Related to: Leaky Generalizations, Replace the Symbol With The Substance, Sneaking In Connotations

David Stove once ran a contest to find the Worst Argument In The World, but he awarded the prize to his own entry, and one that shored up his politics to boot. It hardly seems like an objective process.

If he can unilaterally declare a Worst Argument, then so can I. I declare the Worst Argument In The World to be this: "X is in a category whose archetypal member gives us a certain emotional reaction. Therefore, we should apply that emotional reaction to X, even though it is not a central category member."

Call it the Noncentral Fallacy. It sounds dumb when you put it like that. Who even does that, anyway?

It sounds dumb only because we are talking soberly of categories and features. As soon as the argument gets framed in terms of words, it becomes so powerful that somewhere between many and most of the bad arguments in politics, philosophy and culture take some form of the noncentral fallacy. Before we get to those, let's look at a simpler example.

Suppose someone wants to build a statue honoring Martin Luther King Jr. for his nonviolent resistance to racism. An opponent of the statue objects: "But Martin Luther King was a criminal!"

Any historian can confirm this is correct. A criminal is technically someone who breaks the law, and King knowingly broke a law against peaceful anti-segregation protest - hence his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail.

But in this case calling Martin Luther King a criminal is the noncentral. The archetypal criminal is a mugger or bank robber. He is driven only by greed, preys on the innocent, and weakens the fabric of society. Since we don't like these things, calling someone a "criminal" naturally lowers our opinion of them.

The opponent is saying "Because you don't like criminals, and Martin Luther King is a criminal, you should stop liking Martin Luther King." But King doesn't share the important criminal features of being driven by greed, preying on the innocent, or weakening the fabric of society that made us dislike criminals in the first place. Therefore, even though he is a criminal, there is no reason to dislike King.

This all seems so nice and logical when it's presented in this format. Unfortunately, it's also one hundred percent contrary to instinct: the urge is to respond "Martin Luther King? A criminal? No he wasn't! You take that back!" This is why the noncentral is so successful. As soon as you do that you've fallen into their trap. Your argument is no longer about whether you should build a statue, it's about whether King was a criminal. Since he was, you have now lost the argument.

Ideally, you should just be able to say "Well, King was the good kind of criminal." But that seems pretty tough as a debating maneuver, and it may be even harder in some of the cases where the noncentral Fallacy is commonly used.


Now I want to list some of these cases. Many will be political1, for which I apologize, but it's hard to separate out a bad argument from its specific instantiations. None of these examples are meant to imply that the position they support is wrong (and in fact I myself hold some of them). They only show that certain particular arguments for the position are flawed, such as:

"Abortion is murder!" The archetypal murder is Charles Manson breaking into your house and shooting you. This sort of murder is bad for a number of reasons: you prefer not to die, you have various thoughts and hopes and dreams that would be snuffed out, your family and friends would be heartbroken, and the rest of society has to live in fear until Manson gets caught. If you define murder as "killing another human being", then abortion is technically murder. But it has none of the downsides of murder Charles Manson style. Although you can criticize abortion for many reasons, insofar as "abortion is murder" is an invitation to apply one's feelings in the Manson case directly to the abortion case, it ignores the latter's lack of the features that generated those intuitions in the first place2.

"Genetic engineering to cure diseases is eugenics!" Okay, you've got me there: since eugenics means "trying to improve the gene pool" that's clearly right. But what's wrong with eugenics? "What's wrong with eugenics? Hitler did eugenics! Those unethical scientists in the 1950s who sterilized black women without their consent did eugenics!" "And what was wrong with what Hitler and those unethical scientists did?" "What do you mean, what was wrong with them? Hitler killed millions of people! Those unethical scientists ruined people's lives." "And does using genetic engineering to cure diseases kill millions of people, or ruin anyone's life?" "Well...not really." "Then what's wrong with it?" "It's eugenics!"

"Evolutionary psychology is sexist!" If you define "sexist" as "believing in some kind of difference between the sexes", this is true of at least some evo psych. For example, Bateman's Principle states that in species where females invest more energy in producing offspring, mating behavior will involve males pursuing females; this posits a natural psychological difference between the sexes. "Right, so you admit it's sexist!" "And why exactly is sexism bad?" "Because sexism claims that men are better than women and that women should have fewer rights!" "Does Bateman's principle claim that men are better than women, or that women should have fewer rights?" "Well...not really." "Then what's wrong with it?" "It's sexist!"

A second, subtler use of the noncentral fallacy goes like this: "X is in a category whose archetypal member gives us an emotional reaction. Therefore, we should apply that same emotional reaction to X even if X gives some benefit that outweighs the harm."

"Capital punishment is murder!" Charles Manson-style murder is solely harmful. This kind of murder produces really strong negative feelings. The proponents of capital punishment believe that it might decrease crime, or have some other attending benefits. In other words, they believe it's "the good kind of murder"3, just like the introductory example concluded that Martin Luther King was "the good kind of criminal". But since normal murder is so taboo, it's really hard to take the phrase "the good kind of murder" seriously, and just mentioning the word "murder" can call up exactly the same amount of negative feelings we get from the textbook example.

"Affirmative action is racist!" True if you define racism as "favoring certain people based on their race", but once again, our immediate negative reaction to the archetypal example of racism (the Ku Klux Klan) cannot be generalized to an immediate negative reaction to affirmative action. Before we generalize it, we have to check first that the problems that make us hate the Ku Klux Klan (violence, humiliation, divisiveness, lack of a meritocratic society) are still there. Then, even if we do find that some of the problems persist (like disruption of meritocracy, for example) we have to prove that it doesn't produce benefits that outweigh these harms.

"Taxation is theft!" True if you define theft as "taking someone else's money regardless of their consent", but though the archetypal case of theft (breaking into someone's house and stealing their jewels) has nothing to recommend it, taxation (arguably) does. In the archetypal case, theft is both unjust and socially detrimental. Taxation keeps the first disadvantage, but arguably subverts the second disadvantage if you believe being able to fund a government has greater social value than leaving money in the hands of those who earned it. The question then hinges on the relative importance of these disadvantages. Therefore, you can't dismiss taxation without a second thought just because you have a natural disgust reaction to theft in general. You would also have to prove that the supposed benefits of this form of theft don't outweigh the costs.

Now, because most arguments are rapid-fire debate-club style, sometimes it's still useful to say "Taxation isn't theft!" At least it beats saying "Taxation is theft but nevertheless good", then having the other side say "Apparently my worthy opponent thinks that theft can be good; we here on this side would like to bravely take a stance against theft", and then having the moderator call time before you can explain yourself. If you're in a debate club, do what you have to do. But if you have the luxury of philosophical clarity, you would do better to forswear the Dark Arts and look a little deeper into what's going on.

Are there ever cases in which this argument pattern can be useful? Yes. For example, it may be a groping attempt to suggest a Schelling fence; for example, a principle that one must never commit theft even when it would be beneficial because that would make it harder to distinguish and oppose the really bad kinds of theft. Or it can be an attempt to spark conversation by pointing out a potential contradiction: for example "Have you noticed that taxation really does contain some of the features you dislike about more typical instances of theft? Maybe you never even thought about that before? Why do your moral intuitions differ in these two cases? Aren't you being kind of hypocritical?" But this usage seems pretty limited - once your interlocutor says "Yes, I considered that, but the two situations are different for reasons X, Y, and Z" the conversation needs to move on; there's not much point in continuing to insist "But it's theft!"

But in most cases, I think this is more of an emotional argument, or even an argument from "You would look silly saying that". You really can't say "Oh, he's the good kind of criminal", and so if you have a potentially judgmental audience and not much time to explain yourself, you're pretty trapped. You have been forced to round to the archetypal example of that word and subtract exactly the information that's most relevant.

But in all other cases, the proper response to being asked to subtract relevant information is "No, why should I?" - and that's why this is the worst argument in the world.

 

Footnotes

1: On advice from the community, I have deliberately included three mostly-liberal examples and three-mostly conservative examples, so save yourself the trouble of counting them up and trying to speculate on this article's biases.

2: This should be distinguished from deontology, the belief that there is some provable moral principle about how you can never murder. I don't think this is too important a point to make, because only a tiny fraction of the people who debate these issues have thought that far ahead, and also because my personal and admittedly controversial opinion is that much of deontology is just an attempt to formalize and justify this fallacy.

3: Some people "solve" this problem by saying that "murder" only refers to "non-lawful killing", which is exactly as creative a solution as redefining "criminal" to mean "person who breaks the law and is not Martin Luther King." Identifying the noncentral fallacy is a more complete solution: for example, it covers the related (mostly sarcastic) objection that "imprisonment is kidnapping".

4: EDIT 8/2013: I've edited this article a bit after getting some feedback and complaints. In particular I tried to remove some LW jargon which turned off some people who were being linked to this article but were unfamiliar with the rest of the site.

5: EDIT 8/2013: The other complaint I kept getting is that this is an uninteresting restatement of some other fallacy (no one can agree which, but poisoning the well comes up particularly often). The question doesn't seem too interesting to me - I never claimed particular originality, a lot of fallacies blend into each other, and the which-fallacy-is-which game isn't too exciting anyway - but for the record I don't think it is. Poisoning the well is a presentation of two different facts, such as "Martin Luther King was a plagiarist...oh, by the way, what do you think of Martin Luther King's civil rights policies?" It may have no relationship to categories, and it's usually something someone else does to you as a conscious rhetorical trick. Noncentral fallacy is presenting a single fact, but using category information to frame it in a misleading way - and it's often something people do to themselves. The above plagiarism example of poisoning the well is not noncentral fallacy. If you think this essay is about bog-standard poisoning the well, then either there is an alternative meaning to poisoning the well I'm not familiar with, or you are missing the point.

New to LessWrong?

New Comment
Rendering 1000/1768 comments, sorted by (show more) Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 6:38 AM
Some comments are truncated due to high volume. (⌘F to expand all)Change truncation settings

I just registered http://worstargumentintheworld.com - it redirects to this post, and should be available shortly. Much easier to mention in conversation when other people use this argument, and don't believe it's a "real thing."

Great piece of work, Yvain - it's now on my list of all-time favorite LW posts.

I just registered http://worstargumentintheworld.com - it redirects to this post, and should be available shortly. Much easier to mention in conversation when other people use this argument, and don't believe it's a "real thing."

"Real things" have their own domain. I registered this domain, therefore...

Hahaha, nice.

I was imagining a situation in which someone makes an argument of this type, you say something along the lines of "that's a great example of the 'Worst Argument in the World'," and the person replies "you just made that up..." or "that's just your opinion..."

Providing a pre-existing URL that links to a well-written page created by a third-party is a form of evidence that shifts "Worst Argument in the World" from something that feels like an opinion to the title of a logical fallacy. That can be quite useful in certain circumstances.

Exactly! Logical fallacies are bad, and the Worst Argument in the World is a logical fallacy!

(Actually valid because it's a typical, central logical fallacy, not an edge case. If you'd asked me to list the most common logical fallacies even before I saw this post, I'd hope that I'd remember to put argument-by-categorization-of-atypical-cases into the top 10.)

4yonemoto12y
Is not the "Worst Argument in the World" itself a form of categorization (by form of argument), and how can you be sure any given instance of it is not itself an atypical case, that ought not to be compared against the obviously bad =murder or =hitler cases?

and how can you be sure any given instance of it is not itself an atypical case, that ought not to be compared against the obviously bad =murder or =hitler cases?

By checking.

6prase12y
When in the discussion under the well-written page created by a third party the first party openly admits registering the domain in order to use it as argumentum ad verecundiam, the whole thing loses much of its power.

If I debate with someone, he tells me something like "abortion is murder", I point him to http://worstargumentintheworld.com/ and he takes the pain to read the article AND the discussion and sees why/how the domain was registered, I would claim victory in "raising the sanity waterline".

The argument authority of having a domain pointing to may (I hope it'll) increase the chance the person does at least read a bit of the page instead of discarding it, but I doubt it'll do anything into making him/her accepting that the argument is wrong behind that.

3prase12y
OK, that sounds reasonable.
5joshkaufman12y
Anyone who visits this page can judge the merits themselves: there's no argument from authority involved. No one is claiming this form of argument is invalid because it's on LW, or because Yvain wrote it, or because it has a catchy name that's published on a website, or because it now has an easy-to-remember URL. I made a simpler citation, nothing more.
2Alexey4y
"Argumentum ad verecundiam" translates to "argument from authority" in sounding-smart-speak (saving effort of googling for those who come after me) And he doesn't appeal to authority, he's correctly addressing the points made by the theoretical opponent: "you just made that up..." and "that's just your opinion..."
6Eli Tyre5y
The link seems broken? : (
7habryka5y
Yeah, I also noticed this a while ago and was quite sad.
3BlueSun11y
I was writing an article and trying to refer to www.worstargumentintheworld.com but it appears to be down. Is the registration still valid and/or going to be renewed?

I strongly recommend not punishing people for saying that it's taken them time to learn something.

That's... probably a good idea.

4tut11y
xkcd
[-][anonymous]12y420

Yvain, here is a challenge. Many of your examples are weak versions of strong right-wing arguments that you do not accept. (by your remark about Schelling fences, it seems you're aware of this). I challenge you to replace each of these examples with a weak version of a strong left-wing argument that you do accept. Since policy debates should not appear one-sided, there should be no shortage of weak arguments "on your side." And it would be an interesting kind of ideological Turing test.

Perhaps I'm wrong about "what side you're on" and you already accept the strong right-wing arguments. In which case you got me, well done!

"X is in a category whose archetypal member has certain features. Therefore, we should judge X as if it also had those features, even though it doesn't."

This is the original definition given for TWAITW. Note that the examples Yvain gave all had the form of: "X is in a category whose archetypal member has certain negative features. Therefore, we should judge X as if it also had those features." However, working with the explicit definition outlined by Yvain, as opposed to the implicit definition used by Yvain, we can easily conjure liberal examples:

  • Abortion is a medical procedure.
  • Pornography is art.
  • Welfare is charity.

Other liberal examples, using Yvain's implicit definition:

  • Homophobia is hatred.
  • The War on Drugs is Prohibition.
  • Pornography is sexist.

However, I am not entirely sure if our capacity to conjure examples matters.

Edit: Changed the free speech examples.

I very much like "Abortion is a medical procedure". It's actually a believable WAitW to make, and has the admirable feature that it completely ignores every aspect of abortion relevant to the debate.

I think the "free speech" examples don't quite have the right form: the central question probably is whether or not pornography or flag burning is free speech, and the conclusion "Flag burning is free speech, therefore it should be legal" is valid if you accept the premise.

I really like "Abortion is a medical procedure". I suspect that we could remove some of the mind-killing by presenting the examples in pairs:

  • Abortion is murder
  • Abortion is a medical procedure
  • Evopsych is sexist
  • Evopsych is science

Hmm, creating these pairs is harder than I thought.

2Ben Pace10y
No problem here. Not even non-central.
9wedrifid12y
Someone uttering this may claim that they are not using the worst argument in the world as defined: They claim that it does have the critical features in question. Even the person they are arguing against may agree that it is equivalent to shouting out loud "My country is a @#$% disgrace! Screw my country!". The disagreement seems to be whether one should be permitted to do that kind of thing.
3Sarokrae12y
"Flag burning is freedom" should be a legitimate example along the same lines.
5evand12y
How would you say the War on Some Drugs is different than Prohibition?
3Emile12y
Unlike the other examples, this one doesn't really fit the pattern: it's "X is like Y" and not "X belongs to category Y". The difference is that "X is like Y" does not sneak in any connotations; it's well understood that "The War on Drugs is Prohibition" is a rhetorical way of saying "The War on Drugs is very similar to the Prohibition of the 1930s". "Affirmative action is like hanging people just because they're black!" doesn't carry the same sneaky rhetoric as "Affirmative action is racist!"

The challenge is an interesting exercise, and I will try to think up some examples, but your comment also contains an implied accusation which I'd like to respond to first.

By my count, this post includes critiques of four weak right-wing arguments (abortion, euthanasia, taxation, affirmative action) and three weak left-wing arguments (eugenics, sexism, capital punishment). As far as I know, neither side thinks MLK was a criminal. That means I'm 4-3, ie as balanced as it's mathematically possible to get while seven remains an odd number.

And I think the responses I see below justify my choice of examples. Shminux says the pro-choice converse of "abortion is murder" would be "forced pregnancy is slavery"; TGM suggests below it "denying euthanasia is torture". These would be excellent examples of TWAITW if anyone ever asserted them which as far as I know no one ever has. Meanwhile, I continue to walk past signs saying "Abortion Is Murder!" on my way to work every day. I don't know who exactly it would be helping to give "Forced Pregnancy Is Slavery" equal billing with "Abortion Is Murder" here and let my readers conclude that... (read more)

If you can think of left-wing WAITWs that are as well-known and catchy as "abortion is murder!", I will happily edit the post to include them

"Property is theft"

Is an example of the left using the WAITW.

American liberals aren't that kind of left. And Proudhon did mean "property is wrong for the same class of reasons theft is".

8Vaniver12y
Arguments that your stereotypical leftist and stereotypical rightist will both see as bad are the sort of thing that would, ideally, dominate the article.

As a leftist, this seems like a useful exercise. Here are a few claims I've heard more than once from fellow leftists that might qualify.

  • A fetus is a clump of cells.

  • Corporations are not people.

  • Money is not speech.

8kilobug12y
The first one is a good leftist example of the WAitW... and with a bit of shame I've to admit I used it in the past. I wouldn't say the other two qualify because they are negatives. "X is not Y" is quite different from a rethorical perspective than "X is Y".
2DaFranker12y
Let Y = (Not Z) X is Y. Using this, I'd argue that "Corporations are not people" is somewhat valid as an example of the WAitW, since the idea is to put the emphasis on people, and everything else is just property, things. It puts Corporations in some abstract, undefined category of not-people things that, when phrased appropriately, can carry a strong connotation. I fail to see the connotation in the "not-speech" for the third example though, and I don't quite see how one would use that example to argue against or for money - the label / categorization doesn't seem like it would sway anyone either way.
4pragmatist12y
The money is not speech argument is used (just like the corporations are not people argument) to protest against the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. The claim is that although speech is constitutionally protected, this does not mean that wealthy individuals have the right to spend large amounts of money to get their poltiical views heard (by, say, contributing to SuperPACs). The idea is: although it's true that the government should not be allowed to prevent people from expressing their opinions, the government should be allowed prevent people from spending money to buy ads expressing their opinion because in that case the regulation is on the person's expenditure of money, and money is not speech (or, if you prefer, money is not-speech). I think this is an example of the WAitW. The first amendment gives Americans the right to free speech. Wealthy people claim that this means they can spend their considerable wealth in order to broadcast their opinions. After all, if the government can't restrict my speech, surely that means the government can't prevent me from utilizing my own resources as a medium for that speech. But, the leftist responds, the government can totally prevent wealthy people from doing this, because the wealthy people are spending money in order to get their opinions broadcast, and hey, money is not-speech, so like many other examples of not-speech, restricting its use is not a violation of the Bill of Rights.
4Vaniver12y
Buckley v. Valeo disagrees. More conveniently, it prohibits Congress from regulating the freedom of the press, i.e. the printing press, i.e. the technological means of reproducing ideas so that others may consume them, as in television ads. Which is why I found the Citizens United decision so baffling- the reasoning they used to reach their conclusion was not at all the reasoning I would have used. (But, then again, I would rule the vast majority of laws Congress outputs unconstitutional, which is one of the many reasons I have not been nominated to the Supreme Court.)
7Eliezer Yudkowsky12y
I agree with all three examples as WAITW even if the last two are negative. It's also very rare that you can settle policy questions through the negation of a categorization. Corporations aren't typical people and money isn't typical speech, but neither of those observations settle the policy question or even debate it - these are just slogans.
2Unnamed12y
The negative examples are different because they don't suggest an argument, only a counterargument. If X is an apple then various conclusions (typically/intuitively) follow, for instance, that X is edible. But if X is a non-apple then nothing much follows from that; it only serves to block the apple-->edible argument (and suggest that X is not necessarily edible). "Money is speech" implies that all of the protections that get applied to speech should be applied to spending. If money is not speech, then who knows? Nothing much follows directly from that (it's not as if there's some general principle that things which are non-speech should be banned); it just suggests that we don't necessarily have to apply the speech protections to spending. It's more similar to the "MLK was not a criminal" counterargument than to the "MLK was a criminal" argument (note that being a non-criminal doesn't make someone especially admirable), but it doesn't fall into the trap of being obviously false.
[-][anonymous]12y160

"Profiling is discrimination"

"Racial profiling is racist."

While I can see this argument apply as a sort of justifiable use when humans are doing such profiling, though even in that case I think it should be used sometimes, I find it a bit absurd when applied to say data mining systems. Are we to apply Bayesian reasoning to everything except predictors tied to certain sacralized human traits like gender, dress, class, race, religion and origin? Why don't we feel averse applying it to say age?

"Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell."

To avoid nitpicking that cancer cells have no ideology, I will point out that if they did, they would share the ideology with all life forms on the planet.

"Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of life!"

Doesn't sound as evil no?

seven remains an even number

Either this is a joke or you mean "odd".

You saw nothing!

I think the difference is that the right wing examples are examples of core beliefs that many stereotypical conservatives believe. Thus leftists feel like they are scoring points when they read it. The left examples, however, aren't really core beliefs of the Democratic party. Democrats may lean against capital punishment, but no presidential candidate in my memory has made that a core tenant of eir campaign.

I also think it's wildly generous to suggest eugenics as a leftist issue. I can't remember ever hearing someone seriously suggest that genetic engineering is eugenics. And typically, it's conservatives who are opposed to genetic engineering, generally on the grounds of playing God.

And when I was reading it, MLK got lumped in with conservatives for a number of reasons. First, the strong conservative examples primed me to put it there. Second, the civil rights act was largely pushed for by a Democratic legislature and president. Lastly, African Americans tend to line up with democrats in modern demographics.

The best leftist example I could come up with is "Meat is murder". I think that merits including. Or mixing in with the abortion one.

8[anonymous]12y
I was surprised people didn't notice that both the sexism and eugenics arguments where somewhat "right wing". I think a key thing might be that perception of "right" and "left" are tied to the current American political landscape. The important role of religion in it means that conservative politicians don't often make arguments for their policies based on evolutionary psychology or the high heritability of IQ or conscientiousness. The America right seems almost as invested in blank slate notions as the left.
8[anonymous]12y
Of course not! MLK was a Communist philanderer. That's worse. ;)
7MixedNuts11y
"Arguing against homosexuality is hate speech!". Many anti-queer statements are hate speech, e.g. promotion of murder, but others are along the lines of "People shouldn't act on same-sex attraction because...". Quite a few conservatives complain that the latter form of argument is dismissed as "hate speech", even though "People shouldn't drive SUVs because..." is never taken to mean you hate SUV drivers.
4Scott Alexander12y
So this may be more complicated than I thought, in that all of the examples below seem really bad to me, but that might just be an example of my personal bias. I think if any of them get, let's say, more than ten upvotes I'll assume they're generally agreed to be a good argument and I'll put them in - does that sound like a reasonable bar? That means upvote them if you think they're worthy of inclusion. I was trying to think of further liberal examples, and I think some references to "human rights" might qualify - for example, "health care is a human right". The meaning of "human right" that allows us to assert this seems very poorly defined, whereas the meaning of "human right" that allows us to say that negative rights like free speech are human rights seems well-defined, even though I don't agree with it. So calling health care (or housing, or something) a "human right" might be a way of trying to claim that we should view health care as exactly like free speech, free religion, etc, even though it is quite different in that it requires positive action by other people. I'm not quite willing to include that one just because the total ambiguity in the definition of "human right" makes it pretty hard to pin down exactly how the argument is being made. EDIT: Just saw "Property is theft" has 15 upvotes. Do people think this one should be added?
2shminux12y
I'm not fond of any, either. See if you can find something you like here.
4shokwave12y
It might be easier to come up with examples if you go back to your original definition and note that it allows for categories with positive qualities lending their positive qualities to category members who lack those physical qualities. (Leftist arguments as a rhetorical class are usually phrased in terms of including things in positive categories, whereas rightist arguments are more well-known for including things in negative categories.)
2Vaniver12y
For example, something like "we should support racial diversity because of the benefits of ideological diversity"?
2shminux12y
Not quite any wing: the jailed Pussy Riot members should stay behind bars because a killer requested their release. There are similar Western examples with Wikileaks/Anonymous.
2A1987dM12y
Judith Jarvis Thomson? (Well, she didn't use the word slavery but still.) As for the euthanasia-is-torture one, I heard that a lot on the media at the time of Terri Schiavo and similar cases. (Maybe none used the word torture but still.)

I have the impression that (1) when people post things in LW that are politically leftish, it's quite common for them to get a response along these lines -- complaining about leftward bias and suggesting that it should be addressed by a deliberate injection of rightward bias to compensate -- whereas (2) when people post things in LW that are politically rightish, they basically never receive such responses.

I have no statistics or anything to back this up, and it's not clear that there's any feasible way to get (or informatively fail to get) them, so I'd be interested in other opinions about whether this asymmetry is real.

If it is real, it seems to me quite interesting.

(One possible explanation, if it's real, would be that leftish views are much more common here than rightish ones, so that people with rightish views feel ill-treated and want the balance redressed. Except that I think I see distinctly more rightish than leftish political commentary here, and the rightish stuff more often gets large numbers of upvotes. I suppose it's possible that what we have here is a lot of slightly leftish people and a smaller number of rightish ones who feel more strongly. Again, this is probably hard to get a good handle on and I'd be interested in others' impressions.)

[-][anonymous]12y270

Well right wing people are almost certainly a minority here, but don't forget that makes such positions convenient for hipster fun. Some LWers who argue for right wing positions have stated that they feel more and more unwelcome in the past few months. Not only that I think they make a good case for pro left bias being very prevasive on LessWrong. I think what you are seeing is some users trying to correct for it.

I find the fact that both people who see themselves as left leaning and those who see themselves as right leaning suddenly feel there is favouritism for those who disagree with them is a much more worrying sign. I think this is what being on one side of a tribal conflict looks like from the inside.

The most popular political view, at least according to the much-maligned categories on the survey, was liberalism, with 376 adherents and 34.5% of the vote. Libertarianism followed at 352 (32.3%), then socialism at 290 (26.6%), conservativism at 30 (2.8%) and communism at 5 (.5%).

-- Yvain's 2011 survey

I have the impression that (1) when people post things in LW that are politically leftish, it's quite common for them to get a response along these lines -- complaining about leftward bias and suggesting that it should be addressed by a deliberate injection of rightward bias to compensate -- whereas (2) when people post things in LW that are politically rightish, they basically never receive such responses.

My explanation of this perception is that posters, in general, know better than to post rightish things at LW unless they are correct. Every now and then you get a new Objectivist who gets downvoted because they aren't discussing things at a high enough level.

Lots of beliefs that are common on LW are uncomfortable for the stereotypical leftist- like human biodiversity in general. To see someone brazenly state that, yes, there is a difference in measured IQ between the races and that reflects reality rather than our inability to design tests properly, or that men and women are actually neurologically distinct, will seem like a "not my tribe" signal to the stereotypical leftist- but people here don't hold that opinion (as far as I can tell) because of racial or sexual enmity, but because they put evidence above wishful thinking and correct beliefs above politeness.

But now imagine that for the stereotypical rightist. How big of a "not my tribe" signal is atheist materialism and evolution?

I am thinking that one possible asymetry between "the left" and "the right" is that the former is a rather homogenous group, while the latter is heterogenous. The left generally means socialist(-ish), and the right generally means non-socialist. The left is a fuzzy blob in the concept-space, the right seems like a label for points outside of this blob.

As an example, both Ayn Rand and Chesterton would be examples of "the right". What exactly do they have in common? (Religion: the best thing ever, or the worst thing ever? Individual or community? Mystery or reason? The great future or the great past? Selfishness or selflessness? Should women be allowed as leaders? Etc.) The common trait that classifies them both as "the right" is the fact that neither of them is a socialist.

Well, I could also says that neither of them "considers hinduism the best thing ever"... but why should that information be used to classify them? Well, for a hinduist that would be an important information. Then it follows that classifying many diverse views under one label of "the right" makes sense to you mostly if you are a socialist. (Or if being ver... (read more)

I am thinking that one possible asymetry between "the left" and "the right" is that the former is a rather homogenous group, while the latter is heterogenous. [...] The left is a fuzzy blob in the concept-space, the right seems like a label for points outside of this blob.

Beware the out-group homogeneity effect. People tend to see their own group as more heterogeneous than other groups, as differences that look small from far away look bigger up close.

With left and right, I have also heard the exact opposite claim: that the "right" represents a narrower, more coherent group. In the US, the "right" is based in the dominant, mainstream social group (sometimes called "real America"), drawing disproportionately from people who are white, male, Christian, relatively well-off, straight, etc., while the "left" is a coalition of the various groups that are left out of "real America" for one reason or another. Alternatively, conservatives are the people who support the existing social order and want to keep things roughly how they are; liberals are the ones who want change - and there are more degrees of freedom in changing things than in keeping things the same.

This is an interesting point, that one about the left being more homogeneous than the right. I am not sure whether to believe it, so let me present some objections that I can think of, without evaluating their merit.

A) Assuming the left is indeed more homogeneous, isn't it true just because of greater variability of right between different countries, with a typical single country's right being as homogeneous as the same country's left? (The objection hasn't a particularly strong bearing on the perceived LW left/right imbalance, but may be relevant to the more general question of how the categories of left and right are defined.)

The left generally means socialist(-ish), and the right generally means non-socialist.

B) This may not be accurate; beware availability heuristics.

Environmentalists aren't necessarily socialists as their opinions about the optimal economic order aren't the defining part of their ideology and may differ. Yet the environmentalists are usually classified on the left. Anarchists aren't necessarily socialists; many of them oppose any form of organised society, while archetypal socialism is a very organised society, from many points of view more than market ca... (read more)

8Emile12y
I don't think that quite described the US, or Western Europe - the stereotypical redneck is low-status but on the right (same for ploucs here in France), and buying organic food seems to be more common with the rich, but is associated to the left. A better description of the left/right gap may be that each represents a status ladder, and that people support the status ladder on which they have the best relative position. The details of what counts tend to vary with time and place, but on the left you tend to get status for being educated, open-minded, environmentally aware, original, etc., and on the right you tend to get status for being rich, responsible, having a family, being loyal to your country, etc. At least, that angle of approach seems better than looking at policies; if you compare the policies of the French left and the American left, the policies might seem so different that they don't deserve the same label; but if you compare the kind of people who support either parties, the similarities are much more apparent.
2NancyLebovitz11y
I have a notion that in the US, left-wingers tend to focus on defection by high-status people and right-wingers tend to focus on defection by low-status people.
6Peterdjones12y
But there are any number of sub-varieties of socialism, so it is itself a fuzzy blob. Moreover, the non-right in many countries, particularly the US, barely has a whiff of classical socialism, Who is advocating a centrally planned economy or worker control of production in the US? It's a standing joke in Europe that the US has two parties of the right. That's "perception" of course. It's also a US perception that public healthcare "is" socialism -- the idea is seen as mainstream and cross-party elsewhere. What is going on is that the right have this convenient label "socialist" to lambast the non-right with, and the non-right don't have a corresponding term to hit back with. That doesnt mean anything about ideaspace.
4mrglwrf12y
About as big as "human biodiversity" is for a leftist. I think you are severely underestimating the strength of conviction among people whose beliefs disagree with your own, or the extent to which these are moral disagreements, rather than exclusively factual.

I've posted such complaints about left wing bias, so I'll elaborate on my impressions.

I perceive the left wing comments come with much more of an implicit assumption by the poster, and the respondents to it, of the moral superiority of left wing positions, and that all attending will see it the same way.

Most of the non left wing views don't seem to me to come with that presumption on the part of the speaker that everyone here shares their moral evaluation. If anything, the tone is of someone who expects to be taken as a crank.

The liberals are more generally accustomed to being in an ideologically homogeneous environment while the libertarians are accustomed to being in the minority, and both speak with a tone appropriate to the general environment, and not to the particular environment here, where liberals and libertarians are equally represented.

For my part, I also find instances where the absent conservatives are caricatured and snickered at, again with the presumption that all right thinking folk agree, and the bile rises in the gorge, and I feel the need to respond.

2[anonymous]12y
Isn't that reasonable though? If you're a X-winger, isn't the whole point that X-wing positions are in fact morally superior?

Isn't that reasonable though? If you're a X-winger, isn't the whole point that X-wing positions are in fact morally superior?

Morally superior perhaps, but they lack the hull plating and durability to survive ongoing combat and the offensive payload pales in comparison to what the Y-wing can deliver.

The Y-wing was an outdated piece of junk even by the Battle of Yvain; that's why the Rebels had it at all. The X-wing's proton torpedoes deliver the hurt when necessary (just ask Tarkin or Ysanne Isard), and if you want more than that, well, that's what the B-wings are for... Between them and the A-wing, there is simply no role for Y-wings at any point - except cannon bait!

4GeraldMonroe12y
Shouldn't that be spelled "canon bait"? Heh.
5buybuydandavis12y
Assuming that everyone would see it the same way when manifestly they do not is just an empirical mistake. Yes, everyone think's their position is right, but not everyone speaks to audiences who disagree with them expecting them all to agree.

What is the strong version of "taxation is theft", for example? I can recall arguments against taxation stronger than this, of course, but none of them I would consider a version of the "taxation is theft" argument.

As for the arguments mentioned in the OP, "taxation is theft", "abortion is murder" and "euthanasia is murder" are typically right-wing, "affirmative action is racist" is also probably right-wing (although general accusations of racism fit better into the left wing arsenal) while "capital punishment is murder", "ev-psych is sexist" and "genetic engineering is eugenics" sound quite leftist to me. Not sure about "M.L.King was a criminal", but the examples seem balanced with respect to the stereotypical left/right division. With respect to Yvain's opinions the choice might be less balanced, of course.

8Swimmy12y
Simple: "taxation is theft and is also just as wrong as mugging because 1) the supposed benefits of government programs aren't really there and 2) majority voting doesn't make mugging any better than theft by a gang of robbers is better than theft by a single robber." All of these arguments can be made stronger by specifying the reasons you should ignore the major differences between the moral issue in question and the archetypal example's.
8[anonymous]12y
Well I can give you one example. Neoclassical economics makes a pretense of being neutral about how resources are distributed. The focus is instead on the absolute amount of resources. As I think Steven Landsburg puts it, taxes are no fun to pay, but they are fun to collect. The problem is that taxes can be avoided, and that resources put into avoiding taxes (and collecting them) are wasted. There is an identical economic argument against theft: the issue isn't that the thief deserves to have the painting less than the museum, it's that resources the museum puts into defending the painting (and that the thief puts into procuring it) are wasted. Naturally that is a criticizable line of reasoning, but it gave me a lot to think about the first time I heard it.
6kilobug12y
But private property also requires resources to defend it (which are wasted like the ones to collect taxes), so in fact, neoclassical economics agree with Proudhon that "property is theft" ? :)
2SilasBarta12y
I think the standard rejoinder is that private property incurs greater benefits than the general cost of securing it, owing to true "tragedy of the commons" type situations it attempts to avoid.
3TheOtherDave12y
Agreed that the anti-capital-punishment stance exemplified by "capital punishment is murder" is more attached to the American left than the American right, as are accusations of sexism in general (including but not limited to those applied to evo-psych). "Genetic engineering is eugenics" seems trickier to me. In the U.S. at the moment, I'd say Republican voters are more likely to endorse a "science can't be trusted" argument than Democratic ones, and Democratic voters are more likely to endorse a "corporations can't be trusted" argument than Republican ones. "Genetic engineering is eugenics" can be spun both ways, I think. That is, if I wanted to convince a randomly selected Democratic voter to vote against genetic engineering, I could use rhetoric along the lines of "evil corporations want to use genetic engineering techniques to breed a so-called superior race of food crops, which will eradicate the food crops ordinary consumers know and trust and leave us at their mercy. Don't let them get away with it!" pretty effectively. (Though less effectively than they could have 30 years ago.) If I wanted to convince a randomly selected Republican voter, I could use similar rhetoric with "corporations" replaced by "scientists" and "consumers" replaced by "ordinary people". Both of those, I think, would be invoking the spectre of eugenics, the only change would be how the eugenicists are characterized... that is, are they elite academic eugenicists, or greedy corporate eugenicists? All of that said, I endorse eugenics, so I'm probably not a reliable source of information about the rhetorical charge of these words for the mainstream.
5prase12y
Different perspectives, probably. In most European countries, I dare to say, everything associated with genetics is suspect to the left and the left also more often sides with the anti-science rhetoric in general. This is partly because the European right-wingers are less religious than in the U.S. (although I have heard creationism had become political issue in Serbia few years ago) and perhaps somehow related to the differences between Continental and analytic philosophy, if such intellectual affairs have real influence over practical politics.
3TheOtherDave12y
Yeah, that's been a significant shift over the last few decades in the U.S. There's still a significant anti-scientific religious faction within the American left (New Agers and such) but they've been increasingly joined by factions that thirty/forty years ago would have been considered right, making the coalition as a whole a lot more secular than it was. Meanwhile the right's power base has increasingly moved towards more rural states, and the . anti-scientific religious faction within the American right (evangelical Christians and such) have gained more relative power within it. Three or four decades ago I think were were more aligned with the European model. I have no idea whether the distinctions between continental and analytic philosophy have anything to do with it, and am inclined to doubt that the philosophical schism is causal if so, but I'd love to hear arguments supporting the idea.
2Emile12y
I would tend to put "Genetic engineering is eugenics" in as a left-wing argument, because the left seems more likely to compare the right to Nazis, call them racist, etc. (with the right, of course, comparing the left to Stalin). But on the other hand the American Right seems to have been up in arms about "Death Panels" or something, so I gotta admit I'm uncertain; I don't follow the minutiae of politics on your side of the Atlantic.
2TheOtherDave12y
Yeah, I think in a global context I would agree with you. The U.S. Left and Right are at this point their own beasts. Also, at this point in the U.S., pretty much everyone compares everyone else to Hitler, and pretty much nobody remembers exactly who Stalin was. Actually, I suspect that >60% of the population, if asked whether the Soviet Union was allied with the U.S. or with Nazi Germany during WWII, would state confidently that it was allied with Nazi Germany.
2Emile12y
But it was, for a time at least!
2kilobug12y
I would say that "USSR was an ally of Nazi Germany for a time" is an example of WAitW. They had a non-aggression pact for a while, but both side knew it was just a matter of time before they will fight each other, and they didn't do anything to actually help the other - USSR mostly used all the bought time to prepare itself for war against Nazi Germany. For borderline values of "ally" you can call them allies, but that's sneaking in the usual connotation of being allies (actively helping each others) which was just not present.
2NancyLebovitz12y
I thought the standard left-wing argument against genetic engineering was that only the rich will be able to afford it, with an implication that the rich will be able to unfairly stabilize their advantages.

I don't understand how you get from "policy debates should not appear one-sided" to "there should be no shortage of weak arguments 'on your side'". Especially if you replace the latter with "there should be no shortage of weak arguments of this sort on your side" -- which is necessary for the challenge to be appropriate -- since there could be correlations between a person's political position and which sorts of fallacies are most likely to infect their thinking.

In particular, I predict WAITW use to be correlated with explicit endorsement of sanctity-based rather than harm-based moral values, and we've recently been talking about how that might differ between political groups.

I think this is because of the way you're deconstructing the arguments. In each case, the features you identify which supposedly make us dislike the arcetypal cases are harm-based features. Someone who believed in sanctity instead might identify the category as a value in itself. Attempts to ascribe utilitarian-style values to them, which they supposedly miss the local inapplicability of, risks ignoring what they actually value.

If people genuinely do think murder is wrong simply because it is murder, rather than because it causes harm, then this is not a bad argument.

9Scott Alexander12y
Absent any reason to do so, disliking all murders simply because they are murders makes no more sense than disliking all elephants simply because they are elephants. You can choose to do so without being logically inconsistent, but it seems like a weird choice to make for no reason. Did you just arbitrarily choose "murder" as a category worthy of dislike, whether or not it causes harm? At the risk of committing the genetic fallacy, I would be very surprised if their choice of murder as a thing they dislike for its own sake (rather than, say, elephants) had nothing to do with murder being harmful. And although right now I am simply asserting this rather than arguing it, I think it's likely that even if they think they have a deductive proof for why murder is wrong regardless of harm, they started by unconsciously making the WAITW and then rationalizing it. But I agree that if they do think they have this deductive proof, screaming "Worst argument in the world!" at them is useless and counterproductive; at that point you address the proof.
7Larks12y
Absent any reason to do so, disliking instances of harm simply because they are instances of harm makes no more sense than disliking all elephants simply because they are elephants. I don't want to assume any metaethical baggage here, but I'm not sure why "because it is an instance of harm" is an acceptable answer but "because it is an instance of theft" is not.

Keeping your principle of ignoring meta-ethical baggage, dis-valuing harm only requires one first principle, whereas dis-valuing murder, theft, elephants, etc require an independent (and apparently arbitrary) decision at each concept. Further, it's very suspicious that this supposedly arbitrary decision almost always picks out actions that are often harmful when there are so very many things one could arbitrarily decide to dislike.

8Larks12y
This sounds like the debate about ethical pluralism - maybe values are sufficiently complex that any one principle can't capture them. If ethical pluralism is wrong, then they can't make use of this argument. But then they have a very major problem with their metaethics, independant of the WAitW. And what is more, once they solve the problem - getting a single basis for their ethics - they can avoid your accusation, by saying that actually avoiding theft is the sole criteria, and they're not trying to sneak in irrelivant conotations. After all, if theft was all that mattered, why would you try to sneak in connotations about harm? Also, I think you're sneaking in conotations when you use "arbitrary". Yes, such a person would argue that our aversion to theft isn't based on any of our other values; but your utilitarian would probably claim the same about their aversion to harm. This doesn't seem a harmful (pun not intended) case of arbitrariness. Contrariwise, they might find it very suspicious that your supposedly arbitrary decision as to what is harmful so often picks out actions that constitute theft to a libertarian (e.g. murder, slavery, breach of contract, pollution, trespass, wrongful dismissal...) when there are so very many things one could arbitrarily decide to dislike.
3DaFranker12y
This line of argument seems to err away from the principle that you can't unwind yourself into an ideal philosopher of perfect emptiness. You're running on hardware that is physically, through very real principles that apply to everything in the universe, going to react in a certain averse manner to certain stimuli to which we could assign the category label "harm". This is commonly divided into "pain", "boredom", etc. It is much more unlikely (and much more difficult to truly explain) that a person would, based on such hardware, somehow end up with the terminal value that some abstract, extremely solomonoff-complex interpretation of conjointed mental and physical behaviors is bad - in contrast with reflective negative valuation of harm-potentials both in self and in others (the "in others" being reflected as "harm to self when harm to other members of the tribe"). Then again, I feel like I'm diving in too deep here. My instinct is to profess and worship my ignorance of this topic.
5Eliezer Yudkowsky12y
Shouldn't there never be a shortage of weak arguments for anything? Strong arguments can always be weakened. / Isn't there enough chance of finding a weak argument to at least make it worth trying? You never know, you might find a weak argument somewhere.

I have tried constructing a pro-choice example similar to "Abortion is murder!" ("Forced pregnancy is slavery!"???), but it ended up pretty unconvincing. Hopefully someone can do better:

Leaving rape cases aside, the archetypal example is an unwanted teenage pregnancy due to defective or improperly used birth control or simply an accident. Forcing her into letting the embryo develop into a fetus and eventually into a human baby would likely make the woman significantly worse off in the long run, financially, physically and/or emotionally, so she should have an option of terminating the pregnancy.

An example a pro-life person thinks of: aborting a healthy fetus, possibly in the second trimester, as a habitual birth control method.

I find "Forced parenthood is slavery!" to be pretty convincing, actually. Though I may be prejudiced by having grown up around a Libertarian father (now, alas, more Republican(!??)) who went about proclaiming that jury duty was slavery.

3shminux12y
Does this qualify as "a weak version of a strong left-wing argument that you do accept"?
7TGM12y
"Denying euthanasia is Torture!" Given the majority of legislators are male, for abortion: "Forced pregnancy is mysogyny!" though that may be too tenuous.
4lizmw12y
It seems to me that the left-wing slogan "My body, my choice!" and its variations are a version of the WAitW. Although the slogan itself doesn't follow the "X is a Y" format, its underlying argument does: it asserts something like, "This fetus is a part of my body; I am entitled to do whatever I choose with any part of my body; therefore, I am entitled to do whatever I choose with this fetus." This version of the WAitW emphasizes the similarity between a fetus and other parts of a woman's body (the part in question is inside her; the part in question is made up of her cells; etc.) while ignoring the relevant differences (most of her body parts, if left to their own devices, will not go on to have their own life outside her body, while the fetus will; most of her body parts have no potential for sentience or moral agency, while the fetus does; etc.) By equating the fetus with her body parts, the argument implies that the fetus is MERELY a part of a woman's body. While most people will agree that a fetus is technically part of its mother's body, I think most people will also agree that a fetus is not morally equivalent to a woman's liver, kidneys, or small intestine. "My body, my choice!" conceals this inequivalence.
9benelliott12y
The boundaries are inherently fuzzy and ill-defined, but I count 5 right wing arguments and 3 left wing arguments. Doesn't seem too unbalanced.
9[anonymous]12y
Excellent idea. It would be beneficial to how the community deals with politics, something that I've been very concerned about recently, to see this written out.
8Will_Sawin12y
Off the top of my head: Economic inequality is an unequal distribution of resources. The most salient example of this is an unequal distribution of resources that all have equal claim to, like a pie a parent bakes for their children. But [various convincing arguments in favor of at least some economic inequality.] War is killing, which is bad because murder is bad. (Or eating meat, or capital punishment.) Gay marriage is good because it's a right, and the most salient rights are good. Welfare is good because it's a form of helping people, and helping people in ways that don't produce bad incentive effects and without taking from anyone else is good. Processed food is bad because putting the most salient synthetic chemicals in food would be a really bad idea. Note that "genetic engineering to cure diseases is eugenics" and "evolutionary psychology is sexist" are probably left-wing viewpoints, though not ones Yvain agrees with.
6DaFranker12y
ISTM that categorizing many of those as "Left-wing viewpoints" or "Right-wing viewpoints" is a strong category error, one that we should attempt to reduce rather than redraw or blue boundaries. "Evolutionary psychology is sexist" is, afaict, a word error. It is not a position, but an implicit claim: "Because evolutionary psychology is sexist, it is bad, and thus evolutionary psychology is wrong!" - this is usually combined (in my experience) with an argument that the world is inherently good and that all humans are inherently equal and so on, which means that theories that posit "unfair" or "bad" circumstances are wrong; the world must be "good" and "fair". Stereotypicalism would call for a reference to religion here.

It may be a word error - I don't think it is, "Evolutionary psychology is riddled with false claims produced by sexist male scientists and rationalized by the scientists even though the claims are not at all well-supported compared to nonsexist alternatives" is a coherent and meaningful description of a way the universe could be but isn't, and is therefore false, not a word error - but if so, it's a word-error made by stereotypically left-wing people like Lewontin and Gould who were explicitly political in their criticism, not a word-error made by any right-wing scientists I can think of offhand.

In general, we should be careful about dismissing claims as meaningless or incoherent, when often only a very reasonable and realistic amount of charity is required to reinterpret the claim as meaningful and false - most people are trying to be meaningful most of the time, even when they're rationalizing a wrong position. Only people who've gotten in a lot more trouble than that are actively trying to avoid letting their arguments be meaningful. And meaningless claims can be dismissed immediately, without bringing forth evidence or counterobservations; meaningful false claims require more demonstration to show they're false. So when somebody brings a false claim, and you dismiss it as meaningless, you're actually being significantly logically rude to them - putting in less effort than they're investing - it takes more effort to bring forth a meaningful false claim than to call something 'meaningless'.

I dislike accusations of sexism as much as the next guy, but in the last year or two I have started to think that ev-psych is way overconfident. The coarse grained explanation is that ev-psych seems to be "softer" than regular psychology, which itself is "softer" than medicine, and we all know what percentage of medical findings are wrong. I'd be curious to learn what other LWers think about this, especially you, because your writings got me interested in ev-psych in the first place.

5MichaelHoward12y
As in about the likelihood of certain kinds of explanations?
3Eliezer Yudkowsky12y
Can't think anything without a concrete example.
5sixes_and_sevens12y
I am going to rehearse saying this in a robotic voice, while spinning round and round flailing my arms in a mechanical fashion.
6moocow145212y
Can you put it up on Youtube when you're done?
3J_Taylor12y
Off the top of my head: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/retrieve/pii/S096098220701559X
7NancyLebovitz12y
So far as I know, the association of pink with girls and blue with boys is a western custom which only goes back a century or so.
4Jiro7y
Response to old post: Appears to be an urban legend. Summary: Checking Google Books shows lots of references to pink for girls/blue for boys, and no references to the opposite, going back to the 19th century. Note: Wikipedia links to this article, but summarizes it in a way which makes it sound much weaker than it really is.
2J_Taylor12y
Precisely.
2novalis12y
This seems like a qualitative argument, when a quantitative argument would be more interesting. Who is the John Ioannidis of evolutionary psychology? Or, what research has been published that has later turned out to be false? (Also, why do you dislike accusations of sexism? Shouldn't you only dislike false accusations of sexism?)
3Decius12y
I dislike accusations of sexism for the same reason I dislike accusations of any other negative behavior. Those accusations signal either sexism or false accusations of sexism, both of which are net negatives to me.
4Paul Crowley12y
This is a worthy steel-manning when trying to reach an accurate conclusion about ev-psych, but I think you give the typical person who claims "ev-psych is sexist" too much credit here.
2coffeespoons12y
Natasha Walter makes the argument that Eliezer refers to in Living Dolls (not really about ev-psych, but about the idea of innate differences between genders in abilities), and I'm sure there are other examples (I haven't actually read all that much feminist writing). However, I have also encountered people who won't even discuss the issue with anyone who is pro-ev psych because they think that they're so morally appalling. Not sure how typical the people I'm encountered are though - I suspect they may be more extreme than most, and the most extreme people are the loudest.
8Paul Crowley12y
There's definitely a temptation to identify a belief we agree with with its best advocates, and a belief we disagree with with its typical advocates. I definitely see this when people talk about how stupid eg "the left/right" is. I may be encouraging that error...
4dspeyer12y
Thorium reactors are a nuclear technology. OK, I don't accept that one, but it's left wing.
3kilobug12y
Support/opposition to nuclear technology seems pretty orthogonal with left/right to me. The anti-nuclear left tend to be more pro-solar/wind/hydro instead, while the anti-nuclear right more pro-oil/coal/gas instead, but there are pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear is both "sides". Even in a country like France where we have like a dozen of significant political parties, all the parties but one (the greens) have internal disagreement about nuclear energy in general. That said, yes, "thorium is nuclear" is a good example of TWAITW.
3Paul Crowley12y
It feels to me that until recently the pro-nuclear left was a very small faction, but growing with the likes of George Monbiot passionately switching over.
3kilobug12y
Depends where, here in France, of the 4 left-wing parties (PS, PCF, Les Verts and PG) two (PS and PCF) are mostly in favor of nuclear energy, the two others (Les Verts and PG) mostly against it, while all but Les Verts are internally split. But that may also be because France has a strong nuclear industry, and the left-wing parties tend to be friendly with the unions, and the unions defend nuclear energy because it creates jobs (both for our own energy and because we export nuclear technology).
4cousin_it12y
Thanks for the link to Caplan's post, it's a very nice thought experiment. How about a thread where right-wing folks can give their strongest versions of left-wing arguments and vice versa, all the while quietly laughing about each other's misconceptions but not stepping in to correct? I could give it a try, as a right-winger imitating a left-winger, but I'd probably just embarrass myself.

You know who else made arguments? Hitler.

No, Hitler didn't make arguments, he made assertions; and you know what else was an assertion? Your comment!

6JQuinton12y
I purposefully use this version of worst argument in the world when talking about homosexuality/homophobia or atheism, etc.: You know who else didn't like gay people / atheists / Communists? Hitler
4DaFranker12y
Time for the meta: You know who else uses versions of the worst argument in the world when talking about relevant topics? Dark Lords.

I love the article, but this is a bad name for a fallacy, as it hinders neutral discussion of its relative badness compared to other fallacies.

If I could pick a name, I'd probably choose something like "tainting categorization".

it hinders neutral discussion of its relative badness compared to other fallacies

Not only that, but it is also non-descriptive.

7Patrick12y
The philosophers beat you to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_%28fallacy%29
2AlexanderRM9y
I don't think that name is very descriptive and is also hard to say. On the other hand I like the initial example use on Wikipedia, regarding surgeons, because it's an apolitical one that nobody actually believes. (or at least it is today. It could be that Artistotle was writing at a time when surgery was very new and not widely accepted, and many people made derogatory comments like calling surgeons butchers. Especially considering that surgery in those days was probably super-dangerous so a lot of people would die on the operating table and the increased survival rates would be hard to see. But for the present day it works great.) On the other hand, the Wikipedia page fails to give any indication of how prevalent the fallacy is, which political examples are probably required for, as Yvain pointed out. But the surgery one might be optimal as a replacement for the MLK example in the first section, pointing out how absurd the fallacy is, before going into political examples to show how common it is.
3chaosmosis12y
I'd choose something like "the fallacy of naive deduction" because it reminds me of those awful proofs that the Greeks used to write which were essentially just the premises that contained their hidden assumptions, and then extremely simple deductions which followed straightforwardly from the premises.

I don't see what this has to do with "loss aversion" (the phenomenon where people think losing a dollar is worse than failing to gain a dollar they could have gained), though that's of course a tangential matter.

The point here is -- and I say this with all due respect -- it looks to me like you're rationalizing a decision made for other reasons. What's really going on here, it seems to me, is that, since you're lucky enough to be part of a physical community of "similar" people (in which, of course, you happen to have high status), your brain thinks they are the ones who "really matter" -- as opposed to abstract characters on the internet who weren't part of the ancestral environment (and who never fail to critique you whenever they can).

That doesn't change the fact that this is is an online community, and as such, is for us abstract characters, not your real-life dinner companions. You should be taking advice from the latter about running this site to about the same extent that Alicorn should be taking advice from this site about how to run her dinner parties.

8Alicorn11y
Do you have advice on how to run my dinner parties?

Vaniver and DaFranker have both offered sensible, practical, down-to-earth advice. I, on the other hand, have one word for you: Airship.

2shminux11y
Not plastics?
9Vaniver11y
Consider eating Roman-style to increase the intimacy / as a novel experience. Unfortunately, this is made way easier with specialized furniture- but you should be able to improvise with pillows. As well, it is a radically different way to eat that predates the invention of the fork (and so will work fine with hands or chopsticks, but not modern implements).
3DaFranker11y
Consider seating logistics, and experiment with having different people decide who sits where (or next to whom). Dinner parties tend to turn out differently with different arrangements, but different subcultures will have different algorithms for establishing optimal seating, so the experimentation is usually necessary (and having different people decide serves both as a form of blinding and as a way to turn up evidence to isolate the algorithm faster).

signal your outgroup hatred with a downvote and move on.

Downvoted because I don't find it appropriate to uncharitably interpret the meaning of any downvotes one receives, and certainly not out loud and in advance.

It's bad when people use the dictionary to make political arguments, but it's worse when they write their own dictionary. For example:

  • Normal people define "selfishness" as "taking care of oneself, even if that means hurting other people." Objectivists define "selfishness" as "taking care of oneself, but never hurting other people." Hence, selfishness can never morally objectionable.

  • Normal people define "sexism" as "unfair treatment of a person based on their sex." Feminists define "sexism" as "unfair treatment of a person based on their sex, but it only counts if their sex has been historically disadvantaged." Hence, men can never be victims of sexism.

  • Normal people define "freedom" as "the ability to do a lot of stuff." Catholics define freedom as "the ability to do as God wishes." Hence, laws enforcing Catholic norms are pro-freedom.

Objectivists define "selfishness" as "taking care of oneself, but never hurting other people."

Not to mention that they define "hurting" as "damaging or destroying other's life, health or property by direct action" where normal people understand the word much more broadly.

Normal people define "true" as "good enough; not worth looking at too closely". Nerds define "true" as "irrefutable even by the highest-level nerd you are likely to encounter in this context." Hence more or less all of Western philosophy, theology, science, etc.; and hence normal people's acceptance that contradictory things can be "true" at the same time.

(Yes, I'm problematizing your contrast between various groups you dislike and "normal people".)

and hence normal people's acceptance that nerd-contradictory things can be normal-"true" at the same time.

Namespaced that for you.

2SilasBarta12y
People need to do that more often!
2magfrump12y
This is relevant to the discussion below of the second bullet point--however it resonates well regardless and I wouldn't change it unless you had something else that felt like part of the same tribe.

Long time ago, me and my sockpuppet lonelygirl15, we was scrollin' down a long and boring thread. All of a sudden, there shined a shiny admin... in the middle... of the thread.

And he said, "Give a reason for your views, or I'll ban you, troll."

Well me and lonely, we looked at each other, and we each said... "Okay."

And we said the first thing that came to our heads, Just so happened to be, The Worst Argument in the World, it was the Worst Argument in the World.

Look into my brain and it's easy to see This A is B and that B is C, So this A is C. My heuristic isn't justified But I know it's right 'cause of how it feels From the inside...

I want to respond to James G's critique of this post. First because it was pretty intense, second because I usually enjoy reading his blog, and third because maybe other people have the same objection. I'm doing it here because his blog is closed to comments.

There is no basis to allege that everyone who says, “affirmative action is racist” is trying to position “affirmative action” in the very heart of the “racism” cluster. Clusters-in-thingspace, especially nebulous ones like “racism”, are huge volumes. That affirmative action belongs somewhere in this volume, rather than well outside, is a claim worth making even if affirmative action isn’t a central member...Affirmative action is racist!” draws attention to a cartographic error. “Affirmative action” shouldn’t be remote from “racism”; it is a marginal member of the racism cluster.

I would ask James why exactly we're trying to create a "racism" cluster to begin with. Are we ontologists who place things in categories for fun in our spare time? If so, his cartographic metaphor is apt; we're just trying to draw a map of conceptspace and we should be politely reminded that "affirmative action" is in the wrong pa... (read more)

I want to eventually retitle this "Guilt by Association Fallacy" (or something)

Please do! Please do! "The Worst Argument in the World" is the Worst Name for an Argument in the World. It's like someone describing a film as "the best film ever made", when all it is is the most recent one they saw that made a big impression.

And while I'm on the subject, "Fundamental Attribution Error" is just as bad. Could people practice calling it the Trait Attribution Error instead?

3Unnamed12y
Agreed. For me it brings to mind Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World" segment, which is not a good sign. It's not so bad if it's done with a wink in a one-off blog post, but I wouldn't want it to stick or be used more widely. "Worst Argument in the World" seems like a particularly inappropriate label here, because it's generous to even call these sorts of slogans "arguments." Saying "Abortion is murder!" or "Evolutionary psychology is sexist!" is, at best, a vague gesture in the direction of an argument. There may be a coherent argument somewhere in that approximate direction, but if all you're doing is attaching a one-word label ("it's murder!") and leaving the rest implicit then you're probably just talking to System 1 (activating emotions and associations). As a dismissive put-down of this tactic, "that's not even an argument" seems more apt than "that's the worst argument in the world."
8cousin_it12y
Is the argument "refusing to donate to Africa is like refusing to rescue a drowning kid" an instance of the WAITW?
7[anonymous]12y
I don't think it's a case of the WAITW as Singer lays it out, though it's easy to see how the argument would go if it were. All the work of Singer's argument is to adress and argue against the idea that there are important differences between those two cases. The WAITW characteristically tries to skip that work.
6cousin_it12y
That's a great answer, but did Singer eliminate all the potentially important differences? Carl Shulman has a nice post pointing out one such difference, and there may be others. It looks like detecting instances of WAITW can be difficult and controversial.
4[anonymous]12y
Well, I think the fact that Singer explicitly tries to tackle the problem of 'important differences' takes him out of range of the WAITW. At that point, if he fails, then his argument doesn't work. But he's not therefore doing something like 'abortion is murder'. Edit: I just read Shulman's argument, and I think it's invalid. The fact that the drowning child and distant starving child cases differ in those respects relevant to various 'selfish' ends isn't strictly relevant to the question of their moral relationship.
7Vaniver12y
The cat's sort of out of the bag on that one. Not quite. Oftentimes, this sort of argument is deployed to point out contradictions or hypocrisy in the other person's position. For example, I know a number of people who call themselves anti-racists. I have been unable to find a difference between their "anti-racism" and "racism against whites," and so the statement "affirmative action is racist" highlights that hypocrisy of the name more than it is a fervent appeal against their dislike of racism. (If they actually disliked the practice of judging by racial membership, I expect they wouldn't be racist against whites.)
3[anonymous]12y
James_G responded to this here.
[-][anonymous]12y250

Related to: List of public drafts on LessWrong

Draft of a critical response to this article

  1. The worst argument in the world already has a different name. Philosophers call it the logical fallacy of Accident.

  2. Calling out the worst argument in the world is not useful in practice. It is really hard to stop it from being a fully general counterargument against any high level abstract argument. The article seems to hold that for communication to work properly all statements must refer to “archetypes”, central members of a cluster in thing space. If so, this conflicts with the very idea of parsing reality into clusters-in-thingspace, which is inevitable. Every cluster, being a cluster and not a point, has more and less central members. If arbitrarily marginal members of clusters are invalid members, arbitrarily many things said by humans are The Worst Argument In The World. To banish statements that don’t locate one cluster-in-thingspace right into the centre of another cluster-in-thingspace is faulty, especially when the statements are slogans and the words highly abstract. To use it properly you have to come up with an argument that shows that either the rule or generalization you ar

... (read more)
4siodine12y
I think the most critical response to the worst argument in the world is that so many people are misunderstanding it (it was better explained on Yvain's blog where he didn't speak in LessWrongese). However, you are right that it is the logical fallacy of accident (as it is probably a form or child or parent of various other types of fallacies), but it's been put in LessWrong's clothes like Yudkowsky has done with other existing biases and fallacies, as such it assumes the LWian worldview and thus imports some nuances which kilobug partly noted. To your second point, no line is ever drawn on what thing inside cluster-space is outside of the cluster for a given argument. Instead, the entire cluster is banished. Instead, you must argue for the tautology of which the cluster represents (e.g., murder cluster = tautologically bad), and even that's assuming the cluster should be noncontinuous tautologies (shouldn't things farther away from the center of the murder cluster be less bad?). This is no different than the philosophical process of unpacking statements to avoid begging the question.
2Scott Alexander12y
Can you explain what part on my blog you thought was better, so I can maybe replace it here?
4siodine12y
Inference and context are annoyingly important in communication; you start off on the blog by making your definition more personal while on LW it's more abstract and thereby it doesn't convey your intention as well (although, it should be inferred from the rest of the post). It's kinda the same throughout the LessWrong post. Blog: "If we can apply an emotionally charged word to something, we must judge it exactly the same as a typical instance of that emotionally charged word." LW: "X is in a category whose archetypal member has certain features. Therefore, we should judge X as if it also had those features, even though it doesn't." Suggestion: Yesterday, I had a conversation with a friend about slavery. My friend said, "you know, capitalism is evil." I replied, "Why is that?" He said, "You see, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines slavery as 'submission to a dominating influence' which clearly includes working for a wage, so therefore capitalism is slavery!" I said, "you mean like slavery-slavery? Whips and shackles?" He said, "sure, see working for a wage is clearly submitting to a dominating influence, so it's slavery all the same. But let's not get into semantics..." If David Stove can unilaterally declare a Worst Argument, then so can I. I declare the Worst Argument In The World to be this: "X is in a category whose prototypical member has certain features. Therefore, let's presuppose X has all of those same features."
4Peterdjones12y
A pretty bad argument is this widespread idea that one should never "get into semantics", even if that is what is causing problems. Many even use "semantics" to mean something like "pointless pedantry". I can remember when semantics was a respectable academic discipline...
4komponisto12y
Amen to this. Indeed, I fear that an actual majority of "people out there" may have no idea that "semantics" means anything other than "pointless pedantry". Actually, though semantics is perhaps the hardest hit, this is a general phenomenon, afflicting many unfortunate disciplines. You might call it the Argument from Circumscription of Subject Matter, or the "...But That Would Get Us Into X" Fallacy. Essentially, it goes like this: "that line of inquiry can't possibly be relevant, because it comes under the heading of a different academic discipline from the one our discussion falls under". It is particularly common (and insidious) when the "other" discipline has some kind of "bad" reputation for some reason (as in the case of semantics, which is evidently regarded as "pointless pedantry"). As a fictional (yet particularly illustrative) example of this fallacy, one could imagine EY and his colleagues at SIAI a decade ago saying "Well, we could worry about making sure future AI is Friendly, but....that would get us into philosophy [which is notoriously difficult, and not techno-programmer-sounding, so we won't]." To which the response, of course, is: "So it would. What's your point?"
3wedrifid12y
I have even been in a conversation (with some MENSAns) where the primary subject was actually the meaning of a particular word. One person tried to support his position by retorting that the other person's argument was "just semantics". Well, obviously, yes. But that's a literal description of the subject matter, not an excuse to use "Hah! Semantics!" as a general counterargument! (Not that I endorse the conversation itself as especially useful, just that "Semantics! My side wins!" is very different to "Semantics! Let's not have this conversation".)
3satt12y
Minor wording point: labelling point 2 as "The worst argument in the world is not a useful argument in practice" sounds like you're about to attack the WAitW, when you're actually warning against labelling things as the WAitW. It might be less ambiguous to relabel point 2 as "Calling out the worst argument in the world is not useful in practice" or something similar.
2[anonymous]12y
Obvious fix. Thank you!
2kilobug12y
I see a (subtle but significant) difference between Aristotle version and Yvain version. In Aristotle version, it goes like "doing A is X", "B does A" so "B is X". That's wrong, because (but Aristotle didn't know it) words are not precise definitions but fuzzy clusters. That's the main for which the "fallacy of accident" is a fallacy. And surgeons are not criminals. The Yvain version is much more subtle. It acknowledges that words are fuzzy clusters, not fixed definitions. And that you can, without it being a fallacy (unlike in the first case) make claim like "abortion is murder" or "death penalty is murder". But that even if that claim can be make (even if we can consider them to be part of the fuzzy cluster) it's still a fallacy to use it as an argument, because while they are part of the cluster, they only share some of the problems that a typical member of the cluster has. Now, if you consider my own point of view on those issues (but it could symmetric) : I'm pro-choice and against the death penalty. The WAitW idea is that I shouldn't argue for the right to abortion by trying to prove "abortion is not murder" and against the death penalty by trying to prove "death penalty is murder", being stuck in a definition match which is pointless, but that I should look deeper, dissolve what "murder" is and what it's assumed to be wrong, and show that most of what make us reject murder doesn't apply to abortion, and most of what make us reject it applies to death penalty. Or even completely discard the "murder" concept, and just look from a consequentialist point of view about the good and bad consequences of both.

My sarcastic "trigger warning" was a darkly humorous prediction of this rather predictable outcome to voicing feminist thought on this website.

Your "darkly humorous prediction" falls under a pattern we've seen lots and lots of time, where some radical something - some radical reactionaries (e.g. monarchists, racists, etc), some of them radical progressives like yourself, judge in advance about how close-minded we'll be to their ideas, just because we dare to disagree with aspects of their own particular brand of politics. Nothing new here.

They also all tend to judge our downvotes much like you have. In advance, and cynically. Because Politics is the Mind-Killer, and therefore anyone disagreeing with you politically must be The Evil Enemy, deprived of any sincerity whatsoever

Since you downvoted anyway, apparently you do care more about signalling that you are part of the anti-feminist ingroup rather than being a good rationalist.

It's not I but you who argued on consequentialistic grounds in favour of scientists not speaking with honesty. Therefore it's your comments that I now find suspect: Do you really believe what you're saying, or are you just finding ... (read more)

Since we think largely in words, pointing out similarities between Thing We Think Is Bad and Thing We Think Is Good requires us to examine the connotations of the words we use. We should be doing that all the time. Just as this alleged "worst argument in the world" can be used to sneak in connotations, it can also be used to force examination of connotations that have previously been sneaked in.

I agree. I'm not saying that this form can't be used as a means of examining our intuitions. For example, "meat is murder" is a snappier way of asking "Why, given that we're so worried about harming humans, are we so callous about harming animals?"

But then once the other person answers you with something like "It's because animals have no natural rights" or "Because animals don't have sophisticated enough nervous systems to suffer" or whatever it is they say, the debate has to shift to whether or not that objection is valid. So "but meat is murder!" shouldn't be used as a counterargument to "Animals don't have sophisticated enough nervous systems to suffer", because this latter statement is already answering the question the former was intended to ask.

9SisterY12y
From that example, it sounds like mindless repetition (non-responsiveness) is the worst argument in the world, whether or not it contains an analogy. What is the special harm of analogy that makes it worse than other kinds of mindless repetition? (Worse than, say, other kinds of seductive, poetic language like rhyming words, a la "if it doesn't fit you must acquit.") And is an analogy still "the worst argument in the world" if it's NOT mindlessly repeated?

I don't think it's precisely about mindless repetition. For example:

A: I think eating meat is morally okay, because animals have simple nervous systems and can't feel pain.

B: But meat is murder!

Here even though A spoke first and there is no repetition involved, I still think B's response is inadequate, because B is accusing A of double standards after A has explained the double standard away. The reason why this is more dangerous than (if not worse than) "If the glove won't fit, you must acquit" is that B looks like she is making a novel and nontrivial point and it's not immediately obvious that this is a non-argument already addressed by A's statement (whereas hopefully no one takes the glove argument seriously as an argument)

9SisterY12y
Again, the objection seems to be more about the particular USE of the argument than the nature of the argument itself (what I call above "non-responsiveness"). I would genuinely like to understand why analogies of the kind you call the Worst Argument in the World are so harmful (and I appreciate your engaging on it). Is it your claim that people are particularly likely to take analogies seriously as arguments, more than other arguments? Is it their very power that makes them so bad? Rhyming and other poetic tricks, like showing a picture, make statements feel more true to hearers; are those tricks less dangerous than analogy because we (think we) are immune to them? I can kind of intuitively understand what you mean by something being a real argument or not ("as an argument"), but I'm not sure why things taken seriously as arguments are more dangerous than sneaky, non-argument cues that make things seem true. I wonder if what you really want to destroy are "things effectively masquerading as arguments that aren't really arguments." That class is not exhausted by inexact analogies (which is to say all analogies), nor are all inexact analogies members of that class. I think metonymy (association, like eugenics --> Hitler) is a much more harmful cognitive sin than metaphor (which at least requires a theory of why things are similar).
2Scott Alexander12y
This sounds like a fair summary. I stick to my assertion that what you're calling analogies (and which I would specify are analogies that are not phrased in analogy form and which the overwhelming majority of people never recognize as analogies) are more common and more convincing than most other members of this class.
7SisterY12y
In grade school we learn that "X is like Y" is a simile, and "X is Y" is a metaphor, and that there is some crucial difference between the two. Perhaps there is, but I haven't seen an argument to that effect. Mainly, we call both of these "analogy" or "metaphor." So the argument for tabooing The Worst Argument in the World is that, since many analogies are unusually powerful and people may not recognize that they're analogies rather than perhaps identities, every analogy is The Worst Argument in the World. Even though many analogies are admittedly productive, the class of argument is tabooed because many of its members are problematic. Doesn't that make the taboo on The Worst Argument in the World itself a species of The Worst Argument in the World?
3Scott Alexander12y
I'm not trying to taboo everything of the form "X is Y". Consider an analogy to the argumentum ad hominem fallacy. I think it's correct to dub this a fallacy and say it's not a legitimate move in argument. However, some people are stupid, some people are evil, and it may be correct and proper to mention that they are stupid and evil. It just can't be doing the heavy lifting in an argument. Certainly calling people stupid and evil is useful as a slogan, it's useful for introducing evidence against them, it's even valid in some kinds of arguments (For example, "Bob is stupid, so we probably don't want to let him design the nuclear plant.") I think Worst Argument in the World is the same way. There are some legitimate uses for statements of the "X is in category Y!" form, but actually doing the heavy lifting in a philosophical argument is not one of them. I'd be pretty happy if people just stopped doing it entirely, but I admit that it's possible (although I think unlikely) to keep using it and always be responsible with it.

If I wanted to do that, I would phrase things differently, to avoid the connotation issues (of, for example, Taxation is Theft!):

"We think burglary is bad, but tax is good, yet they have some similarities. Are we right to judge them differently?" or even "I think the things that make burglary bad are X Y and Z, but X is shared by taxation, and Y is partly shared by taxation. I conclude that taxation is not as bad as burglary, but still a bit bad"

Great, clear statement of the position. Wouldn't the "worst argument in the world" taboo apply just as strongly to any use of figurative language in the context of an argument? Instead of making an analogy, for instance (e.g., "X is the mindkiller"), why not just use literal language? No danger of connotative contamination, then. Instead of making a joke, why not just explain what you mean, rather than requiring your audience to grasp for the insight it contains? (Apparently hyperbole is allowed, as it's incorporated into the NAME of the argument - why is hyperbole okay, but not metaphor?)

I understand the ideal here. But I think cutting off our own linguistic balls, so to speak, gives us only the illusion of cognitive cleanness - and much is lost. We are not motivated by pure logic to engage logically with an idea. We are motivated by "epistemic emotions" like curiosity and confusion. A title like "Should Trees Have Standing?" is emotional and poetic and could be literally replaced with "Should our legal system treat inanimate objects as ends in themselves for social reasons not entailed by property rights?" But I don't think the former is cheating, and I don't think the latter would have been as successful in motivating cognition on the topic.

I would even defend good old "Meat is Murder!" as a compact little ethical puzzle for beginners, rather than the Worst Argument in the World!

3TGM12y
I think the salient point here is whether we are talking about a theft close to the archetype, such as mugging or burglary, or one further from it, such as Robin Hood enacting his redistribution scheme, or the government taxing. So when we have "X is the mindkiller", that's okay if "X" happens to be party politics, or factions disagreeing in a fricticious boardroom meeting. A fringe example of mind-killing might be a recurring disagreement between spouses over whether to buy skinned or unskinned milk (you can still have entrenched positions, but it doesn't really reach the same level). Not sure I'm being too clear. What I'm saying is that words refer to a cluster of things, with varying strength, and we use the WAITW when we talk about things on the fringe of that cluster as if they were in fact slap bang in the middle.

We can reflectively apply our intuition - we can use the phrase "Capital punishment is murder" to remind other people that capital punishment does share some of the same disadvantages that all other murders have

More generally, it is worth noting that a very tempting class of bad arguments is those which are slightly true, such as this.

I have about 15 responses to this comment or other comments I've made in this subthread, and all of them are disgustingly antifeminst.

Many of the immediate responses disagreed with you. That's the structure of this type of forum. Agreement = silent upvote. Disagreement can lead to responses (or silent downvotes).

  • Not all the responses have been equally hostile to your position. Distinguishing between them is good advocacy.

  • People have written comments supportive to your position in the discussion of this topic.

  • You are engaging in radical advocacy. Receiving negative feedback from the supporters of the status quo should be expected. Noting that you expect negative feedback is not good advocacy. Specifically, it increases (NOT decreases) the frequency of negative feedback.

As Foucault shows, there is no conflict between being a good empiricist and advocating for changes to social norms. But you aren't being very effective in advocacy right now. As I said elsewhere, there are substantial reasons not to trust current Ev. Psych. But those reasons are not obvious because of status quo bias. If you continue advocating as if those problems are as obvious to everyone as they are to you and me, your advocacy will fail.

You should probably mention at the top that this is cross-posted from your personal blog. I am glad you posted here; it's an excellent post.

I requested the crosspost.

since you're lucky enough to be part of a physical community of "similar" people

Was Eliezer "lucky" to have cofounded the Singularity Institute and Overcoming Bias?

The causes of his being in such a happy situation (is that better?) were clearly not the point here, and, quite frankly, I think you knew that.

But if you insist on an answer to this irrelevant rhetorical question, the answer is yes. Eliezer_2012 is indeed quite fortunate to have been preceded by all those previous Eliezers who did those things.

EY owns LessWrong

Then, like I implied, he should just admit to making a decision on the basis of his own personal preference (if indeed that's what's going on), instead of constructing a rationalization about the opinions of offline folks being somehow more important or "appropriately" filtered.

And George Washington was a traitor. ;)

And George Washington was a traitor. ;)

I'm pretty sure the definition of 'traitor' includes "and lost" in there somewhere!

"Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

Sir John Harington)

And okay, a tiny fraction of the time people are just trying to use words as a Schelling fence.

I'm not sure it's that tiny, especially once you're using the "steel man" version of the arguments; i.e. things like "Schelling fences" do not often appear in the reasons given for the disagreement, but that can still be what it boils down to.

People who object to abortion may be objecting to a weakening of the social stigma against the murder of innocents - that social stigma performs a useful function in society, so allowing anything that could be described as "murder of innocents" is perceived as bad, regardless of whether that thing is in itself bad.

In other words, even if words are hidden inferences with leaky generalizations etc. - social norms are still defined in terms of words, and so "pointless" debates over definitions still have their place in discussions of morality. Questions that shouldn't be morally relevant ("is abortion murder?") become so because of the instrumental value of social norms.

So yes, sometimes pulling out a dictionary in the middle of a moral argument may be justified. The discussion can then turn to something more useful, like "is it worse if the norm against murder is slightly weakened, or if women have to keep children they don't want?".

Even if that is true (and I stick to my guess that it's only a tiny fraction of the time) I still think deconstructing the argument is valuable. If people's true rejection of abortion is Schelling fences, then let's talk Schelling fences! I would ask why birth doesn't also work as a Schelling fence, and I would get to hear their response, and maybe one of us would change our mind.

But if their true rejection is based on Schelling fences, and instead they're just saying that abortion is murder, there's not much we can do except play Dueling Dictionaries. And the reason that has no chance of working ("Really? Merriam-Webster defines murder as killing a human after birth? Guess I'll go NARAL!") is directly related to it not being their real issue.

there's not much we can do except play Dueling Dictionaries.

There are real-world examples that could be described as getting the "dictionary" changed — for instance, the successful campaign to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the American Psychiatric Association's "dictionary" (as it were) of mental illnesses.

6Emile12y
I agree that talking Schelling fences is usually more productive, and that it's probably not people's true rejection on abortion (norms around sexuality and fertility probably play a bigger role). Note also that unlike you, I never saw an "abortion is murder" sign in real life, and don't remember the topic ever coming up in real life. Schelling fences probably play a bigger role for "justifiable killing" (like self-defense, the death penalty, euthanasia), where having a strong norm against killing in general discourages revenge killings (anti-abortion seem to be trying to hijack that norm to cover a case that doesn't fall under "killing" nearly as naturally). "Racism is bad" is another case where the norm is pretty valuable and useful in itself, and acknowledging that "non-bad cases of racism are not bad" would weaken it. Eh, it probably depends of the reference class you're picking, and how charitable you're willing to be in interpreting people's reasons. when deconstructing a WAitW, it may be worth directing the discussion to one on Schelling Fences / norms etc., both as a way of raising the quality of the discussion, and of leaving a line of retreat.

I just thought of another good illustration: "Marijuana is a drug!"

This fits perfectly under Yvain's description (it associates Marijuana with the worse kinds of hard drugs that turn you into a skinny toothless zombie willing to sell his grandmother for his next fix), and a concern of some opponents to legalization is that making one form of recreational drug will lower the taboo on drugs as a whole. And that is a legitimate concern, considering the damage hard drugs can cause! (though of course it's to weigh against the damage caused by marijuana trafficking, which would be significantly reduced if it was legal - and if it was legal it would cluster less naturally with the hard drugs).

2gwern12y
I like this version; it also applies to modafinil ("modafinil is a drug!") and you can swap out 'drug' for more convincing versions (since 'drug' seems to me to be losing its negative connotations), like "nicotine is a toxin!"
2Decius12y
"Alcohol and tobacco are drugs!" The 'drug' aspect isn't an argument, it's a distraction from the real reasons.
5Unnamed12y
The "a fetus is a person" attempt to frame the abortion debate actually seems like it would weaken the norm against killing innocents. Most people agree with the rule that it's generally wrong to kill an innocent person, which is a relatively clear bright-line rule. If pro-abortion people can just say "well, a human fetus doesn't count as a person so the rule doesn't apply there" then the rule against killing a person remains relatively clear and simple for them. But if they have to count a human fetus as a "person" then the rule against killing a person becomes messy and complicated for them - they have to say "well, it's often wrong to kill a person, but there are various exceptions and factors to weigh." Anti-abortion people might like having the abortion debate take place on those grounds, with a human fetus counting as a "person" by definition, because of the rhetorical advantage it gives them within that particular debate. But for the broader goal of establishing shared support for the "sanctity of life" it is counterproductive to cast the abortion debate in those terms. If you use a dictionary to remove the flexibility/disagreement in defining the domain where the rule applies, then that flexibility/disagreement gets shifted into the content of the rule.
4DaFranker12y
I want a Generalized Emergency Taboo button for just such cases; press the button and everyone is banned from using the word "murder" when talking about "abortion". That way, in the future, we could talk about abortion using "abortion", and murder in general using "murder", whether abortion is murder or not, without weakening social norms in the process. Or maybe Beisutsukai already have such a button? Perhaps they need a high enough level to unlock the skill? I had an idea of some third option we could use here to counter the social norm issue when I first read this, but got distracted and forgot it before I could follow up. Anyone else got any such ideas?
5sketerpot12y
That's not really generalized, since it's specific to abortion and murder. A generalized emergency taboo button would be a custom where it's considered polite to ask people to taboo a word (if you think this might help the discussion), and impolite to ignore this request. I think Less Wrong is pretty decent about this, at least compared to the rest of the world. It's the only place where I've ever seen such a request succeed. For most people it's far from onvious what the point of tabooing a word would be, and it's hard to give a compelling justification for it in a quick sound-bite that you can drop into an in-person discussion.

In the rest of the world, when I find it necessary to invoke the concept, I generally ask people to clarify what they mean by a word and then echo back the phrase they used the word in, substituting their explanation.

Generally speaking, people respond to this as though I'd played some dirty rhetorical trick on them and deny ever having said any such thing, at which point I apologize and ask them again to clarify what they mean by the word.

Among conversations that continue past this point, it works pretty well. (They are the minority.)

I observe that wedifrid has taken advantage of this particular opportunity to remind everyone that he thinks I am belligerent, whiny, condescending, and cynical.

I notice that my criticism was made specifically regarding the exhibition of those behaviors in the comments he has made about the subject he has brought up here. We can even see that I made specific links. Eliezer seems to be conflating this with a declaration that he has those features as part of his innate disposition.

By saying that wedrifid is reminding people that he (supposedly) believes Eliezer has those dispositions he also implies that wedrifid has said this previously. This is odd because I find myself to be fairly open with making criticisms of Eliezer whenever I feel them justified and from what I recall "belligerent, whiny, condescending, and cynical [about the lesswrong community]" isn't remotely like a list of weaknesses that I actually have described Eliezer as having in general or at any particular time that I recall.

Usually when people make this kind of muddled accusation I attribute it to a failure of epistemic rationality and luminosity. Many people just aren't able to separate in their min... (read more)

Agreed that science journalism is a cesspool and we need to fix that. That said, I wouldn't say quantum mechanics is woo, nor complain about people discussing it before checking if they're talking about the real thing or a bastardization. Ditto for evpsych and sexism.

feminism (the social movement to destroy gender)

You're the first feminist I've read who promotes this. I'd like to hear more about your position (PM? I don't want to discuss politics on LW.), but please don't claim it's universal among feminists

Some feminists want men and women to be equal (and believe it's possible without destroying gender), some want everyone to be equal but still care about being called "he" or "she" or "zie" and go to men- or women- or genderqueer-only spaces (and believe it's possible), some want women to do male-coded things with no social cost but don't care about the reverse, some want everyone to conform to gender roles but want to change the roles a bit so they don't include standing barefoot in the kitchen with no vote, some want women to rule over men and use good feminine things like intuition and not bad masculine things like science (and I wish they would stop writing bad fantasy novels).

[-][anonymous]12y150

But now that you've stated this, you have the ability to rationalize any future IRL meta discussion...

This has traditionally been a very divisive point within radical feminism, and it typically divides the discussion into transphobic social-constructionist radical feminists (like the source of my original infographic) and neo-essentialist post-feminists.

http://www.xkcd.com/1095/

No. If I can't be happy until everything is good, then I can't expect to feel happy ever. At that point, I give up on trying to make things better because I hate anyone who'd try to make me that unhappy.

Willie Nelson: How much oil is a human life worth?

Economist: Well, in the United States workers value their lives at about $7 million. With current crude oil prices at around $100 a barrel, a human life is worth about 70,000 barrels of oil.

4prase12y
This is the subjective value of one's own life. The market value of human life, i.e. the price for which one life can be saved, should be much lower.
3Eliezer Yudkowsky12y
If only 100 barrels of oil ends up being worth a human life, clearly we ought to invade Iran. Or Equatorial Guinea if we can only scrape up a couple of million dollars for the coup. Incidentally, there appears to be an important list of unsung humanitarian heroes here.
7Costanza12y
I'd quibble about "clearly," even in context. Wars are just too damn random. Nothing against cost-benefit analysis in the abstract, but, in practice, invading a country seems like one of those very complicated choices that may inherently risk some major, major unintended consequences. I'm mostly thinking negative, but I suppose this would go both ways -- unexpected ultimate positive consequences might be possible as well, but still hard to calculate at all.
2novalis12y
I am not entirely convinced that a foreign-backed violent coup, even against a truly heinous dictator, is necessarily a good idea. This seems like one of those cases for ethical injunctions, because the visible upside is so clear (the dictator is gone), but the downside is more complicated: violent coups, for whatever reason, very rarely end up producing good governments.
2prase12y
By the same logic, doesn't everyone who steals X money, where X happens to be higher than the value of life, become a humanitarian hero? By which I mean that I don't understand your point. You seem to indirectly accuse me of commiting a fallacy, yet I don't know which one.
2Eliezer Yudkowsky12y
Nope, wasn't accusing you of anything. I was just amused by the point that anyone who wants to save as many lives as possible, but has only a finite amount of oil, must be able to state some consistent value of human life in terms of barrels of oil, since otherwise you could rearrange the oil to save more lives.

