thelittledoctor comments on The ethics of breaking belief - Less Wrong

16 Post author: thelittledoctor 08 May 2012 08:34PM

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

Comments (125)

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

Comment author: thelittledoctor 09 May 2012 11:20:32AM 2 points [-]

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?

Comment author: eightlier 09 May 2012 02:04:56PM 1 point [-]

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).

Comment author: thelittledoctor 09 May 2012 02:19:53PM 0 points [-]

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).

Comment author: eightlier 09 May 2012 02:45:50PM 1 point [-]

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).

Comment author: [deleted] 09 May 2012 02:50:59PM 5 points [-]

Is there a reason you're spawning a horde of sockpuppets?

Comment author: ninelier 09 May 2012 03:41:17PM -1 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Emile 09 May 2012 04:39:23PM 5 points [-]

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.

Comment author: thelittledoctor 09 May 2012 03:13:21PM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: ninelier 09 May 2012 03:33:41PM 5 points [-]

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).

Comment author: thelittledoctor 09 May 2012 03:49:12PM 1 point [-]

Okay. Thank you very much for your insight; I do appreciate it.