= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
sevenlier comments on The ethics of breaking belief - 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 (125)
I'm going to describe such a conversation (the first of what would, I think, be many) for a girl who I will call Jane, though that is not her name. Some background: Jane is a devout Catholic, an altar girl, a theology major, a performer of the singing-acting-dancing type, and one of the bubbliest people I know. She is also firmly against gay marriage, abortion, premarital sex, and consumption of alcohol or other drugs (though for some reason she has no problem with consumption of shellfish). You may have read the previous two sentences and thought "there's a lot of sexual repression going on there" and you would be quite correct, though she would never admit that. Here is what I would say and do. Don't take the wording too literally; I'm not that good.
tld: (At an appropriate moment) Jane, I have a very personal question for you.
J: Okay, shoot.
tld: It's about God.
J: Oh dear. I'm listening.
tld: So God exists. And he's up there, somewhere, shouting down that he loves us. But if tomorrow morning he suddenly vanished - just ceased to exist, packed up and left town, whatever - would you want to know?
J: I - uh - gosh. That would go against everything God's said, about how he would never abandon us- tld: I know. But just think of it as a counterfactual question. God leaves, or vanishes. Do you want to know? J: I don't know. It's - I just can't imagine that happening.
tld: taking Jane's hand, gentle smile Hey. Don't let it rattle you. Just remember, here in the real world, God's up there somewhere, and he loves us, and he would never abandon us.
J: I love hearing you say that.
tld: Sure. So in the real world, nothing to worry about. But over there in the imaginary, fake world - God vanishes. Would you want to know?
J: Well... I guess so. Because otherwise it's just living a lie, isn't it?
tld: Right. squeeze hand softly I'm glad you agree, it's very brave and honest of you to be able to say that. So the follow-up question is, what would change, in that world?
J: What do you mean?
tld: Well, God was there, and now he's left that world behind. So it's a world without God - what changes, what would be different about the world if God weren't in it?
J: I can't imagine a world without God in it.
tld: Well, let's look at it the other way, then. Let's imagine another world, just like the first two except that it never had a God in the first place, and then God shows up. He came from the other world, the first one we imagined, to give this new world some of His light, right? reassuring squeeze
J: squeeze back Okay...
tld: So God comes into this new world, and the first thing he does is make it a better place, right? That's what God does, he makes the world a better place.
J: Yeah! Yeah, exactly. God makes the world a better place.
tld: So God comes down himself, or sends down His son, and feeds the poor and heals the sick, and pretty soon the world is better off because God is there.
J: Of course.
tld: Great! smile So let's think about the other world, the one that got left behind, for a second. What would you do, if you were there?
J: What? (shocked)
tld: Well, the you in the other world finds out there's no God anymore, and that's that. So what would you do? lean in, squeeze hand again There must be some things you'd dare to do that you wouldn't otherwise.
J: pause, blush Um. Well. I don't know. I'd have to think about it.
tld: Right, it's a hard question. final hand squeeze, lean back But I hope you'll think about it, for the next time we talk, and let me know what you've come up with. I've actually got to run, it's getting kind of late (or other excuse for why I need to leave, etc)
Proceed to wait until she brings the subject up again, or bring it up again later myself.
So, yes. The above conversation has two purposes, which are (a) to plant the idea of dealing with a world where God doesn't exist, and (b) to remind Jane that there are things she wants but can't have because of her faith so that she has a reason, though unspoken, to want to be rid of it; there are a couple of other things going on as well which I'm sure faul_sname will cringe at, but that's the gist. Intended arc of development: A few months' worth of working on a truth-seeking mindset, possibly more work on building rapport and position-of-authority mojo, and eventually the Jenga moment, which it's difficult to plan out precisely in advance. And yes, I realize that playing on sexual tension to manipulate someone's beliefs is, in a word, disgusting. I did say Dark Arts for a reason.
The other two people who've been weighing on my mind are let's-call-him-James and let's-call-her-Mary, for whom the intended sequence is a little different (neither of them has an easily-accessible repressed-sexuality motivator) but you get the idea, I think.
Obvious solution:
Give her all the comments from here (or point her to your post here), saying it's you (I checked that your past posting offers no other reason for avoiding this). If your influence/friendship/etc with her is not destroyed by the truth, you may carry on.
Dumbest line in your post: "though for some reason she has no problem with consumption of shellfish"
Go back and read Gwen in his experiment. Older posts suggest bias (http://lesswrong.com/lw/bs0/knowledge_value_knowledge_quality_domain/6db0), even ignoring complete stupidity of actual result. Gwern's been here a while. Gwern expresses potential martyrdom for LessWrongian principles (http://lesswrong.com/lw/c5f/case_study_testing_confirmation_bias/6hw2) to approbation, but then is shocked by even the mildest of pushback (http://lesswrong.com/lw/c5f/case_study_testing_confirmation_bias/6i9i), and reasons like an idiot. The legalistic parsing of "quoting" also moderately disgusting.
Serious question: If Gwern had access to personal info on you in a professional capacity (e.g., private e-mails as Sys Admin or some such), would you trust him not to misuse it? (as you would define "misuse", and he might not)
TLD, here is my conclusion to your story.
J, after reading this exchange: How could he think that about me? I would never think that way about him. This really hurts (tearing up). Is this really what people think about me?
All truthful, moreso than you. Your interaction with J should be humble, perhaps with a bit of self discovery: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/05/what-use-far-truth.html
In any event, as appropriate punishments, I call your behavior Gwernian.
Explicitly declaring "I am going to try to convert you" to any of these people would definitely eliminate or minimize all potential avenues of influence, and I do not think I am nearly subtle enough to work around that. Still, if I understand what you're saying correctly, it's more an issue of informed consent of study participants than of letting people decide whether they want their buttons pushed. Is that an accurate understanding of your perspective?
Not really, although it's a more careful reading than I expected. I think that would be a distinction without a difference. No, as with Gwern, I think the main issue here is you. What sort of person is Gwern training himself to be?
Like Gwern, you act like you're conducting a study on someone, but it's really just two people talking. Pretend, for a moment, the other person is actually much smarter than you and conducting a test of the exact same principle you are testing. In Gwern's case, that leads to a much more interesting interpretation of the incident, since he's clearly horribly biased (the test really does have a result). In your case, you're not at all truth-seeking. I would advise you seek to truth in your relationship with J first (either by self-modification or greater honesty of the unmodified)
Here's my frivolous question: How old are you and how old is J? (you can make it approximate if you think it would reveal personal info).
Both twenty-one. But that is a less useful statistic than emotional maturity, which I think is what you're getting at, so I should note that there is a definite discrepancy in terms of how well we handle feelings - I have a great deal more emotional control than does she. So despite being the same age, there is a power imbalance in a sense similar to the one you're asking about. Of the two undescribed parties, one is older than me (22) and one is younger (19).
Actually, I don't quite have to pretend that the other parties are attempting manipulation in the other direction; they've all been fairly transparent in their attempts (albeit with varying degrees of persistence; of the three, J sits in the middle in terms of time spent attempting to convert me).
No, the pretense is not that they're trying to manipulate you in the other direction, but that they're manipulating your manipulation. That is, Gwern was being tested on his fairness as a experimenter of fairness. You are being tested on your truth-seeking as an experimenter in truth-seeking. Of course, you are, just not by J.
I had two reasons for asking about age (you're right on one). Your narrative sounded pretty juvenile even in its self-description. I was hoping that was true (for both your sakes).
Here's another game for you to play: Your brain learns whereof you know not. What general rules is it learning as you interact with J? Someday, if you're luck enough, you can plan on being quite slow. The virtues you currently rely on (roughly: quick-witted) will have left you. You should be investing as quickly as you can in cultivating other personal virtues. Don't plan on the world changing enough that that can be avoided. I can't seem to avoid a patronizing attitude (bad sign for me, similarly: I'm out).
Is there a reason you're spawning a horde of sockpuppets?
Not really. I listed some reasons elsewhere, but they're pretty arbitrary (which was more or less the point). Also, not sockpuppets in the conventional sense since clearly not disguised and I will never count backwards.
Then please stop; this gives you the power to vote ten times on the same post, and whether or not you use that power, it damages trust in the karma system.
You make an interesting point. To be sure I've understood: Behave in a more truth-seeking manner in general, because if I do so I will be a more truth-seeking person in the future from force of habit, and if I do not do so then I will be less of one? If the force of habit is really so potent in cases like this then it's a very convincing argument; I wouldn't want to give up the ability to be rational just to be a tiny bit better at manipulation.
Yup. I think "force of habit" undersells it, except to the extent you are a collection of habits. Plus trying to encourage truth-seeking as opposed to truth-labeling as a goal. That is, the phrase you like is "We often say, here, that that which can be destroyed by the truth should be"
But you're not destroying her belief by the truth, you're destroying a belief and replacing it with the truth (ish). At least, as you describe yourself. Other stuff (that is, I think this is one of dozens of arguments for why this way of thinking is foolish: more interesting to me is the degree to which the sensible upvoted comments on this page - be nicer and more respectful - lack explication or mechanism).
Okay. Thank you very much for your insight; I do appreciate it.