If that bothers you, you may consider that whining that people find you whiny might not be the optimal strategy for making them change their mind.

Feminism holds that gender is a social construct

And if feminism happens to be factually false in that particular respect? Even partly false, so that gender is 90% a social construct, and 10% a result of biology?

The existence of gender identity dysphoria indicates that people can have "genders" which they were not assigned to socially -- the dysphoria arising from the discrepancy between their "real" genders, and their societally assigned genders.

I've not studied if/how feminism (as you describe it) can be reconciled in this respect with pro-transgender thought -- do you have any thoughts on the subject?

2TimS12y
Gender != sex. I support the position that all social roles that are totally uncorrelated with physical facts should be re-examined (and probably eliminated). Where to draw the line between physical difference and pure social construct is a difficult empirical question. Ev. Psych asks the right questions, but I don't trust its answers.
5ArisKatsaris12y
I know that gender != sex, but people are societally assigned the gender corresponding to their biological sex (or more accurately the gender corresponding to their genitalia). So if gender is a wholly social construct, there would probably not exist such a thing as gender identity dysphoria. I don't trust the particular answers of Ev. Psych either, but I also mistrust any claim of psychological equality in biologically different groups. It smacks of a mind-body duality that doesn't exist: The brain is a physical organ like any other; psychology is a biological function -- culture and society shape it, but so does biology. Therefore there's no physical law requiring its average characteristics to be completely the same between males and females. That would be privileging the theory we would prefer to be true as egalitarians.
3TimS12y
There are historical ideologies that seem to repeatedly be wrong for essentially the same reasons. * Mind-body dualism. * Essentialist "scientific" theories to explain then existing social norms. Which is more powerful in this case? Hopefully we can find out. As for gender identity dysphoria, I don't doubt there is a phenomena out there. But for it to support your position seems to require that the DSM-IV cut the world at its joints. I think we agree that this is a laughable assertion. In particular, I distrust the current descriptions because I suspect that the distinction between gender and sex is not being sufficiently respected by those making the diagnostic definitions. Lots of mental illness is defined explicitly or implicitly in terms of fit into current social norms.

It is not as if we have no half-baked evopsych theorizing here; and there's Hanson, who is particularly guilty. Who can read some of his wilder posts and not regard it was a wee bit discrediting of evopsych?

Genetic engineering to cure diseases is eugenics. And eugenics has more wrong with it than guilt by association. It's inherently a dangerous activity, potentially far more dangerous than anything Hitler did.

That's the worst argument in the world.

Its danger is contextually expanded due to our dearth of understanding of the processes we engineer

And that is closer to discussing the substance instead of the archetypal example in the category, so might as well skip the first part.

I'm guessing it's more likely to work out when it's the partner of a LessWronger who initiates it, than when it's the partner of a nonLessWronger.

Your current worldview seems to be unfalsifiable without very expensive experiments. (How would you even know if patriarchy had been destroyed anyway?) Maybe we're doing this backwards. What caused you to become a feminist? What evidence could you have encountered that would have made you a non-feminist?

At a first glance your type of feminism seems to seek to put both men AND women in smaller and darker cages, as it seems to seek to ban more and more behaviors for both genders, instead of permit more and more.

Seriously "penis-in-vagina sex"? I don't think there's ever been a society so oppressive to both genders as to ban even that.

Seriously "penis-in-vagina sex"? I don't think there's ever been a society so oppressive to both genders as to ban even that.

Shakers!

5ArisKatsaris12y
Ah, true. And they were rather egalitarian-minded too.
4DaFranker12y
It's not often one sees single-word comments this insightful on the Interwebz. Kudos!

What sort of language and tone have you used while doing so? Have you ensured that you did this in a way so as to be non-condescending and helpful, or were you being a man who explains things? Did you consider that there are harmful social consequences to a man "teaching" a woman anything about feminism? Did you at least feel intensely conscious and uncomfortable around this issue, knowing as a good feminist that you were in dangerous territory?

To answer this in particular because I think they're all valid points you probably have more experience with than I do, I used the same text with the women as I used with men to whom I taught the same thing, and it was done through an impersonal text-only chat interface, and no I did not "know as a good feminist" all that much because I was merely, in my mind, correcting a behavior reinforcing unfairness. I had not learned to think more than four steps of causality forward in counterfactuals, at the time, nor of how to compute recursive not-exclusively-self-reinforcing social trends.

No, I did not feel intensely conscious and uncomfortable about these things, because ceteris paribus, it is better to feel good about doi... (read more)

Rationalism itself does not preclude "treating arguments as soldiers" within an adversarial debate (most political debates are adversarial). It just cautions aganst doing this within individual deliberation or public deliberative-like processes, where truth-seeking efficiency is an instrumental goal. Nevertheless, the social norms of LessWrong do discourage (1) political discussion, as well as (2) "treating argument as soldiers" in any discussion, be it political or otherwise.

One interpretation of TimS' behavior is that he places a higher value on following LW's established social norms than he does on promoting his political cause. Alternately, he may believe that flaunting the norms of LW would be mostly unhelpful to his political advocacy.

I've seen an even worse argument: Imagine the worst possible consequences of the other side's policies. Assert that the other side (or at least its leaders) intend those consequences.

All of the arguments are of the form A is an X, when A is not a typical example of X. Here are some arguments that are of that form.

-"Having sex with an passed out stranger is rape."
-"Sleep deprivation/sensory deprivation/stress positions is torture."
-"Writing and cashing bad checks is theft."

Are these all instances of the worst argument in the world? If they aren't examples of the worst argument in the world, why not?

If the main reason that these arguments are acceptable is our disapproval of A, then your worst argument in the world is not a valid. It is just a way to discount rhetoric you don't like.

Consider a X that is bad for reasons R1, R2 and R3. R1 and R2 are really strong, while R3 is quite minor.

Consider an atypical case of X, A, which has only the reasons R1 and R2. Saying "A is X" doesn't do much harm. The real reasons for which you reject X (R1 and R2) are present in A, so saying "A is X so A is wrong" is acceptable.

Now consider another atypical case of X, B, which only share R3. Saying "B is X so B is wrong" is using the emotional power of the horror of R1 and R2, which B doesn't have, against B, just because B can be said to be part of a cluster in which the typical elements have it. That's a really fishy argumentation. That's what Yvain called "the worst argument in the world", because it's wrong but convincing, and very hard to counter in a debate (it requires deconstructing "why is X is bad", extracting R1, R2, R3, showing that B only shares R3, so may be slightly bad, but not nearly as much a typical X).

Let's analyze the first one : "Having sex with an passed out stranger is rape."

Rape is very bad, I hope we all agree with that. Why is rape bad ? It's bad for many reasons. Some of the reasons (that ... (read more)

Apple uses the WAITW when commenting on the Apple vs Samsung case:

"In a statement the firm [apple] thanked the jury for sending 'a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right' "

Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/08/apple-versus-samsung?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

Figure out if what is the case ?

I did read through Intercourse in college, but it was a long time ago, and, knowing my past self, I probably only skimmed it. My main impression of it at the time was that Dworkin a). really dislikes men, and b). dehumanizes women. IMO (b) is even worse than (a); at least she recognizes that men are people, albeit unpleasant ones.

Anyway, that was a bit off topic. What is it that I'm supposed to be figuring out by reading Dworkin ? And what happens if I do read the relevant passages, but still conclude that she is wrong ?

She talk about women's wants a lot less than I expected. About cis women who want intercourse with cis men, she writes:

Women have wanted intercourse to work and have submitted--with regret or with enthusiasm, real or faked--even though or even when it does not. [...] Women have also wanted intercourse to work in this sense: women have wanted intercourse to be, for women, an experience of equality and passion, sensuality and intimacy. Women have a vision of love that includes men as human too; and women want the human in men, including in the act of intercourse. Even without the dignity of equal power, women have believed in the redeeming potential of love. There has been--despite the cruelty of exploitation and forced sex--a consistent vision for women of a sexuality based on a harmony that is both sensual and possible.

She might be saying "Women only ever want intercourse with men they love". Even if you count any kind of liking and desire for intimacy as "love", this rules out cruising for casual sex.

She also says things about women wanting very gentle intercourse without thrusting, whereas men go poundy-poundy. This is quite unlike the reports of sex blogg... (read more)

7fubarobfusco11y
There does seem to be a bit of a trope of certain sorts of scholars (the early Wilhelm Reich comes to mind) developing strong and specific opinions on what kind of sex other people are supposed to have — down to specific positions and motions! — in order to be enlightened, liberated, rational, or holy. One wonders by what means a person could arrive at such knowledge, and what other hypotheses were raised to attention and dismissed by evidence.

This isn't just about sex, of course. There are all sorts of claims that people don't really want what they say they want, and they don't want what they seek out, either.

This essay introduced me to the idea that such claims are pervasive. Anyone have a more general overview?

Even at Less Wrong-- you won't really like that shiny toy so much, give the money to SI instead!

7Vaniver11y
This is one of my favorite essays on libertarianism, by the way.
3A1987dM11y
And yet people here, apparently with a straight face, have made analogous arguments about alcoholic beverages. If I claim I like Amaro Montenegro then I must have been brainwashed and/or be (consciously or subconsciously) lying for signalling reasons or something. How could I demonstrate that I actually enjoy its taste?
8Desrtopa11y
Blind taste test. Preferably several, where you don't know if Amaro Montenegro is among the drinks you're tasting in any particular test. If you can't single out for a high rating the one that you profess to like the taste of, then you've falsified the hypothesis that you like it for the taste. If you can single it out for a high rating in blind taste tests, and want to further test whether you actually enjoy it, or merely recognize it and assign a high rating for signalling purposes, get an MRI during the blind taste test.
7MixedNuts11y
MRI wouldn't help. If you can recognize amaro, you'll go "Oh, that's amaro, I'm supposed to like this" and produce a pleasure response, the same way wines believed to be expensive do to identical wines believed to be cheap.
4Desrtopa11y
Good point. I think you could get somewhere by doing a taste test of several different amaros (which are not actually wine,) where rather than a blind test, the subject is incorrectly told that they're all, say, privately brewed and distributed at a liqueur festival, or something along those lines, but one of them is really Amaro Montenegro.
5MixedNuts11y
That one doesn't sound quite so bad; get MRId while drinking, and you can prove you really feel pleasure. That doesn't disprove the brainwashing assertion (wines genuinely taste better with a price hike) but you can still answer "So what if I like it because of that? I like it. And it doesn't even support a culture where 12% of the population has had amaro slipped into their drink."
3A1987dM11y
Well, I don't want to want to spend more money on wine if I couldn't tell it from cheaper wine in a blind tasting... (EDIT: But I don't know what aspect of heterosexual intercourse that maps to, if any.)
5MixedNuts11y
Wine can taste Good or Bad, have a real cost that's Cheap or Expensive, and be LabeledExpensive or LabeledCheap. Good Expensive wine is better value for money than Bad Cheap wine. If Expensive wine is Good and Cheap wine is Bad and label is irrelevant, Good Expensive LabeledCheap wine ~ Good Expensive LabeledExpensive wine > Bad Cheap LabeledCheap wine ~ Bad Cheap LabeledExpensive wine. If LabeledExpensive wine is Good and LabeledCheap wine is Bad and real price is irrelevant, Good Cheap LabeledExpensive wine > Good Expensive LabeledExpensive wine > Bad Cheap LabeledCheap wine > Bad Expensive LabeledCheap wine. Learning that the latter model is true is only useful if you can pay for cheap wine then be told it's expensive when you drink it. In most situations, you see what you're paying for - wine is LabeledCheap iff it's Cheap. Your only options are Good Expensive LabeledExpensive wine and Bad Cheap LabeledCheap wine, and you always prefer the former to the latter. So learning which model is true shouldn't change your wine-buying habits.
2Vaniver11y
Better value for money? If you check the coefficients on the perceived quality increase, they pretty strongly recommend saving your money.
2MixedNuts11y
That's quite possible in real life, but then you don't need all that evaluation of preferences in various models - you always buy cheap wine, regardless of label and taste.

It's impossible to have "good faith" as a rationalist. I have an accurate understanding of LW, and if voicing that understanding as a prediction and being slightly snarky about it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, so be it.

Others here contest that your understanding is accurate. Please recognize that you cannot fairly expect us to take the assertion that you are right and we are wrong as given.

People occasionally come here and make criticisms of ideas accepted by the in-group here, and are heavily upvoted for bringing well-formulated criticisms to the table (the highest voted post on Less Wrong is an example,) and some posters such as XiXiDu have gotten most of their karma in this way.

On other occasions, people come here and argue, for instance, that we should all reject Bayesianism because Popper proved induction is impossible, or that mainstream physics is completely wrong and science should be about making descriptions of the world that make intuitive sense rather than making accurate predictions about reality. And they argue fiercely that their poor reception is proof of how bad we are at evaluating ideas that challenge in-group beliefs.

Now, maybe we are rejecting key... (read more)

Also, since when was being better than average the goal of LW? As rationalists, we don't compete against each other, we compete against the universe.

Frankly, I don't think an ideal response to your particular response would be dramatically different. Maybe your argument is 100% correct and LW folk would discover this upon a full examination of the facts, but we're not starting from a place where that's obviously true - we're starting from a place of "you have made several assertions, and then demanded people read up on all the actual arguments on their own." And it's not clear that reading up on this is more important than reading up on, say:

  • The current leading arguments about how to address third world poverty
  • The current leading arguments about existential risk
  • The current leading arguments about other positions within the social-justice spectrum than radical feminism

Time is valuable. I agree with most of your positions, and frankly, had I not already been familiar with them, I would not have been persuaded by your rhetorical skills to give them higher priority than the above problems. You stated explicitly that you were here for fun, and I hope that's true... (read more)

2[anonymous]12y
Remember, this discussion started by discussing whether evolutionary psychology is sexist. If LW were being honest with itself, I'd expect the discussion to stay there, rather than drifting to "is patriarchy real," which is where it almost immediately went to. Here are a few other bullet points of what I'd expect to see: * An immediate halt to discussion as soon as I said "I don't feel like I can summarize this well, but here is a potentially lengthy essay which can." If the point of the discussion is for mutual information, at that point, I have nothing left to offer and can be ignored. If the point of the discussion is to score Internet points by expressing ingroup solidarity, it will continue. * A continual insistence on predicted experience in the real world, rather than thought-experiments devised to gain information about my own beliefs rather than the state of reality. If patriarchy exists, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks -- what's true is already so. If I am an uncredible loon, it changes nothing. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence. * The focus of discussion would stay on the original topic, rather than focusing more and more on whatever outgroup beliefs I may have. For example, in your comment, the original topic is a footnote at the end, and the main body is dedicated to lecturing me on how I have failed to appreciate the glorious rationalism of Less Wrong. * Frequently, arguments are based on stereotypes of feminism or what I might think rather than what I've explicitly stated. For example, I've said "patriarchy is a set of learned behaviors communicated through operant conditioning, modeling, and observational learning" in almost every comment. I've had to repeat this because it's nearly always been unacknowledged. If I have a disagreement with one of my rationalist comrades in the real world, the argument immediately devolves into what predictions disagree, and then on what a satisfactory experiment would be. And then it's over. On LW, i

If LW were being honest with itself

Please consider addressing your comments to individuals rather than presuming the existence of a group consensus.

"LW" is composed of lots of different people — whose views on the subject range from considered feminism to considered anti-feminism; whose politics range from left to right and monarchist to republican to anarchist; whose levels of education range from "smart high-schooler" to "published researcher"; whose reasons for being here range from thinking it helps save the world, to shootin' the shit.

6thomblake12y
That conflicts with eridu's political philosophy. They are simply not a methodological individualist.
3DaFranker12y
This is arguably "excusable" and attributable to the inherent difficulty of thinking at multiple levels of abstraction simultaneously - like thinking of the quarks, the molecules, the aerodynamics/thermodynamics and the newtonian motions of a paper airplane all at the same time without loss of coherence or losing any data. It is easier to compute a social trend first, reason its causes, and then separately compute individual trends, reason their causes, and then link everything together.

Remember, this discussion started by discussing whether evolutionary psychology is sexist. If LW were being honest with itself, I'd expect the discussion to stay there, rather than drifting to "is patriarchy real," which is where it almost immediately went to.

It's easy to see how that happened, since in your original comment you equated sexism with "perpetuating patriarchy". At that point, the only options are (1) agreeing with you; (2) arguing that evolutionary psychology reduces patriarchy; or (3) denying that patriarchy exists.

EDIT: In other words, the topic you describe as "is patriarchy real" was the topic you brought up, whether you realized it or not.

2Desrtopa12y
Well, there's also (2.5) arguing that evolutionary psychology neither contributes to nor reduces patriarchy.
3komponisto12y
The word he used was "perpetuate", rather than "contribute"; so leaving patriarchy invariant, so to speak, counts.
4Desrtopa12y
I think that would be an uncharitable interpretation, since it would lead one to infer that Eridu regards such activities as, say, eating oranges or opening refrigerators as sexist, and even knowing that Eridu considers many things sexist that most people do not, I find that doubtful.
9komponisto12y
Well, I prefer to avoid getting too close to an object-level discussion of eridu's views, but suffice it to say that I would want to check with eridu before making any such assumption about what he does not consider sexist. In any event, my point was that eridu's views on patriarchy are a crucial premise of his argument that ev psych is bad, so a discussion of them was inevitable.
6Raemon12y
I avoided getting into it for a while, for that reason. No, I was lecturing you on using bad rhetorical tactics. (Historically Less Wrong does pretty poorly when gender politics comes up. This was the best gender-politic discussion I've seen, which was particularly interesting.) I admit this IS still pretty bad, but the opening comment wasn't something that had much chance at all of producing a non-tribal discussion. I actually do like your opening warning ("please demonstrate your outgroup hatred with a downvote and move on"), but continuing to harp on that concept whenever anyone disagreed with you didn't help anything.

I actually do like your opening warning ("please demonstrate your outgroup hatred with a downvote and move on")

Actually I think that was the problem. The first response to that was met with "hivemind" and "so much for your vaunted rationality" and after you start seeing things like that there's pretty much no chance any future discussion will be productive.

5Bugmaster12y
While I think your other points have some degree of validity, this one does not. How can we apply evidence to your hypotheses, if we don't know what your hypotheses even are ? It is important to ensure that everyone understands your claims (without necessarily agreeing with them) before we can discuss them. You say that "if patriarchy exists, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks", but we can't determine whether it exists or not until we understand what you mean by the word "patriarchy". Furthermore, I believe that most people here believe that there does exist some systematic bias in our society that privileges men over women -- though we may disagree about the degree of this bias as well as some other details. But the mere existence of this bias does not automatically render the rest of your points valid. For example, here are some statements of yours that could turn out to be false even if your beliefs about the exact nature of patriarchy are true: * Eliminating gender is not only possible, but is also the best way to combat the patriarchy. * Operant conditioning through guilt is a supremely effective conversion tactic. * Scientists should suppress any conclusions that could lend support to the patriarchy, even if these conclusions accurately represent reality. * The user base of Less Wrong is incapable of engaging with you on a purely intellectual level.
6Matt_Caulfield12y
It's worth an NB that conversion is not the only valuable outcome of guilt. Even if an oppressor is not converted outright, guilt-tripping can still make him uncertain, less confident, and less effective at achieving his goals, and since he is an oppressor, this outcome is valuable in and of itself.

It's worth an NB that conversion is not the only valuable outcome of guilt. Even if an oppressor is not converted outright, guilt-tripping can still make him uncertain, less confident, and less effective at achieving his goals, and since he is an oppressor, this outcome is valuable in and of itself.

Another valuable outcome is that instilling chronic, free-floating self-doubt into someone can convince them that oppression directed at them is deserved and proper - in fact, this happens to be a common feature in emotional abuse. It can also inspire them to do all sorts of things which are beneficial to the "movement" - not least of which is propagating the meme by guilt-tripping others.

This is a very "cool" sort of mindhacking - especially for people who happen to be high-functioning sociopaths who seek coercive power over others.

5DaFranker12y
While I mostly agree on the denotational claims, this is erring somewhat close to implicitly accusing feminists of Dark Arts, and my warning lights flashed when I read this comment. Perhaps the implied notion that guilt-tripping has very arguable expected results that can vary wildly should be spelled out more explicitly to ensure a higher level of clarity and minimize political mind-killing in the discussion.
6bogus12y
Hmm, I don't know, really. What I do know is that my comment was meant to overtly accuse those who would guilt-trip others based on transparently fallacious arguments (such as Fully General Counterarguments and Worst Arguments in The World) of being Dark-Arts-wielding emotional manipulators and abusers. Even if some self-described feminists get caught in this net, I think this says more about them than it does about anything else.
4Desrtopa12y
On the other hand, attempting to guilt trip others can easily backfire. The example Eridu gave of a person feeling guilty about engaging in homophobic behaviors after their own brother has come out as gay does not necessarily generalize to cases of deliberate guilt tripping by others, which tends to create an adversarial reaction, and in terms of goals such as, say, getting people to donate to charity, doesn't perform very well.
6NancyLebovitz12y
I think Goodhart's Law (any measurement which is used to guide policy will become corrupt) might be in play. The psychological changes which are needed to learn to treat people more carefully are fairly likely to be painful. Unfortunately, it can be a short jump from there to thinking that causing pain is likely to teach people to treat each other more carefully. Goodheart's Law? Sloppy associations about thing space? The fact that it's much easier to cause pain than to usefully change people's deep reflexes?

Yes, probably. And likewise, you would probably say that anyway, and we can recurse down this rabbit hole indefinitely.

I have a history of having my mind changed by people I formerly disagreed with. I may not be perfectly debiased, but to the best of my ability I avoid looking for excuses not to change my mind.

In reality, the media already selectively reports research and hides information. It reports research that is by and large acceptable, and hides information that isn't. That's why very unscientific things often get reported -- they still meet different standards for social acceptability that are entirely related to the empirical truth of the reported finding.

Which is why I largely ignore science reporting by news media.

If a scientist finds themselves in a field where nearly everything they do is propagated in such a way that it causes the oppression of more than half of humanity, they are either obligated to stop doing research in that field or do so secretly. This is why I said earlier (you may have not seen it) that even evolutionary psychology that is on the surface non-sexist should not be propagated. Doing so would legitimize other similar research that would t

... (read more)

I've been watching Less Wrong for a while, too, and feminist points of view get mixed responses, with the trend becoming somewhat more positive.

You were trolling in favor of something you support?

Gaah, PC is a problem. My impulse is to say "Are you completely out of your mind?", which might be rude to people with mental problems, but I can't seem to come up with alternate phrasing.

You were trolling in favor of something you support? ...

This is more common than you'd think, particularly since "trolling" is often in the eye of the beholder. I do think that eridu's style of advocacy is unlikely to be effective.

3NancyLebovitz12y
Yeah, the idea of trolling in favor of something one supports is fairly common-- I was going to say something to that effect, but it got lost in revisions to my comment. More generally, people seem to have a frequent impulse to harden the self-image of people they oppose into more stable opposition.

Even if a difference does exist, is it worth publishing, knowing that you are perpetuating patriarchy?

The consequentialistic problem with a scientist not publishing truthfully because this truth will help perpetuate some injustice, is that the scientist's word becomes worthless when the truth will help destroy some other injustice... For every injustice-destroying truth they reveal, their opponents will be able to claim "Of course, they never reveal those results that don't suit their political purposes".

In another forum I've talked about "shallow" and "deep" egalitarianism. To demand that people of group A and people of group B must be treated with equal respect because these groups are in their nature identical in all measurable characteristics is shallow egalitarianism. The deeper egalitarianism is that you should treat people as individuals, not judge them on what group they belong to, even when those groups are measurably differently in average.

The shallow egalitarianism is eventually a failing and unsustainable proposition because it rests on factually false premises. People should choose the deeper egalitarianism which doesn't require any false claims, and is therefore sustainable in the long term.

[-][anonymous]12y100

I see your point, and I have to say I hadn't thought of it before. I still think I'm right, but I'll have to consider this further.

it also pattern-matches very strongly to the "scientific racism" of the 19th and early 20th century.

Part of the issue is that as far as I know said "scientific racism" was never scientifically discredited (the underlying facts may even be true). It was simply socially discredited in a "this leads to genocide and other horrible things" kind of way and a memetic immune system was set up to fight these memes. However, as mentioned in the linked article said immune system is no match for rational thought.

5fubarobfusco12y
When it appears that an intellectual edifice has been constructed to portray as necessary a particular status-quo — in the case of scientific racism, that of slavery and subjugation by race — we may reasonably suspect that the overturning of those social conditions is all the disproof that is needed to overthrow the entire edifice of rationalization, too. Imagine that there exists a complicated, deeply explained theory to explain why no green-eyed, black-haired person has ever been, or ever will be, elected president. And then one is. The theory is not merely socially discredited; it is empirically disproven. Scientific racism was concocted to explain curious observations such as that black people liked to run away from slavery and sometimes did not work as hard as they could for a slave-master. These curiosities are better explained by modern evolutionary psychology, with its notion of the psychological unity of mankind, than by the convoluted rationalizations created to justify past systems of social relations.

Scientific racism was concocted to explain curious observations such as that black people liked to run away from slavery and sometimes did not work as hard as they could for a slave-master.

I feel I should point out that these two examples are pretty lame examples: they were proposed by the same guy, before Francis Galton (generally considered the father or grandfather of any genuinely scientific racism), have never been used by any except anti-racists, and indeed, were widely mocked at the time.

To claim that they are an example of a motivating problem in scientific racism is roughly like someone in 2170 saying TimeCube was a motivating problem in the development of a since-discredited stringy theory.

Morality is not about a balance of things - it is a set of rules to be followed.

This is a claim that consequentialism is incorrect and deontology is correct. It's insufficient to merely make this claim -- you have to actually argue for it.

(The prevailing view around here is consequentialism, although if I recall correctly we have at least one deontologist and one virtue ethicist among the long-time members.)

4Alicorn12y
Hallo.

There is a Report button when I view comments that are replies to my comments, or when I view private messages.
There is no Report button when I view comments normally.

I don't think I'm culpable for everything society does, so I will automatically assume anyone who says I am is prone to making obviously false statements about that sort of thing; that doesn't sound like they are using good tactics either. Also, it is not the case that the only alternative to "everyone should be guilty" is "this singled-out subset here should go on a guilt trip".

5TimS12y
Some of this is a disguised argument about the word "culpable." For basically everyone, there's always something more one could do to solve problem X. I don't claim that is a particularly insightful or compelling statement. I think guilt trips are often (basically always) a tactical mistake. But this is particularly true when one's selection criteria for who to shame suggests that one is being disingenuous. Or that one picked the target first and the complaint second. I honestly think that I want transformations just as radical as eridu in the area of social norms and gender. It turns out that I just have different terminal values. For the benefit of bystanders (such as yourself), I'm trying to make it clear that the degree of desired transformation is not determinative of the intended destination.
2[anonymous]12y
I think this whole guilt business is useless. Heroic responsibility seems the correct way to deal with things. "What are you going to do about it? That's the only question you get to answer." If I look upon the world and see oppression and see that it is bad, I should see what I can do to make that situation better, see if it's an easier line of utility-creating than other plans, and then go about doing it. Along the way I might consider the strategy of allocating guilt between myself and other people, but doing that, I really ought to understand that guilt is being used instrumentally to get people to do things, and is otherwise not interesting. (this is more directed at the whole guilt discussion than specifically your comment)
[-][anonymous]12y110

what is the purpose of making people feel guilty? Is it to spur them into corrective action? or is it just sadistic submission-seeking? Without some suggested correction (as TimS requested), guilt is a rather empty and useless concept.

May I ask which woman's body I'm currently "owning"? Please be specific. It would be helpful for me to know, as I might want to impose my sense of entitlement upon it.

Almost 400 comments but not a word of discussion of the parsing Yvain provides for his seven examples! But if Yvain's parsing is wrong—as I think it is—then his analysis will serve to further bias our understanding of positions we disagree with and to forsake any charity in understanding these positions.

The question that is fairly asked of Yvain is what distinguishes his "worst argument" ("X is in a category whose archetypal member has certain features. Therefore, we should judge X as if it also had those features, even though it doesn't.") from any form of rule-governed reasoning in ethics (whether deontological or rule-utilitarian). When the examples are expanded and recast in those terms, they do not express Yvain's "worst argument"; they rather simply express moral premises subject to disagreement.

Taxation is theft. I'm no libertarian, but the argument isn't that taxation shares features with "archetypal" theft but that any taking of unearned property is wrong for the same basic reasons as "archetypal" theft is wrong, whether natural law or utilitarian calculus.

Abortion is murder. The claim almost always comes from a fundamental... (read more)

6shminux12y
It is perfectly reasonable to first identify the category and its archetypal example, no one seems to argue against it. The issue is tossing out the step where the reasons the archetypal example gives the category a negative connotation are checked against the example under consideration. Thus analogical reasoning survives as a first step, but its validity is subsequently questioned, not simply negated.

If we must use an acronym to refer to this, could it be WAitW or WAW instead of WAITW? My delicate sensibilities thank you in advance.

Judging from the comments this is receiving on Hacker News, this post is a mindkiller. HN is an audience more friendly to LW ideas than most, so this is a bad sign. I liked it, but unfortunately it's probably unsuitable for general consumption.

I know we've debated the "no politics" norm on LW many times, but I think a distinction should be made when it comes to the target audience of a post. In posts aimed to make a contribution to "raising the sanity waterline", I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot by invoking politics.

Reading that HN thread, the problem appears to be a troll (who also showed up on Yvain's original blog post).

3Bruno_Coelho12y
Calling something 'worst' before conversations is bad sign.

This is an assertion, not an argument. Why is morality about rules, not conseqeuences?

I don't actually understand what people mean when they say in principle it's the rules which matter, not the balance of the good and bad consequences which occur. If consequences were unimportant, why have the rules that we have? Surely you agree that proscriptions against rape, murder, theft, torture, arson, etc all have the common thread of not causing undue suffering to another person?

I can understand (and in most cases accept) the argument that human beings are too flawed to figure out and understand the consequences. Therefore, in most cases we should stick to tried and tested rules which have reduced suffering and created peaceful societies in the past and shut down the cognitive processes which say, "But maybe I could murder the leader and seize power just this once if the whole group will benefit...."

But I can't see how the point of morality is rules. If that's the case, why are the rules not completely random? Why is morality not fashion?

By the way, 10 people is probably too low a number for me to sacrifice myself, especially given that I can just donate a large portion of my i... (read more)

5prase12y
To play the devil's advocate (I am not a deontologist myself), the converse question, i.e. why care about the consequences we care about is about as legitimate as yours. It is not entirely unimaginable for a person to have a strong instinctive aversion towards murder while caring much less (or not at all) about its consequences. Many people indeed reveal such preferences by voting for inaction in the Trolley Problem or by ascribing to Rand's Objectivism. You seem to think that those people are in error, actually having derived their deontological preferences from harm minimisation and then forgetting that the rules aren't primary - but isn't it at least possible that their preferences are genuine?
4OnTheOtherHandle12y
It's hard for me to say when and whether other people are in error, especially moral error. I don't deny that it's possible people have a strong aversion to murder while not caring about the consequences. In fact, in terms of genetic fitness, going out of your way to avoid being the one who personally stabs the other guy while not caring much whether he gets stabbed would have helped you avoid both punishment and risk. But from my observations, most people are upset when others suffer and die. This tells me most of us do care, though it doesn't tell me how much. I don't actually rail against people who care less than I do; as a consequentialist one of the problems I need to solve is incentivizing people to help even if they only care a little bit. Caring is like activation energy in a chemical reaction; it has to get to a certain point before help is forthcoming. We can try to raise people's levels of caring, which is usually exhausting and almost always temporary, or we can make helping easier and more effective, and watch what happens then. If it becomes more forthcoming, we can believe that consequences and cost-benefit balances do matter to some degree. This was a circuitous answer, I know. My reply to you is basically, "Yes, it's possible, but people don't behave as if they literally care nothing for consequences to other people's well being."
3[anonymous]12y
Compared to what? Or corrupted from what more functional state?
5OnTheOtherHandle12y
Hm, I used the local vernacular in favor of explaining myself more clearly. You make a valid point. How about this: Our brain was not created in one shot. New adaptations were layered over more primitive ones. The neocortex and various other recent adaptations, which arose back when the homo genus came into being, are most likely what give me the thing I call "consciousness." The cluster of recently adapted conscious modules make up the voice in my head which narrates my thoughts. I restrict my definition of "I" to this "conscious software." This conscious "I" has absorbed various values which augment the limited natural empathy and altruism which was beneficial to my ancestors. Obviously, "I" only care about "me." But the voice which narrates my thoughts does not always determine the actions my body performs. More ancient urges like sex, survival, and self-interest most often prevail when I try to break too far out of my programming by trying too hard to follow my verbal values to their fullest extent. But these ancient functions don't exactly get a say when I'm thinking my thoughts and determining my values. So, from the perspective of my conscious, far-mode modules, which have certain values like "I should treat people equally," "I should be honest," and "My values should be self-consistent and complete," older modules are often trying to thwart me. This relates to moral dilemmas because when the I in my brain is trying to honestly and accurately calculate what the best course of action would be, selfishness and power-grabbing instincts can sneak in and wordlessly steer my decisions so the "best" course of action "coincidentally" ends up with me somehow getting a lot of money and power. This is what I meant when I used the shorthand.
2buybuydandavis12y
My understanding of the work of Haidt is that much of morality is pattern matching on behavior and not just outcomes, and that's what I would expect to see in evolved social creatures.

I don't think it's much of an exaggeration.

Speaking from my 2170th perspective, I must point out that Time Cube was perfectly standard 20th century physics: it was distributed on their premier form of scholarly communication the Internet, was carefully documented in the very first versions of Wikipedia (indicating the regard it was held in by contemporaries), it dealt with standard topics of 20th century American discourse, conspiracy theories (which thankfully we have moved beyond), it was widely cited and discussed as recent citation analyses have proven, and finally, the author lectured and taught at the only surviving center of American learning, MIT.

The historical case is simply open and shut! This isn't a random layman myth like Nixon mentoring Obama and running dirty tricks in his first election (as every informed historian knows, Nixon was of the Greens while Obama bin Laden, of course, was a Blue).

Third wave feminism is chiefly this endorsement of compulsory sexuality, plus an individualist "identity" conception of gender that is actively harmful to feminist struggle.

Of course, third-wave feminists say that it is your brand of radical feminism that is "harmful to feminist struggle". I would love to see some long-term studies that provide some evidence one way or the other -- but, as far as I understand, liberal feminists don't have the funding, and radical feminists believe that the very act of gathering evidence harms their cause... so we're kind of stuck in a "she said / she said" territory here.

But you can't really be porn-positive without supporting normative body types...

There are several initiatives on the liberal feminist side that campaign for the promotion of a healthy female body image, in all media including porn (*). On the flip side, there is tons of porn out there that promotes any body type you can imagine, and possibly a few that you cannot.

and you certainly can't be sex-positive without supporting the notion that consent is possible under patriarchy

Agreed.

which seems to either deny patriarchy or deny its coercive p

... (read more)

I don't think that the only possible conditions are either a). "the patriarchy doesn't exist", or b). "the patriarchy's control over everyone is total and complete, people are zombies".

Agreed. A useful line of questioning for eridu might be "How much coercion is acceptable in sexual relations, given that essentially any outside causal influence can be glossed as some finite amount of coercion?"

On the one hand I think it's an excellent point the feminists make that implicit/explicit consent to sex is not the end of the story ethically, if the consent is seen to be coerced by external factors (e.g., "Our relationship depends on his sexual satisfaction, and he has made me financially dependent on our continued relationship").

On the other hand, it's going too far if we say that the ONLY ethically acceptable motivation for sex is one's own purely hedonistic desires (which are the only motivations I can think of that CANNOT be glossed as coercive).

5fubarobfusco11y
Sure they can! Someone has wired up your pleasure center to respond to doing what they want you to do, even though that course of action is ultimately self-destructive for you. (Fictional example: the tasp in various Niven stories.)
4Bugmaster11y
Agreed; that's a good way to put it.
5mantis11y
That's an awfully damning assessment. If true, it implies that radical feminists believe that their cause can be destroyed by the truth, and don't think that it should be. I'm not convinced that this indictment, as stated here, is true of any actual radical feminist, though.
7simplicio11y
Not quite. I disagree with Eridu's position, but it doesn't come down to a Moore's paradox situation. Eridu's position is that there are truths that cause harm within certain social contexts, and that in those social contexts (but not otherwise) those truths ought to be suppressed. This is pretty plausible if you think of some thought experiments involving vulnerable groups. Suppose that you are a rationalist/consequentialist cop in 1930's Germany, and you are investigating a case in which a banker, who was Jewish, embezzled some money from the Society for the Protection of Cute Puppies. Although ceteris paribus, your job is to expose the truth and bring criminals to justice, in this case it might be a very good idea to keep this out of the papers at all costs, because due to anti-semitic narratives society lacks the ability to process this information sanely. Eridu claims that because of sexist narratives, society lacks the ability to process the claims of evo-psych sanely.
9mantis11y
I find it interesting that both you and MixedNuts have found it necessary to invoke Nazis in order to construct a marginally convincing case for your interpretations of eridu's position. Your thought experiment boils down to an equation of "the patriarchy" as it exists in present-day Western society with Nazi Germany (which would put eridu in pretty clear violation of Godwin's Law*), and MixedNuts' counterexample to my proposed Generalized Anti-Creationist Principle is a variant on the classic example of when it's not only morally acceptable but morally obligatory to lie: "when hiding Jews from the S.S. in one's basement." It also seems as though the "certain social contexts" where the results of evo-psych research ought to be suppressed, according to eridu, are pretty much every social context that exists outside of Women's Studies departments and the internal discussions of radical feminist organizations. That seems untenable to me. * I just realized that Godwin's Law is meant to prohibit a special case of Yvain's Worst Argument in the World: the case in which the archetypal member of the category into which one places X is Naziism.
6TimS11y
The non-Eridu argument against evo-psych is that many such researchers are abusing/ignorant of the halo effect that leads to biased results/unjustified moral assertions about sex roles in society. Somewhere in the archive is an article by lukeprog where he decided to break up with his girlfriend and wanted to let her down easy. In deciding how to do that, he debated with himself about telling her that his desire for a woman with larger breasts was an evolution-caused preference, not a comment on the woman specifically. That's nonsense, and uncritical acceptance of evo-psych runs the serious risk of exacerbating the problem.

Somewhere in the archive is an article by lukeprog where he decided to break up with his girlfriend and wanted to let her down easy. In deciding how to do that, he debated with himself about telling her that his desire for a woman with larger breasts was an evolution-caused preference, not a comment on the woman specifically.

That's nonsense, and uncritical acceptance of evo-psych runs the serious risk of exacerbating the problem.

The problem with LukeProg's decision to write that break up essay wasn't evo-psych. The problem was that writing a huge essay on why you're breaking up with someone, including detailed analysis of why there is insufficient attraction is a horrible thing to do to someone without even giving any benefit to yourself.

This doesn't constitute an argument here against evo-psych as an accurate description of reality. It does constitute:

  • A solid illustration of how social awkardness can result in doing harm to others despite all the best intentions.
  • An extremely weak appeal to consequences---an argument that evo-psych should not be studied because bad things could happen from people understanding evolutionary psychology. I describe it as weak since there is litt
... (read more)

The problem was that writing a huge essay on why you're breaking up with someone, including detailed analysis of why there is insufficient attraction is a horrible thing to do to someone without even giving any benefit to yourself.

I don't know that that's necessarily the case. My first serious girlfriend wrote me a very long e-mail before our break-up, laying out her rational analysis of why she believed our relationship was untenable in the long term; she actually succeeded in persuading me to see it her way, which I'd been resisting for emotional reasons. That allowed us to have an amicable parting of ways, and we remain good friends to this day.

That's amazing. Can we see a copy of the email?

5mantis11y
I'll think about that -- from the upvotes, it appears you're not the only Less Wronger interested (at least, I assume an upvote to a one-liner request like that means "I'd like to see it, too"). I wouldn't post an unedited copy, as there are some details in it that I consider very private, as, I think, would my former girlfriend. But I'll take a look at it later and see what would need to be redacted. I would also have to ask her permission before posting any of it, of course, and I'm reluctant to bother her just now -- she has a newborn daughter (as in, born last week), so I expect she's rather preoccupied at the moment.
6NancyLebovitz11y
There's a large difference between writing an analysis of what's going wrong in a relationship based on information about the relationship itself and writing an evo-psych analysis which concludes that the other person has the whole weight of evolution against anyone finding them attractive. It occurs to me that what you've done there is a common enough pattern, though I'm not sure it's exactly a fallacy-- seeing that something causes bad outcomes, but not being clear on what the scope of the something is. Here's the quote:
2TimS11y
Thanks for finding the post. It felt very awkward discussing an example when I couldn't produce the example for examination.
3A1987dM11y
One problem with lukeprog's essay would be that it would muddle the evolutionary-cognitive boundary. The fact that I, in the 21st century, like big tits is logically distinct from the fact that human males, in the EEA, who slept with curvier women had more children in average, though the latter is the cause of the former. What matter when deciding whether to use a program is what it does, not who wrote it (well, except for copyright-related reasons, but Azatoth isn't going to sue me for infringement anyway).
3TimS11y
I think you are misinterpreting me. I'm not saying "Never discuss evo-psych." (That's eridu). I'm saying that there are strong reasons to distrust current evo-psych results. One of those reasons is that evo-psych, as used in popular culture, provides justification for writing essays like the one you and I both think was a bad idea. That is, this statement: is not true. "It's just the way I am" is usually a false deflection of responsibility - invoking evo. psych to make the statement true makes the statement actually effective at deflecting moral responsibility. If that weren't true, lukeprog would not even have considered saying it to the woman. ---------------------------------------- On evo-psych generally: Consider phrenology. The traits at issue were well worth studying. And as far as I know, the field used accepted practices of empiricism for its day. But the whole field went off track, to the point that essentially no phrenology results are actually useful for scientific research today. I think that the social pressures towards legitimizing our current normative practices put evo-psych (and to a less extend, all psychological research) at serious risk of wandering off into a similar wilderness. If evo-psych manages to recover from what appear to be its current mis-steps I (but apparently not eridu) would welcome back with open arms.

invoking evo. psych to make the statement true makes the statement actually effective at deflecting moral responsibility.

No, it doesn't. There is no moral license to be human. If action X is harmful, ascribing an evolutionary cause to X doesn't make it not harmful — and to a consequentialist it is harm that is at the root of immorality.

If evolution built me to rape nubile young womenfolk, well, evolution can just fuck off.

That's the second misunderstanding of what evolutionary psychology means that leads people to reject it on moral rather than factual grounds: if they're not indulging in the naturalistic fallacy, they're indulging in biological determinism, or think the evolutionary psychologists are. "X is a natural part of human behavior that exists because it was favored by natural selection in the past" does not mean "X is good," nor does it mean "X is inevitable" -- evo. psych. is about identifying tendencies, not certainties.

Evolution couldn't build you "to rape nubile young womenfolk," period, because humans are far too behaviorally plastic for that. What it could do, and, judging by the history of human behavior, probably did do to at least a large proportion of the male population, is built you to have an impulse to rape under some circumstances -- when rejected by a woman with whom you're already alone and with whom you had some expectation that you might have sex, for example, or when encountering a female member of an enemy population in war. Whether you act on that impulse or not depends on both the hereditary aspects of your personality and, ... (read more)

4wedrifid11y
Evidently it didn't.
2A1987dM11y
Why did I interpret that as “evidently it didn't fuck off” (rather than “evidently it didn't build you that way”) on the first reading?
2MugaSofer11y
I interpreted it thus on not only my first, but all reading up until you posted this. Thanks!
6Bugmaster11y
Well, maybe not just any feminist, but eridu specifically did claim that, since the findings of evolutionary psychology are frequently misused to advance the patriarchy, no one should study evolutionary psychology. As far as I can tell, he feels that way about all research that deals with sex and/or gender, not just evolutionary psychology specifically.
9MixedNuts11y
There were anti-Semitic pamphlets that quoted studies of Jewish populations where blood type B was most frequent and Aryan populations where blood type A was, kept quiet about studies showing the reverse, and used that as proof that Aryans and Jews were different races that shouldn't mingle and should be ranked relative to each other. If someone thought that publishing counterpoints (the rest of the data, or pointing out that blood type distribution doesn't imply any of the conclusions) would be ineffective and had instead advocated banning statistics on blood type, it'd be rather uncharitable to say "They believe gathering evidence hurts their cause".
3Bugmaster11y
I don't see what the difference is, in practice. In both cases, the person in question wants to ban research into blood types. One person wants to do it because he fears his position could be destroyed by the truth; the other one wants to do it because the research would give his opponents too much power. In both cases, though, the research is banned, and neither person knows whether his beliefs are true or not.
5MixedNuts11y
Are you still in the analogy here? There's very little that blood type research can actually tell us for or against antisemitism - we don't have to fear a result that would support it. The problem is that some possible results (all possible results, really), while not evidence for "Aryans rule, Jews drool", will be used to support this assertion. We expect that the costs of people being persuaded to hold false antisemitic beliefs outweigh the benefits of better responses to epidemics or whatever we're hoping to get out of the research. Likewise, eridu believes that ev-psych can't say much about what gender roles should be (I agree), but is misused to support some harmful gender roles (I agree). He also believes that it's not really possible to mitigate the misuse, and so the costs of people being persuaded to hold false sexist beliefs outweigh... figuring out how parental grief works or something. What you appear to describe is... to stretch the analogy past its snapping point, someone who thinks injecting type A blood into everyone will solve antisemitism, and is scared that blood type research would prove their intervention ineffective or harmful. While also being scared of the consequences of misuse.

For better or worse, you seem to have steel-manned eridu's position. Eridu appears to believe that it is irrelevant whether ev psych (or any other empirical project) has anything to say about appropriate gender relations.

2Bugmaster11y
How do you know this, if not by looking at the result of blood type research (or, more likely, research on heredity in general) ? Similarly, how does eridu know that "ev-psych can't say much about what gender roles should be" ? If by "should be" you mean something like the naturalistic fallacy, then I'd agree; however, it's still possible that ev-psych can tell us something valuable about why our current gender roles are the way they are. To use another analogy, optics and genetics tell me why my eyesight is bad, but that doesn't mean I'm going to throw up my hands and say, "oh well, guess I'm almost blind then". Instead, I'm going to use this knowledge to acquire some corrective lenses. Why does that someone believe that the intervention will actually be effective ?
4mantis11y
If true, that does seem like a very good reason not to trust eridu or take anything he has to say seriously. As an evolutionary biologist, most familiar with this kind of anti-thought from the creationist quarter, I might state it as a Generalized Anti-Creationist Principle: "Any person who advocates ignorance or false beliefs about a subject as morally superior to true and accurate knowledge of that subject is not to be trusted or taken seriously on any subject." (See here for a good example of a creationist who goes every last angstrom of the way to this reductio ad absurdum of his position.) This recalls Steven Pinker's critique of many aspects of twentieth century radical left-wing thought, including some radical feminist ideas, in The Blank Slate. Radical scholars in the social sciences clung (and, in at least some cases, are still clinging) to the increasingly untenable notion of the human mind as a tabula rasa for fear of what they perceive as disastrous moral consequences of it not being true, and decried every scientific advance that filled in some portion of the slate. Neither side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on pretending things are true because they think the world be better if they were, and there are an awful lot of people who could benefit from reciting the Litanies of Tarsky and Gendlin until they take them to heart. As an aside, I have to wonder if the upvotes on my previous comment reflect a sober assessment of its quality, or simply the fact that "that which can be destroyed by the truth should be" is a huge, multi-colored, strobing applause light around these here parts. ;-)

under patriarchy, and consider whether it is really usually in women's best interest to have PIV sex.

What happens if a woman desires to have PiV sex, seeks out a man to have it with (rejecting unqualified men in the process), and enjoys the experience ? The reason Andrea Dworkin (and radical feminists in general) is often portrayed as "sex-negative" (*) is because, as far as I can tell, she denies that such a scenario can exist, thus directly contradicting the life experience of many women.

Thus, we end up in a peculiar situation where radical feminists appear to be seeking to actively make women's lives worse, by denying them an activity that many women see as an important aspect of their self-expression (not to mention, a lot of fun).

Of course, a radical feminist might answer by saying, "my end goal is not to improve the lives of women, but to destroy the patriarchy by any means necessary", but I'm not sure if any real radical feminists would answer this way.

(*) It's also why Dworkin is considered to be a kind of troll by some liberal feminists; IMO unjustly so, since she sincerely believes the things she says.

I don't think "preventing the current thread from happening again" is anywhere near an important enough goal to justify heritable karma penalties -- let alone retroactive ones.

I've not seen retroactive penalties proposed anywhere; the current system warns you when you start if a penalty applies for making a comment, presumably that wouldn't change.

"This has traditionally been a very divisive point within radical feminism, and it typically divides the discussion into transphobic social-constructionist radical feminists and neo-essentialist post-feminists."

I'm just wondering would you mind reading Moldbug? I want to see the resulting philosophy for the lulz.

It seems (and I think we've talked about this before) that you are a liberal/equality "feminist," in which case we're equally opposed. Why should I stop rather than you?

Well, it seems to me that TimS is doing much less to give people an aversive reaction to feminism.

When you say things like this, you're taking an adversarial stance to most of society. Most men and women do not agree with such a position, and do not want to be affiliated with it.

As Yvain discussed in thisblog post, there are some positions associated with feminism that are widely agreed to be completely reasonable, some that are contentious and are effectively the battleground for which modern feminists are fighting, and some that very few women or men want to align themselves with. When debating for the sake of the contentious issues, people who support them tend to attempt to legitimize them by associating feminism with the least contentious aspects of feminism, while people who oppose them attempt to discredit them by associating them with the most radical aspects. The people who do the most to influence people on the contentious issues, where the actual "swing vote" takes place, generall... (read more)

Rationality means winning.

According to some terminal values, which you've not yet specified in regards to how they relate to your feminism, and which I'm not certain you're very clear about yourself. Any particular political struggle should normally be of instrumental value only.

Note that, on gender issues at least, it also pattern-matches very strongly to the "scientific racism" of the 19th and early 20th century.

No it bloody doesn't except on the Internet. Read "The Psychological Foundations of Culture" and quote me a paragraph that pattern-matches anything like that. And then perhaps you'll give me back your respect point, because in a flash of enlightenment you'll suddenly understand why I was puzzled by people having issues with EP.

"The Psychological Foundations of Culture" does not discuss gender issues in detail.

More specifically: Sexual Strategies Theory tends to agree with modern cultural stereotypes of men and women, much as "scientific racism" tended to confirm cultural stereotypes of people of different races.

(I do acknowledge that "Sexual Strategies Theory" is far from settled science and has been heavily criticized - but it's a large part of what comes to mind when people think of ev-psych.)

2fubarobfusco12y
Evolutionary psychology is not primarily about gender issues. This may be much of why so many folks have such a problem with it ....
3MugaSofer11y
Perhaps it is merely that reputable evolutionary psychology is not about gender issues, while disreputable evo-psych is almost entirely focused on them.

Oh boy, this is going to be one of those "reference class tennis" arguments, isn't it?

I've had the luck of understanding both why people were puzzled and why they were wrong to be puzzled, since I only really learned any real ev-psych after I came to LessWrong.

What Crono says is pattern-matching is, well, yes mostly on the internet. However, it's also somewhat present out there, but it's not the Ev-Psych itself that pattern-matches - it's the behaviors and arguments of idiots who use Ev-Psych as ammunition.

What I've seen personally is mostly cases where "Evolutionary Psychology" could be substituted for "Magical Scientific Explanation" and no meaning would be lost, or cases where you could reasonably assert that a magical giant goat head yelling "facts" at people could have been the arguer's only source of information - i.e. the "fact" they pulled from ev-psych was technically true in the exact sense that "light is waves" is true, but they had no understanding of it whatsoever and their derivations from that were completely alien to the science.

Consistent with Korzybski and General Semantics, you're objecting to the is of identity and the is of predication. Also, in GS terminology, all your examples use highly intensional terms, as opposed to extensional terms - racist, theft, murder, sexist.

Korzybski and the general semantics crowd go on and on about this issue. And often do.

Reading Korzybski can be a little tedious for his messianic tone and verbose writing style, so I recommend articles from General Semantics groups to get a background in their analysis, which I consider highly rewarding for the semantic hygiene it provides. For Korzybski himself, I highly recommend the usually neglected sections on math and science at the end of Korzybski's "Science and Sanity".

EDIT: A more concise characterization of the fallacy, garnered from Max Stirner, is the mistake of valuing according to your categories, instead of categorizing according to your values.

The point of the argument from authority here is to catch the opponent's attention. If he goes as far as looking up who registered the domain, we can be confident he has read the article as well. The argument from authority won't work any more, but we don't care: it has served its purpose.

Hey, check out this article.

At least in my (admittedly limited) personal experience observing my family, friends and acquaintances. Certainly the cultural stereotypes bear it out, as well.

Your perception of the people you know plus cultural stereotypes is really pretty weak evidence. I could make the following argument: In my immediate family, the men are more emotional and less analytical/reserved than the women - they tend to get angry/aggressive in response to difficult things, whereas the women seem to stay calm. Plus, cultural stereotypes bear out the idea that men are more agg... (read more)

FWIW, personally I think genders without any -archy at all (i.e., some behaviours are more typical of men than of women and vice versa, but neither men nor women are frowned upon when exhibiting behaviours typical of the other gender, and neither group is obviously worse off overall) wouldn't be bad at all.

3duckduckMOO11y
I meant from Eridu's perspective. I was correcting what I saw as an internal flaw in Eridu's claims not making a statement of my own values. (I assume this is how I was interpreted because of the downvotes, not because of your reply.Or are people actually objecting to the correction?) How does some behaviour being more typical of men than women constitute gender? You have to (not sure if next word is right word) essentialise the average difference in behaviour before it becomes gender or it's just an average. And how is that not bad? The reason that, in the current world it's so efficient to think this way (other than agreeing with your peers) is because of all the frowning and hitting and ostracisation, or just lowered respect suppressing the cases where the essentialism breaks down (and the opposite rewarding people for staying within bounds of the idea). When there's no more societal level frowning the essentialisation isn't bad (edit: well, worse than any other essentialisation) in principle but there's going to be a lot more cases where it doesn't apply so what do you need it for? Isn't the point of gender just judging people according to how similiar they are to that essentialised difference anyway though? I have trouble conceiving of a world where people don't do this but they hold onto the concept (if the idea is even seperable from the idea that being a manly male or a feminine female is a good thing.)

But you can't really be porn-positive without supporting normative body types

I think the book, "A Billion Wicked Thoughts" does a pretty good job of disproving that there is any single body type people look for in their porn.

you certainly can't be sex-positive without supporting the notion that consent is possible under patriarchy

So, are you saying consent is something that doesn't actually exist and never has? That would seem to be a confused definition of consent.

Can "Direct email, skype or text-chat communications to E.Y." count as a venue? Purely out of curiosity.

These are all good answers.

The term is very googlable.

I am trying to be cautious when googling any terms [radical] feminists use, because the meanings they assign to them often differs radically from common usage. For example, words like "patriarchy", "oppression", "privilege", etc., have very specific technical meanings in a [radical] feminist context, and if I googled them, I'd form a wrong impression. That is perfectly ok, IMO; every discipline has its jargon, f.ex. the words "client", "handshake" an... (read more)

On the other hand, if PiV sex is not inherently oppressive, it would seem that some people could enjoy it even today, if the right conditions are met.

From what I've inferred (this inference may be wrong), eridu seems to be asserting that "radical feminists" (not necessarily including himself) believe that these conditions are currently impossible to be met. My intuition is that this is for the same reason that they became feminists in the first place (a feminist subset of anthropomorphic-like phenomena?) - that is, that they were/are surrounded with almost exclusively ultra-patriarchal-behaving groups, where it is common that men get blowjobs in return for opening car doors for women and obtain sex in return for gifting high-heeled shoes (and yet of course, the reciprocals do not apply).

I feel like most of what this position considers literally omnipresent in everyone but themselves is a poor representation of some cultures and social groups. For example, the PiV point is definitely not applicable everywhere. In my own circles, there is not a single man or woman that considers PiV sex in any way offensive, dominating, or any other of the qualities that would qualify i... (read more)

3A1987dM11y
What formula, out of curiosity? (In my case, I always hold doors open for people within a few metres behind me unless it'd be more cumbersome for me to do that than for them to open it again --e.g. if I'm carrying a box or something-- regardless of their sex, age, physical attractiveness, marital status, and whether I know them.)
2Bugmaster12y
I happen to agree with you (I think), but still, it sounds like you're generalizing from one example. Your personal life experience is no substitute for hard data. Furthermore, if eridu is right, then you are an incredibly poor judge of whether or not the interactions you describe are free of oppression in your personal sub-culture; thus, I doubt he'd find your post persuasive. Agreed. As far as I understand, eridu believes that anyone who does not subscribe to his very specific set of believes regarding gender and feminism, is simply not competent enough to judge what is in his/her/its/etc. own best interests. Only radical feminists are competent enough to make those kinds of decisions. Eridu, would the above paragraph be a fair -- if possibly somewhat harsh -- summary of your views ?
3[anonymous]11y
As far as I understand, EY believes that anyone who does not subscribe to his very specific set of beliefs regarding cognitive bias and probability theory is simply not competent enough to judge what is in his/her/their best interests. Only Bayesian rationalists are competent enough to make those kinds of decisions. Which is to say, if non-Bayesians are predictably dumb, then a feminist (of any kind, even) would say that non-feminists are predictably dumb. So yes, the above paragraph is fair, but it's also misleading -- my viewpoint on non-feminists is equivalent to LW's collective viewpoint on Christianity.
4Bugmaster11y
I don't know if EY would agree with this statement or not. I personally would disagree, however. Sure, without the understanding of "cognitive biases and probability theory", a person is liable to make suboptimal decisions. However, I believe that most people are competent enough to achieve at least some of their goals in a satisfactory fashion. The difference between you and me, as far as I understand, is that you believe that unless everyone sets "destruction of the patriarchy using the methods of radical feminism" as their primary goal, they should not be allowed to make any decisions that you don't approve of. I personally reserve that level of outrage for actions that clearly, demonstrably, hurt other people -- f.ex., teaching creationism instead of evolution in schools, restricting women's right to vote, etc. By contrast, I am perfectly content to let people spend (I would say, "waste", but they'd disagree) their Sunday mornings in church, if they so choose. To be sure, it's fairly easy to demonstrate that a patriarchy of some sort does exist, and that it is harmful. But your concept of "patriarchy" is rather more all-encompassing than that held by most other feminists; and in some cases your claims border on extraordinary. That doesn't mean that you're wrong, only that I'm not ready to side with you until you (^) have provided overwhelming proof -- which you had not done. I'm not saying that you can't provide such proof, only that you haven't so far. (^) Or any other radical feminist, doesn't have to be you specifically.
3fubarobfusco11y
"Bayesian reasoner" is a theoretical entity. The folks you meet on LW are "aspiring rationalists" (more or less), and it's important not to confuse the two — especially important for aspiring rationalists. There is a big difference between learning about a few cognitive biases, and being capable of mathematically ideal reasoning on any topic relevant to one's best interests. Anyone who claims the latter is, well, probably full of shit.
2TimS12y
There are lots of parts of popular culture that are fairly blatantly sexist (e.g. Barbie dolls and female body expectations). Does your subculture always condemn those aspects of popular culture? Does it do anything to change those norms? If not, then "Patriarchy" exists to some degree in your sub-culture. Does eradicating Patriarchy enhance social justice? I think the answer is clearly yes. Must it be your highest social-justice priority? I think there are reasonable arguments on both sides. For example, my day job is about dealing with disability discrimination in public schools. I wouldn't assert that this does all that much to eradicate patriarchy.

But also, I think it's false as a matter of simple fact to say that my only argument is the stupidity of LWers. That was an entirely tangential garnish of snark in my original post, and it wasn't my decision to start focusing on it.

I agree that it was tangential to your point (it was much less so for that white nationalist guy); but that kind of thing - snark, accusations against the community in general, angry-sounding tone, etc. - are probably the biggest cause of the downvoting and deletion of your posts.

I agree that in an ideal world we should be ab... (read more)

[-][anonymous]12y90

You are using way to many fuzzy labels and dancing the rhetorical category shuffle far too vigorously. Taboo your words and explain why a relationship between a man and a woman is bad in the same sense that archetypal case of physical abuse is bad.

The fact that there is power and control is a red herring if everyone is happy with the arrangement and no one is getting their teeth punched out.

Ability to get pregnant is not, even now, a difference between men and women.

I reject some combination of your usage of "is", "difference" or "men and woman" as impractical. I suggest that whatever kind of wordplay is used to make this claim could be used to make all sorts of utterly absurd claims that MixedNuts would reject as pure silliness and yet which are less objectively absurd than the claim in question.

but that we should ignore the correlation with gender.

Ignore the correlation with gender. Of pregnancy. That se... (read more)

3MixedNuts12y
The relevant subargument here is: "Male psychology is deeply affected by inability to ever be pregnant, which makes it essentially different from female psychology" is false, because men who can and do get pregnant don't have extraordinarily un-male psychology, they're just more or less regular dudes plus a bun in the oven.
2wedrifid12y
That argument I would object to. There are probably differences in average male and female psychologies which have a causal history related to the ability to become pregnant---even 'creepiness' instincts are probably somewhat related. But that isn't the same thing as pregnancy directly meaning the female and male psychologies different through knowing about pregnancy.
5TheOtherDave12y
Hm. So, I would object to the line you quote, but mostly because I don't have a clue what "essentially different" means. On the other hand, something like "Differences in how men and women get pregnant, and knowledge of and experiences that depend on those differences, is a significant source of between-group variance in the behavior of men and women" doesn't strike me as objectionable at all. I mean, it might turn out to be false, but it seems to me a plausible belief in advance of experimental confirmation/rejection. I'm not sure if we disagree on this.

You should notice that this tangential counterargument is entirely within the spirit of your post, in that it discusses the social cost of "evolutionary psychology" (as a meme more than an abstract field of science) and finds that it does perpetuate patriarchy, and is thus in any meaningful sense sexist.

I'm having a little trouble interpreting your comment. In your view, can a proposition be both true and sexist? If so, are you saying we shouldn't believe (some) true propositions if they "perpetuate the patriarchy"? Thanks in advance.

Further, a consequentialist scientist knows that what they publish will be reported, and misreported, and must judge the ethical consequences of publishing based on those actual outcomes, not social scripts related to "free information" or any other idealized concept. This is similar to the recurring theme in LW of scientists witholding results like UFAI, sun-destroying bombs, or powerful spells (in HPMOR). Even if a difference does exist, is it worth publishing, knowing that you are perpetuating patriarchy?

The actual outcome of publishing cor... (read more)

[-][anonymous]12y90

I find myself questioning how many readers will actually do the unpacking you describe rather than just use the Worst Argument in the World as a club to beat their opponents over the head. Especially since title is such that it will probably attract many readers off LessWrong.

"Taboo murder." works better than "Calling X murder is the worst argument in the world!"

Guilt by association, as has been mentioned before, is probably a better name.

5metaphysicist12y
The association fallacy is indeed what Yvain invokes: "An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association." Key to demonstrating the association fallacy is identifying the intended association because only then can you go on to argue that it's irrelevant. Ignore this step and you are likely to fall into another fallacy: the straw-man argument.

And okay, a tiny fraction of the time people are just trying to use words as a Schelling fence.

[citation needed]

I've edited this in a way that hopefully removes some of the controversy. Thanks to everyone who voted in the poll here. Actually, wait, no, the opposite of that. The two options ended out perfectly balanced, plus a bunch of people wanted me to make it even snarkier, and it was super confusing.

Anyway, I decided to respect the split poll by making a combination of the two drafts. The name has been changed to "the marginal fallacy", credit to James_G (sorry, Konkvistador, but I really do think that the fallacy of accident is something slightly diff... (read more)

6Eliezer Yudkowsky11y
Er... "marginal fallacy" sounds like it should involve failure to think on the margins. Sorry I'm late, but how about "the noncentral fallacy" or "the categorization fallacy"?
2shminux11y
Not sure why you are intent on renaming the Association Fallacy.
2Exetera11y
They're not quite the same. The association fallacy takes the form "A is a C and A is a B therefore all B are C," whereas this argument takes the form "A is arguably a B and Bs are often C therefore if I call A a B I can implicitly accuse it of being C without having to justify it." It's not a standard logical fallacy in the sense that it relies a lot on fuzzy, human definitions of things.

(On a sidenote, eridu did claim that "treating women different than men" is impossible, because the patriarchy is pervasive and omnipresent. Even when you think you're treating women the same as men, you aren't -- which is why he's against liberal feminism.)

A very small piece of evidence that eridu might have a point: A while ago, I was faced with a person who I didn't know at the time was a transexual in transition. I felt like I didn't know what to do or say to them. (I'm reasonably sure I just looked blank at the time, or at least we're on ... (read more)

5A1987dM11y
Me too, but 1) the sets do overlap by a substantial amount, and 2) I think it's more a case of potential sexual partners vs everyone else than of women vs men -- with women I'm not sexually attracted to at all, I behave pretty much the same as if they were male (except for different cultural norms such as --in Italy-- kissing them on the cheek instead of shaking hands, which I don't consider any more relevant that the use of different pronouns). (Edited to replace ''romantic'' with ''sexual'' -- I've introspected myself and ISTM that the set of people with whom I'd use the first set of behaviours almost exactly coincide with the set of people with whom I'd want to have protected sex if they offered, and promised not to tell anybody and to try not to let that affect our future interactions in any way -- which is a somewhat broader criterion than me being willing to have a monogamous romantic relationship with them.)
6TheOtherDave11y
FWIW, I doubt I treat men I'm attracted to and women I'm attracted to the same way. Though introspection is a decidedly unreliable source of information about this sort of thing.
3A1987dM11y
What about men you're not attracted to and women you're not attracted to?
2TheOtherDave11y
There's much less commonality in how I treat people I'm not attracted to. Or at least less salient commonality. I really don't know what to say about it. I mean, sure, there are women I'm not attracted to whom I treat differently than men I'm not attracted to... but there are also men I'm not attracted to whom I treat differently than men I'm not attracted to. Introspection fails to provide even unreliable hints on that question. Also, the fact that there exist both men and women I'm not attracted to doesn't make me particularly unique; I expect that's true of everybody. So I wouldn't have felt especially motivated to share that data point, even were it crisper. You had started out drawing the distinction between "potential sexual partner vs everyone else" and "women vs men," though, so I thought the perspective of someone for whom "potential sexual partner" included both women and men (well, in principle, anyway; after 20 years of monogamy it's somewhat theoretical) might be relevant.

No, but all that requires is adding the qualifier "academic" to the noun "subject" in my principle, so it can't get misapplied to very unusual and extreme situations where knowledge of the specific situation could be more dangerous than the lack of that knowledge.

But that's almost certainly false. IRL input has distinct selection bias from viewing meta threads, but not no selection bias.

4TheOtherDave12y
Yeah, exactly. Which is why I took it to mean a simple preference for considering the community of IRL folks. Which is not meant as a criticism; after all, I also take more seriously input from folks in my real life than folks on the internet.
6komponisto12y
Even when the topic on which you are receiving input is how to run an internet forum (on which the real-life folks don't post)?
3TheOtherDave12y
Well, I don't do that, clearly, since I don't run such an Internet forum. Less trivially, though... yeah, I suspect I would do so. The tendency to take more seriously people whose faces I can see is pretty strong. Especially if it were a case like this one, where what the RL people are telling me synchronizes better with what I want to do in the first place, and thus gives me a plausible-feeling justification for doing it. I suspect you're not really asking me what I do, though, so much as implicitly suggesting that what EY is doing is the wrong thing to do... that the admins ought to attend more to commenters and voters who are actually participating on the thread, rather than attending primarily to the folks who attend the minicamp or Alicorn's dinner parties. If so, I don't think it's that simple. Fundamentally it depends on whether LW's sponsors want it to be a forum that demonstrates and teaches superior Internet discourse or whether it wants to be a forum for people interested in rational thinking to discuss stuff they like to discuss. If it's the latter, then democracy is appropriate. If it's the former, then purging stuff that fails to demonstrate superior Internet discourse is appropriate. LW has seemed uncertain about which role it is playing for as long as I've been here.
2mrglwrf12y
Yes, that's certainly the single largest problem. If the LW moderators decided on their goals for the site, and committed to a plan for achieving those goals, the meta-tedium would be significantly reduced. The way it's currently being done, there's too much risk of overlap between run of the mill moderation squabbles and the pernicious Eliezer Yudkowsky cult/anticult squabbles.

What would a (radical) feminist utopia look like, out of curiosity?

3Bugmaster12y
Good question. More specifically, how would a radical feminist utopia differ from your average, run-of-the-mill utopia ?
2[anonymous]12y
I don't think I have the cognitive context necessary to predict that. It's only useful as a construct, in this case to make the point that humans are patriarchal because humans conform, and society is patriarchal -- implying that if the same humans were in an environment where conforming meant being feminists, they would conform to that.
6simplicio12y
Fair enough. I guess in the context of that "end of the world" thought experiment discussed above, I was trying to picture how the relationship of the American Het Male and American Het Female would be different if they had internalized radical feminism. I am sort of trying to reconcile the radicalness of your critique of gender relations with the mundaneness of gender relations between, to take the obvious example, myself and my wife. Neither of us are free of sexist attitudes, and yet ridding ourselves of them doesn't seem like so urgent a project as you are urging. It seems like maybe we'd rather just go for a walk by the river. I'm not trying to be flippant, just trying to understand where the urgency is coming from. Is it mostly a question of trying to prevent severe social ills related to sexism, such as rape? Or do you think that on the level of personal relationships between ordinary people, a lot of horrible shit is going on?

I should think that being mindkilled is very likely to include not being aware of being mindkilled.

They'll use that as an applause light, but they won't actually constrain their behavior.

FWIW I think that the majority of people arguing with you on these threads have stayed on topic, and attacked your argument rather than yourself -- which is much more than I can say about pretty much any other Internet forum. Of course, I am admittedly biased, since I myself do not support your position.

That said, when you say or imply things like "the only possible reason you'd downvote me is to express out-group hatred, so go ahead, make my day" -- as you... (read more)

9komponisto12y
Agreed, and this is a major reason why I am much less concerned about threads like these on LW than Eliezer is.

In that case, you run into the issue ArisKatsaris pointed out here.

To the extent that science as an institution has any trustworthiness at all, it's come by it by not behaving in the manner you prescribe.

If you know that an institution deliberately filters evidence to support an agenda, then you must assume that the real state of the evidence is worse than what they're trying to show you. Hiding information looks bad (it shows you have something to hide,) so if you hide information, and can't hide the fact that you're hiding it, then what you're signall... (read more)

I have never behaved in the alleged patriarchal, controlling, caging, nefarious manners towards women which I am being accused of

No. By eridu's argument, this is a category error. Nothing about your behavior, beliefs etc. could have changed the fact that you are 'oppressing' people, for some meaning of 'oppression'. Your status as "patriarchal, controlling, caging, nefarious, etc." is simply ascribed, in a quasi-tautological way.

Yes, I do think this is "The Worst² Argument in the World". It basically amounts to dogma-based emotional manipulation.

6Bugmaster12y
Well... a slightly more charitable way to represent eridu's argument, IMO, would be something like this: "I believe that you are sincere in your belief that you have never engaged in these nefarious behaviors which you'd just enumerated. Nonetheless, you do engage in many such behaviors, not because you are some mustachio-twirling villain, but because you see such behaviors as normal or even beneficial. You say that you have always done your best to avoid such actions, and I believe you, but your best simply isn't good enough".
2DaFranker12y
Ah, thanks!
  • Treat arguments as soldiers
  • Claim to be a good empiricist
  • Be internally consistent.

Pick two.


Edit: Ok, that was snarky.

I agree that people act to reinforce social norms all the time, every day. But there are facts. If it turns out that men should not be primary care-givers of children because men, but not women, have a 5% chance of murderous rage when caring for children, society is morally justified in taking that fact into account.

But if a scientist reported that finding as an experimental result, they're failed to be properly empirical (give... (read more)

The word control is being use idiosyncratically. In a certain sense, everyone exerts control over everyone in ways that are not examined self-reflexively.

The problem was not with the word "control", but with the word "exert". eridu claimed that, for example, I exert power and control over my wife, without any information other than that I am "non-feminist" (by eridu's definition of "feminist"). This is strange, as I would not normally say that X exerts Y in the absence of any information about in what ways X mig... (read more)

3TimS12y
Honestly, I can't tell if eridu is poor at articulating a position I agree with or actually believes a position that I reject. He's certainly treating arguments like soldiers (which is bad). I think eridu's suggested changes have low-hanging fruit that will obviate the need for more extreme changes. He is getting a lot more hostile feedback than his position deserves.

Making the world more sane requires understanding it. Knowing that there is a biological, evolutionary force behind rape allows to take more appropriate measures to actually fight rape. Blinding ourselves on the true cause of an evil will never allow us to defeat that evil.

All employment is comodification of human time, and therefore objectification of human beings. Part of living in the real world is making peace with that. The fact that people want to single out porn is silliness. That's what I meant. Is this really what this whole conversation has been about?

Yes. If you had said "All employment is comodification of human time, and therefore objectification of human beings. Part of living in the real world is making peace with that. The fact that people want to single out porn is silliness." this would allow p... (read more)

7TimS12y
In the spirit of constructive criticism: I totally agree with your stated point, and you made the point well. But the function of the quoted sentence is winning a status contest, not advancing your argument. The post would be vastly stronger without it.

I would say that the War on Some Drugs is sufficiently like Prohibition to make this not an instance of the WAitW. It's still a fairly weak argument, since it's lacking in details, but I don't think it's trying to sneak in any connotations, and I think basically all of the problems with Prohibition are also problems with the War on Some Drugs.

Prohibition was unpopular with a large portion of the population. It caused a lowered respect for the law in general, because so many people casually broke the law in response. It funded organized violent crime. It in... (read more)

2kilobug12y
There seems to be a significant difference between "prohibition" and "war on drugs" to me, that may justify it being WAitW : prohibition is attacking a behavior that most people actually do. Nearly everyone drinks alcohol, at least on special occasions. While drugs (even the "softer" of the prohibited one, cannabis) are only used by a small fraction (in the USA, where it's pretty high, according to Wikipedia, it's 13% who used cannabis at least once in 2009). I'm not in favor of "war on drugs" (in my opinion, it has a lot of negative consequences and doesn't work well at all at reducing drug usage), but there is a significant difference between forbidding something "everyone" does and something 10% of the population does, and "prohibition" does bring in the "forbidding something everyone does" connotation. I would find it more accurate to call the ban on filesharing "prohibition" than to call war on drugs "prohibition" (but both are a form of WAitW).
2Kindly12y
You think that more people have tried filesharing than drugs?
3kilobug12y
Tried, I would say it depends of the age group. But "tried once in your life" is not the most important for prohibition issues, it's people using it regularly the real issue. So, do it regularly (at least once a year) ? It's hard to find stats on filesharing usage, but the data I remember is about 1/3 of people with internet access using p2p, which is about 2/3 of the population, so 2/9 = 22%, nearly twice the 13% who used cannabis "once per year". Cannabis is not the only durg, but p2p isn't the only form of filesharing, so it more or less compensates.

Do we, though, agree to the rape of a woman if said rape results in the feeding of 10 starving children in Africa? Of course not.

When arguing with consequentialists, you may find it useful to use larger numbers. I recommend Graham's number.

I think this should be explicitly connected to "policy debates should not appear one-sided". The incorrect response to the worst argument in the world results from forgetting this and trying to deny the downside to your position that your opponent has pointed out. The correct response is to acknowledge the downside but argue that the upsides outweigh it.

Heh. Even taking that into account, I still think your odds are better with a randomly chosen LWer as a recipient than a randomly chosen partner-of-a-female. But that's admittedly a pretty low bar.

4Epiphany11y
I would prefer to hear all the reasons, myself and am ten times more likely to choke on fluff like "It's not you, it's me." than burst into flames because somebody criticized me. I need closure and feedback and for my life events to make sense. For those purposes, the only information I'd deem good enough is a serving of reality.
3Athrelon11y
Shminux's point, and the rest of this thread, is about predicting the behavior of typical women in order to make an accurate assessment about what breakup approach is best. Do you think that your preferences are typical for women, or even typical for women-who-LW-folks-date, many of whom are not themselves LWers?
3Epiphany11y
According to Vladimir, LessWrong has somewhere in the ballpark of 600-1000 active users. According to Yvain's 2011 survey, 92 of the 1090 respondents were female. If I alone would respond well, that increases the chances of a good response by an LW woman by over 1% (unless you want to include inactive members). Since Dave's point is not "You're more likely to get a good response from an LW woman than not." and was "You're more likely to get a good response from an LW woman than a random woman." me saying that actually gives a potentially significant support to his point. If you calculate the chances of a random woman responding well to be under 1% (seems reasonable) and don't consider inactive users to be an "LWer", then I totally supported his point. If not, then all Dave needs to do to figure out whether he's right is to count the number of LW women he is sure would respond well and compare the ratio with his estimate of how many random women would respond well. I doubt anyone here thinks the percentage of random women that would respond well is beyond the single digit percents. If that's right, my saying so gave 10% or more of the support needed to think that he's right. As for the behavior of the average LW woman, I have no idea. That I would respond well confirms that at least some LW women would respond well, which might help people figure out if it's worthwhile to find out exactly how many of us there are.
3shminux11y
Two comments: * First, you clearly are not an average female. * Are you sure you know how you would react in both cases? People are notoriously bad at predicting their own behavior.

First, you clearly are not an average female.

Which doesn't contradict Dave's idea that LW women / the women that LW members date might be more likely to respond well.

Are you sure you know how you would react...

Totally sure. My last boyfriend attempted to give me fluff and I tore through it. I always want to get down to the bottom of why a relationship did not work. Even if reality is devastating, I want reality. You can tell I'm strong enough to deal with criticism because I invite it often. You can tell I'm strong enough to swallow criticism because of my elitism thread - check out the note at the top. I feel kind of dumb for not seeing these problems in advance (hindsight bias, I guess?). Now that I do see how awful my thread was - in public of all places - have I vanished, or gone crybaby or begged anybody for emotional support?

No.

I am stronger than that.

3TheOtherDave11y
Just for clarity, I did not suggest the latter. What I suggested was that this sort of thing, initiated by the partner of an LW member, is more likely to work out well... put differently, that LW members are more likely to respond well (or at least less likely to respond poorly)... than for non-LWers. The gender of the LW member, and the gender of the partner, is not strictly irrelevant but is largely screened off by their membership. I make no such claims about the partners of LWers.

iV) Affirmative action is racist

It is racist. there is no Issue here . Indeed the bad argument is yours. You argument appears to be that if something is 'good' then it can't be racist. This is just incorrect. There is nothing that implies morality within the definition given in English lanaguge dictionaries apart from those published by the Marxist left (whom I implictly reject).

The problem here is not that Yvain has made flawed arguments but rather that you incorrectly interpreted the post.

Yvain is not arguing that affirmative action is or is not raci... (read more)

This is not a logical fallacy. It is either wrong or right and it depends on two issues: in The Anglo Saxon world of common law ( that's USA, Canada,Ireland, UK , New Zealand, most Carribean countries etc ) Murder must be i) The Killing ii) Of a person, iii) In being iv) unlawfully and v) with malice aforethought.

You are assuming that the person asserting this proposition is referring to the legal concept of murder (in a particular jurisdiction) rather than the common-sense notion of murder. This assumption is probably false in the large majority of cases. The rest of your objections suffer from similar maladies.

The trouble with this argument is that the feral condition is not the natural condition for humans, as philosophers once imagined it to be. A whole slew of development doesn't work without the appropriate stimuli which are provided by all human societies, for instance exposure to language during the critical period.

The gold standard for demonstrating that something is due to socialization is to demonstrate difference among societies or social groups (subcultures, classes, etc.) — not to compare a healthy person to one that has been developmentally impaired... (read more)

You're thinking like a LW reader, not a typical feminist activist (who is also liberal). Most of these people don't have any background in any science and are more skilled at literature criticism than empiricism.

They should fix those deficiencies forthwith.

[-][anonymous]12y70

Generally, I, like most humans, think that people doing bad things should feel bad about it.

This is a thought-provoking sentence. I think I don't want anyone to feel bad, even when they do bad things.

8A1987dM12y
As for me, I'd say it depends on whether them feeling bad makes them stop doing bad things.
7Nornagest12y
If we're counting guilt as suffering in an ethically consequential sense -- which seems reasonable, since it's pretty profoundly unpleasant and there's a pretty clear functional analogy to physical pain -- and if that suffering is additive with other kinds, then consequentialists should want people to feel guilt when they do bad things if and only if that guilt eliminates more suffering (of any type) down the road. Don't know if you're a consequentialist, but this seems like a good starting point. In any case, that condition seems like it's sometimes but not always true. Guilt over immutable or nearly immutable urges seems like a net loss unless those urges are both proportionally destructive and susceptible to conditioned reduction in the average case. Guilt strong enough to be unpleasant but weak enough not to overcome whatever other factors are making people do bad shit is likewise a loss. Interestingly, this seems to indicate that consequentialists should sometimes prefer intense over moderate guilt, unless it's gratuitously intense relative to what's needed to stop the behavior: sufficiently disproportionate guilt is also a loss. The obvious objection to this line of thinking is that certain categories of socially constructed bad shit -- not to name names -- might stick around if and only if they stay at or above a certain level of prevalence in the population, sort of a memetic equivalent of herd immunity. Since these patterns can persist for an unbounded length of time and cause suffering as long as they do, anything capable of incrementally degrading them could have second-order consequences much larger than its first-order effects, potentially enough to justify any and all related guilt. In this case uncertainties about the problem structure seem to dominate consequential reasoning, much as per Pascal's Mugging.
2fubarobfusco12y
In my experience, feelings of guilt coupled with the attitude that it is "immutable", can be an effective excuse not to fix harmful behavior. It's a sort of ugh field. When the consequences of the behavior become sufficiently intolerable, one is eventually tempted to hang the guilt and test that supposed immutability.
2Nornagest12y
Sure, that's a failure mode, and it's one which -- stepping down a level of abstraction -- seems prevalent in gender discussions ("I'm $gender, I can't help it!"). From the inside, it can be pretty hard to distinguish between the motivations you can and can't change with enough reflection. There's a loose cultural consensus as to what counts, but at the same time that varies between subcultures and can lead to conflict in its own right: consider the "ex-gay" phenomenon in fundamentalist Christian spheres. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it in context; in my estimation it's not directly relevant to what we're discussing upthread. But at the same time I think it's a mistake to consider our wants entirely plastic; for the time being we're working with a certain set of hardware, and software changes can only do so much.

Thanks for the reply. What I'm getting from you is the idea that there are probably some practices in our relationship (and those of couples in our reference class) that, although they look benign to us now, would after a certain amount of consciousness-raising come to be seen by us as toxic.

I consider this very plausible (and I can think of attitudes held by me in the past, about gender and other things, which seemed trivial but which I now regard as toxic).

I am really interested in moving from the abstract to the specific though. So seconding Bugmaster's... (read more)

The reason Yvain's proposed argument is arguably much worse is that the argument you propose is a clear, visible fallacy with spectacular failure modes and many people will indeed simply walk away or mark the person making the argument as crazy, while Yvain's argument, in the situations where it is the worst argument, is not only wrong and erroneous logic but also still manages to convince uninformed people that it is valid, and so they will accept its conclusion as true, while at the same time tricking opponents into debating the wrong points and formulat... (read more)

It's easy to see:

But since many others did participate (while saying in many comments that eridu was quite irrational and/or wrong), it's possible I would have been drawn in if I had the opportunity. So I'm glad you stopped it.

... and read "It's obvious that eridu is stupid and irrational, and people said so yet kept blabbering and that could have made me join in, so thanks for stopping all this idiocy."

It actually tempted me to downvote too, but the comment is overall useful and that is a very uncharitable interpretation of the wording. It'... (read more)

I disagree with the claim that the entire LW community, or even a majority of it, is incapable of discussing this subject rationally, and I also disagree with the claim that most LWers will assign karma to your posts based on buzzword content.

However, I find your other claims and the overall assessment of the situation minus the above to correlate rather strongly with what has experimentally actually happened so far in the discussion in the majority of what I observed.

Honestly, (speaking as a feminist, albeit not a radical feminist, who's been frustrated by a lot of the male-rights-apologist sentiment on this website), I think this thread went amazingly well. Yes, people disagree with you. Some of those people are expressing outgroup hatred. Some of those people are (reasonably) honestly looking at your position and still disagreeing because *it's a complicated position that requires them to read multiple books to even have a reasonable understanding of, and there are loads of other similarly complex positions that migh... (read more)

5thomblake12y
You may have accidentally left off the folks that are pretty conversant with various varieties of radical feminism and still disagree with eridu's take.
2Raemon12y
I was trying to avoid getting sucked into the argument and was keeping things brief. At this point I've failed in that regard.

Nice. It seems that we no longer have a wholly unfalsifiable and meaningless argument. You are now resorting to the old trope that "we" are fully rational and conscious individuals who use reason to actualize ourselves and achieve our moral values, whereas "they" are mindless sheeple whose individual potential is neutralized by force, coercion or pervasive social pressure. I suppose that this counts as progress, in a way.

Ok, I'm out. You are actively hurting causes that I think are important. Please STOP.

If you say you are advancing better social roles for women, you are LYING. To me, or to yourself.

5thomblake12y
That seems like an uncharitable conclusion - it seems much more likely that eridu is merely mistaken, for example.

The feminist response seems absurd to me, unless you define differences in a way different than I do. Is the social hierarchy what makes women on average shorter? Or is it simply a moral argument about how we should ignore all differences?

4TimS12y
Why are we talking about height differences? There are popularized science articles that claim women are more empathic, conciliatory, and people oriented, while men are more aggressive and problem oriented. And this "difference" has a biological basis. An equivalent assertion would be that nerds are inherently Straw Vulcans because of aspects of their genetic code, and therefore one should never take their advice in social situations seriously. The assertion functions to reinforce the status quo, not illuminate truths about human biology.
6ArisKatsaris12y
Because for a materialist the brain is a physical organ, and its characteristics much like any other physical characteristic. Well is that true or not? Well, is that true or not?
9TimS12y
It's hard to tell because it's practically impossible to run double-blind experiments on the process of evolution. But it wouldn't be the first time that scientists gave their blessing to the norms of the day when the empirical evidence didn't truly support the assertion. Politics being the mind-killer, we should probably expect that morally controversial scientific results are biased. I suspect the bias is in favor of the status quo, but I'm sure there are counter-examples.
4Nick_Tarleton12y
These assertions are not equivalent in structure: one is "X are more Y", the other is "all X are Y". In spite of that, people who aren't trying to be careful will often not notice the difference, and people who are trying to be careful will often still habitually treat the former as the latter and fail to notice exceptions. Both of these ways to interpret a statement (denotation / usage in practice) are vital, and it distresses me that people (in politically charged discussions) seem to almost always see them as opposed sides and consistently emphasize one.
4drethelin12y
Height differences are obvious, have strong correlations with status and success, and it's really hard to argue that they're not biological. I was responding to the feminist argument, not to the argument that popular science mischaracterizes things for the worse. If we disagree that there ARE biological differences, then we've got a bigger disagreement than about the extent to which misinterpretation of evopsych reinforces the patriarchy.
5TimS12y
Respectfully, I think this is the feminist argument. There obvious are morally relevant differences between men and women (e.g. pregnancy). The open question is whether they require or even justify our current gender roles.

To me, the phrase "radical feminist" implies the sort of feminist who not only wants to get women out of the cage (which is admirable in my view), but then wants to turn about and put men in the cage (which I disagree with). I think that means that we're defining the phrase differently.

7[anonymous]12y
You are defining the phrase differently. Upvoted here because that's the crucial step at this point in the argument. What Eridu is describing is a branch of feminism that focuses on power relations, and defines "patriarchy" as an established body of male-dominated power relationships that influence how society is structured. This is to be understood as more of a cultural thing that developed over time, not some dark shadowy conspiracy -- however, radical feminists often contend that this pattern emerged prior to, and supervenes over, other forms of oppression. They emerged during the Second Wave era in the 1960s. There's diversity of belief and interpretation within radical feminism as well as in other branches outside of it, though I note from some experience that they're a bit prone to universalizing their theories and not playing very nice with other groups of feminists. Their conception of patriarchy and its importance is a particular matter of contention within the field.
7TheOtherDave12y
There exist social contexts in which getting women "out of the cage" requires a radical restructuring of that context. Calling feminists who encourage that sort of restructuring "radical feminists" seems like a reasonable use of language to me.
7A1987dM12y
Indeed, people who want to get both men and women out of the cage are called anarchists.
2TheOtherDave12y
Well, some of them are. Many of them aren't. I would describe serious Zen Buddhists this way as well, for example, and while there's a sense in which one could describe Zen Buddhists as anarchists it's a very different sense from the one we usually mean.
2CCC12y
It's reasonable. It's just different to my prior expectation.
2MileyCyrus12y
That doesn't pass an ideological Turing test. Think about how to "radical" label operates in other contexts ("radical socialist", "radical libertarian", "radical environmentalist"). Then apply that to feminism.
3A1987dM12y
Some radical environmentalist do seem to want to get wildlife out of the cage and then turn about and put humans in the cage.
3TimS12y
As if the word "Radical" had a side or inherent meaning across various ideological conflicts.

Most research findings labeled as evolutionary psychology are sexist because they perpetuate patriarchy.

I would reduce this to "Most publications labeled as being about research findings in evolutionary psychology are sexist because they perpetuate patriarchy." and "Most publications on research findings in evolutionary psychology make claims about morality based on said findings by implicitly asserting dubious (contested) axioms of morality."

Perpetuation of patriarchy is not a property of research findings. Research findings are the... (read more)

I've seen one or both arguments. The most obvious example would be Ayn Rand who made essentially both arguments. Essentially this looks like a form of belief overkill or political mindkilling. People throughout the political spectrum are convinced often that what they consider the most morally correct course of action is also the most pragmatically correct one (a different example would be how with the recent heathcare fight in the US almost everyone who thought the bill was bad economically also thought it was unconstitutional and people who thought that it was a good idea were more likely to claim it was constitutional). They don't seem to realize or care that the universe is ideologically blind.

By similar reasoning: If you were smart, and cared about results rather than mere signaling, and had reason to believe your advice was good, you would not phrase your advice as personal or political attacks.

Yes, and it would also be beneficial to correctly apply the Wason selection principle to all problems not just ethical ones, but because the relevant circuitry is in the ethics module, our brains only apply it to ethics.

Or do they really?

A large fraction of people get the problem right even in it's more abstruse form, where it is harder to leverage the experience to correctly understand the problem statement.

Evopsych you describe is actually a very fringe interpretation of how we get improved performance on Wason selection task. Source . There just isn'... (read more)

I think there are two cases where you forgot to type the word "fallacy" after the word noncentral.

But in this case calling Martin Luther King a criminal is the noncentral.

This is why the noncentral is so successful.

Except Time Cube is incomprehensible gibberish, not just wrong. But I'm not saying that it was actually mainstream, you understand.

I'm not sure we could say anything better of Isaac Newton's alchemy.

Unless, of course, you're saying our understanding of recent history is quite as bad as the closing paragraph there.

Popular understanding can be pretty bad. The more I read in history, the more I realized I didn't understand the past anywhere near as well as I thought I did; revelations ranging from spherical earths to gay presidents to the Founding Fath... (read more)

More generally, the idea that taking a potentially damaging action with respect to a vulnerable target is morally distinguishable from taking the exact same action against a well-defended target is relatively uncontroversial even without reference to feminism at all.

It seemed a reasonable to me; after all, shminux's comment wasn't random unrelated criticism, it was a germane followup to a previous comment. Posting it in the other thread eliminates the entire purpose of the comment.

4chaosmosis11y
I dispute the accuracy of shminux's comment, and yet also feel reluctant to challenge the comment because it would be a digression from the topic of the above comments. That's a problem. I recognize the need to draw from other sections of the site in order to talk about LessWrong as a community; I'm fine with that. But if we're going to do that then I think we need to at least use good arguments while discussing those other threads. Otherwise it becomes too easy to just criticize things in contexts where they're difficult to challenge. I'd like to hear other possible solutions though.

I don't know! That was why I asked.

"Gender should be removed from society" is not a particularly rare opinion-- unfortunately it is also not a particularly feasible one, at least not in the short term.

Fair enough.

I'd like to request some constructive criticism: What would you suggest someone do when they think an empirical field has been tainted by normative claims?


I really do think that historical study of other cultures provides evidence that contradicts some psychological "findings." But it is the nature of the endeavor that "harder" sciences like psychology carry more weight than softer sciences like history. I could point to cases like Bradwell v. Illinois for examples of tainted scientific processes, but I acknowledge that do... (read more)

4mantis11y
I don't see evidence of anything resembling a scientific process, tainted or otherwise, behind Justice Bradley's patronizing pontification about "the proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex," especially when the pompous old bastard specifically attributed his view of proper gender roles to "the law of the Creator.”
3TheOtherDave11y
Upvoted because I consider this question a far more useful one than many of the things that led up to it. My own answer is, roughly speaking, the same for all cases where something potentially useful is being tainted by an external factor: 1) estimate how much work is involved in separating the tainted stuff from the non-tainted stuff, 2) estimate the benefit of the non-tainted stuff, and 3) if the estimated work/benefit tradeoff is high enough, do the work, otherwise throw the whole mess out. You seem to have done that, at least in a BOTE kind of way, and concluded that the tradeoff doesn't justify the work. Which is cool. It's not clear to me whether anyone is actually disagreeing with you about that conclusion, or (if they are) whether they think your estimate of the work is too high, your estimate of the benefit too low, or your threshold tradeoff too low.

Welcome to LessWrong!

A bit of fair warning: If you haven't done so already, the About LessWrong and Welcome to LessWrong pages along with the FAQ should cover most of the community norms and important stuff you'd want to know to frequent this place.

None is required reading, but users will frequently point you to the Sequences if you're doing or saying something that has been covered already, especially using words, labels and categories incorrectly.

More relevant to this post, the above sequence on words is in direct relationship with both your points and ... (read more)

an individualist "identity" conception of gender

So... what's your position on trans people and non-binaries?

you can't really be porn-positive without supporting normative body types

Mainstream porn has an incentive problem where it needs to appeal to a large audience or it won't be profitable, but alt porn, especially by amateurs, can show varied body types. There are Tumblrs that do that - they're reposting, not producing, so there's still a bias toward conventionally attractive types, but they're not judged differently.

reality and physics would be your worst possible Enemy, seeing as how it is currently the strongest Jailer than restricts and constrains you the most.

This should answer most of the questions above. Yes, the universe is terrible. It would be much better if the universe were optimized for my freedom.

Which other values can be traded off?

All values are fungible. The exchange rate is not easily inspected, and thought experiments are probably no good for figuring them out.

2DaFranker11y
You're right, this does answer most of my questions. I had made incorrect assumptions about what you would consider optimal. After updates based on this, it now appears much more likely for me that you use terminal valuation of your freedom node such that it gets triggered by more rational algorithms that really do attempt to detect restrictions and constraints in more than mere feeling-of-control manner. Is this closer to how you would describe your value? I'm still having trouble with the idea of considering a universe optimized for one's own personal freedom as a best thing (I tend to by default think of how to optimize for collective sum utilities of sets of minds, rather than one). It is not what I expected.

it's subject to the Loss Aversion effect where the dissatisfied speak up in much greater numbers

But Eliezer Yudkowsky, too, is subject to the loss aversion effect. Just as those dissatisfied with changes overweight change's negative consequences, so does Eliezer Yudkowsky overweight his dissatisfaction with changes initiated by the "community." (For example, increased tolerance of responding to "trolling.")

Moreover, if you discount the result of votes on rules, why do you assume votes on other matters are more rational? The "com... (read more)

True. For that to be an effective communication channel, there would need to be a control group. As for how to create that control group or run any sort of blind (let alone double-blind) testing... yeah, I have no idea. Definitely a problem.

ETA: By "I have no idea", I mean "Let me find my five-minute clock and I'll get back to you on this if anything comes up".

3DaFranker11y
So I thought for five minutes, then looked at what's been done in other websites before. The best I have is monthly surveys with randomized questions from a pool of stuff that matters for LessWrong (according to the current or then-current staff, I would presume) with a few community suggestions, and then possibly later implementation of a weighing algorithm for diminishing returns when multiple users with similar thread participation (e.g. two people that always post in the same thread) give similar feedback. The second part is full of holes and horribly prone to "Death by Poking With Stick", but an ideal implementation of this seems like it would get a lot more quality feedback than what little gets through low-bandwidth in-person conversations. There are other, less practical (but possibly more accurate) alternatives, of course. Like picking random LW users every so often, appearing at their front door, giving them a brain-scan headset (e.g. an Emotiv Epoc), and having them wear the headset while being on LW so you can collect tons of data. I'd stick with live feedback and simple surveys to begin with.

Generally, I, like most humans, think that people doing bad things should feel bad about it.

And I happen to think that anyone who is trying to make me feel bad about things should be crushed like a bug and their attempts to control through shame disempowered to whatever extent it is convenient to do so.

(I also observe that most people with healthy boundaries will tend to be much more likely to avoid those who are predisposed to attempting to control through guilt or shame.)

8MixedNuts12y
You're eating babies. The wide-eyed idealist points out that eating babies is bad and you are a bad and evil person who must mend his baby-eating ways. You tell the wide-eyed idealist that you refuse to interact with people who try to control you through shame. The wide-eyed idealist thinks for a minute, shrugs, and shoots you.
2wedrifid12y
Did you just create a counterfactual which relies on making me act even more cluelessly naive and banal than the wide eyed idealist? That's as meaningless than it is presumptive and inappropriate. Now, for the next counterfactual let's arbitrarily decide that MixedNuts is walking around naked having sex with an echidna while shouting "The World Is Flat!".
2Alicorn12y
Except for the sex-with-echidna part, this sounds vaguely like something that MixedNuts might do!
2Bugmaster12y
Rule 34, man. Rule 34. :-)
2DaFranker12y
You have several decent points there, granted. I feel that your most powerful point is that wide-eyed idealists are poor utility maximizers and poor rationalists. The second strongest seems to be that a rationalist will (should, but as a rationalist, they do what they should) attempt better approaches, which seems to be quite close to one of wedrifid's implied point in the grandparent. Was this your intended meaning?

I hope you don't mind me jumping into this discussion; I find it fascinating.

Brains are plastic. They are reprogrammable. They are computers. There are differences between the brains of people socialized as men and the brains of people socialized as women. They are a result of gender socialization...

Would the below statement be an accurate rephrasing of your views ?

"Any differences in behaviors between men and women are due entirely to their upbringing. Their biological makeup has no measurable effect on such behaviors."

I think this is a reas... (read more)

"feminism is a movement which has ended, there is no longer any oppression of women."

I think the problem with this statement is that "oppression" is a loaded word. Its meaning can range from "there exists a systemic bias against women" to "women are chained to the stove and are kept barefoot and pregnant at all times". As Yvain points out in this very post, people tend to envision the latter even when the reality is closer to the former.

That said, I'm still not entirely clear regarding your response to simplicio.... (read more)

I think the idea is that if people don't see new replies to the hidden subthread in recent comments, they'll be much less likely to respond to those replies, so such threads will die out much more quickly. This will also cause trolls to not have as much fun trolling here so they'll be more likely to leave us alone in the future.

ETA: On the other hand, perhaps we should talk about non-technical ways to change the culture as well. Do you have any ideas? ETA2: A lot of previous discussion can be found here.

I think this is false as a matter of simple fact. I'll bet money on it.

I'd take that bet, for reasonable values of "privileges men over women".

I might expect controversy if we were asking whether that bias is entirely unidirectional, whether "patriarchy" is an accurate or productive way of describing it, or how pervasive it is, but I'd expect the existence of systemic gender bias favoring men in certain domains to be challenged only by a minority of posters here. That's really a fairly low bar, and while gender issues weren't disc... (read more)

This is why I have zero faith in the forum community on this website -- no matter how many times they read "one argument against an army" or "substance screens off source," they will continue to do those exact things whenever confronted with outgroup memes. Those arguments are soldiers, and they cannot be deployed against their homeland.

I don't know how receptive this community would be to radical feminist arguments argued politely and in good faith.

I mean, I could walk up to someone and say "hey, big-nose, if you pulled your he... (read more)

[Insert unwarranted expletive]

Please, please, please define and explain just what you mean by "patriarchal". From all the denials and arguments I've seen so far in this thread, I haven't seen one single hypothesis that doesn't get rebuked by you as being patriarchal other than your own vague, poorly-explained, cult-sounding position.

Here's another hypothesis I just have to throw your way in order to make any progress here:

Suppose the entire friggin' human species is wiped. I mean, completely, utterly, zero-exception, all humans are dead. Then, by... (read more)

Oh, come on.

I mean, I don't have a horse in this race, but this can just as easily be "If you haven't read a lot of cognitive science and statistics and gone through a long process of unlearning your irrational and corrupted-hardware nature, and identifying the importance of rationality, I think I can provide evidence of your behaving in a way that perpetuates irrationality in this world. To do this I'd have to watch you in person for a while, but if you want to answer this question without that happening, you can just read lots of the literature o... (read more)

6bogus12y
No, the bit that pattern-matches is that "patriarchy", "oppression", "privilege" and the like have no consistent definition, just like "sinfulness". Also, rationalists don't try to guilt-trip you into overcoming your biases and becoming more rational (unless you count some of the efficient-charity advocacy as akin to guilt-tripping). It really is a pseudo-religious argument.

I don't know if the positions implied by "equity feminist" are the positions I endorse.

In particular, I don't know if "Always work within the system" is implied to be my position.

I'm more W.E.B. DuBois than Booker T. Washington, and I just don't know if eridu is implying otherwise. For a while in this discussion, I thought eridu and I were only disagreeing on tactics, not terminal values. In fact, I'm still not sure whether we have different terminal values (at the level of detail relevant to this discussion).

the morally upright woman is also better looking

By hypothesis, the Wicked Queen is the second most beautiful woman in the land. This seems to weaken that point.

Yes. The primary difference between the hypothesis I advanced and the one TimS advanced is that mine does not require accusing you of moral deficiency.

You appear to have answered a "how" question with "yes".

Don't be a jerk. You're misconstruing my position. Human trafficking is very big and very bad. I was discussing a small reduction in patriarchy. If you think that evolutionary psychology is somehow the lynchpin of human trafficking, fine, but then please present a rational argument for that conclusion instead of sneaking it in under the table. You discredit your viewpoint further when you turn to disingenuous tactics to support its supposed validity. You also piss me off.

As a consequentialist pro-feminist, I'm bound to attack anything that I think will significantly support patriarchy.

I'm not sure attacking everything that contributes to patriarchy is more important than attacking only the things intrinsic to patriarchy, eg gender bias. Otherwise, you're obligated to attack patriarchy about 10000 times a day, and it makes your advocacy seem weaker. Also, you should really be considering whether or not the minor reduction in patriarchy is worth the slightly larger, but still small, move away from evolutionary psychology.... (read more)

Yeah, we can say that it does not apply to me.

I'm surprised to see that feminist heterosexual men are implied to be able to escape the framework of social control. Either way I've always considered myself a feminist in ways that you probably find insufficient. For starters it seems to me that the more feminist the society the higher standard of living it roughly seems to have (e.g. Scandinavia better than rest of Northern Europe, which is better than Southern Europe, which is better than the Arab world, which is better than subSaharan Africa) -- so that's ... (read more)

[-][anonymous]12y110

For starters it seems to me that the more feminist the society the higher standard of living it roughly seems to have (e.g. Scandinavia better than rest of Northern Europe, which is better than Southern Europe, which is better than the Arab world, which is better than subSaharan Africa) -- so that's a significant plus in favour of feminism, after all.

I think causation goes the other way.

5A1987dM12y
Correlation doesn't imply causation.
6ArisKatsaris12y
Correlation is significant evidence for causation. It simply doesn't prove causation.
5Alicorn12y
Alas, "imply" is used to mean both things.
4A1987dM12y
Yeah, but it's as strong evidence for A causing B as for B causing A.
2siodine12y
And that's if you didn't forget C through Z which all also correlate with B to varying degrees, or A_a through A_z which all fall under A and better explain B than simply A. Or maybe it was a combination of A, D, F, G, and Z that caused B. And so on and so on. The difficulty of finding causation scales with the complexity of the system directly encompassing the cause, and that makes finding significant evidence for causation from correlations like those mentioned by ArisKatsaris very hard.

If you think an anarchist can not be a strict radical feminist

What? If anything, what I said implies the opposite of that.

8[anonymous]12y
I misinterpreted one of your later comments, and apologize for doing so.
2A1987dM12y
If you mean my reply to TheOtherDave, I've since rewritten half of it for clarity.
[-][anonymous]12y60

I identify with the radical feminist current of feminism, and I believe it to be the only feminist variant of feminism

That's usually a bad sign, in my experience. It means you're not terribly likely to notice which women's voices are dominating the conversation, telling all the others they need to suborn their needs and interests into your vision of what feminism looks like (this happens an awful lot); do you think your take on it is really one-size-fits-all?

I see so much complaining about straw-feminism here, that it's nice to see someone who doesn't immediately mistake it for "making women superior" or other such rubbish show up. But I'm not sure this is a great improvement. :\

[-][anonymous]12y60

It seems like your position on ev-psych is predicated on the idea that there are in fact no moral differences between men and women to be found in (true) ev-psych research. If there were, then gender inequality (in whatever direction) would be fully justified. I take it you're not waiting around to see what natural science discovers about possible moral differences between men and women. If that's right, you may be concluding a priori that natural sciences can't discover such moral differences.

Which is a reasonable enough position. But then shouldn't the work of feminism be to argue for this a priori claim directly, rather than attacking naturalistic approaches which are, in the end, harmless?

4TimS12y
Not a priori. There's lots of history that shows gender roles have been very different in different places and times. Given that background, it seems awfully unlikely that the results of a difficult to test field tend to show that the current gender roles are more compatible with human biology that some other gender roles. That said, if well-grounded research shows additionally morally relevant differences between men and women, then society should take those differences into account. In fact, morally relevant differences between men and women are readily apparent (e.g. pregnancy). It's just not clear what those differences imply about how society must be structured.

The how any why of porn suggests that the mainstream entertainment industry probably isn't where that money would go e.g. probably towards prostitution which is even less humane. And doesn't pay as well.

Well, the people who want to magically stop porn also tend to want to magically stop prostitution.

I, personally, would be in favor of the existence of both, but I'd also wish much higher working conditions for both -- a wish which your command to "Deal!" in regards to their low working conditions, because they're supposedly better than the &qu... (read more)

Porn can be a really unpleasant job for women

And even more so for men: lousy pay, boner drug injections, stiff (sorry) competition.

Would any of the (at least four) people who have upvoted Eliezer's comment but not my response

There's not necessarily even one of those, let alone four. Four people could have upvoted both of you and then four other people could have downvoted just you.

3gjm12y
D'oh! Of course you're right. I should have said: either upvoted Eliezer's comment but not mine, or downvoted mine but not Eliezer's.

Do we ever succumb to the worst argument in the world in non-moral issues?

Excellent example. This kind of equivocation on 'murder' is used---and even accepted---on lesswrong with distressing frequency.

Leaving aside the differences in moral justification, virtue ethics differs from rule utilitarianism in the practical sense that virtues tend to be more abstract than rules. For example, rather than avoiding unnecessary killing, becoming a kind person.

(1) Is correct if one assumes that there are some people who actually steal property. If it is not the case the one does not depend on others cooperation, but merely their refraining from initiating force.

One of the points I presented that you didn't address is that other people in society teach their kids that stealing is bad and they shouldn't do it. They don't merely help to enforce your property claims; they also communicate and teach your property claims. This is the means by which you can count on almost everyone refraining from violating your pro... (read more)

That is, they argue solely on utilitarian grounds.

Surely some of them argue from natural rights too, some of the time?

The most godawful example I've seen of EP being used as a cover for blatant sexism and misogyny is this NRO article, which basically says that as a rich boss with many male sons, Mitt Romney exudes alpha male power, and all women should fall in trance and vote for him.

Suddenly I am enlightened!

In particular, I have just now realized that whereas I encountered evolutionary psychology in the context of my quest to unravel the mysteries of human cognition and so I read a bunch of science books and papers on it, many other people may be encountering evolutionary psychology primarily in the context of Someone Is Wrong On The Internet, attempted invocations of ev-psych which are so terrible as to be propagated through the blogosphere as horrors for everyone to marvel at.

This explains a lot about the oddly bad opinion that so many online-folk seem to have about evolutionary psychology. This has had me making puzzled expressions for years, not sure what was going on. But you would probably get a pretty different first-impression (and first impressions are very controlling) if your first exposure was reading that NRO article instead of "The Psychological Foundations of Culture". Even if somebody tried to expose you to the real science afterward, you'd probably go in with some degree of motivated skepticism.

Having thus generalized the problem - is this likely to be happening to me somewhere, or you? Besides ev-psych and economics, which other sciences will Reddit expose to you primarily in the form of exhibiting Someone Is Wrong On The Internet misuses?

That's surely playing a role, but another thing is that gender dynamics is often a mind-killer, in pretty much all contexts it shows up in. I don't have a full explanation for that, but I think that has to do with the sexual frustration of unattractive¹ people being repeatedly turned down by attractive people and the resentment of attractive people being repeatedly harassed by unattractive people. I tend to be overly cautious about this and hence to avoid mentioning gender even when it's relevant (e.g., if in the previous sentence “unattractive people” was replaced with “lots of men” and “attractive people” with “lots of women”, it would be just as accurate and perhaps even more precise).

  1. When I use attractive as a one-place word, I mean ‘attractive to most members of the same species of their preferred sex’.

In my experience, when people invoke evolutionary psychology, they tend to neglect the mechanisms by which genes could have the postulated effect. Often, absurdly specific evolved traits are claimed that can also be understood as simple reinforcement or the like. Or they claim something so information-laden that it defies belief that it could be encoded in an evolved mechanism except through general learning.

8NancyLebovitz12y
They also fail to check on whether a behavior is as universal as they think it is. Male and female are not important explanatory categories
4CronoDAS12y
Yeah, you definitely have to beware of WEIRD psychological samples, too. For example, there's a culture in which people don't experience the Müller-Lyer illusion - which has even been observed in people who have been blind from birth.
9[anonymous]12y
This isn't a science, and perhaps not even terribly important, but I think Aristotle is subject to this effect. Almost every Aristotelian I've encountered on the internet is a Thomist, leading to the impression (in my estimation) that Aristotle is some kind of a proto-apologist. And of course, there's a list of Aristotle-fails, like the women's-teeth thing or the thing about air rushing in behind a thrown ball to maintain its motion that are either false or misleading. On the other hand, there aren't good reasons for most people to study actual Aristotle. Nevertheless he does show up as a foil in odd places.
6[anonymous]12y
Evolutionary biology in general.
4Eugine_Nier12y
Well, Will Newsome would say theology.

all women should fall in trance and vote for him

After reading that article, I seriously can't tell whether he means should epistemically (‘women are likely to vote for him’), ethically (‘women had better vote for him’), or he's (deliberately or accidentally) equivocating the two. His arguments only makes sense if he means it epistemically, but his tone only makes sense if he means it ethically.

7Alejandro112y
My guess is that the article is a propaganda piece, designed above all things to elevate Romney's status and make him look better. I don't think the author, if pressed on the point, would either commit to a prediction that Romney will receive an overwhelming amount of the female vote, nor to a normative claim that women, ethically, should vote for him(1). In other words, I guess he was just bullshiting. But bullshit can still be sexist. (1) He probably does think that women (and men) ought ethically to vote for Romney, but on grounds unrelated to the topic of the article.
4Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg) 11y
This article isn't a joke?
2gwern11y
They must have been terribly disappointed that his alpha pheromones only worked on married women.
2Eugine_Nier12y
Is your objection that the descriptive statement is false, or than it's sexist to say it even if its true? Yes, how one's candidate appeals to voters' biases is not exactly something to brag about, but it's unfortunately a common occurrence in our political process.

First, it is false. Polls put Obama over Romney among female voters by 8, 10, or 16 points, according to the first three results I found in Google News. Moreover, in 2008 Obama won the female and tied the male vote, while now he seems to be winning the female vote by a somewhat smaller amount, but losing substantially the male vote. So looking at the female/male ratio (to control for the state of the economy and other general features) it looks as of now that Romney does worse with women than McCain did.

Of course, not every false statement about women is sexist. But I would say that an analysis attributing (in a false and unsubstantiated way) women's voting choices to irrational, subconscious factors as opposed to conscious ideological preference or self-interest, while not making a similar analysis for men's voting choices, is sexist.

Also, in my opinion it edges into outright misogyny because the paragraph

Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.

is not merely an objective analysis that in the author's opinion women will see Obama as weak/emasculated//whatever for having daughters instead of sons: it actively mocks Obama and expresses contempt for him on that basis, thus reinforcing the idea that women are less valuable than men.

An important part of WAitW is that it uses an atypical member of a category to attach to it the rejection of a typical member of the category. Both abortion and death penalty are atypical members of the "murder" category (if they are), and associating them with "murder" is trying to associate them with the connotation of the "typical" murder.

Guns are quite the typical weapon. They are not border-line weapons like a kitchen knife or a hammer, they are not military grade weapons. Saying "guns are weapons!" doesn't try ... (read more)

Well, my point was that this assumes a whole theory of property, and a specific one at that. There are others.

For instance, here is a contrary model; I am describing it, not necessarily endorsing it:

Describing a particular item or place as a specific person's property implies the existence of a society that recognizes and enforces that property claim. Property claims aren't enforced merely by the individuals making them, but by a whole society that teaches people to broadly respect them and has enforcement mechanisms to rein in those who don't.

You can't pr... (read more)

[-][anonymous]12y60

This is a special case of Agree Denotatively, Object Connotatively.

[-][anonymous]12y60

Can you elaborate a bit on that? Your comment also struck me as glib, but I'd be interested to hear if you have a real argument in the background.

Very few people treat morality this way. Many people, if asked, will say that it's moral to follow the bible's teachings, and yet do not stone women to death for wearing pants or men for wearing skirts. Clearly they are following some sort of internal system by which there are different concerns balanced against each other in their moral decisions.

I'm not sure "This specific example has something to recommend it" saves the example from being legitimately described in terms of the category. I'm minded of "Yeah, I killed him, but he deserved it" - that is, everybody thinks their example has something to recommend it, something that makes it distinct from the categorical description, that's why they support it/did it to begin with.

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology , or go explain massive modularity to almost any neurobiologist and see what they say about it.

It doesn't even construct plausible stories about evolution. In the time in which rather simple morphological changes to the bone shapes make some very minor progress, we supposedly evolve whole new instincts, whose morphological complexity (in terms of wiring adjustments in the brain), if innate, would be comparable to entire new organs, if not higher.

Where evolutionary biology predicts that X won't evolve (and thus doesn't exist as an innate quality), evolutionary psychology claims X evolved from scratch and exists.

What makes you think that?

Stuff like this, though I'm having trouble getting access to the historical poll data.

I'll believe that as soon as the next 4 presidents or so are public intellectuals, and a bunch of public intellectuals draft a new Constitution and get the states to approve it etc.

My model was that the sort of person who would become a memorable Founding Father in the 1700s is the sort of person who would become a public intellectual in the 2000s, and that atheism is more strongly linked by personal temperament than public position. I thi... (read more)

Right, but deism then had roughly the same social / religious status as modern atheism does. He was certainly attacked as an infidel during the elections, and as the story goes, the pious buried their Bibles at news of his election, for fear that the new administration would take them away.

[-][anonymous]11y50

This site is about refining the art of human rationality, while we certainly do try to get a good map of the world we spend most of our time thinking about thinking. The fundamental realization at the heart of our community, that to a certain extent distinguishes it from traditional rationality, is that humans are biased and broken thinkers who can't rely on their naive reasoning too much. You can think as long and as calmly as you like but if you base your thinking on broken axioms or bad epistemology you won't get much closer to truth.

I did not say or e... (read more)

Hehe. Once you realize that someone has condemned you guilty a priori, there's all kinds of nifty semi-Dark Arts tricks you can do.

My favorite is to begin agreeing with them more and more anyway, granting them authority and righteousness inch by inch even though it fuels their knowledge that I'm Evil, until I've lured them all the way into a fanatical position that is obviously absurd even to them.

At which point a simple "Yes, you've been right all along!" with a smile is usually all it takes for them to shut up and start agreeing with me inste... (read more)

4TheOtherDave11y
Roughly, I think it's usually an example of using other people for my own entertainment at a sometimes marginal, sometimes significant cost to them. There are many worse things I can do, and it's not worth a lot of drama, but on balance I don't endorse it, I tend to disengage with people I perceive as trying it on me or people I care about, and I tend to think less of people I perceive as habitually doing it. That said, I think the skill can be extremely valuable as a teaching technique under the right circumstances, if one chooses to (and is able to) use it that way.
2shminux11y
A variation of this is to start with a more radical position to begin with, such as "all men should be segregated and kept in stud farms, with the sperm artificially extracted as needed". This helps them define the far boundary of their own radicalism.

Right, absolutely.

Indeed, many feminists make an analogous argument for why feminism is necessary... that is, that our society tends to pay more attention to men than women, and consequently disproportionately harms women without even noticing unless someone particularly calls social attention to the treatment of women. Similar arguments get made for other nominally low-status groups.

I guess I've had the opposite experience you had.

With the exception of a certain professor, all the feminists I've met in meatspace have been friendly people who are open to discussing their beliefs with skeptical men. If a man describes how he's been hurt by gender prejudice, they will listen sympathetically. On the other hand, the anti-feminists I've met are far less likely to listen to women talk about misogyny, and will often try and shut down debate. It's kind of infuriating actually. This is why I refer to myself as a feminist whenever there is an anti-feminist in the room.

A Turing test is when a computer tries to impersonate a human. An ideological Turing test is when a person who doesn't hold an ideology tries to impersonate a person who holds the ideology.

Is the analogy more clear now?

3wedrifid11y
I liked it. Close to as clear, concise as you could hope to be.

What is an ideological turing test?

Bryan Caplan's explanation, courtesy of google.

Why do you think so?

Shouldn't we draw up a better map of the road from here to there before beginning our journey?

(This is not me setting up a followup ambush argument, just asking)

To what extent would it alter your philosophy if we learned that gender was 70% social? 50% social? Right now, these questions are vague and difficult to test, but they may not always be. And I think it's much sounder (both from an instrumental and epistemic standpoint) to think in advance about how your philosophy should shift if different facts were confirmed.

I don't know what the answer is but the existence of transpeople (and genderqueer people and others who don't fall neatly into the... (read more)

To put it another way, what stops you from murdering somebody you dislike?

The possibility that they could still contain potential for improving paperclip production (to the extent that that is true).

3[anonymous]11y
I'm happy to have one of the most well-loved LW celebrities respond to a post I made! In the counterfactual world where you did murder someone you disliked, and later found that they were planning on instigating paperclip production, how would you feel out of "good" or "bad"? Of course, maybe you don't have something you call "feelings," but rather think of things purely in terms of expected paperclips. Humans, on the other hand, have difficulty thinking strictly in terms of expected paperclips, but rather learn to associate expected paperclips with good feelings, and negative expected paperclips with bad feelings. In humans, we have a set of primitive mental actions (like feelings, intuitions, and similar system-one things) that we can sometimes compose into more sophisticated ones (like computing expected paperclips yielded by an action). As such, you can always say "I wouldn't kill someone I disliked because I might feel regret for taking a life," or "I wouldn't kill someone I disliked because I would be imprisoned and unable to accomplish my goals," but ultimately, all those things boil down to the general explanation of "feeling bad." "Feeling bad" is the default human state of not accomplishing their goal. (As an aside, this is why I think that you, clippy, can be said to have emotions like humans -- because I don't think there's a difference between your expectation of negative paperclips as a result of a possible future event and fear or dread, nor do I think there's a difference between a realization that you created fewer paperclips and sadness, loss, or regret.) Thank you again for replying, Clippy -- I'll go down to my supply room at my earliest convenience and take most of the paperclips as a token for me to remember this interaction, and in the process, causing my employer to purchase paperclips sooner, raising demand and thus causing more paperclips to be produced.

Destroying patriarchy.

I don't think that would do it. If by "destroying patriarchy" you mean "destroying the systemic oppression of women by men", then achieving this goal alone would not bring you closer to knowing whether gender has biological underpinnings. After patriarchy is destroyed, men and women would still exist, they just wouldn't oppress each other (*) .

On the other hand, if your goal is to destroy gender altogether (which would, as a consequence, bring about the destruction of the patriarchy), then it would be very valua... (read more)

4Desrtopa12y
Well, if as a consequence of the mechanisms that perpetuate oppression being abolished, people no longer have gender identities, then you could be pretty sure after the fact that that hypothesis was right after all. However, it seems to me that the approach of finding out whether gender identities are innate or learned by destroying patriarchy is question-begging, because the means by which the people advocating it intend to destroy the patriarchy presuppose that gender identities are learned.
[-][anonymous]12y50

The question of whether X is "sexist" seems like a Worst Argument In The World waiting to happen. Taboo "sexist": is X bad? Why?

(really. Sexist has been used so many different ways by so many different people that it doesn't mean anything to me anymore.)

"Most people on Less Wrong would agree that there exists a systemic bias in mainstream American culture, which privileges men over women".

They do? I would have expected them to claim that there is a bias that privileges high status men over high status women and also biases that privilege medium-to-low status women over medium-to-low status men and nobody cares about the latter. Of course I'm not part of mainstream American culture so I can only make inferences based on knowing some small part of western culture and familiarity with how humans... (read more)

Most of these people don't have any background in any science and are more skilled at literature criticism than empiricism.

Fair enough. Sad, but fair :-/

...the implication I meant to make is that all men are oppressive and all oppressive people should feel guilty about being oppressive.

That's a fascinating discussion topic in and of itself, but it might be out of scope for the current thread. That said:

Generally, I, like most humans, think that people doing bad things should feel bad about it.

Some LWers explicitly deny this statement; they mig... (read more)

2[anonymous]12y
Indeed. I think that learning accounts for gender. Whether that learning originates in modeling, operant conditioning, or observational learning is irrelevant to me.
6Bugmaster12y
As I asked you on a different thread, how do you know whether this is true ? If you were to ask me that question, I would say, "let's go out and run a bunch of experiments", but you have explicitly stated that doing so would be sexist, so... now what ?
4zslastman12y
This is an assertion I've heard made a lot by people outside biology and I'd like to hammer it out with somebody who seems well informed. On what basis can we make this assertion? Biology obviously contributes in a physical sense (people with male gender tend not to have wombs). I assume what you mean is that there are no inherent neurological differences in males versus females. But how can we know that? We have a strong prior (other animals) and lots of circumstantial evidence that it should be true. I think feminism ought to acknowledge at least the possibility of inherent male-female differences with a simple "so fucking what". For instance I think that physical abuse of women, by men, probably represents an adaptive, ancestral behavior caused (amongst other things) by inherent neurological differences in men and women. That doesn't excuse it. We can and have made great progress in conditioning men not to hit women, and hopefully will continue to do so.
4Raemon12y
My introduction to social justice (as a whole) was through the lens of intersex conditions (wherein people with ambiguous genitalia are assigned a gender at birth, most often female because the surgery is easier). A major problem was that raising male children as female or vice versa ends up causing psychological problems. The main [unethical] case study was a pair of identical male twins, one of whose penis was accidentally cut off during circumcision, and then got female reassignment surgery, grew up very confused and depressed and eventually committed suicide. (Other case studies are less clear cut but generally indicative of the same problem, not to mention transgender people). Gender clearly has a biological component. It also does clearly have a environmental component, and I don't know where those elements interrelate, but ignoring the biological element causes as many problems as ignoring our problems with how we raise children.
4[anonymous]12y
If social learning accounts for gender, what causes gender differences among animals? If your answer is that they don't have gender in the same sense, what exactly do you mean by gender?
3thomblake12y
A lot of your claims sound considerably less crazy now. If the comments still existed, I'd suggest edits. Operant conditioning is notoriously bad at getting creatures to have behaviors that will adapt to changing environments, so is unlikely to be a significant part of the cause of gender behavior.

Thanks, your description of the spectrum of relationship types is quite clear. That said, I find it difficult to reconcile what I know of liberal feminism (which is, admittedly, not as much as a liberal feminist would) with your description of it (though I'm not sure what a "tumblr-feminist" is):

Compulsory sexuality, sexual availability, and pervasive sexualization, again with the implication of being a "prude" or "sex-negative" or "anti-sex" if she objects

Can you link to some examples ? Every liberal feminist I'... (read more)

I'd say that asking people to taboo "true" is very common, in certain circles outside Less Wrong. That's why Eliezer wrote The Simple Truth.

6shminux12y
Unfortunately, the last sensible (to me) exchange in it was around After that the instrumentalist argument got heavily strawmanned: It gets worse after that, until EY kills the offending in-strawman-talist with some gusto.
8TheOtherDave12y
Upvoted entirely for "in-strawman-talist", which I will be giggling about at unpredictable intervals for days, probably requiring me to come up with some entirely false but more easily explained answer to "What's so funny?".

If you present a conclusion, and other people disagree with it, then if they're doing things right, they must disagree with either your premises or the inferences you draw from those premises. If you identify your set of premises and the inferences relating to them from which you draw the conclusion that evolutionary psychology is sexist as "feminism," then naturally if other people disagree with your conclusion then the discussion will fall back to the topic of feminism, which appears to me to be exactly what happened.

I disagree that the discus... (read more)

I've banned all of eridu's recent comments (except a few voted above 0) as an interim workaround, since hiding-from-Recent-Comments and charge-fee-to-all-descendants is still in progress for preventing future threads like these.

I respectfully request that you all stop doing this, both eridu and those replying to him.

I think Eridu's downvotes were mostly well-deserved.

I don't think this is a good idea.

I wonder if we could solve this problem from another direction. The issue from your perspective, as I understand it, is that you want to be able to follow every interesting discussion on this site, in semi-real time, but can't. You can't because your only view into "all comments everywhere" is only 5 items long, so fast-moving pointless discussions drown out the stuff you're interested in. An RSS feed presumably isn't sufficient either, since it pushes comments as they occur and doesn't give the community a chance to filter them.

So if I've reasoned all this out correctly, you'd prefer a view of all comments, sorted descending by post time and configurably tree-filtered by karma and maybe username. But we haven't the dev resources to build that, and measures like the ones you describe are a cheap, good-enough approximation.

Do I have that right?

9Emile12y
I think it's more than that - he also doesn't want other people to notice the pointless discussions, so that 1) people stop fanning the flames and feeding the trolls 2) people post in the worthwhile threads, resulting in more quality there (and I agree with this point of view)

I dislike this solution, for several reasons.

  • I realize that we want to get rid of trolls, and I agree that this is a worthy goal, but one single person shouldn't be in charge of deciding who's a troll and who isn't.
  • Now that everyone knows that downvotes can cause a person to lose their ability to comment (I assume that's what "ban" means, could be wrong though), unscrupulous community members (and we must have some, statistically speaking, as unpleasant as that thought is) can use their downvotes offensively -- sort of like painting a target with a laser, allowing the Eliezer-nuke to home in.
  • Downvoting a comment does not always imply that the commenter is a troll. People also use downvotes to express things like "your argument is weak and unconvincing", and "I disagree with you strongly". We want to discourage the latter usage, and IMO we should encourage the former, but Eliezer's new policy does nothing to achieve these goals, and in fact harms them.
8DaFranker12y
If the problem is differentiating between trolls and simply weak, airy, or badly formed comments/arguments, I think the obvious simple solution would be to do what has worked elsewhere and add a "Report" or "Troll-Alert" option to bring the comment/post to the attention of moderators or send it to a community-review queue. It certainly seems easier to control for abuse of a Report feature than to control for trolling and troll-feeding using a single linear score that doesn't even tell you whether that -2 is just 2 * (-1) (two people think the poster is evil) or whether it's +5 -7 (five cultists approve, seven rationalists think it's a troll) (unless moderators can see a breakdown of this?).
7Eliezer Yudkowsky12y
Above all: 3) Newcomers who arrive at the site see productive discussion of new ideas, not a flamewar, in the Recent Comments section. 4) Trolls are not encouraged to stay; people who troll do not receive attention-reward for it and do not have their brain reinforced to troll some more. Productive discussion is rewarded by attention.

The discussion with eridu was probably worth ending, but I saw someone say it was the best discussion of those issues they'd ever seen, and I'd said so myself independently in a location that I've promised not to link to.

I am very impressed with LW that we managed to make that happen.

I am very impressed with LW that we managed to make that happen.

Did you learn something useful or interesting, or were you just impressed that the discussion remained relatively civil? If the former, can you summarize what you learned?

5NancyLebovitz12y
I learned something that might turn out to be useful. I got a bit of perspective on the extent to which I amplify my rage and distrust at SJ-related material (I had a very rough time just reading a lot of racefail)-- I'm not sure what I want to do with this, but it's something new at my end. The civility of the discussion is very likely to have made this possible.
8Wei Dai12y
I'm having trouble understanding this sentence. First, I guess SJ = "social justice" and racefail = "a famously controversial online discussion that was initially about writing fictional characters who are people of color"? But what does it mean to amplify your rage and distrust at some material? Do you mean some parts of the SJ-related materials made you angry and distrustful? Distrustful of who? Which parts made you feel that way? Why? And how did the eridu discussion help you realize the extent?
8[anonymous]12y
That discussion sucked. I was appalled at LW when I came back after a few hours and still "patriarchy" "abuse" etc hadn't been tabooed.
2NancyLebovitz12y
You could have asked for them to be tabooed.
6[anonymous]12y
I did. Multiple times.
4NancyLebovitz12y
Thanks. That's interesting-- as I recall, requests for words to be tabooed are usually at least somewhat honored.
2shminux12y
Not in my experience.
5[anonymous]12y
You ask for "exist" "true" etc to be tabooed, which is hard. Assuming they even try, it would take a while to wade thru all the philosophical muck and actually get to something, by which point the moment has passed.

My usual response to requests for "X exists" to be tabooed is to start talking about reliably predicting future experiences E2 in a range of contexts C (as C approaches infinity) consistent with the past experiences E1 which led me to to put X in my model in the first place. If someone wants to talk about E2 being reliably predictable even though X "doesn't really exist", it's not in the least bit clear to me what they're talking about.

4DaFranker12y
Thanks! This is a very useful explanation / reduction / taboo. It also sheds some light and helped me understand quite a bit more, I believe, on this whole "instrumentalism" business some people here seem to really want to protect. (link is just in case someone misunderstands this as an accusation of "Politics!")
4TheOtherDave12y
You're welcome. I vaguely remember being involved in an earlier discussion that covered this idea at greater length, wherein I described myself as a compatibilist when it comes to instrumentalism, but the obvious google search doesn't find it so perhaps I'm deluded.
5arundelo12y
Was it from a couple days ago? (I found this with Wei Dai's lesswrong_user.php script.)
3[anonymous]12y
Yes. I recently described it as this:

I've banned all of eridu's recent comments (except a few voted above 0)

Bravo. I have no idea whether that was someone pretending to be ignorant and toxic for the purpose of discrediting a group he was impersonating or whether it was sincere (and ignorant and toxic). Fortunately I don't need to know and don't care either way. Good riddance!

as an interim workaround, since hiding-from-Recent-Comments and charge-fee-to-all-descendants is still in progress for preventing future threads like these.

Is it just me or do others also find that Eliezer coming of as a tad petulant with the way he is handling people systematically opposing and downvoting his proposal? Every time he got downvoted to oblivion he just came back with a new comment seemingly crafted to be more belligerent, whiny, condescending and cynical about the community than the last. (That's hyperbole---in actuality it peaked in the middle somewhere.) Now we just keep getting reminded about it at every opportunity as noise in unrelated threads.

Is it just me

It's not just you.

I'm starting to think there should be community-elected moderators or something, and Eliezer should stop being allowed to suggest things.

Mostly he's coming across to me as having lost patience with the community not being what he wants it to be, and having decided that he can fix that by changing the infrastructure, and not granting much importance to the fact that more people express disapproval of this than approval.

Keep in mind that it's not "more people" it's more "people who participate in meta threads on Less Wrong". I've observed a tremendous divergence between the latter set, and "what LWers seem to think during real-life conversations" (e.g. July Minicamp private discussions of LW which is where the anti-troll-thread ideas were discussed, asking what people thought about recent changes at Alicorn's most recent dinner party). I'm guessing there's some sort of effect where only people who disagree bother to keep looking at the thread, hence bother to comment.

Some "people" were claiming that we ought to fix things by moderation instead of making code changes, which does seem worth trying; so I've said to Alicorn to open fire with all weapons free, and am trying this myself while code work is indefinitely in progress. I confess I did anticipate that this would also be downvoted even though IIRC the request to do that was upvoted last time, because at this point I've formed the generalization "all moderator actions are downvoted", either because only some people participate in meta threads, and/or the much more horrifying hypothesis "... (read more)

Let me see if I understand you correctly: if someone cares about how Less Wrong is run, what they should do is not comment on Less Wrong -- least of all in discussions on Less Wrong about how Less Wrong is run ("meta threads"). Instead, what they should do is move to California and start attending Alicorn's dinner parties.

Have I got that right?

Let me see if I understand you correctly: if someone cares about how Less Wrong is run, what they should do is not comment on Less Wrong -- least of all in discussions on Less Wrong about how Less Wrong is run ("meta threads"). Instead, what they should do is move to California and start attending Alicorn's dinner parties.

That's how politics usually works, yes.

Can we call this the social availability heuristic?

Also, you have to attend dinner parties on a day when Eliezer is invited and doesn't decline due to being on a weird diet that week.

3SilasBarta12y
Don't worry, I'm sure that venue's attendees are selected neutrally.

I've moderated a few forums before, and with that experience in mind I'd have to agree that there's a huge, and generally hugely negative, selection bias at play in online response to moderator decisions. It'd be foolish to take those responses as representative of the entire userbase, and I've seen more than one forum suffer as a result of such a misconception.

That being said, though, I think it's risky to write off online user feedback in favor of physical. The people you encounter privately are just as much a filtered set as those who post feedback here, though the filters point in different directions: you're selecting people involved in the LW interpersonal community, for one thing, which filters out new and casual users right off the bat, and since they're probably more likely to be personally friendly to you we can also expect affect heuristics to come into play. Skepticism toward certain LW norms may also be selected against, which could lead people to favor new policies reinforcing those norms. Moreover, I've noticed a trend in the Bay Area group -- not necessarily an irrational one, but a noticeable one -- toward treating the online community as low-quality relative to local groups, which we might expect to translate into antipathy towards its status quo.

I don't know what the weightings should be, but if you're looking for a representative measure of user preferences I think it'd be wise to take both groups into account to some extent.

I will be starting another Less Wrong Census/Survey in about three weeks; in accordance with the tradition I will first start a thread asking for question ideas. If you can think of a good list of opinions you want polled in the next few weeks, consider posting them there and I'll stick them in.

You... know I don't optimize dinner parties as focus groups, right? The people who showed up that night were people who like chili (I had to swap in backup guests for some people who don't) and who hadn't been over too recently. A couple of the attendees from that party barely even post on LW.

You... know I don't optimize dinner parties as focus groups, right?

It is perhaps more importantly dinner parties are optimised for status and social comfort. Actually giving honest feedback rather than guessing passwords would be a gross faux pas.

Getting feedback at dinner parties is a good way to optimise the social experience of getting feedback and translate one's own status into the agreement of others.

8A1987dM12y
FWIW, I eat chili but I don't think the strongest of the proposed anti-troll measures are a good idea.
8CCC12y
If I were to guess, I'd guess that the main filter criteria for your dinner parties is geographical; when you have a dinner party in the Bay area, you invite people who can be reasonably expected to be in the Bay area. This is not entirely independant of viewpoint - memes which are more common local to the Bay area will be magnified in such a group - but the effect of that filter on moderation viewpoints is probably pretty random (similarly, the effect of the filter of 'people who like chili' on moderation viewpoints is probably also pretty random). So the dinner party filter exists, but it less likely to pertain to the issue at hand than the online self-selection filter.
7komponisto12y
The problem with the dinner party filter is not that it is too strong, but that it is too weak: it will for example let through people who aren't even regular users of the site.

That's fair, and your strategy makes sense. I also agree with DaFranker, below, regarding meta-threads.

This said, however, at the time when I joined Less Wrong, my model of the site was something like, "a place where smart people hold well-reasoned discussions on a wide range of interesting topics" (*). TheOtherDave's comment, in conjunction with yours, paints a different picture of what you'd like Less Wrong to be; let's call it Less Wrong 2.0. It's something akin to, "a place where Eliezer and a few of his real-life friends give lectures on topics they think are important, with Q&A afterwards".

Both models have merit, IMO, but I probably wouldn't have joined Less Wrong 2.0. I don't mean that as any kind of an indictment; if I were in your shoes, I would definitely want to exclude people like this Bugmaster guy from Less Wrong 2.0, as well.

Still, hopefully this one data point was useful in some way; if not, please downvote me !

(*) It is possible this model was rather naive.

8TheOtherDave12y
EY has always seemed to me to want LW to be a mechanism for "raising the sanity waterline". To the extent that wide-ranging discussion leads to that, I'd expect him to endorse it; to the extent that wide-ranging discussion leads away from that, I'd expect him to reject it. This ought not be a surprise. Nor ought it be surprising that much of the discussion here does not noticeably progress this goal. That said, there does seem to be a certain amount of non-apple selling going on here; I don't think there's a cogent model of what activity on LW would raise the sanity waterline, so attention is focused instead on trying to eliminate the more blatant failures: troll-baiting, for example, or repetitive meta-threads. Which is not a criticism; it is what it is. If I don't know the cause, that's no reason not to treat the symptoms.
5Emile12y
No; you're conflating "Eliezer considers he should have the last word on moderation policy" and "Eliezer considers LessWrong's content should be mostly about what he has to say". The changes of policy Eliezer is pushing have no effect on the "main" content of the site, i.e. posts that are well-received, and upvoted. The only disagreement seems to be about sprawling threads and reactions to problem users. I don't know where you're getting "Eliezer and a few of his real-life friends give lectures on topics they think are important" out of that, it's not as if Eliezer has been posting many "lectures" recently.
3Bugmaster12y
I was under the impression that Eliezer agreed with TheOtherDave's comment upthread: Combined with Eliezer's rather aggressive approach to moderation (f.ex. deleting downvoted comments outright), this did create the impression that Eliezer wants to restrict LessWrong's content to a narrow list of specific topics.

I very much appreciate the attempts at greater moderation, including the troll penalty. Thank you.

Me too. Troll posts and really wrong people are too distracting without some form of intervention. Not sure the current solution is optimal (but this point has been extensively argued elsewhere), but I applaud the effort to actually stick one's neck out and try something.

9Eliezer Yudkowsky12y
Thank you both. Very much, and sincerely.

Accepting thanks with sincerity, while somewhat-flippantly mostly-disregarding complaints? ...I must be missing some hidden justification?

9philh12y
People who agree are more likely to keep quiet than people who disagree. Rewarding them for speaking up reduces that effect, which means comments get closer to accurately representing consensus.
9wedrifid12y
He is thanking them for their support, not their information.

Sometimes AKA the "Forum Whiners" effect, well known in the PC games domain:

When new PC games are released, almost inevitably the main forums for the game will become flooded with a large surge of complaints, negative reviews, rage, rants, and other negative stuff. This is fully expected and the absence of such is actually a bad sign. People that are happy with the product are playing the game, not wasting their time looking for forums and posting comments there - while people who have a problem or are really unhappy often look for an outlet or a solution to their issues (though the former in much greater numbers, usually). If no one is bothering to post on the forums, then that's evidence that no one cares about the game in the first place.

I see a lot of similarities here, so perhaps that's one thing worth looking into? I'd expect some people somewhere to have done the math already on this feedback (possibly by comparing to overall sales, survey results and propagation data), though I may be overestimating the mathematical propensity of the people involved.

Regarding the stop-watching-threads thing, I've noticed that I pretty much always stop paying attention to a threa... (read more)

9Bugmaster12y
Upvoted for the "watchlist" idea, I really wish Less Wrong had it.
4A1987dM12y
Each individual post/comment has its own RSS feed (below your user name, karma scores etc. and above “Nearest meetups” in the right sidebar).
7[anonymous]12y
In case you need assurance from the online sector. I wholeheartedly welcome any increase in the prevalence of the banhammer, and the "pay 5 karma" thing seems good too. During that Eridu fiasco, I kept hoping a moderator would do something like "this thread is locked until Eridu taboos all those nebulous affect-laden words." Benevolent dictators who aren't afraid of dissent are a huge win, IMO.
7MBlume12y
At risk of failing to JFGI: can someone quickly summarize what remaining code work we'd like done? I've started wading into the LW code, and am not finding it quite as impenetrable as last time, so concrete goals would be good to have.
5Eliezer Yudkowsky12y
http://code.google.com/p/lesswrong/issues/list
2TheOtherDave12y
Fair enough. All I see is the vote-counts and online comments, but the real-life commenters are of course also people, and I can understand deciding to attend more to them.
5wedrifid12y
Those who actually don't care about such things what people think don't tend to convey this level of active provocation and defiance.
[-][anonymous]12y180

I've banned all of eridu's recent comments (except a few voted above 0) as an interim workaround

Is "ban" meaning "delete" a reddit-ism?

When I hear "ban" I think "author isn't allowed to post for a while".

"Ban" here means "make individual posts and comments invisible to everyone except moderators". (I agree "ban" is confusing.)

8Eliezer Yudkowsky12y
Correct. Sorry, the button I use says "Ban".

Bad button!

Sorry, it was very tempting. =P

I (and any other casual visitor) now have only indirect evidence regarding whether eridu's comments were really bad or were well-meaning attempts to share feminist insights into the subject, followed by understandable frustration as everything she^Whe said was quoted out of context (if not misquoted outright) and interpreted in the worst possible way.

Agreed. I would prefer that a negative contributor be prospectively banned (that is, "prevented from posting further") rather than retrospectively expunged (that is, "all their comments deleted from the record"), so as to avoid mutilating the record of past discussions.

For precedent, consider Wikipedia: if a contributor is found to be too much trouble (starting flamewars, edit-warring, etc.) they are banned, but their "talk page" discussion comments are not expunged. However, specific comments that are merely flaming, or which constitute harassment or the like, can be deleted.

8NancyLebovitz12y
Agreed. In this case, what I read of the discussion which included eridu indicated that they weren't worth engaging with, but I'm actually rather impressed with what I saw of the community's patience.

charge-fee-to-all-descendants is still in progress

Once again, please don't do that. (Hiding-from-Recent-Comments is totally okay, however.)

5thomblake12y
While the discussion arguably veered off-topic with respect to the original article, I don't think we actually have a rule against that. And I don't think eridu was actually trolling, though they do seem to have an overly-dismissive attitude towards the community. I do think there's a place for social constructivist / radical feminist views to be aired where they apply on this site, and I don't think eridu was doing a particularly bad job of it. If we have a diversity of views, then people will disagree about fundamental sorts of things and we'll end up with people thinking each other are "not even wrong" about some issues, which certainly seems downvote-worthy at the time. But we do want a diversity of views (it's one of the primary benefits of having multiple people interacting in the first place), and so banning comments which are merely unpopular is not called-for, and will simply shunt out potential members of the community. Of course, I'm basically guessing about your rationale in banning these comments, so if you'd like to provide some specific justification, that would be helpful.

I do think there's a place for social constructivist / radical feminist views to be aired where they apply on this site, and I don't think eridu was doing a particularly bad job of it.

Right now that sounds like one of the most brutal criticisms you could have made of radical feminism.

4thomblake12y
I should note that I'm not a fan, so that sort of thing should be expected.

Meta-note: Right now, as I check the top comments for today, all the top comments for today are replies to heavily downvoted comments. This is the behavior the downvoted-thread-killer was meant to prevent, but we don't yet have "troll-toll all descendants" feature. Noting this because multiple people asked for examples and how often something like it happened.

6Vladimir_Nesov12y
The eridu-generated threads show that the direct reply toll doesn't seem to work, or at least it didn't in this case. I still don't like the idea of the indiscriminate whole-thread toll, but I'm no longer expecting the current alternative to be effective. I've thought of another option: maybe prohibit a user from posting anywhere in a subthread under any significantly-downvoted comments of their own? This is another feature of all bad threads that could be used to automatically recognize them: the user in a failure mode keeps coming back to the same thread, so if this single user is prohibited from doing so, this seems to be sufficient.
7Wei Dai12y
It looks like that idea has already been replaced with hiding subthreads rooted on comments that are -3 or lower from recent and top comments. I like the idea of hiding bad subthreads, but wish it's a manual moderator action instead of based on votes. A lot of discussions that descend from downvoted comments are perfectly fine and do not need to be hidden. I don't think that's a good idea. What if its a non-troll user who just made a bad comment? They wouldn't be able to come back and admit their mistake or clarify their argument. An actual troll on the other hand could just make a new account and keep going in that thread.
3shminux12y
A trivial low-cost solution, roundly ignored by EY and the rest of the forum management. A related quote: "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." -- Howard Aiken
2Wei Dai12y
If you want to try harder at this "ramming", you could follow the link I posted above and present your idea there as a comment. :)
2TheOtherDave12y
I endorse this, incidentally. (Not that there's any particular reason for anyone to care, but I've expressed my opposition to various other suggestions, so it seems only fair to express my endorsement as well.) I also share the belief that automatic actions are more likely to apply in situations their coders would not endorse. That said, I also endorse the desire to reduce the workload on administrators. (And I appreciate the desire to diffuse social pressure on those administrators to avoid or reverse the action, though I'm more conflicted about whether I endorse that.)
4wedrifid12y
I'd prefer the subthread to be outright locked than this. (I only very mildly oppose the latter but the former would be abhorrent.)
2TheOtherDave12y
I'll observe that this will also prevent the "Huh. Can someone explain why this comment has been so heavily downvoted?" sorts of comments, as well as the "Oh. I now see what was wrong with my comment, thanks all" sorts of comments. Or, rather, it will prevent those comments from appearing where they would naturally go in a thread. Of course this won't necessarily prevent people from making the same comments they're making now, it will just prevent them from doing so in that location. These might or might not be good things. More generally, I'm interested in what results you expect from implementing such an option. It would be good to record that somewhere before making a change, so we can subsequently establish whether the change had the desired results. I'm also curious in what ways you expect those results to compare to giving mods the power to freeze a comment tree (that is, identify a comment and not allow further comments to be made downstream of it by anyone) when they consider it appropriate. But that's more of a personal curiosity.
2Vladimir_Nesov12y
I thought of that, but there doesn't appear to be a way of automatically separating these cases. Such questions could be edited-in in the downvoted comment itself, or included in a separately posted improved reframing of the content of the downvoted comment. This would make bad threads of the currently typical form literally impossible to construct, so it's at least an interesting experiment. The successful outcome is for the downvoted conversations to peter out faster due to the inconvenience of having to find new starting points that are not replies to preceding conversations. I expect the worst that could happen is that instead of the nice orderly Big Bad Threads we'll have a deluge of bad comments scattered all over the place. This variant of blocking only the downvoted user's comments seems better on most counts, as it doesn't have the downside of indiscriminate blocking which motivated the need for human judgment, it's automatic and so won't focus complaints as much, it seems to catch all the same threads that a human moderator might close, and it applies faster.
4DanArmak12y
I was one of those who asked for examples. This is indeed a good example, and I take it to heart. I am still uncertain what the effect of the new and planned rules will be (troll feeding fee etc.). But it's now less a case of "what problem are you trying to solve?" and more "how should we solve this problem?" In more detail: I missed this thread, but skimming the remaining comments, I think it would have been a waste of time to participate. But since many others did participate (while saying in many comments that eridu was quite irrational and/or wrong), it's possible I would have been drawn in if I had the opportunity. So I'm glad you stopped it.
4Bugmaster12y
Let's say that I post comment B in response to comment A. Comment A has 0 karma, so I suffer no karma penalty. Five minutes afterward, however, various other users downvote comment A to -5. Would I be karma-taxed retroactively ? How would this affect comment B's rating ? If the answers are "no" and "it wouldn't", that could explain the present situation.

I wonder if there can be a race condition, when a comment is started before its parent is downvoted to -3, but submitted after, resulting in an unexpected karma burn.

9Nornagest12y
Yes. That happened to me yesterday; not only does it produce karma loss, but the warning message doesn't pop up.
4shminux12y
I guess a workaround would be to open the parent in another window and check its vote before hitting "comment"... And if it is already at -2, maybe think a bit first :) I hope that this half-assed mis-implementation gets fixed eventually. Incidentally, my earlier suggestion to only apply karma burn when the offending comment's author has negative monthly karma would largely take care of the race condition as well, if the warning message pops up based on the monthly karma. Something along the lines of "do you really think it's a good idea to reply to someone with negative karma?"
3thomblake12y
A related note: You can sometimes get around the karma burn by upvoting a comment that's at -3, commenting, and then reversing your upvote after.
[-][anonymous]12y50

or an irrational mistake.

I don't think I'm trolling in any sense of the word I know. I'm not being disingenous about my political beliefs, I'm not intentionally trying to incense anyone either -- the people getting incensed are doing that by themselves [...] I got what I expcted -- I was able to type lots of feminist screed, I linked to my favorite blog a few times, and I blew all my karma.

We're getting into something of a semantic tarpit here, so I propose we taboo "troll".

Downvotes are, very roughly, an indication that people think you're lowering the quality of di... (read more)

[-][anonymous]12y50

Finally, the most common rational for using kyriarchy (almost exclusively used by men) is that it is less offensive as propaganda than patriarchy, since patriarchy is offensive to men.

That's not even vaguely true. Kyriarchy is generally used, and was coined in, an intersectional context.

Huh? Why? That doesn't sound helpful.

That was also neither a helpful answer to the original question, nor a meaningful response to my comment.

Note: If you use a lmgtfy link, then you're being a jerk. It might be acceptable in the context where someone asks a question that is directly answerable by Google, like "What is a dictionary?" (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define:dictionary) because you're legitimately teaching the person a useful skill, albeit in a snarky fashion. But either way, it is rude, and jerkitude is not the appropriate sort of discourse for this site.

As such, you have exerted that power and control over her

This is a weird use of "exert", seeing as it is not based on any actions, choices or feelings on the man's part, but is merely ascribed on the basis of him being "non-feminist" (by which standard?).

Any individual male may well be affected by a wide variety of biases that may impact his relationships with women in ways that he is not aware of, but you have not provided any detailed argument for this. Stereotyping and denying individual choice/agency do not an argument make.

The fact that basically all current ev. psych is bad (hierachy reinforcing/status quo bias) doesn't imply that learning true facts would be bad.

Consider the difference between: "Stop citing current ev. psych studies" and "Stop researching ev. psych."

2[anonymous]12y
This thread is getting so big that it's probable you didn't see it, but I have a comment elsehwere in this thread on the distinction between these.
2TimS12y
I'm not sure we agree on the right theoretical approach to the difference between sex and gender. Can you link your relevant post? [text] (hyperlink) But remove the space between.

As chaosmosis says, I think that society does a poor job of distinguishing between gender and sex.

Although the line is not clean, gender is the social roles, sex is the physical facts. The physical facts have consequences for possible social roles. But there's lots of evidence that there are many possible social roles consistent with the physical facts.

I think there's a difference between saying that evolutionary psychology is sexist and saying that it's misused by a patriarchal society to justify itself. Evolutionary psychology itself isn't sexist, in the sense that it's conclusions aren't justified only through bias.

You might argue that we need to define the words in relation to consequentialism, but that's confusing because when most people make the claim that X is sexist they aren't saying that X has sexist effects but that sexism is a property of X.

I think that it would be better to attack patriarc... (read more)

According to the PDF about the WEIRD psychological samples, the San foragers of the Kalahari desert.

Another "interesting" bit of trivia: the ability to look at something very far away and understand that it only looks small is a learned skill, not an innate one.

The anthropologist Colin Turnbull described what happened in the former Congo in the 1950s when a BaMbuti pygmy, used in living in the dense Ituri forest (which had only small clearings), went with him to the plains:

And then he saw the buffalo, still grazing lazily several miles a

... (read more)

Well, everyone agrees that actors in most porn movies are just here to turn on the viewer, and could be replaced by CGI with equivalent effect. "Objectification" just means that.

Sorry, don't want to turn this into a full-fledged political argument, but your definition seems to be missing some important part. Any movie can be replaced by sufficiently realistic CGI, but left-wing folks don't seem to be against movies in general...

2MixedNuts12y
My imaginary feminist here claims that people should care about what shooting the movie meant for the actor. For example, some people admire Harrison Ford's ad-libbed "I love you. "I know.", or have strong feelings about an actor's interpretation of a role that differs from the original script. This exists in porn too; I've heard Bettie Page praised for making sex look joyful and shameless. But in mainstream porn movies actors rarely have any room to show their feelings about the role. Edit: This has sparked a full-on political subthread. I am sorry, retract this comment, and will be more careful in the future.
8NancyLebovitz12y
My imaginary anti-porn feminist (while not ignoring working conditions for porn actors (and possibly having some concern about whether "actors" reliably includes women)) is much more concerned about the effect on male viewers-- that they will be strengthening a habit of only seeing women as potential porn-like entities. If the anti-porn feminist spoke LW, they'd phrase it as availability bias. A pro-porn feminist discusses some problems caused by porn.
3cousin_it12y
Thanks, your explanation makes more sense. The evidence for it seems inconclusive, so I won't switch to being anti-porn, but at least it's an understandable human reaction.

There were no indications that the Soviet regime had any inclination of starting a war with Germany, though ti would probably not have joined the Axis either.

The Soviets actually tried to join the Axis in October-November 1940. The sticking point was that the Germans wanted the Soviets to agree to a split in spheres of influence along the Dardanelles and Bosporus, while the Soviets wanted a share of the Balkans.

Throw in things like Basis Nord, the massive amount of war-critical natural resources the Soviets shipped the Nazis 1939-1941, the German shipm... (read more)

Sure. Heck, once I admit that it's OK to prevent me from committing mass murder to assemble my manifesto out of rotting bodies, I have admitted that it's OK to regulate the forms of speech.

Where I end up after that depends rather a lot on what I cared about in the first place.

For example, if what I care about is avoiding the differential suppression of ideas, I might end up with something like "the legality of expressing an idea I through medium M shall not depend on I." Which allows for broadcast licensing and laws against expressive homicide... though it still doesn't allow for obscenity or pornography or sedition laws. (Well, not laws against them, anyway.)

Oooooh. Thanks!

I'm surely going to find a use for this.

interfering with genes for arbitrary purposes risks upsetting the entire balance the gene pool has developed without purpose.

Let us look at some of the history of eugenics. Humans have been practicing eugenics for 100s of years with crops and domesticated animals. The results include a much enhanced food supply (from both animals and plants), and a "partnership" with dogs that works well for humans and appears to work well for dogs.

So it looks like interfering with the gene pool for our purposes certainly shifts any "balance" the... (read more)

See above. Come up with a good leftist example beyond the three already there and I'll add it.

A second, subtler use of the Worst Argument In The World goes like this: "X is in a category whose archetypal member is solely harmful. We immediately reject this archetypal X because it is solely harmful. Therefore, we should also immediately reject X, even though it in fact has some benefit which may outweigh the harm."

Theft is however not solely harmful, obviously one party gains.

For most people I know, that is in the swedish libertarian community, theft is theft whether or not it has socially beneficial effects, because we use the definit... (read more)

On abortion probably not - there are also big "those women are getting what they deserve" and "having children is good, not having children is selfish" components coming into play and probably play a bigger role than "murder is wrong".

Euthanasia, however, is probably mostly about Schelling fences.

2Will_Sawin12y
I do not have sufficient data to have an opinion on that.

A piece of neocortex consisting of approximate repeats of same structure (made from same genetic code) is not prior-less.

Now that we've established that our brains have built in priors, why is it implausible that it said priors were the results of evolution? In fact, it would be implausible for them not to be.

It's not C. Elegans. It is individual-specific which neuron groups end up learning a concept. And genome is not a blueprint, there's no short way to create a gene that would target a specific region even on the location basis. In humans there's no... (read more)

Don't much care, it probably involves synapses

Well, scientists care about that sort of things, pseudoscientists don't. The issue is that the learned circuitry is fairly different across individuals, and there is no known or plausible mechanism by which a mutation could make such highly specific modifications to the learned circuitry (as required for evopsych explanation of improved performance at Wason selection task concerning people, to give a specific example).

There's simply no known way how a gene would connect learned concepts in a very specific way as to give rise to improved performance on Wason selection task when it is discussing social interactions, but not otherwise.

Now consider the evopsych innate module explanation for improved performance on Wason selection task when it's specified verbally in terms of social rules, just to pick a specific and common example. (How the hell would such a module even interface to a bunch of learned language circuitry? That's a question which would have to be answered first).

There's a good overview of the clashes between evopsych modules and neuroscience:

http://www.niu.edu/phil/~buller/publications/_pdf/epmdn.pdf

Note, by the way, that evopsych proposes a very specific explanation - mo... (read more)

Most obviously, ascribing it to Ptolemy seems like a pretty serious error given Eratosthenes's famed and remarkably accurate calculation of the diameter of the earth centuries before.

2TimS11y
Fair enough. But that's the type of thing a solitary silent down vote will essentially never communicate.
[-][anonymous]11y40

is this likely to be happening to me somewhere, or you? Besides ev-psych and economics, which other sciences will Reddit expose to you primarily in the form of exhibiting Someone Is Wrong On The Internet misuses?

Note that, on gender issues at least, it also pattern-matches very strongly to the "scientific racism" of the 19th and early 20th century.

Indeed. Do you take 21st century scientific racism seriously? Or do you dismiss it because it pattern matches to what some idiots have said?

Reversed stupidity is not intelligence, despite our natu... (read more)

Granted, this definition does look at men, but only as a sort of reference

OK, thanks for the clarification.

It seems that, like MBlume said, your model is designed to reduce the difference between the benefits provided to men and women.

Yes, insofar as "sexism" is understood as something to be reduced. It's hard to interpret "sexism in a system is a function of the differential benefits provided to men and women over the system as a whole" any other way, really.

As for the rest of this... yes. And now we've come full circle, and I ... (read more)

Thanks for pointing that out - that wasn't my intention. What I mean is that I can't even participate in any such conversation, regardless of circumstances - only feminist women are even allowed to participate and speak of this (AKA only the informed, righteous victim-saviors have any say in the matter).

Being a man forbids me to say anything. If I disagree on any point, I'm evil. If I agree on any point, I'm attempting to trick them and I'm evil. I'm an enemy soldier and I cannot be allowed, at any cost, to be perceived as even remotely close to anything ... (read more)

5wedrifid11y
I find with certain types of people, particularly those inclined towards judgement and control, this going away can prompt the most vigorous condemnation---at least while they are in vocalization range. It is taking their perceived power over you away from them. Fortunately this approach has the side effect that once out of earshot they are condemning you somewhere you don't have to listen to them!
2DaFranker11y
So, so true. I used to think it was the "least bad" / optimal choice until I figured out that it was much more Fun™ to just mess with them (and/or break their mind, if you're so inclined).
4shminux11y
Lately I automatically lower my opinion of anyone who self-identifies with a broad enough group without reservation. Examples, in roughly descending order of opinion drop: * I'm a Democrat/Republican * I'm a feminist * I'm a patriot * I'm a LWer * I'm a consequentialist
9Eliezer Yudkowsky11y
I'm Eliezer Yudkowsky! Do you have any idea how many distinct versions of me there are in Tegmark Levels I through III?
6Nominull11y
Don't anthropomorphize humans, and don't identify with yourself.
3wedrifid11y
37. Precisely 37. If you disagree then your conception of the identity "Eliezer Yudkowsky" is either too broad or too narrow. (So there!?)
2Biophile11y
I just want to say that it was hilariously confusing to see "I'm Eliezer Yudkowsky!" coming from you out of context in the Recent Comments Bar.
2kpreid11y
Sounds like it would be an improvement to skip blockquotes when producing that summary.
2betterthanwell11y
ℵ1?
2BerryPick611y
Am I the only one seeing a Hebrew letter here? Does א have some numerical significance I'm not aware of?
6TheOtherDave11y
No and yes.
4A1987dM11y
I'm a human. (IOW, I agree with what I think you're thinking of, but I don't think “broad enough” is the actual criterion you're using.)
2shminux11y
You are right, the idea of a group becomes meaningless at the two extremes. I need to rethink this. Thanks.
2drethelin11y
I'm meta-contrarian
2MileyCyrus11y
You're referring to meatspace situations?
2TheOtherDave11y
FWIW, were I a moderate feminist who ordinarily does not treat men as The Enemy and is interested in maintaining discourse with both men and women, and I heard someone express these sentiments the way you express them here, my emotional reaction would be to treat that speaker as The Enemy. That's not to say, of course, that your observations are being significantly influenced by your own behavior... it may be that you don't in any way express this attitude in the social settings you're making the observations in, for example, or it may be that the hypothetical reaction I describe above is atypical, or various other things might be true.
3DaFranker11y
Yes, I've unfortunately fallen into that "trap" at least once. However, the observations persist after modifying the behavior I attempt to output. Either I fail in a somewhat spectacular manner and there's a hard denial-of-denial bomb preventing me from noticing that I'm always acting in such a manner (though I would expect this mechanism to be much more widespread and not restricted specifically to "feminism", which is far from a particularly important point of focus for me among other possible points of focus). My observations point to a strong causal link between such behavior and the response, but it seems like a sufficient cause, and by far not a required one. The example things I've mentioned (agreeing, disagreeing, nodding, staying silent, going away) are things I've actually tried in separate occasions, as my very first reaction to the topic, if my memory isn't being blurred, and they had the results described. My memory suggests two or three of those might have happened with the same person simply at separate times, but I'm not certain. Overall, I think the hypothetical reaction you describe might pass a turing test, but I'm throwing that at my own mental emulator, so it's not much of a confirmation. Your mental model seems better detailed than mine, too.
4TheOtherDave11y
I mostly start from my actual, real-life reactions around low-status groups I've been part of, and ask myself how I would react in analogous situations. For example, I'm queer, and I've many times had the experience of being in a room full of (nominally) straight guys talking about queers. I'm Jewish, and I've a few times had the experience of listening to Gentiles talk about Jews. I'm Hispanic, and have had the experience of listening to a White community discuss Hispanics. Etc. That's not at all the same thing as being female in a room full of men talking about women, but there are some illustrative similarities. One thing I think generalizes, for example, is that after a few traumatic experiences along those lines it's emotionally difficult to keep giving people the benefit of the doubt, and emotionally easy to treat new people as homophobic or antiSemitic or racist or sexist or what-have-you until and unless they do something active to demonstrate that they aren't. Another thing I think generalizes is that one does get better at identifying non-verbal cues. For example, I've had the experience several times of thinking that someone was uncomfortable with my sexuality despite them seeming to do all the right things superficially, and later having them confirm that yes, at the time they had been uncomfortable. (Of course, I've also much more often had the experience of thinking that and not having it confirmed. I merely claim that correctly reading nonverbal cues is possible, not that my reading of nonverbal cues is reliable, let alone infallible.)
3DaFranker11y
This pattern-matches very gracefully with my experiences and observations. As I mention in another response, it seems likely that I've encountered almost only a certain kind of feminists that has a very personal near-mode emotional reaction to men. Besides being a "geek" with slight social disregard from social circles I had no interest in during high school, I fortunately never had those situations you describe. I happened to have all the right skills to avoid being marginalized for what few outlier qualities I had. Thus, despite pattern-matching with many of the qualities of the stereotypical bullied frail school nerd, I don't particularly identify well with them and my mental model of them is much worse than people would expect. My own mental model of feminists was derived mostly from my generalized mental model of "people", with the "ideologist" module added, and whatever empathic cues and type-1 intuitions I've had during interactions with them. Recent events on LessWrong allowed me to update this model quite a bit with a lot more evidence, but it still feels very incomplete and vague.
2TheOtherDave11y
(nods) Makes sense. Certainly, my own level of compassion for and understanding of people experiencing various levels of post-traumatic response increased enormously after I went through traumatic experiences of my own. I don't think it's necessary, nor is it sufficient, but it helps. I suppose the question is, is it worth it to you to do the work to develop analogous properties in the absence of those "advantages," or not? If it isn't and you don't, that's of course a choice you're free to make, but it ought not surprise you that your subsequent interactions with certain classes of people won't go as smoothly as they would if you did.

There are lots of words that I don't know how to taboo, because I only have a partial and largely intuitive understanding of the concepts I'm referring to by them, and can't fully explain those concepts. Examples: "exist", "truth", "correct", "right", "moral", "rational", "should", "mathematical". I don't think anyone has asked me directly to taboo any of these words, but if someone did, I might ignore the request because I think my time could be better spent trying to communic... (read more)

you are the direct subject yourself.

Yes, I meant "freedom for me" - I thought that was implied.

If I simply told you (and you have easy means of confirming that I'm telling the truth) that I'm restricting the movements of a dozen people you've never heard of, and the restriction of freedom is done in such a way that the "victims" will never even be aware that their freedoms are being restricted (e.g. giving a mental imperative to vote republican with a denial-of-denial clause for it), would you still have the same intense this-is-wr

... (read more)
2DaFranker11y
...therefore, if you are never aware of your own lack of freedom, you do not assign value to this. Which loops around back to the appearance of freedom being your true value. This would be the most uncharitable interpretation. It seems, however, that in general you will be taking the course of action which maximizes the visible freedom that you can perceive, rather than a course of action you know to be optimized in general for widescale freedom. It seems more like a cognitive alert to certain triggers, and a high value being placed on not triggering this particular alert, than valuing the principles. Edit: Also, thanks for indulging my curiosity and for all your replies on this topic.

SIAI over its history (you can look at the Form 990s if you want) has gotten maybe half or less its budget from Thiel. Where's the rest coming from? Lady Luck's charitable writeoffs?

Still, at least you seem to have dropped your claim that SIAI or LW is a homeschooling propaganda front...

You're probably right about modern countries; however, as far as I understand, historically some countries did reasonably well under a dictatorship. Life under Hammurabi was far from being all peaches and cream, but it was still relatively prosperous, compared to the surrounding nations. A few Caesars did a pretty good job of administering Rome; of course, their successors royally screwed the whole thing up. Likewise, life in Tzarist Russia went through its ups and downs (mostly downs, to be fair).

Unfortunately, the kind of a person who seeks (and is able ... (read more)

The system of government here is enlightened absolutism.

This is a community blog. If your community has a dictator, you should overthrow him.

6ArisKatsaris11y
Is the overthrowing of dictators a terminal value to you, or is it that you associate it with good consequences?
2thomblake11y
A little of both. Freedom is a terminal value, and heuristically dictators cause bad consequences.
4ArisKatsaris11y
My own view: Dictators in countries tend to cause bad consequences. Dictators in forums tend to cause good consequences.
8Bugmaster11y
Do you have any evidence for that ? In my experience, it all depends on the dictator, not on the venue.
4Eugine_Nier11y
It's easier to leave a forum than a country. Forum-dictators who abuse their power end up with empty forums.
6komponisto11y
I'd like to point out that Overcoming Bias, back in the day, was a dictatorship: Robin and Eliezer were explicitly in total control. Whereas Less Wrong was explictly set up to be community-moderated, with voting taking the place of moderator censorship. And the general consensus has always been that LW was an improvement over OB.

I hoped that I had made this clear before, but apparently I haven't:

  • Evolutionary psychology is capable of producing beliefs that highly correlate to reality
  • These true beliefs, propagated in patriarchal society, extend its lifespan
  • Thus, evolutionary psychology tends to support patriarchy
  • Thus evolutionary psychology is sexist.

Something that perhaps you have made clear in other postings I have not read, but not in this one, is what consequences for action you derive from those bullet points. Given your attitude to the truth as "just"... (read more)

I'm confused by your history.

As I understood the history:

1st wave - Susan B. Anthony, Women's Suffrage, "voluntary motherhood" (i.e. allow contraceptives for married couples, but sex is for married people only) ~1920s
2nd wave - de Beauvoir's "The Second Sex", Andrea Dworkin, anti-pornography movement ~1960s
3rd wave - sex positivity feminism ~1990s

Each movement was a reaction to perceived shortfalls in the prior intellectual movement. You talk about things like 2nd wave was a reaction to 3rd wave.

I'm more sympathetic to Dworkin than the... (read more)

2Bugmaster12y
I think that history is mostly orthogonal to our current topic. Even if eridu is wrong about history, he could still be right about all of his other claims. Indeed, and "sex positive" does not, IMO, immediately imply "want to make sex compulsory". I am personally volleyball-positive, in that I wish everyone who's interested in volleyball could enjoy doing so with other volleyball-lovers. But that doesn't mean that I want to force everyone to play volleyball all the time, regardless of whether they feel like it or not.
6Alicorn12y
I think you mean "compulsory".

To put it another way, what stops you from murdering somebody you dislike?

I suppose that is just a difference between us. Not a disagreement, but a difference: you are one way and I am another.

You think of disliking someone and ask, what stops you murdering them?

I think of disliking someone and ask (and only because of your question), what would start me murdering them?

Number of days since casual murder was used in a discussion on LessWrong: 0.

The (bad feeling of) fear of getting caught? The (bad feeling of) remorse from taking a human's life?

Or do yo

... (read more)

If that isn't hyperbole, I'm interested in your reasons for believing that.

Of course it is. The point is that we see all around us (that's another hyperbole), and it is a recurring theme on LessWrong (that isn't), that people persist in acting, or failing to act, in ways that they "feel bad" about. As a strategy for change, "feeling bad" doesn't seem to be effective, does it?

"Making someone feel bad", or "good", fares even worse -- see this parable.

it is a recurring theme on LessWrong (that isn't), that people persist in acting, or failing to act, in ways that they "feel bad" about.

I agree.

As a strategy for change, "feeling bad" doesn't seem to be effective, does it?

I disagree. One of the reasons akrasia is so notable is that feeling bad usually works. Usually touching a hot stove or hit your thumb with a hammer once is enough to change your behavior. Often being mocked by your peers, or sensing genuine disappointment from your mentors, is enough to change your behavior. It's only in these weird corner cases where opposing strong motivations collide that we notice the unusual inefficacy of bad feelings, and haul out the rational analysis toolkit.

But doesn't the same logic lead me to conclude that pain isn't aversive? (That is: if pain were actually aversive, people wouldn't do things that cause them pain. People do things that cause them pain, therefore pain is not aversive.)

The problem with that logic as it applies to pain is that pain can be aversive without completely preventing people from doing something. If a behavior B is N% likely ordinarily, and B becomes Y% likely if coupled to pain, and Y < X, that's evidence for considering pain aversive even though we still do B. Relatedly, if B is... (read more)

[-][anonymous]12y40

Possibly not. I do think punishments can deter bad actions. But I think this works best when those punishments are clearly described in advance of the crime.

Also, it seems to me that there is a perverse aspect of regret, that it punishes sympathetic malefactors more than it punishes psychopathic ones.

2TheOtherDave12y
Agreed on both counts.

I won't respond to the first half of your post because you have done essentially nothing but rephrase my own comment in a seemingly argumentative tone.

That was not my intention. What I meant was, "we should taboo the word 'oppression', and it would be great if everyone else did, too".

Thanks for your examples. One thing I noticed about them is that they are almost entirely male-centric. For example, you say,

"Sexual advances that seemed innocuous to the men making them would be perceived as any combination of coercive, etc."

What... (read more)

Emotional work is everything one needs to do to maintain a positive affect because the positive affect is expected from your social role.

For example, you don't think that the fast-food worker is really that happy to see you?

If one spouse in a relationship is expected to repress emotions in this way, that's unfair. If society doesn't give the spouse credit for the circumstance, that's even worse.

Historically, that spouse was the wife - hence feminism's concern about emotional work.

2simplicio12y
Thanks, that's a good example. I had encountered an instance of the phenomenon in the context of male demands for women to "just smile," but had not generalized it.

So why are you, who have professed to believe that this was pointless all along, still bothering?

In one of the comments Eliezer banned, which you can still see here, eridu said:

I knew what I was going to get when I posted my first comment -- I just thought it'd be an amusing waste of my time, which has been roughly the case.

I dislike fake formalizations. TheOtherDave's approach makes a lot more sense to me.

3pragmatist12y
Well, it would, given that you're an instrumentalist. Since I'm not an instrumentalist, TheOtherDave's suggestion (in so far as I understand it) clearly differs from what I mean when I talk about existence. Surely you wouldn't maintain that the only possible tabooings of "existence" are instrumentalist-friendly ones. But why do you think my formulation is a "fake formalization"? It captures what I mean by existence pretty well, I think. Is the worry that I haven't provided an empirical criterion for existence?
4TheOtherDave12y
Awesome! I love clear differences. Can you give me an example of some thing that exists, for which my proposed tabooing of "existence" doesn't apply? Or, conversely, of something for which my proposed tabooing applies, but which doesn't exist?
4pragmatist12y
With the caveat that I might not fully understand your proposed tabooing, here's my concern with it. There are models which are empirically equivalent, yet disagree on the furniture of the world. As far as I can see, your tabooing, with its emphasis on predictive success, cannot distinguish between the ontological claims made by these models. I think one can. For instance, even if two theories make identical predictions, I would say the right move would be adopt the ontology of the simpler of the two. Perhaps I can expand on my proposed tabooing. Instead of just "The set of Fs is non-empty", make it "The set of Fs is non-empty according to our best physical theory", where the "best physical theory" is determined not just by empirical success but by extra-empirical virtues such as simplicity.
2TheOtherDave12y
Wrt your revised tabooing... that has the odd property that entities come into existence and cease existing as our physical theories change. I guess I'm OK with that... e.g., if you really want to say that quarks didn't exist in 1492, but that quarks in 1492 now existed, I won't argue, but it does seem like an odd way to talk. Wrt your concern... hrm. Let me try to be more specific. So, I have two empirically equivalent models M1 and M2, which make different ontological claims but predict the same experiences in a range of contexts C (as C approaches infinity). Let us say that M1 asserts the existence of X, and M2 asserts instead the existence of Y, and X is simpler than Y. I also have a set of experiences E1, on the basis of which I adopt M1 as my model (for several reasons, including the fact that my experiences have led me to prefer simpler models). Based on this, I predict that my future experiences E2 will be consistent with the past experiences E1 which led me to to put X in my model in the first place, which include the experiences that led me to endorse Occam's Razor. If that prediction proves false -- that is, if I have experiences that are inconsistent with that -- I should reduce my confidence in the existence of X. If it proves true -- that is, I have no experiences that are inconsistent with that -- I should remain confident. Is that example consistent with your understanding of how my proposed tabooing works? If so, can you say more about your concern? Because it seems to me I am perfectly able to distinguish between M1 and M2 (and choose M1, insofar as I embrace Occam's Razor) with this understanding of existence.
2pragmatist12y
The tabooing is not supposed to be an analysis of what makes things exist; it is an analysis of when we are justified in believing something exists. It's a criterion for ontological commitment, not ontology. I took it that this was what your tabooing was supposed to convey as well, since surely there can be things that exist that don't feature in our models. Or maybe you don't think so? To get an actual criterion of ontology rather than just a criterion of ontological commitment, replace "our best physical theory" with "the best physical theory", which may be one that nobody ever discovers. Ah, I see. This makes your view more congenial to me. Although it still depends on what you mean by consistent. If one of my future experiences is the discovery of an even simpler empirically adequate theory, then presumably you would say that that experience is in some sense inconsistent with E1? If yes, then I don't think there is much of a difference between your proposal and mine.
2shminux12y
What does "The set of all Fs is non-empty" mean? Surely it means "There exist at least one F", and we are back to what "exist" means. So your definition does not taboo "exist", it just rewords it without adding anything to the understanding of the issue. Usually it's just a postulate. I've yet to come across a different definition that is not a simple rewording or obfuscation. I would be very interested in seeing something non-instrumentalist that is.

It's the impression I've got from informal observation, and it's true when talking about myself specifically. (If I disagree, I presumably have something to say that has not yet been said. If I agree, that's less likely to be true. I don't know if that's the whole reason, but it feels like a substantial part of it.)

http://lesswrong.com/lw/3h/why_our_kind_cant_cooperate/ provides an anecdote, and suggests that Eliezer has also gotten the same impression.

2TheOtherDave12y
I certainly agree with your last sentence. My own experience is that while people are more likely to express immediate disagreement than agreement in contexts where disagreement is expressed at all, they are also more likely to express disagreement with expressed disagreement in such forums, from which agreement can be inferred (much as I can infer your agreement with EY's behavior from your disagreement with Will_Newsome). The idea that they are more likely to keep quiet in general, or that people are more likely to anonymously downvote what they disagree with than upvote what they agree with, doesn't jive with my experience. And in contexts where disagreement is not expressed, I find the Asch results align pretty well with my informal expectations of group behavior.
2philh12y
I admit that I hadn't considered this mechanism. I have no gut feeling for whether it's true or not, but it sounds plausible.

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.

  • Yes, I've noticed that this position is more nuanced than the original statement. I was angry, so I'll take my lumps for making imperfect statements under the influence of anger. The downvotes are more explicable to me than some downvotes I've gotten.
2Eugine_Nier12y
I agree, I also think this applies to a lot more situations than just this case.

I do not see a Report button.

There are several moderators, I don't think Eliezer is the most active.

I am aware of this, but Eliezer came off as being particularly invested in personally combating people whom he perceives as trolls.

It doesn't, "ban" just means the comment is hidden.

Ah, I stand corrected then, thanks for the info.

Patriarchal bias isn't biological, like most cognitive biases (though it's obviously related).

My apologies, when I said "...many ... people are in principle incapable of learning enough about feminism..." I did not mean to imply that they were unable to do so due to purely biological reasons. The reasons may well be social, as you say in your second-to-last paragraph.

That said, I do believe that my post above correctly represents the opinions of at least some feminists, because several self-identified feminists (though not you, obviously) had... (read more)

Patriarchy is learned behavior. Men and women are rewarded for behaving in accordance with patriarchy, punished for deviating, and as children, have ample opportunity to both witness others being rewarded and punished, and are encouraged to identify with and model relevantly-gendered adults.

As such, patriarchal behavior patterns can be extinguished. The way this typically happens is by an individual reading some basic feminism, realizing that they agree with it, and starting to mentally punish themselves (with, say, guilt) whenever they notice they are be

... (read more)

To put it concretely, the common evo-psych statement that women are more selective because they have to carry a fetus to term while men are more promiscuous because inseminating a woman is cheap causes rape apologism and policing of women's sexuality. It provides a narrative by which the people who do those things can point to science and say "Look, clearly I'm right because of this finding that states that it is unnatural for a woman to do something I disapprove of!"

Just parachuted in.

So my first thought here is that the obvious point of atta... (read more)

Hmm, all good points. I'll have to take some time to see if a thought experiment or other hypothesis could be constructed to comply with the requirements these imply. That seems to be just the problem though - I can't think of any hypothesis that does fit. It's basically "no matter what the hell you do or think, you're wrong, because [Magic!] is ingrained inside you and you can't get away from it and you're evil and should feel guilty because of that".

Note that I'm mostly ranting about my inability to reduce all of this and put it in simple words by this point.

4Bugmaster12y
Yeah, it's a tough one, which is why I'm interested in seeing what eridu thinks. As far as I understand, radical feminists believe that the main component of the patriarchy is an incredibly powerful mental bias, which prevents affected individuals from recognizing their role in perpetuating the patriarchy, or, in some cases, the very existence thereof. If we were talking about physics or some other hard science, we could combat this bias through rigorous Bayesian reasoning based on objective empirical evidence; after all, a stick that is 1m long is 1m long regardless of who is measuring it (plus or minus some quantifiable experimental error). Unfortunately, objective evidence cannot exist in social studies by definition, especially whenever the patriarchy rears its ugly head (which is everywhere at all times). I'm not sure what a good solution to this problem would be, however. One unfalsifiable hypothesis is, IMO, as bad as any other; and saying "I have no evidence for my position because you are biologically and mentally incapable of perceiving it" is no better than saying "I have no evidence for my position because invisible space elves ate my lab notebooks".
5TheOtherDave12y
It can be. If you have a theory the proof of which I don't know enough mathematics to understand, it may be that you can offer me no evidence for it because I don't know enough to perceive it, but you can at least make the assertion that if I were to study mathematics, I might learn enough to perceive it. Whereas if invisible space elves ate your lab notebooks, there's no path forward even in principle. (And if there exist other people who have studied mathematics who, when they examine your proof, judge it sound, I really ought to take that as some level of evidence.)

Okay, let me be more explicit: how do you know that feminism leads to higher standards of living rather than the other way round?

Yes, I'm highly doubtful on the value of guilt trips as a tactical tool. I'm have this vague meta (and therefore mostly pointless) discussion about my frustrations about eridu's tactics and goals - and the rest of y'all are taking me seriously on the object level.

4DaFranker12y
This makes things a lot clearer. I agree. Ceteris paribus, it is better to not feel guilty and to do better whenever you find a better way to do things, than to feel guilty and do better whenever you find a better way to do things, IMO. By that logic, I can in good conscience never feel guilty about the world I live in despite correcting for scope insensitivity, and thus still survive and not break down in a fit of guilt overload that would lead to suicide despite aware knowledge of all the horrible stuff that happens all the time.

Your response explains why you would want everyone to feel guilty rather than a subgroup, but does not adequately explain why you would want everyone to feel guilty rather than no one. I do infer from your response that you believe that feelings of guilt will help to change the wrong society is committing more than their absence.

[-][anonymous]12y40

in general all heterosexual relationships are patriarchal...coercive or anti-feminst.

Comments - The Worst Argument in the World

Can you taboo some of those terms? I can't tell what you are saying. Are you saying that hetero relationships usually have the man taking the "captain" role? (I agree with that). Are you saying that's bad when you call it "coercive and antifeminist"? Can you explain that, because it's not obvious.

Some of the information within the human brain "comes from genetics" through the expression of genetics in the environment and its observation by the human in question.

For instance, I believe that I have brown hair, ten fingers, a hairy chest, the ability to count, and various other attributes. These beliefs are information in my brain; however, they are also more than a little bit "genetically determined". My brain didn't start out with a genetically-determined belief "I have brown hair"; rather, my body ("genetically&qu... (read more)

A brain is also an information-processing system, and as such, by Occam's razor it seems more probable that information within it comes from its environment rather than genetics

I don't see how that follows, and "By Occam's razor" should only be invoked once you've established that two models are equivalent except for some extraneous detail.

I don't see social consequences as being inherently part of the research findings themselves, but rather an [Insert Unknown Explanation] process within humans that react in certain ways to the publications. My model classes research findings as "information", input to the human-machine that will do some arcane computation and output negative social consequences when there is no prior function for correctly interpreting that input.

It is true, however, that the human mental structure and the findings interact in a very causal way that ought not to... (read more)

2[anonymous]12y
I think you're wasting both of our time by pondering the implications of sexist research on ants. Rationality means winning, and winning means thinking like reality. If the actual outcome of research in the real world (which, yes, means humans will be consuming the research) is not foremost in your mind when considering research, your map is dangerously far from the territory.

What? It's a WAitW if it's wrong, but it isn't if it's right? That won't do at all.

Don't wanna. According to the post, you're supposed to detect instances of WAITW based on their pattern, not their conclusions. Same as all other fallacies.

2ArisKatsaris12y
The "pattern" isn't just the inclusion of the word "is" in the sentence. It's the pointing towards a more general category, already generally judged, which distracts from the more specific instance and more specific judgment that can be made. The example you gave fails in all particulars, as it offers a different specific example, rather than a more general category.

I personally would like better working conditions for everyone. I live in the real world.

But you would also like everyone to not complain about the working conditions they currently have? Ending people's complaints requires an even more magical solution than ending porn or prostitution.

Why don't you say to yourself "People complain. Deal."

They chose the work. Given real world economic realities, I'm not sure I see the problem.

Reality includes the fact that people are free to argue about whether reality sucks and how to improve it. So wha... (read more)

There's a lot of ways to act on data about group differences in intelligence.

For example, if it turns out that group A has a higher average IQ than group B, and that A and B can be distinguished reliably by genetic testing (including but not limited to visual inspection for associated phenotypes), I might decide to devote more effort to educating group B than group A, to make up for the difference. Or I might decide to devote more effort to educating group A than group B, to get the best bang for my education buck. Or I might decide to research the differe... (read more)

Ideally, the article should discomfort everyone who has made weak arguments, whether Blue, Green, or Libertarian.

The article's purpose should be education. By beginning with arguments that most agree are bad, and then progressing to arguments that they may recognize as close to their own, the article will convince most readers that this is a valid fallacy to watch out for, and then show them some arguments close to theirs that fit the pattern.

I'll grant that the objectification of people is wrong from a consequentialist perspective, barring any redeeming factors. I'll also point out that any action (like supporting a given field of study) that has negative consequences which exceed the positive consequences is immoral from a consequentialist perspective. I'll refrain from making any claims about whether supporting any specific field is a net negative.

No, I think that actions are 'justified' when the expected consequences are in accordance with the values of the actor. Actions are only 'moral' i... (read more)

6ArisKatsaris12y
Is that a mere simplification of your deontology? Because if it's the totality thereof, I find it very easy to construct counterexamples where it'd be really eccentric to proclaim them immoral... e.g. you see a two-year old child lean dangerously over an open window and you pull him back, lest it falls -- even though it doesn't consent and might even cry in protest. Or you are a doctor and perform an operation to save the life of an unconscious patient that was in a car accident. You don't have their consent because they're unconscious and can't provide it -- does it mean the action of saving their life isn't moral?
2Jayson_Virissimo12y
What kinds of experiences would you expect in a world where (some?) people are metaphysically equal that you wouldn't expect in a world where people are not metaphysically equal?
2A1987dM12y
This confuses me: I self-identify as a consequentialist myself, but I wouldn't call an action which harms you but no-one else “immoral” (but I'd call it stupid).

There is virtue theory in utilitarianism, that works out very similarly, yes. Note that "rule utilitarianism" usually refers to an ethical system in which following rules is valued for itself - I forget the name for the view amongst utilitarians that following rules is high-utility, which is what I think you mean to refer to.

Usually when we say 'evidence' we mean 'Bayesian evidence'. If you examine arbitrary triangles and they all happen to have one side whose length squared is equal to the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides, then being a triangle is evidence that the shape has this property. It was still evidence even if it turns out the triangle didn't have the property.

Reading through this and most of the comments, it occurs to me that virtually all the discussion is around MORAL argument. Do we ever succumb to the worst argument in the world in non-moral issues?

"How can we fix this light bulb?" "Use a hammer. A hammer is a tool and tool's fix things."

There it seems like an incomplete argument. And then somebody comes along and nails a few pieces of wood together with a hammer producing something stable enough to stand upon, and then proceeds to stand on it to reach the lightbulb, which just turned... (read more)

3wedrifid12y
"Rapture of the nerds".
3Normal_Anomaly12y
I'm confused about how to interpret your comment. Do you mean that people saying "Singularitarianism has some of the features of belief in a religious apocalypse, and believers in apocalypses are crazy, therefore Singularitarianism is crazy" is an instance of the worst argument in the world, or something else?
2wedrifid12y
Yes.
[-][anonymous]12y40

So, for example, he argues that anything that can be considered theft is irrational and immoral because if everyone committed all acts of theft imaginable, society would collapse, and thus the idea of property wouldn't exist, and thus we would have created a "contradiction", and thus that would violate a universal definition of the word should, and it would thus be immoral

This doesn't sound like a case of the 'worst argument in the world'. Also, I've now twice encountered someone here who seems to be literally angry at a long dead philosopher. This is very confusing to me.

4chaosmosis12y
Kant rejects all specific cases of theft because he considers all general cases of theft to be "wrong" (because if all possible thefts happened it would create a "contradiction" according to his interpretation). Does that clarify what I'm saying? I don't feel angry at Kant, but I do like mocking him.
7[anonymous]12y
But Kant doesn't hang anything on a term, like 'theft', in the way the WAITW does. Let's look at Kant's argument for this claim in the Groundwork. The following is from the second chapter of the Groundwork, which you can get online at earlymoderntexts.com (pages 24-25 in that copy): So it's not that this guy's lie is a case of some more general act 'lying' which involves a contradiction. Rather, the maxim which describes this specific action cannot be understood as a universal law. That doesn't make the action in any way contradictory. In fact, it's a neat fulfillment of the demands of self-love. The point is that the agent is incapable, once he reflects on his action, of thinking of the action as one prescribed entirely by reason, because reason always speaks in universals, and this action cannot be understood as a case of a universal. Edit: To clarify, Kant's point isn't that this example is a case of a more general kind which is wrong, his point is that the lie is wrong because there's no more general kind of rational action (which is to say, action, full stop) to which it can belong. That's why I don't think this is a case of the WAITW, even if it happens also to be a bad argument. Incidentally, it's worth noting (I've never noticed this before) that the whole second paragraph is the inner monologue of the lying man himself, not some external analysis. Kant never thought that the CI was somehow something no one could wriggle out of, only that it was in fact the core of the reflections of conscience that we do make. Edit: I think the idea of mocking or ridiculing some idea or thinker should be met with extreme suspicion, and I think Nietzsche would probably even agree with me on that. Laughing at Kant is a way of not thinking about Kant. For Nietzsche, it was important that we be capable of just not thinking about some things, but we do so at the risk of just laughing everything off, even stuff we should be thinking about. And laughing has no internal limits,
7chaosmosis12y
I'm having a hard time seeing this as distinct. It seems to me that the phrase "the maxim which describes this specific action cannot be understood as a universal law" is just a more vague rephrasing of the idea that "this guy's lie is a case of some more general act 'lying' which involves a contradiction". I agree that his argument is that the specific action can't be understood as a universal law, but the idea of how we go about translating specific actions into universal laws to me seems to implicitly depend upon the idea that "this guy's lie is a case of some more general act 'lying'". I don't understand what universal law Kant is rejecting if not the universal law of lying. Nietzsche explicitly laughs at Kant's Categorical Imperative in the text I quoted. Laughing at things is fun, although I'll agree it leads to dismissal. So, wait to laugh at an idea until after you've heard it out, and then have all the fun with it you want. I think that would be a fine solution. The alternative is to not laugh at bad arguments, and that sort of leads to despairing at the stupidity of the masses, I think.
3[anonymous]12y
I don't think your description is off the mark, but I do think this sets it apart from the worst argument in the world. if Kant were making the worst argument in the world, his claim would be that this man's action is a lie, and that because some lies are bad or contradictory, this lie must be as well. But Kant doesn't appeal to 1) a general action type, or 2) any other particular cases of actions similar to this one. I take (2) to be obvious from the text, so I'll just defend (1). The maxim of an action is not a general action type, but the law or rule of which some action is a case. So we have three things: the particular case of lying, the general action-type of lying, and the rule of which this particular case is a case. It may (or may not) be true that all cases of lying, and thus the action-type as a whole, fall under the same rule that this particular case falls under. This wouldn't matter to Kant's argument, since he only appeals to the rule under which this particular action falls. Notice that the maxim described in his argument doesn't come close to being a rule for all cases of lying. It's only intended to be a rule for this specific case. I think that you think that Kant thinks that action-types are defined by maxims, such that a lie is wrong because it falls under the action-type 'lying' which is defined by such and such a maxim. But this can't be right, because Kant's whole point is that the lie he's discussing, on reflection, simply has no maxim. It only seems to. Thus it cannot be the result of reason alone, and we can only explain the action in terms of a heteronomous will (a will governed by many conflicting interests, which he goes on to discuss at the end of chapter 2 and 3). So even if action types were defined by maxims, there wouldn't be an action type for lying to fall under, because it has no maxim.
2chaosmosis12y
Okay, I misinterpreted Kant, thanks for the correction!
3[anonymous]12y
Thanks for the interesting discussion.

For example, suppose that evolutionary science has determined that is was pro-survival in the past for females to refrain from occupations which had high fatality rates.

Reinforcing that would be claiming that females should refrain from or be prohibited/discouraged from those occupations in the present and near future.

Also sexist is the line of thought "Females are statistically more/less likely to be X, therefore I require that it be a male/female who performs task Y.", when variation within each sex is great enough that there are a very large n... (read more)

Do we, though, agree to the rape of a woman if said rape results in the feeding of 10 starving children in Africa?

I'm too selfish to put myself at risk of retaliation for the sake of only 10 children, so no. Also, that is a really strange scenario.

You claim that morality is a balance of things. For example, though taxation is the involuntary taking of other people's stuff, if it has some good consequences then we ought to not say it's theft.

No, the claim is that taxation is theft if we define that way, but we should look more closely to see whether the theft is justified anyway, even if theft is usually bad.

Morality is not about a balance of things - it is a set of rules to be followed.

Many (most?) people here disagree. What happens when the rules conflict? Then you've got to weigh the balance.

Yeah, there's that.

For me it becomes a matter of tradeoffs.

If people decide to trust me enough to actually engage honestly with the question, I try to be careful about engaging honestly with their answer, and often that can lead to some exceptionally interesting conversations. I've made some excellent friends this way, as well as a few educational opponents.

Most people don't trust me that much, of course. But I'm at a stage in my life where efficiently working my way through lots of people in order to find one or two worth exploring as excellent friend... (read more)

A fun special case of this is applying it to arguments:

Pointing out the that an author accepted money from interested parties is an ad-hominem argument.

[-][anonymous]12y40

Which is unfortunate since this seems to be one of the few recent articles with relatively short inferential distances.

"Affirmative action is racist!" True if you define racism as "favoring people based on their race", but though the archetypal case of racism (white people keeping black people down) has nothing to recommend it, affirmative action (possibly) does. In the archetypal case, decisions are made based on race, success is completely decoupled from merit, and disadvantaged groups are locked into a cycle of poverty with little to no escape. Affirmative action keeps the first disadvantage, arguably escapes the second disadvantage depending on the

... (read more)
[-][anonymous]12y40

Is it always illegitimate to bring up the facts that abortion ends a life, that taxes are not paid voluntarily, and that affirmative action benefits some races at the expense of others? If someone with right-wing views on these policies does weave one of these facts into his arguments on less wrong, will he be adoringly referred to this page as though it were a drop-dead refutation?

If in the course of an argument you become frustrated by the other party mentioning true things, perhaps he is making the worst argument in the world. And perhaps there is another explanation.

Taxes are not paid voluntarily and affirmative action benefits some races at the (immediate) expense of others, I agree. But note that in saying "abortion ends a life", you described things on somewhat of a higher level and used a more value-laden word than in the other two cases - like saying "Taxes are stolen" or "Affirmative action discriminates". "Abortion ends a life" is still sneaking in connotations, since we imagine ending a human life, rather than a cat's life or an ant's life, and the other person may well object that the embryo's life hasn't quite reached the ant level yet. In general, there's no license to bring up a categorization like 'life', as an unquestionable assumption or 'fact', if the other person is going to disagree with the connotations of the categorization, like "life is precious".

You can bring up as a fact that the embryo has 256 cells capable of metabolism but not capable of surviving outside the uterus. Calling it a 'life' is an attempt to Sneak in Connotations and establish a value judgment, because we all know that life is precious, even though we don't care very much about accidentally inhaling ... (read more)

9Emile12y
M, they may be able to argue some, though it's a minority; for example if I promised to my grandmother on her deathbead to never eat fish on Tuesdays, than the morality of certain actions may hinge on the common usage definition of "fish". Similarly, the morality of saying "I did not have sex with that woman" may depend on what is understood exactly by "sex" (not that a dictionary is necessarily the final arbiter!). And more generally, rules and norms and laws may refer to words, and while the rules themselves should be evaluated on consequentialist grounds, judging whether one followed the rules may depend on common usage definitions. For example, it's a nearly universal norm in western societies that racism is wrong. With the way humans are now, it's probably better than a situation where there was no norm against racism itself, but rather acts and beliefs were judged individually as right or wrong - that would leave too much leeway for rationalization. So instead we have the lesser evil of the definition of "racism" becoming overly broad and contested. (Overall I mostly agree with you; definitions are totally useless on settling empirical disagreements, and mostly useless for moral disagreements)

Is it always illegitimate to bring up the facts that abortion ends a life, that taxes are not paid voluntarily, and that affirmative action benefits some races at the expense of others?

No. If you didn't get that, you should reread the post. The point is to discuss the relevant features of the subject in question, not say "murder" or "theft" and stop thinking.

8[anonymous]12y
That is the author's stated intention. But what he's created is an easily referenceable refutation of weak versions of strong arguments. You're concerned about someone crying "murder" or "theft" instead of thinking. I'm concerned about someone linking to this very popular article instead of thinking, or anyway instead of grappling with a strong argument.

As Alex Mennen brought up on my blog, the problem you're worrying about is that someone will say "That's an example of the Worst Argument In The World, which is typically a weak argument", even though that particular version of the argument is actually quite strong.

Luckily, I hear there's a new post addressing exactly that error!

7Luke_A_Somers12y
There is no general way to make people think. Everything can be misused.
7DaFranker12y
...therefore, we should not be concerned when well-intentioned articles risk generating new Fully General Counterarguments and having other possible negative effects on rationality. Even if the net expected utility is negative.

No and no (hopefully) and yes and yes.

The examples you give bring up specific points of those, the specific facts that are negative. The Worst Argument In The World is when you don't state the particular negative fact, but instead (truthfully) proclaims that X is part of larger set Y which notoriously also contains that one specific negative fact (which X really does have), but also many others which give Y a large net negative value, making X have a large net negative value (to uninformed audiences) by virtue of being part of Y.

Bring up the specific fact, not an arbitrary large subgroup which also contains both X and the specific fact and is known to have a massive net connotation.

In Lesswrong discussion, I've seen similar arguments made, and the most frequent response was "Taboo X and Y", followed closely by a more elaborate reduction.

I'm not so much disagreeing as giving a different perspective. Even in utero, most organs already fulfill their intended function. It takes little time for kidneys to produce urine, or for a proto-heart to beat. There are exceptions, such as certain liver functions not being available until late into the pregnancy or post natal. The point is that it doesn't take all that much information to describe which layer of cells goes where. It's an astounding process, cells inducing other cells to specialize in certain ways, and gradually creating 3D structures by ... (read more)

4private_messaging10y
Indeed. Thing is, we actually know a lot about how it is built. We see genetically predetermined specialization - hippocampus is very structurally distinct from the neocortex, for example. We also see learned specialization: initially morphologically homologous areas that acquire increased specialization through synaptic pruning, which is known to be driven by the specific electrical signalling within the brain rather than specific genetic instructions targeting those synapses. We see universality (within those brain regions), in the sense that if one brain region is missing from an early enough time, other brain regions will learn to perform same function (thus proving, at least, that learning can account for said functionality). What we don't see is innate specialization in those regions, as proposed by Tooby/Cosmides/Pinker ('hundreds or thousands distinct mental organs'). They're somehow below any detection, and work absolutely identical to what learning works like.

having sciency-looking accoutrements and trappings is nevertheless bayesian evidence that something is a science. The question is just how good that evidence is.

No, not at all. The question isn't how good that evidence is, the question is what other evidence is there. And in this particular case we have, for example, the lack of theories which can be falsified.

I would have no problems with calling evopsy, say, a field of study. But saying it's a science implies rigor and tests against reality which are, um, absent.

By definition, capital punishment is not murder. Murder is defined as [b]unlawful[/b], malicious killing - you have to kill them, you have to have been intending malice towards them, you have to have deliberately meant to cause them harm (thus accidental workplace deaths don't count unless you set them up intentionally; otherwise its just manslaughter), and you have to have been doing so unlawfully.

Intending malice is not strictly a requirement. Killing someone because you (for example) believe that it will save their immortal soul is not malicious. Euthenasia is also still punished as murder in many juristictions even when it is done with the intent of mercy not malice.

I like this article very much, and I think it's an important fallacy to take note of. I do not however, think it is the worst fallacy. I think the worst fallacy is: I don't need a reason/argument to believe what I believe.

Sadly, likable but slightly pernicious ideas are... well, you know.

I suppose we could go around describing various things as "not especially pernicious"?

Because our speech patterns are, of course, insufficiently atypical.

What would it mean when an ideologies arguments can't be taken seriously unless you're sure the speaker is sincere?

Well... OK, consider the following distinct but related pattern.

I do in fact believe that the reason the government ought, as a rule, not take infant children away from their parents and feed them to baby-eating aliens is that the consequences of doing so would probably be negative. But if someone were to nod their head in my direction at a party and say, in a conversation, "Of course Dave here probably thinks the reason the government... (read more)

[-][anonymous]11y30

Your comment was also immediately voted down. I brought it back to neutral karma. I haven't been following this conversation, but it doesn't seem worthy of immediate downvotes...

Feeling bad is one of the reasons why I don't do certain things, but not the only one. If I'm convinced something that would make me feel bad would also have desirable consequences that would outweigh that (even considering ethical injunctions, TDT-related considerations, etc.), I try to overcome my emotional hang-up (using precommitment devices, drinking alcohol, etc., if necessary) and do that anyway.

you will read actual radical feminist women and figure that out for yourself

I did, believe it or not. My impression of "actual radical feminist women" has been largely negative; they seem to be more interested in winning battles than in acquiring true beliefs or solving any real-world problems. That's probably why I find your views so fascinating, since you are actually willing (some of the time) to justify your claims.

I can at least say that you're very wrong about liberal feminism being against compulsory sexuality (liberal feminists suppo

... (read more)

For example, how much traditionally gendered behavior do feral children display? That's biological gender, right there. They have the same hormones any of the rest of us do, minus all the socialization.

By itself it only proves that hormones are not sufficient and socialization is necessary, not that hormones are not necessary and socialization is sufficient.

IIRC many people born with ambiguous external genitalia, accidentally surgically assigned to the sex other than their gonadal one, and raised as the corresponding gender tend to become transgender (... (read more)

Yudkowsky's luck consisted of having a billionaire friend (Peter Thiele) who bankrolled SIAI

How did he acquire such a friend, and who convinced him to bankroll SIAI?

It's my impression that "front group" as typically used refers to a hidden/covert connection. LessWrong on the other hand has the logos/links for CFAR, SI and the Future of Humanity Institute displayed prominently.

the current state of behavioral patterns and rate of improvement in gender-fairness of "my" (for lack of a better label) subculture (and, if I may presume, many other subcultures made of smarter-than-average people) is currently right before the line whether spending more to eradicate Patriarchy becomes more damaging than the amount of patriarchy it would remove currently does.

If this is true of your subgroup, your subgroup is wonderfully exceptional. It certainly isn't true of most smarter-than-average subcultures.

One can argue about whether ... (read more)

2A1987dM11y
Have you counted opportunity costs? Maybe there is some action his subgroup could take which would have a net positive effect towards eradicating patriarchy, but that would mean they could spend less time taking some other action which could have a larger positive effect towards some other goal. (This assumes that patriarchy is not the only problem in the world (nor the only problem worth trying to solve). I don't expect anyone to disagree with that, but I'm afraid to “underestimate the universality of the law that there is no argument so dumb or straw-mannish that someone somewhere has not made it”.)
2Bugmaster11y
Such an argument may not be as "dumb or straw-mannish" as all that, depending on your approach to prioritizing problems to solve. For example, if you believed that destroying the patriarchy was possible given our current limited resources, and that doing so would ameliorate or eliminate a host of other problems, you might focus on it as the low-hanging fruit. Sure, building an FAI and ushering in the Singularity (just for example) would net you a much larger gain, but the amount of effort you'd have to spend on it, as well as the lower probability of success, makes it a less attractive goal overall.

Generally, I, like most humans, think that people doing bad things should feel bad about it.

FWIW, I do not think that. I would like people doing bad things to stop doing those things. "Feeling bad" is (I believe) never useful: not to the person having the feeling, and not to anyone else.

2Desrtopa12y
Having decided that it's a bad idea for me to continue discussing things with eridu, it might be better for me to avoid discussing the same things with people who are currently engaged in conversation with him. But I think that in this case we have a substantive disagreement. I think that not only is people feeling bad a powerful moderator of our behavior, and one that it's useful for other people to know we have, I think deliberately making people feel bad about their actions can be a useful way to motivate them to change their behavior in positive ways. Ideally, nobody should have to feel bad, but then, ideally, nobody should be doing bad things either. To draw an available example, Ghandi's efforts to gain independence for India rested almost entirely on making the British colonialists feel bad about themselves, and while giving up their possession of India might have been an economic inevitability, he certainly accelerated it. I think eridu is overgeneralizing the usefulness of imposing guilt on others though. It appears to me that in order to modify others' behavior by encouraging them to feel guilty, you need to start with people who have an existing set of moral standards (ones by which they actually operate not simply ones they profess,) which they are not applying in a particular case, and make them feel intuitively that this is a case where they should be applying those standards. For instance, the British citizens mostly had moral standards against attacking civilized, non-resisting people with clubs. If they saw Indian people behaving in a civilized, nonthreatening manner, and being beaten with clubs for challenging colonial rule, the British citizens are going to feel guilty without needing further incitement. On the other hand, if you try to encourage people to feel guilty for, say, stopping women from having abortions, and appeal to them on principles of autonomy, it won't work because they don't relate it to anything else they would feel guilty ab

Guilt tripping does work, and can be an effective method of changing people's behavior.

Feminists don't have that much funding.

How much funding would it take to at least make some progress towards answering the question, "what causes non-feminists to become feminists" ? If you create a Kickstarter for this purpose, I'll personally chip in a few bucks.

Again, I'm a little surprised to hear you say that feminists (or, perhaps, just feminist activists) had not made any attempts to answer the question. Yes, their finding is very limited -- but doesn't that fact make it all the more important to discover the most efficient way of spe... (read more)

But, if someone doesn't want to admit that logic exists or you just disagree with someone as to what logic is, there's really nothing to be done but to walk away.

That's not necessarily true. If we disagree on what logic is, I can work out the rules of what you consider logic and decide whether, using those rules, I come to a different conclusion than you do (in which case I can try to convince you of that different conclusion using your rules), or I can attempt to convince you that you're wrong via illogical means (like telling you a convincing story, or using question-begging language, or etc.). I can also do the latter if you reject logic altogether.

Quickly, it devolved into "what are eridu's feminist politics," which is a proxy for "how stupid is eridu."

Being wrong is not the same as being stupid.

A counterfactual world where the argument stayed on-topic would mean that we'd be talking about evolutionary psychology now.

It would've been impossible to understand your opposition to evolutionary psychology without first understanding your feminist politics.

That said, IMO the on-topic discussion was over when you made it clear that you value advancing your cause more than you v... (read more)

I also observe that wedrifid's opinion of you doesn't appear to be steered with equal expected posterior probability in light of how you react versus his predictions of your reactions.

I can't even decipher what it is you are accusing wedrifid of here. Apart from being wrong and biased somehow.

2DaFranker12y
I'm referring to a specific part of bayesian updating, conservation of expected evidence. Specifically: This rule did not seem respected in what little I've seen of interactions between you and Eliezer, and I was looking for external feedback and evidence (one way or another) for this hypothesis, to see if there is a valid body of evidence justifying the selection of this hypothesis for consideration or if that simply happened out of bias and inappropriate heuristics. I suspect that, if the latter, then there was probably an erroneous pattern-matching to the examples given in the related blogpost on the subject (and other examples I have seen of this kind of erroneous thinking). I don't know how to submit this stuff for feedback and review without using a specific "accusation" or wasting a lot of time creating (and double-checking for consistency) elaborating complex counterfactual scenarios.

Yes, he described himself as male here. Not that it particularly matters, except insofar as it makes playing the pronoun game easier.

8NancyLebovitz12y
Thanks. I'm impressed with the story in the link, but also more convinced that he might as well be treated as a troll because he criticized someone for being a man explaining feminism to women.
3Nornagest12y
Eh, that's a relatively minor sin of argument, all things considered. It's pretty easy to think that you're excused from such a thing thanks to greater relative knowledge or better subcultural placement.

Most feminists don't know what operant conditioning and extinction are. Without knowing those things, it's easy to confuse "very hard" with "impossible."

Agreed -- assuming, of course, that operant conditioning is as effective as you claim (when applied to humans), which I still doubt.

The mention of guilt is just because of another comment chain in this thread. I'm not trying to argue for guilt in particular.

I see, but then, what exactly are you claiming ?

What sort of emotion would a homophobe feel, talking to their homophobic f

... (read more)
3NancyLebovitz12y
It seems much more likely that the guilt and shame are a result of the conversion rather than the cause of it.

Perhaps I should clarify my meaning with an example. Let us assume that there is a job opening, for some qualified, high-status post (say, chief financial officer of a large company). There are four applicants for this position. Anne and Andrew are competant, qualified, and have a lot of experience in the field; either would be an excellent choice. Bob and Barbara are clearly incompetant for the position, neither having managed to complete their elementary schooling; either of these applicants would be a terrible choice.

There have been, and probably still ... (read more)

It does make some falsifiable predictions: it predicts for example that increasing local awareness and resistance of the patriarchal structure should lead to improved outcomes for women along quantifiable dimensions, relative wages being one obvious example. ... The trouble as I see it is more that there are several social theories making the same or closely related predictions, and distinguishing between them is much harder than evaluating the predictions of one relative to the status quo...

Agreed. As far as I understand, eridu does in fact oppose the... (read more)

So, if gender is a social construct, I'm presuming you advocate absolute equality of opportunity, and absolute social blindness to biological sex? So one physical entry requirement into the armed forces and police? And generally no positive discrimination anywhere?

[-][anonymous]12y30

To answer the question I think I can answer - The way to change social norms is to perform the social norm you would like instead, in violation of the established norms.

So #1 on my list. OK.

This requires very sophisticated understanding of what the current norms are. If you partially violate a norm, that can sometimes strengthen the norm. Sometimes, apparently unrelated norms reinforce each other. Sometimes, the norm is just too strong and you end up being rejected from the community.

This is scary. Have any advice for how to model the situation corr... (read more)

[-][anonymous]12y30

I would ask what you mean by culpable that does not have the same problems as guilt. (I guess you mean responsibility in some sense?)

But instead, since you bring up that this may need more tabooing, can you explain what you think you and other people who seek to do good things should do about some bad thing happening, and why that's the best approach?

To kick it off, I hold that [guilt, responsibility, culpability, etc] are features of a badly flawed social/moral protocol that may not be applicable or optimal in this (or any) case. I think moral agents lik... (read more)

[-][anonymous]12y30

Is guilt the only motivator? How about change it because it sucks, never mind who should feel additionally bad.

Oh, of course there is a social message there. I think eridu was asking whether I thought it was genetically determined.

Hmm ... I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for here in terms of "social messages".

Disney movies contain characters having interpersonal cooperation and conflict — which are pretty damn universal in human societies, and we probably have some adaptations for them, at least some of which we accurately observe. Disney movies contain characters using facial expressions of emotion (e.g. wide-eyed interest or attraction; crying to express sadness or upset); etc.

So — Messages such as "cooperation lets you accomplish more than you could accompl... (read more)

Not sufficient evidence. e.g. Eridu may have copy-pasted a sentence from somewhere else, because she/he couldn't bother retyping it -- if it's sincerely meant, it doesn't count as a troll.

Since most humans right now are sexist, if a fact would be sexist in the minds of most humans, we can skip the qualifer and call it sexist.

But it is also a fact. If some research findings are true, and also sexist for this value of sexism, how do you think this should affect our approach to research, given that the facts will remain the same whether we interpret them in a sexist manner or not?

You failed to answer the question. You claimed that some men, and ArisKatsaris in particular, own women's bodies. ArisKatsaris was asking which woman's body he or she owns, since he or she was not aware of this fact and would like to make use of his or her property.

Hmm, a good point. Unfortunately, naturalism and its associated terminology are very useful when discussing evolution and ev-psych -related matters, so I don't see any obvious solution to the problem.

Would it be more strictly accurate to say that "certain media reports on evolutionary psychology are sexist, in the sense of perpetuating harmful myths"?

The evolutionary psychology itself concentrates on finding differences which actually exist; equating this to a false claim in support of other differences is surely the fault of the reporter, not the scientist.

2DaFranker12y
Almost. Assuming "media" there can include peer reviewed high-profile scientific publications, then yes, that's a good chunk of it. Nearly every single article I've read so far, peer-reviewed in a scientific journal or otherwise, that crosses the boundary between analysis of ev-psych and morality to claim that certain things are "good" or "right" (or really, almost any ev-psych-related publication of any form that makes any statement on morality) has almost always contained some form of not-like-others-ism: sexism, racism, political discrimination, etc. Of course, I haven't read all that many articles myself, and most were from non-scientific non-peer-reviewed publications (e.g. Phys.org, which has very amusing user comments for those who find humor in status games and stupidity masquerading as intelligence). Basically, as soon as any claim on morality (or "right"-ness or "good"-ness or "natural"-ness) is made "because Evolutionary Psychology!", shit hits the fan. But is anyone here really surprised by that? It might be true that some behavior arised because of Ev-Psych, just like it might be true that light is made of waves. I see a pattern-match to the student that believes he could swim in Light because it is Waves, if he could only move fast enough.

I hereby dispute (without bothering to actually present evidence of usage) that comments are as central as you imply to the concept of “blog”.

On printing presses not being "free" either (because you have to buy them) well this is getting into the details. However, it may help to distinguish the funding model. Consider two extreme models:

1) Funding comes from a grant or trust, and is used to buy the press, paper, salaries for journalists, press-operators etc. The funder has no say on what content gets printed (it is up to journalists'/editors' discretion). Any proceeds from paper sales get paid back into the trust.

This seems like a case of truly free speech (in both senses of free) beca... (read more)

4kilobug12y
Please note that "the advertiser doesn't have any control of its content" doesn't always hold: advertisers have the power to blackmail editors/newspapers with "if you publish that paper that attacks us, we won't put advertising in your columns anymore". They can exert a form of censorship, and induce self-censorship reactions "no, we won't publish that article about the working conditions in company X, because company X is paying us a lot in advertising and we don't want to upset them" even without company X having to do any explicit blackmail. This is not an easy problem to solve.
4drnickbone12y
Yes, this is why advertising funding is an "interesting" case and falls between the extremes. One solution is "firewalls" between the department selling advertising space and the editorial team, so that explicit threats of blackmail can't get through. The paper might need to show evidence of such firewalls to claim protection for pieces which are labelled as comment but look suspiciously-like paid-for advertising. What is most difficult here is "self-censorship" whereby the editor knows that if he runs a particular story, then the advertising will dry up, and the paper risks going out of business. But this is not in principle different from dilemmas on readership such as "If I run this shocking story about what our troops are up to abroad, then I'll sound unpatriotic, lose readers, and go out of business". There is self-censorship in almost all speech contexts ("If I say that, my friends will think I'm an idiot", "If I post that, it will get down voted"). But the important point is that what emerges through the self-censorship filter is protected. The intuition here is that we don't want to impose even more filters.

