= 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)
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?
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: