= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world? - 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 (1742)
People who are mindkilled generally don't realize it.
Generally, yes. But it is possible to be poor at updating on the evidence related to a proposition P, but realize the fact "TimS is poor at updating related to P." It's not common, but it does happen.*
Don't we aspire to be the Lens that Sees Its Flaws.
I agree, I also think this applies to a lot more situations than just this case.
Given what we've said before in this particular conversation, I don't understand what you are saying here.
Guilt tripping does work, and can be an effective method of changing people's behavior.
Personal relationships, maybe - although the outside view of guilt-tripping is the more dominant person in some interpersonal relationship initiating and winning a status conflict.
For those reasons, guilt-tripping is seldom effective at creating social change. From your perspective, social change is the change in relative dominance of various groups. Why would behaving as if one is already dominant be expected to work?
By contrast, I think social change is more effective if it seeks to change the definitions of different groups.
BTW, do you have a sense of why my question got downvoted?
Because people don't magically know which group is dominant and thus which group they should conform to.
By acting like they're more dominant than they actually are, groups can convince more people that they really are that dominant and cause the people to conform to the group's wishes; which is to say the group thus becomes more dominant. Sort of like the expression "fake it till you make it".
No idea. I didn't downvote it.
For many of the most important groupings, the first selections are do by others. (I.e. the popular seniors are the first deciders of which grouping the new high school freshmen belong in).
I just don't think this is accurate analysis of group dynamics.
I think this is more accurate for individuals trying to become members of a group than it is of groups trying to change their relative position.
I would argue that this is a non-representative example since in most situations there isn't nearly as clear a division between the deciders and the people being sorted.
This can also apply when members of one group (e.g., people who believe in philosophy X) what to increase how many of their members are also in another group with fuzzy membership (e.g., the inner clique in the philosophy department).
I thought you were one of the people who objected to over-reliance on status-based explanations.
Seriously, in some cases it's even useful to guilt-trip yourself. That's the principal behind things like heroic responsibility.
I never said that status explanations are worthless. I just think they are wildly overused in this community.
First, some status explanations assume that hypocrisy is all, or most of human social interaction. That seems empirically false to me.
More importantly, status explanations seem to assume that predicting human social dynamics can be done with a single variable. It was false when the Marxists did it with economic resources, and it is false with status.
Plus, I have the impression you think status is useful analysis. Since I can make my point from a perspective you find insightful, why not shorten the inferential distance?
This seems like a good description of your explanation: