= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shokwave comments on Notes on the Psychology of Power - 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 (48)
The powerful or elite are: fast-planning abstract thinkers who take action (1) in order to pursue single/minimal objectives, are in favor of strict rules for their stereotyped out-group underlings (2) but are rationalizing (3) & hypocritical when it serves their interests (4), especially when they feel secure in their power. They break social norms (5, 6) or ignore context (1) which turns out to be worsened by disclosure of conflicts of interest (7), and lie fluently without mental or physiological stress (6).
What are powerful members good for? They can help in shifting among equilibria: solving coordination problems or inducing contributions towards public goods (8), and their abstracted Far perspective can be better than the concrete Near of the weak (9).
Thanks. I've copied it in.
I applaud your voluntary performance of work that a less heroic mind might've been tempted to think was someone else's responsibility!
For the love of the heavens! It's gratitude to shokwave! I can't do a hundredth of the good ideas I have, and I've no doubt that neither can gwern.
If only you lived on a planet where most other people wouldn't intend that comment (or this one) as pure snark!
I can't tell if that's a dig or not.
If it is a dig, it ought not be. Doing useful drudgery despite bystander effects is remarkable and surprising, and should be applauded!
I think you interpreted "dig" as meaning "dig at user:shokwave", as did I initially. I think it instead meant "dig at user:Alicorn".
I did, at first; and rethought it before I posted. And I figured that the same response was also roughly correct if it was a "dig at Alicorn." Doing useful drudgery despite bystander effects is remarkable and surprising, so arch comments about someone not doing so would be silly.
Given that everyone around here is usually pretty reasonable, if prone to fallacies of transparency, I therefore assume that Eliezer's actually giving straightforward applause, rather than being ironic. (If I'm wrong ... well, that'd be useful to learn.)
At me or at gwern; definitely not shokwave.
All I have to say is that when Eliezer's posts include a tenth as many citations or external links as my average post, then I'll listen to his snark about preferred citation formats.
I prefer the original format. When pulling a few excerpts to email to a friend, it left enough info that he could conceivably locate the cited work.