Aharon comments on A Protocol for Optimizing Affection - Less Wrong

30 [deleted] 30 May 2012 12:38AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (114)

Comments (114)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Aharon 30 May 2012 06:22:01PM 4 points [-]

I'm really, really uncomfortable with formalizing these aspects of social behavior. I prefer affection and love to emerge slowly and naturally. Although it is absolutely opposite of your intentions, and I recognize that fact, I'm still very strongly reminded of Love Bombing. Your concept just transmits a really phyggish vibe for me.

This post in no way is meant to be a criticism (I don't see why your rules shouldn't work), I just wanted to express the emotions that emerged when reading your post - which seem kind of important, given the topic.

Comment author: [deleted] 31 May 2012 12:19:58AM 4 points [-]

Actually I'm really interested in your aversion to the formalization/hacking aspect. Do you think that is rational or just flinch-conservatism?

I know there are some places ("let's all just wirehead") where the flinch reaction is correct IMO, so I'm actually curious here.

Can you reflect and tell us more about the true source of those feelings?

Comment author: Aharon 31 May 2012 01:15:33AM *  10 points [-]

I was a member of a Tibetan Buddhist group for about 3 years. I didn't feel very comfortable for the last half year. I don't think I can accurately sum up all my experiences, but the part that is relevant to this discussion:

  • Local groups strive for harmony and affection via common activities and lots of physical contact (hugging etc.). This isn't quite as formalized as you propose, but still a deliberate part of the group structure.
  • This does work rather fast, and raises happiness (for a time for me, indefinitely for others).
  • Unfortunately, this also made it emotionally unpleasant for me to voice dissent/argue when I disagreed with something, especially when it was about something where I was the minority.
  • As a consequence, today I prefer to develop such bonds slowly.

I'm not sure how this applies to your proposed structure, but I fear that it's implementation may lead to the above, simply because people like the same things you do. You do not need to force them to participate (neither was I), but they do so out of their own free will. The negative consequence I described may still happen, if many people adopt your rules and develop Affection for a large group of people they don't know well quickly.

Comment author: [deleted] 31 May 2012 01:22:09AM 2 points [-]

Unfortunately, this also made it emotionally unpleasant for me to voice dissent/argue when I disagreed with something, especially when it was about something where I was the minority.

This is serious. I remember thinking of that. I hoped that our rationality memes and general sampled-from-contrarians makeup would be enough to counteract that. We will see.

The negative consequence I described may still happen, if many people adopt your rules and develop Affection for a large group of people they don't know well quickly.

Right. Humans are not rational. We may choose something bad for us voluntarily. I don't think my proposal is a devil's offer tho, at least not yet.

Comment author: Andy_McKenzie 31 May 2012 04:24:01AM 2 points [-]

Steven Hassan and Keith Henson are among the other cult critics to write about love bombing, postulating that it is similar, in terms of effects on neutrotransmitters within the brain, emotional state, and conduct, to the administration of drugs of abuse, temporarily producing intense euphoria when under its influence, and encouraging the actions from which the stimulus was derived

This is not a strong argument. Everything is like cocaine.

Comment author: [deleted] 30 May 2012 10:54:48PM 0 points [-]

Thanks! I tried to keep it as far from phygish forced-bonding as possible.

Your perspective is helpful.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit