= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on Open Thread, May 1-15, 2012 - 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 (264)
To make sure I understand... do you predict that for any question, if a group of people G has a set of possible answers A, and G is attempting to come to consensus on one of those answers, G's ability to cooperate in that effort will anticorrelate (p > .95) with how unpleasant G's expected results of implementing any of A are?
That would surprise me, if so, but it wouldn't vastly shock me. Call it ~.6 confidence that the above is false.
I'm ~.7 confident that G's ability to cooperate in that effort would anticorrelate more strongly with the standard deviation within G of pre-existing individual identifications with political or social entities associated with a particular member of A.
It's partly so in my opinion. I expect a modest effect like that for most issues, but in a much more dramatic fashion on the most painful problems, where our instincts are highly involved and can easily tell us that all the answers are going to hurt - like sex.
Why else 'd you think that most of European classical tragic/dramatic literature touches on intimate dissatisfaction/suffering, and irrational behavior in regards to it?
Because intimate relations are really important to us, so we tell lots of stories about it.
It's also why so many popular stories are about couples getting together and living happily ever after.