 just because it's in the law", then I disagree. Sexual excitement is a basic human need while drugs aren't. Although some personality types DO seem to need an addiction, maybe for an additional reward structure in their life, more than others. Mine is INFP by the way, what's yours?)

EDIT: Dear downvoter, please cut this out. If you really, really want to punish me for "feeding the troll", look through my post history and downvote the less worthy ones, or reserve the downvote for future bad comments, but don't screw with the community's assessment of these ones. If my comment feels like an 1 or a -1 to LW, I hate it when someone turns it into a 0 and -2 according to some general principle unrelated to the content.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 21 March 2012 11:55:10PM 2 points [-]

That's one of the reasons why I'm so attracted to Socialist thought; it has wrestled long and hard with the problem of motivation, although it has produced nothing solid but various criticism of the existing solutions.

The reason it's spent so long wrestling with the problem is that it refuses to accept the solution, namely holding people responsible for their actions.

Comment author: Multiheaded 22 March 2012 10:18:11AM 0 points [-]

I bet that, if you saw a world where all people were truly "held responsible for their actions" (and treated as agents, of course - a cardinal sin from my perspective), you'd recoil in horror and take that back.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 23 March 2012 03:55:58AM *  3 points [-]

I bet that, if you saw a world where all people were truly "held responsible for their actions" [...], you'd recoil in horror and take that back.

Why? In this world the laws of nature already hold people responsible for people's actions, just not necessarily their own actions.

(and treated as agents, of course - a cardinal sin from my perspective)

From my perspective it is a cardinal sin not to, and given the results of capitalism vs. socialism I would argue I have a better case. Remember whether you model them as agents or not, people respond to incentives. If you refuse to treat them as agents, the incentives you give them are very likely to be perverse.

Also, I couldn't help but notice that you're treating both Aurini and myself as agents especially in this thread where you're trying to get me to repudiate Aurini's statements.