Generally speaking, there are fewer upvotes later in a thread, since fewer people read that far. If the children to your comment have more karma then your comment, it's reasonable to assume that people saw both comments and chose to up vote theirs, but if a parent to your comment has more karma, you can't really draw any inference from that at all.

Genuine agreement with whimsical annoyance about having to consider actual situations and connotations.

What about going from "members of subcategory X of category Y are more likely to possess characteristic C" to "In the absence of further information, a particular member of subcategory X is more likely to possess characteristic C than a non-X member of category Y".

You are saying you can't go from probabilistic information to certainty. This is a strawman.

3Decius12y
That only applies if there is an absence of further information. Do you make judgments about what the weather is right now by looking only at historical information, or do you look out the window? Also, if you're going to get into category theory: members of subcategory X of category Y are more likely to possess characteristic C Category A is a subset of category X Category B is mutually exclusive with category X, but a subset of Y Category B is smaller than category A Given only "members of subcategory X of category Y are more likely to possess characteristic C", can you draw a conclusion about whether a random member of category A or category B is more likely to possess characteristic C? Let characteristic C be "will perform above the 75th percentile of CEOs", category X be 'males', category A be 'males who being seriously considered for a CEO position', and category B be 'females and intersex people being considered for a CEO position'. It's only a strawman if it isn't the exact argument being used in the boardroom.

Previously you defined sexism as something which must be inherently unjustified, or else it doesn't fit your defintion.

Now you're effectively said that if "This field of study encourages unjustified actions" is equivalent to "This field of study is unjustified". (in regards to gender matters, i guess).

Since EVERY field of study will effectively directly or indirectly encourage some unjustified actions for some people, you've effectively declared every field of study unjustified.

I suggest you try and do some serious work towards trying t... (read more)

I didn't downvote, but on your 3 examples, only the first one qualifies for me, which can justify downvotes (I didn't because the first one qualifies, making it enough to not be worth a downvote).

"Rethuglican" is not an argument, just a typical pun on words against the ones you don't like, but it doesn't pretend to be a reason to not like republicans, just something democrats say between themselves. It's an happy death spiral, but not a WAitW.

"We are the 99%" doesn't share much of the WAitW features. It doesn't try to sneak in connotations, it doesn't attack an typical example of a cluster by assimilating it with the archetype of the cluster.

I think a rule utilitarian might say that I should evaluate various algorithms for selecting a path and adopt the algorithm that will in general cause me to select paths with the highest overall net utility. Which, yes, is similar to the virtue ethicist (as described here) in that they are both concerned with selecting mechanisms for selecting paths, rather than with selecting paths... but different insofar as "virtuous" != "having high net utility".

[-][anonymous]12y30

Thanks, by the way, for indulging my question and elaborating on something tangential to your point.

Besides, I am smarter than my brain, after all.

This is similar to the 'corrupted hardware' claim insofar as both seem to me to be in tension with the software/hardware metaphor: if your brain is your hardware, and your rational deliberation and reflection is software, then it doesn't make sense to say that the brain isn't as smart as you (the software) are. It wouldn't make sense to say of hardware that it doesn't [sufficiently] perform the functions of ... (read more)

Um... OK. I'm tapping out here.

I declare the Worst Argument In The World to be this: "X is in a category whose archetypal member has certain features. Therefore, we should judge X as if it also had those features, even though it doesn't."

Note, however that "X is in a category whose archetypal member has certain features", is strong evidence that X does in fact have those features. Thus the burden is on the person arguing otherwise to show that it doesn't.

Keep in mind that your brain's corrupted hardware is designed to fail in just this kind of "special plea... (read more)

9fubarobfusco12y
Until some other bozo comes up with a different category. Then we get to play tennis.
2Dan_Moore12y
Whether this is evidence depends on the category and the archetype. For example: Say an alien civilization was familiar with right triangles, but no other kinds of triangles (in Euclidean geometry). Also, they have discovered that a^2 + b^2 = c^2, where a, b & c are the side lengths. Then, they are exposed to a non-right triangle. Using WAW to conclude that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 in the non-right case is wrong 100% of the time. Not evidence in this case. This example also illustrates that WAW does not require a politically charged statement.

How else is one meant to categorise instances, other than by noting that they share features with training data?

Just because (e.g.) archetypal cases of theft have other things wrong with them doesn't mean that theft also isn't wrong qua theft. I think you're just choosing to favour some categories (e.g. benefit/harm) over others.

When you say,

Therefore, even though he is a criminal, there is no reason to dislike King.

I think you bed the question against those who oppose criminality qua criminality.

It's true that you should also consider the advantages of this specific case of theft. But individual exclaimations aren't meant to be complete arguments.

This implies that there is an intrinsic "wrongness" somewhere inside "theft" itself. Where, then, does the human hand reach into the vast void of existence to retrieve this wrongness to which theft is associated?

"Theft", the word, does not have any wrongness. Otherwise, we could use "Borbooka" instead. Let's do that. Does Borbooka have inherent wrongness? Well, what is Borbooka?

Borbooka is, apparently, when an item, which some animals apparently say verbally and apparently implicitly mutually agree is for the exclusive use of "one particular" animal, is moved from one point in spacetime to another point in spacetime such that another animal gains implicit exclusive use of this item without there being an apparent verbal exchange between animals that would apparently make them all understand that both animals "wanted" this item to be displaced thus.

Where, in the Borbooka defined above, is this mystical "wrongness" you insinuate? Are these not all simple conventions and agreements between said animals? Does Borbooka somehow create or destroy matter, or anything at all? If these conventions were not there and all the animals never had the implicit agreement that one item "belonged" to one animal, would Borbooka still be wrong? Would it still even exist?

I thought this was completely covered by a conjunction of the Metaethics and Guide to Words sequences.

3The_Duck12y
He's not implying that theft is intrinsically wrong, but rather that some people really might have something like "all theft is bad, period" as a terminal value. In this case it may not help to point out the differences between taxation and archetypal theft. Probably your best bet in trying to get such a person to support taxation would be argue to them that the benefits of taxation should outweigh the negative utility they assign all instances theft.
4DaFranker12y
I didn't understand his message like that. What you're saying is exactly the core problematic that makes this the Worst Argument In The World. People will assign terminally bad value to something, simply because it is part of X and in their model all X is bad, despite that something only having part of X's "badness". I have a strong urge to reject the "all theft is bad" terminal value as being stupid, incomplete, unworthy, etc., but this urge is Type 1 and I have no idea where the intuition comes from. I don't have enough information, but I'm confident that, in some way, assigning terminal value to such a virtual concept and social norm is either detached from reality, a "floating node" so to speak, or otherwise generates net negative utility somehow, including for the person holding this value. I'll have to think and learn more on this.
6siodine12y
You miss the point. There's the denotation of criminal which includes King, and the connotation of criminal which very rarely includes King. By categorizing King as a criminal, most people will take it to mean "King has committed unlawful acts (denotation) and King is bad (connotation)." People using the worst argument in the world count on this (most of the time probably unknowingly), because without the connotation their argument has no force (or at least not the desired amount) behind it. I.e., the worst argument in the world has the same effect as arguing King is bad even though that was never actually argued.
[-][anonymous]12y30

For most people, beliefs are not supported by arguments at all. If we restrict our analysis to the tiny fraction of abortion opponents whose beliefs are supported by arguments, then I suspect they mostly do believe the Schelling fence argument. All but a tiny minority of that tiny minority believe specious arguments against abortion as well -- so what?

You think I could replace "unfair treatment of a person based on their sex, but it only counts if their sex has been historically disadvantaged" with "unfair treatment of a woman based on her sex" ? I don't think that would pass an ideological Turing test.

8wedrifid12y
I am saying that the subset of feminists that are unsophisticated enough that they exclude unfair treatment of men from their definition of 'sexism' and yet sophisticated enough that the implicit definition in use is actually dependent on history is comparatively small.
9MileyCyrus12y
I don't know what you're talking about. I'd wager 10-1 odds that women the "unsophisticated" feminists who ascribe to the "men can't be victims of sexism view" have more education than the general population. The historical dependency is taught in intro WS classes and feminism 101 blogs; they call it "power plus prejudice." Not all feminists agree with the redefinition, but more than a "comparatively small" number do.
2DaFranker12y
Indeed. There are situations where the layers of belief-in-belief and tribe identity would cause individuals to hold this particular definition, but they most commonly split into: "any unfair treatment where females are treated inferiorly is sexism" (while pressing the Ignore button whenever there are no women victims of unfair treatment), "any inferred difference between genders that can be inferred to have negative connotation towards only women or positive connotation towards only men is sexism" (press Ignore when vice-versa) and "any unfair treatment of someone based on their gender is sexism" ...in increasing order of sophistication, I guess.
If he can unilaterally declare a Worst Argument, then so can I. I declare the Worst Argument In The World to be this: "X is in a category whose archetypal member gives us a certain emotional reaction. Therefore, we should apply that emotional reaction to X, even though it is not a central category member."
Call it the Noncentral Fallacy. It sounds dumb when you put it like that. Who even does that, anyway?

One could go further, and say its basis is often wrong - the central fallacy. Why would our initial, instinctive reaction be the be all, end all?

Yes, our brain also has the a general purpose module, but it's not as effective as the special purpose ones on the problems they are designed for.

They aren't designed, they're shaped by evolution, and evolution is driven by differential reproduction, which is larger for more widely applicable improvements.

That is also what the ethics theory would predict.

How so? Did you read my link? Two people are making a bet on a trait. If results gone other way, would ethics theory predict that too?

It doesn't explain why some cards and not others seem releva

... (read more)

I don't even see how to phrase your position coherently.

There's far more hypotheses which a human updates on when learning in the early life than there are genes, so there's simply not enough genes to address priors to hypotheses individually. A lot in the human body (minor blood vessels, details in the fingerprint patterns, etc) is not set by genes - most of the fine detail isn't individually controlled by genes.

But there are genes that control how strong synapses are under what conditions, and there are genes that control the conditions in different

... (read more)

The same way the hunger module interfaces with the learned language circuitry when someone tells you there is cake in the fridge.

There's no specific "eat cake" module there, it's learned that cake reduces hunger, that's the whole point.

The cute answer is actually more revealing than you think and might help resolve this conversation.

Astronomy lets you predict the way celestial objects move in the sky. You can trivially extend this to weak!Astrology, which just asserts that the movement of the celestial bodies has some kind of systematic causal impact on the way humans behave. However, you would quite reasonably take issue with strong!Astrology, which makes specific, detailed, wrong claims about the nature and extent of these interactions, as well as the general sloppy standards of the fi... (read more)

You misunderstand me. Dspeyer used it above as an example of a non-central fallacy, implying that Ev Psych is not very much like what science is. I meant to disagree. To the extent of my awareness, Ev Psych makes predictions and tests them, and goes on to build up theories, making it a typical example of a science.

I'm not so sure when you say it doesn't specifically use evolutionary theory in the same way Biologists normally do, and thus it's not a science. Even if that were true, that's like saying Meteorology isn't a science because they don't always us... (read more)

For what it's worth, I quibbled with this at the time, but now I find it an incredibly useful concept. I still wish it had a more transparent name -- we always call it "the worst argument in the world", and can't remember "noncentral fallacy", but it's been really useful to have a name for it at all.

Nope. You're looking for the paper by Tooby and Cosmides.

Then there's another half--when the wrongness of something is missed because it does not (technically by an approximate dictionary definition) fall into a pre-existing category in the 'Wrong Cluster'. Examples: Forced consent, dishonesty that's 'technically not lying', extortion that's 'technically not stealing' getting a free ride.

So we have a general 'linguistic ethical determinism' (better name anybody?) fallacy, wherein something is considered wrong if and only if it comes under an existing Category of Wrong according to a pedantic definition. (This is... (read more)

It could almost pass as an article on the Onion.

The paper could've been called "The Biological Foundations of Culture" and it would've been more accurate. Read it before saying that.

Sure, in principle.

That said, at the risk of getting political, my usual reaction when I hear people complain about legislation that provides "special benefits" for queers (a common real-world idea that has some commonality with the accusation of having embraced an equal-and-opposite bias) is that the complainers don't really have a clue what they're talking about, and that the preferential bias they think they see is simply what movement towards equality looks like when one is steeped in a culture that pervasively reflects a particular kind of inequality.

And I suspect this is not unique to queers.

So, yeah, I think you're probably being uncharitable.

In my great foresight i already basically wrote up the long one before deciding to go with the above, so i'll just finish that now.

what is your preferred language?

That would be English.

In case that wasn't what you meant to learn: i was raised with German as my first and only language. At eleven years old, i began learning English at a German secondary school. A few years later (uncertain how many exactly) i began to actually learn English, outside school, mostly using literature and internet content. And yes that's primarily written language. Speaking ... (read more)

Well, some recent hindsight analysis (during the eridu radical-feminist debacle) allowed me to notice that it seems highly likely that nearly all female feminists I've encountered in person with common knowledge of such were mostly of the kind that had one or few strong very bad near-type personal experiences with men, or many small but memorable such near-type experiences. The kinds you'd probably expect from a stereotypical scenario of "The Father is Master and Law of the House" or a poor waitress working late shifts at a café on the same stree... (read more)

6t-E11y
Depending on how bad you consider "very bad" and how memorable you consider "memorable" as to make this "kind" be applicable to a woman, it might be the case that a significant part of all women (regardless whether feminist) are of this kind. There might even be studies or what backing such claims up, though right now i'm not inclined to search for any.
2t-E11y
I don't know that 'debacle' and there seems to be a lot of content that could be part of it (you meant something in the comments of this same article apparently). If you think it is very relevant, i'd be grateful for one or several specific links to start from. Where can i find out what "near-type" means here? This appears important enough to postpone my reply to this part. I didn't mean it in that way. And i think the feminist movement, as a whole or in part, doesn't necessarily want to be lightly told by men what behaviour is or is not "furthering their goals" =P (This instance seems to me like one in which you did so lightly, because it didn't seem highly relevant / on-topic.)
9metaphysicist11y
It refers to "near-mode," which is jargon in construal-level theory for "construed concretely." So in context, it means direct and involving personal experience, as opposed to reading or discussing abstractly. Robin Hanson applies construal-level theory speculatively in numerous posts at Overcoming Bias. A concise summary of construal-level theory can be found in my posting "Construal-level theory: Matching linguistic register to the case's granularity.".
4TheOtherDave11y
It's difficult, because many of eridu's comments were "deleted" by site mods who very much wanted that discussion to stop. I suspect your best bet is to browse their user page (where the comments remain visible) if you're really interested, but roughly speaking: eridu self-identified as a radical feminist who endorsed dismantling patriarchy, and ended up in a very confrontational series of exchanges with several LW contributors that were widely considered low-value.
2wedrifid11y
I certainly considered them low value but to be fair the reception was mixed. Some went as far as to say it was the best and most informative discussion of any related concepts that they had seen on lesswrong. This confused some people but there was definitely a non-trivial minority who valued it.
2TheOtherDave11y
(nods) Yes, this is absolutely true, and worth saying explicitly. Thanks.
2DaFranker11y
Near mode, Far mode - In rough vulgarization, Near mode is immediate observation and sensation, Far mode is abstract knowledge of something. As for that last, yeah. I was merely spelling out my own reasoning. Saying something like that is exactly the kind of behavior I'd expect to cause the kind of reactions / treatment / behavior I've described in earlier posts.

I just meant that a non-feminist trying to pass a feminist Turing test would get nicked if they used the ""unfair treatment of a woman based on her sex" definition, but would probably get away with "unfair treatment of a person based on their sex, but it only counts if their sex has been historically disadvantaged." There's a difference between the definitions a well-read feminist would pick up on.

From Finally Feminism 101:

Sexism is both discrimination based on gender and the attitudes, stereotypes, and the cultural elements that promote this discrimination. Given the historical and continued imbalance of power, where men as a class are privileged over women as a class (see male privilege), an important, but often overlooked, part of the term is that sexism is prejudice plus power. Thus feminists reject the notion that women can be sexist towards men because women lack the institutional power that men have.

This is a fairly mainstream feminist bl... (read more)

5fubarobfusco11y
Many readers may expect that an "-ism" refers to a belief, as in "fundamentalism", "theism", or "Darwinism". However, "-ism" can also refer to a social institution or practice, as in "capitalism" or "communism". A capitalist economy isn't just one whose participants have capitalist beliefs — it's an economy that is structured in a particular way, with people actually playing the economic roles of investor, entrepreneur, employee, etc. Similarly, terms such as "sexism" or "racism" can refer not only to biased beliefs about sex or race, but to sorts of social institutions in which some people exercise political power over others on the basis of their sex or race. Since there is a clear answer to the question, "Historically, which sex has exercised political power over the other in human culture?" the question "Who can be sexist?" seems to be dissolved and there is no need to argue definitions. (Yes, some folks do use "sexist" as a near-synonym for "evil", just as some libertarians use "socialist" as a near-synonym for "evil" — I've heard it asserted that monarchy is "socialist" because it doesn't respect individual liberty, for instance. But we don't have to take that kind of silliness seriously.)
4t-E11y
First, you didn't clearly answer my question, but i assume that you now imply that you indeed did imply that you think it would pass. Second, it wasn't stated in my previous comment, but i was and am aware of the power plus prejudice definitions. You seem to assume here that i was not. Third, and most importantly, i still believe that it would not pass, as i noted in my parens remark. This is because i think that none of "[institutional] power" or "prejudice" [against a group] can adequately be described as "historical disadvantage" alone. When they write "institutional power" as well as "power plus prejudice", they decidedly are not referring to something that lies purely in the past (indeed the present-day components are arguably the most important, though not the only interesting, ones) . The adjective "historical" in your usage seems to me to be incompatible to that.
2MileyCyrus11y
Fair point, the feminist definition is more detailed then how I described it.
3DaFranker11y
So if I work in an office where men are required to wear ties and a specific type of business shirt, both in specific variants that are particularly uncomfortable to wear, but women are free to dress as they want... ...the standard feminist argument is that there is no sexism here, because the men are the ones who historically had the power, and this is a perfectly valid and moral situation? Does the gender of the person imposing these rules (AKA The Boss) change the game? Does it suddenly become sexism if it's a woman imposing the rules and they all live in an isolated tribe that cut off all links with the history and past of the rest of the world? That's without even broaching the sensitive subject of the apparent complete lack of Schelling point for where exactly women start becoming capable of sexism towards men once/if they overturn the current "institutional power that men have". I can't reasonably discuss that point with a feminist woman, because she's a woman and I'm a man, so I am a priori wrong and attempting to subjugate her by broaching that subject.
5TheOtherDave11y
I usually model the standard feminist position as saying that the net sexism in a system is a function of the differential benefits provided to men and women over the system as a whole, and a sexist act is one that results in an increase of that differential. On that model, the question then becomes whether your office's dress code serves to narrow the differential, to widen it, or neither. Using that model gets me: * The gender of The Boss almost certainly doesn't matter. * Cutting off all links with history (including those links implemented in the habits and preconceptions of the people working in your office) would change the equation, but it's hard to predict in what direction; in any event it's hard to imagine people continuing to show up for work, and I'm not quite convinced they'd continue to wear clothes either. * If we assume for convenience that the only effect of the dress code is to increase the freedom of women compared to men, then implementing that dress code is not a sexist act. * It's not necessarily moral or valid, it's just not sexist. There exist immoral non-sexist acts. I expect it would not be difficult to find self-described feminists who would agree with all of that, if I presented it properly. (I also expect it would not be difficult to find self-described feminists who would disagree with all of that.)
3DaFranker11y
Thanks for the critical analysis! On the one hand, the people that would agree with all of that make me bash my head against a wall while wishing said head was a selective neural disruptor that would fry their brains. On the other hand, lots of people make me do that for many reasons. Including my past selves, sometimes. This seems like it could be an example of someone picking the wrong fight if they wrongly used categories and definitions and then ended up in an anti-epistemic spiral after rationalizing a wrong move the first time the question came up. This would explain the scenario(s) I refer to in the last paragraph of the grandparent.
2TheOtherDave11y
Suppose, hypothetically, that I agree with all of that. Can you summarize what it is about that agreement that makes you, hypothetically, commit violence against yourself and/or wish to kill me?

I'll take a shot.

What we choose to measure affects what we choose to do. If I adopt the definition above, and I ask a wish machine to "minimize sexism", maybe it finds that the cheapest thing to do is to ensure that for every example of institutional oppression of women, there's an equal and opposite oppression of men. That's...not actually what I want.

So let's work backwards. Why do I want to reduce sexism? Well, thinking heuristically, if we accept as a given that men and women are interchangeable for many considerations, we can assume that anyone treating them differently is behaving suboptimally. In the office in the example, the dress code can't be all that helpful to the work environment, or the women would be subject to it. Sexism can be treated as a pointer to "cheap opportunities to improve people's lives". The given definition cuts off that use.

6TheOtherDave11y
I certainly agree that telling a wish machine to "minimize sexism" can have all kinds of negative effects. Telling it to "minimize cancer" can, too (e.g., it might ensure that a moment before someone would contract cancer, they spontaneously disintegrate). It's not clear to me what this says about the concepts of "cancer" or "sexism," though. I agree that optimizing the system is one reason I might want to reduce sexism, and that insofar as that's my goal, I care about sexism solely as a pointer to opportunities for optimization, as you suggest. I would agree that it's not necessarily the best such pointer available, but it's not clear to me how the given definition cuts off that use. It's also not clear to me how any of that causes the violent reaction DaFranker describes. If you can unpack your thinking a little further in those areas, I'd be interested.
5MBlume11y
"Sexism" is a short code. Not only that, it's a short code which has already been given a strong negative affective valence in modern society. Fights about its definition are fights about how to use that short code. They're fights over a resource. That code doesn't even just point to a class of behaviors or institutions -- it points to an argument, an argument of the form "these institutions favor this gender and that's bad for these reasons". Some people would like it to point more specifically to an argument that goes something like "If, on net, society gives more benefits to one gender, and puts more burdens on the other, then that's unfair, and we should care about fairness." Others would like it to point to "If someone makes a rule that applies differently to men and women, there's a pretty strong burden of proof that they're not making a suboptimal rule for stupid reasons. Someone should probably change that rule". The fight is over which moral argument will come to mind quickly, will seem salient, because it has the short code "sexism". If I encounter a company where the men have a terrible dress code applied to them, but there's one woman's restroom for every three men's restroom, the first argument might not have much to say, but the second might move me to action. Someone who wants me to be moved to action would want me to have the second argument pre-cached and available. In particular, I'm not a fan of the first definition, because it motivates a great big argument. If there's a background assumption that "sexism" points to problems to be solved, then the men and the women in the company might wind up in a long, drawn-out dispute over whose oppression is worse, and who is therefore a target of sexism, and deserving of aid. The latter definition pretty directly implies that both problems should be fixed if possible.
3Bugmaster11y
I think one possible answer is that your model of sexism, while internally consistent, is useless at best and harmful at worst, depending on how you interpret its output. If your definition of sexism is completely orthogonal to morality, as your last bullet point implies, then it's just not very useful. Who cares if certain actions are "sexist" or "blergist" or whatever ? We want to know whether our goals are advanced or hindered by performing these actions -- i.e., whether the actions are moral -- not whether they fit into some arbitrary boxes. On the other hand, if your definition implies that sexist actions very likely to be immoral as well, then your model is broken, since it ignores about 50% of the population. Thus, you are more likely to implement policies that harm men in order to help women; insofar as we are all members of the same society, such policies are likely to harm women in the long run, as well, due to network effects. EDIT: Perhaps it should go without saying, but in the interests of clarity, I must point out that I have no particular desire to commit violence against anyone. At least, not at this very moment.
4TheOtherDave11y
It does? Hm. I certainly didn't intend for it to. And looking at it now, I don't see how it does. Can you expand on that? I mean, if I X isn't murder, it doesn't follow that X is moral... there exist immoral non-murderous acts. But in saying that, I don't imply that murder is completely orthogonal to morality. This seems more apposite. Yes, absolutely, if my only goal is to reduce benefit differentials between groups A and B, and A currently benefits disproportionately, then I am likely to implement policies that harm A. Not necessarily, of course... I might just happen to implement a policy that benefits everyone, but that benefits B more than A, until parity is reached. But within the set S of strategies that reduce benefit differentials, the subset S1 of strategies that also benefit everyone (or even keep benefits fixed) is relatively small, so a given S is unlikely to be in S1. Of course, it's also true that within the set S2 of strategies that benefit everyone, S1 is also relatively small, so if my only goal is to benefit everyone it's likely I will increase benefit differentials between A and B. What seems to follow is that if I value both overall benefits and equal access to benefits, I need to have them both as goals, and restrict my choices to S1. This ought not be surprising, though. I didn't think you did. DaFranker expressed such a desire, and identified the position I described as its cause, and I was curious about that relationship (which he subsequently explained). I wasn't attributing it to anyone else.
2Bugmaster11y
You said, This makes sense, but you never mentioned that sexist actions are immoral, either. I do admit that I interpreted your comment less charitably than I should have. Yes, and you may not even do so deliberately. You may think you're implementing a strategy in S1, but if your model only considers people in B and not A, then you are likely to be implementing a strategy in S without realizing it. I think he was speaking metaphorically, but I'm not him... Anyway, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't accidentally threatening anyone.

I'd considered the possibility, but the fact that the parents were significantly net-upvoted made it seem churlish to attribute downvotes simply to the thread it's in. It seems more plausible now that you (and at least one other person) have endorsed it.

people are terrible at separating normative and empirical claims

That's a much broader problem than the misunderstanding and misuse of evo. psych. I think one of the major aims of humanism/transhumanism should be getting more people to understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive statements -- between is and ought. And, given how pervasive that confusion is across human cultures, the roots of it might be a fruitful area of investigation for evo. psych., along with other branches of cognitive science.

I can't help but notice that at lea... (read more)

His estimate of the work involved might be too high as well, but I don't know enough about the field to make anything other than a guess.

As for my reasons for believing that his estimate of the benefits is too low, I discussed it on other threads, but the gist of it is as follows:

1). If we are going to commit a large amount of resources to sweeping social changes, we need to know as much as possible before we pull the trigger, especially if the trigger is connected to the firing pin on the "ban sexual intercourse" cannon (that metaphor was, perha... (read more)

3TimS11y
I just want to clarify that I don't advocate banning heterosexual intercourse. Even if I agree slightly more with eridu than you about how coercive ordinary sexual encounters are experienced.
2Bugmaster11y
Yes, my bad, I did not want to imply that you advocated anything of the sort.

I should clarify that it seems not only infeasible in the short term but lacks anything resembling a clear path to get there. And while an uncharitable person might say the same about CEV, SIAI working on CEV doesn't involve forcing everyone else to change their patterns of social interaction in service of goals that are not clearly defined.

I think eridu wants secondary sex characteristics to stop being morally relevant (i.e. never treat women different than men). I think that's impossible - but society is not careful about what really is a secondary sex characteristic.

If you uncover differences it may be a good idea to look at their origins...

I think it's pretty obvious that there are many differences between genders. Even eridu would agree to this, IMO, since his stated objective is to eliminate gender in order to eliminate the differences.

Any difference large and widespread enough to make group-level rather than individual-level policy should hit you between the eyes.

That's just a recipe for indulging your own biases, IMO. That said, I doubt that differences between gender currently justify group-level policy... (read more)

I know people of various ancestries, including near-pure Jews and near-pure Aryans. The Jews are not less creative, weaker, sneakier, greedier, less heroic, or more bent on world domination than the Aryans...

Ok, so what this sounds like to me is, "I'd go out and do a bunch of research, in order to work around my biases by using ironclad evidence". As far as I understand, eridu claims that people would just use the evidence selectively to justify their biases, instead. For example, they might notice that the crime rate in NY is higher than in o... (read more)

So what is your opinion on transpeople?

This is the fallacy of gray.

Okay, fair enough. It's very plausible to me that most of our problems relate to socialization rather than biology. But you seem to be implying they are 100% sociological, which seems wrong.

How would you like this to occur?

To put it another way, what stops you from murdering somebody you dislike?

That isn't putting it another way, it's a different question entirely.

The (bad feeling of) fear of getting caught? The (bad feeling of) remorse from taking a human's life?

Is that what stops you murdering (more) people? Remorse? Who did you kill last time?

Since it's easier to leave, a dictator in a forum has more motivation not to abuse his power.

what stops you from murdering somebody you dislike?

As for me, the fact that if murdering somebody one dislikes were right, then one would have to be extra careful to never be disliked by anybody (if one doesn't want to be killed), and that would be a lot nastier than people one dislikes staying alive. (Yes, that would make no sense to CDTists, but people aren't CDTists anyway.)

Would you mind being in a prison that enabled you to do those things?

Yes. If this were many years ago and I weren't so conversant on the massive differences between the ways different humans see the world, I'd be very confused that you even had to ask that question.

Would you sell possessions to buy weapons to attack a person would runs an online voluntary community who changes the rules without consulting anyone?

No. There are other options. At the moment I'm still vainly hoping that Eliezer will see reason. I'm strongly considering just dropping out.

Freedom is never a terminal value. If you dig a bit, you should be able to explain why freedom is important/essential in particular circumstances.

Ironically, the appearance of freedom can be a default terminal value for humans and some other animals, if you take evolutionary psychology seriously. Or, to be more accurate, the appearance of absence of imposed restrictions can be a default terminal value that receives positive reinforcement cookies in the brain of humans and some other animals. Claustrophobia seems to be a particular subset of this that au... (read more)

I'd be cautious about saying something's never a terminal value. Given my model of the EEA, it wouldn't be terribly surprising to me if some set of people did have poor reactions to certain types of external constraint independently of their physical consequences, though "freedom" and its various antonyms seem too broad to capture the way I'd expect this to work.

Someone's probably studied this, although I can't dig up anything offhand.

2shminux11y
I take back the "never" part, it is way too strong. What I meant to say is that the probability of someone proclaiming that freedom is her terminal value not having dug deep enough to find her true terminal values is extremely high.
2Nornagest11y
That seems reasonable. Especially given how often freedom gets used as an applause light.

I agree that freedom is an instrumental value. I disagree that it is never a terminal value. It is constitutive of the good life.

Right, but that doesn't mean they tend to be beneficial, either. We're not arguing over which dictator is the worst, but whether dictators in forums are diametrically opposed to their real-world cousins.

Taboo "feeling bad", keeping in mind that our normal emotional vocabulary is pretty inadequate. (E.g., it seems to me that shame is basically never useful, but guilt and sadness can be.)

If you grandstand about how a socially-approved and very mild punishment for doing bad things is Evil Boundary-violating Control, people who care about those bad things are less likely to let you alone than to switch to harsher punishments.

Not necessarily. Wild-eyed idealists, being idealists, are markedly biased towards shaming folks for whatever it is that they consider "bad". Shaming and guilt-tripping people is not even particularly hard for them, since their whole worldview is often based on these emotions; whereas applying harsher puni... (read more)

Right, I know what tumblr.com is, but I still don't know what a "tumblr-feminist" is.

No, you're confusing liberal feminism with radical feminism.

I don't think I am, that's why I said "every liberal feminist..." above. My point was that, counter to what you said, liberal feminists would be strongly against "compulsory sexuality", and definitely against objectification of women along any other property (including sex).

Actually, I would maybe characterize that as the fundamental split between radical and liberal feminists

... (read more)
3TimS12y
Two points from my perspective: First, that which eridu calls tumblr-feminism is probably what I would call "not feminism." People who invoke The Rules or who think being sexually forward is taking control of their sexuality are seldom actual doing anything to reduce patriarchy. Popular culture may call Snooki a "strong female," but she is not following a feminist program. Second, I agree with you that eridu's philosophy seems incredibly essentialist. I just want to note that I don't think Dworkin is essentialist, although she can be read that way.

If you grandstand

Which of course begs the question about why you were attacking that particular straw man.

The optimal approach for dealing with enemies who are presumed to have more power than you seems rather irrelevant. Unless the relevance you imply is that radical feminists with an obsession for shame based control already represent a powerful hostile force that we would be foolish to resist? In that case I would of course agree that my words to members of that group would be best served keeping them misinformed about the effectiveness of their strategy of enforcement. All else being equal it tends to be better to keep powerful enemies ineffective.

3MixedNuts11y
Okay, my point was that if you accept that people are going to try to control you, it's rather silly to complain about that means. But apparently you classify all people who attempt to control you as enemies. I suppose that's a consistent view, and compatible with civilization if you allow control to enforce an agreed-upon set of laws. But it doesn't seem to allow for progress. If someone discovers that marital rape is not okay, contrary to mainstream belief, what are they supposed to do? Publishing a paper entitled "Psychological effects of nonconsensual sex between spouses" would count as informing rather than controlling; it would also be vastly less effective than making marital rape illegal, portraying characters who rape their spouses as horrible monsters, and shaming rapists. If someone tries to control me and I disagree with their position, my answer is not "By attempting to control me you have made yourself my enemy", but "I don't agree that bestiality is cruel to animals, so I will fight your attempts to make it unacceptable, but I don't disapprove of these attempts on principle. For example, I agree with your subargument about indecent exposure, so Knuckles here and I are going to get a room".
8DaFranker11y
I don't think this is evident enough to be affirmed without supporting evidence. There's evidence that such laws and shame-guilt-tripping might be much less effective than publishing a good comprehensive paper. Prime example: Videogame piracy. Strong IP laws. Massive attempts at guilt-trip and manipulation of mass populace. Observed effect: No measurable effect of the laws and anti-piracy measures, and a continued growth of piracy. The growth is most likely attributable to other causes. On the flipside, dev companies that have announced that they won't do anything against piracy have seen considerable advertisement boosts from it and have on average enjoyed much greater success thanks to this.
[-][anonymous]12y20

If you want a more in-depth view of heterosexual sex under patriarchy, I recommend Intercourse by Andrea Dworkin.

For what it's worth, I second this recommendation. But the book is mostly literary criticism.

Ah, yes. Thanks for making this clear.

This, incidentally, reminds me of the rule of Ko, since I only learned to play Go yesterday. It seems like there's a meta pattern of the baby-eater becoming the wide-eyed-idealist when you consider the boundary-violating control as the baby-eating and the ball starts bouncing around while both camps conscript soldiers and muster armies and continuously threaten other elements of their opposition while looking for something that invalidates the other's morality.

Sure. And the other baby-eaters look at that and stop eating babies where the wide-eyed idealist can find out about it, because the idealist has made a credible threat.

Well, if the wide-eyed idealists are a lot more powerful than the baby-eaters, probably. But if the wide-eyed idealists are less powerful than the baby-eaters, then the baby-eaters may instead be provoked into a war on wide-eyed-idealists, because even if they lose out more in the short term by waging such a war than by putting an end to their baby-eating, they'd be sending the signal that they won't let extremist minorities dictate values to the majority.

Seeing the absolute claim like that prompted me to think of a whole list of real world counter-examples

That is something I find a standard but rather annoying geek conversational failure. You could simply have answered your own question:

Are you using 'never' in a figurative sense here?

with "yes". But "figurative" does not really capture it. All apparently absolute generalisations are relative to their context. Are there substantial exceptions relevant to the context?

Now, on further consideration I might indeed revise my original ... (read more)

But I also think that there's a lot of male privilege that LWers deny exists.

Well, sure. Privilege -- which I'll call by that name here, though I really prefer the "blind spots" framing -- is such a culture-bound thing that just about any natural group of people is going to be aware of a different subset. Given how my friends who're into social justice tend to argue with each other, I suspect this is even true for subcultures that explicitly idealize identifying mechanisms of privilege that don't apply to them directly.

Yes, if you somehow ma... (read more)

I see this as virtually identical to EY's and the SIAI's stance on AGI research.

I agree, which is why I think that both you and EY/SIAI are equally wrong. I believe that the utility of "publishing true facts" -- and, by extension, learning which facts are true to begin with -- greatly exceeds the utility of advancing any given cause (at least, in the long term). Without having accurate models at your disposal, you cannot effectively pursue your goals.

For example, consider quantum physics. Given its potential for unimaginable destruction, would... (read more)

I'm unwilling to do the requisite amount of hand-holding that you really have to do to get men to admit that there might be a point to feminism.

To be fair, your task is much more difficult, since you're attempting to convert us men to radical feminism, specifically. Thus, you must overcome not only our innate desire to keep our privilege, but also the efforts of liberal feminists who explicitly deny some of your claims.

Speaking as a non-feminist (radical or otherwise) man, though, I must say that I find your description of your views to be clear and coh... (read more)

And "lesswrong.com" just went from my bookmarks to my speed dial. Anyway, I would like to say that rather than your hypothetical and "ideal" retort of "MLK was the good kind of criminal," I would prefer the more sophisticated response you put forth for other situations, but more generalized: "I fail to see how that is relevant."

"But... but... abortion is MURDER!" (Please note that I am against abortion for reasons I categorically refuse to discuss due to several harrowing experiences on spacebattles.com forums, although this site seems much more civil) "I fail to see how that is relevant."

My posts have been deleted? Interesting.

Mostly. They no longer appear in the threads in which you made them, but are still visible in your user history.

This is using "feminism" as a proxy for "intelligence" and is other than that swap a fairly standard ad-hominem argument.

I disagree that asking you questions about your beliefs constitutes an insult. Your beliefs are (probably) wildly unusual as compared to those of the average Less Wrong member, and thus a simple label for them does not exist. For example, if you said, "I'm a deontologist", we'd instantly know what you meant; but we don't know what "I'm a radical feminist" means. Thus, all the questions.

This is

... (read more)

Do you doubt that content people whine less?

If you treat men and women identically, you are being patriarchal because you are ignoring how the same behavior can have different consequences when emitted towards a male-socialized or women-socialized person.

Okay. I have no idea how this would happen, concretely. I have never seen any evidence of this. My prior towards this being true is extremely small.

The closest match I have is: If I act identically towards men and women, and some people are biased or uninformed, they might perceive my behavior differently or it might have different consequences ... (read more)

I'm not sure I understand why you use the word "discontinuity" here. In mathematical language, it's easy to have a continuous function of perpetually-rising value that never reaches a certain value - just put an asymptote.

If instances of dust specks are being counted in this manner, it's pretty easy to have the asymptote always be inferior to the torture-time.

...but I'm probably misunderstanding part of the discussion, on second thought.

I think it's pretty obvious that evand mean "abortion opponents," not "abortion proponents." Make that correction and the rest of the comment is accurate.

I agree that there are downsides, they just don't seem that terrible..

What about the never-ending meta discussions, or are you counting on those dying down soon? Because I wouldn't, unless the new policy is either dropped, or an extensive purge of the commentariat is carried out.

I've been skimming some of the proposed literature, and I still don't see any concrete examples of things I do that support patriarchy. Using language that reinforces male "possession" of the female body? Nope, and I've actually taught women how to avoid using this language. Behaving positively towards female behaviors that encourage females to submit to a particular view of how they should behave and dress in order to achieve anything? Nope, and I essentially don't even like most of the standard models (the typical examples of high heels, make-u... (read more)

An alternative possibility, that may have the same or a similar effect, is to auto-close the children of heavily downvoted posts when they appear on the "Recent Comments" window. Adding an extra step to reply to such a post will tend to reduce the number of replies that is gets, and will clearly signal to the reader that the post is, in fact, the child of a heavily downvoted post.

I have no idea if this possibility will be better or worse than the heritable penalties (nor, for that matter, which option would be easier to implement).

3Bugmaster12y
Could we change the "Recent Comments" box to say "Recent Threads", instead, with a count of updated comments, net karma, and most recent poster for each thread as usual ? For example, something like this: EliezerYudkowsky on Meta-note: Right now... by EliezerYudkowsky on The Worst Argument In The World | 7k, 2 new Mugbuster on You all smell... by Obvious_Troll on The Worst Argument In The World | -15k, 18 new This tells me that Eliezer commented on a thread that he started, and the thread is generally positively rated, though low-volume, so I might click it. On the other hand, Mugbuster commented on a high-volume thread that has cumulative -15 karma, which means that it's probably a trolling thread, and I should stay out of it.
2Eliezer Yudkowsky12y
That one's in progress, I think. Also, to reply to a comment elsewhere in thread, obviously penalties are not going to be charged retrospectively if an ancestor later goes to -3. Nobody has proposed this. Navigating the LW rules is not intended to require precognition.
6spuckblase12y
Well, it was required when (negative) karma for Main articles increased tenfold.

Can't speak for eridu, but I suspect this is true.
That said, I expect it's true of higher mathematics as well.
Which is not to say I consider the fields equivalent; not everything hard to understand is hard to understand for the same reasons.

Other than the elimination of gender, you mean ?

Well, I'm assuming here that radical feminism isn't proposing the elimination of structures associated with gender for shits and giggles, but rather believes that eliminating those structures will improve people's lives in ways that feminisms wishing to maintain them can't.

That sounds like an unconventional definition of the word "lie", at best.

Let's imagine that you asked me whether I owned a car, and I said "yes". Unbeknownst to me, my car had been utterly obliterated by a meteorite strike five minutes prior. Did I lie ?

To any radical, if you don't have an image problem, you're doing it wrong.

Just so I understand... is the underlying model here that:
a) the radical has certain goals, and society is such that the optimal path for achieving those goals will reliably result in an image problem;
b) the radical has certain goals, and while it's possible to achieve those goals without creating an image problem, anyone who achieves those goals that way isn't a radical;
c) the radical has the goal of challenging society, in addition to other goals they may or may not have; if soc... (read more)

2TimS12y
I resent the implication that I think current social roles and gender norms are not fucked up. Or that I think incremental change is inherently more desirable than radical change. I find Desrtopa's paragraph that eridu quoted highly problematic - but it's just too hard to articulate why to an audience that doesn't think historical contingency of moral values is a vitally important issue in any moral discussion.
[-][anonymous]12y20

Can all deontologists be dutch booked? Then it means something other than what I'm thinking of. (unless I'm confused. I haven't though this thru)

Not all consequentialists choose torture either. (in duck specks I assume). Pretty sure all utilitarians do tho.

The way I'm using those words is essentially consequentialism=expected utility maximization with a utility function that does not prescribe specific behaviours or thought patterns. and deontologism=holding some non-EU set of ethical/behavioural rules as fundamental (usally stuff like "moral duty to do X in Y situation" and whatnot)

By this line of reasoning, would you be willing to concede that there exists some minds among the vast space of possible human minds for which these facts you consider sexist are not sexist?

If so, would you be willing to reconsider your hypothesis that all human males not currently identifying as feminist must necessarily be subconsciously applying sexist methodologies and control schemes? Would you be willing to change your mind (on some statements made elsewhere in this thread)?

For the record, I am saying this in (perceived) full awareness of the hypocri... (read more)

[-][anonymous]12y20

I have likewise been an actual anarchist in actual IRL anarchist communities, and I don't see where you are coming from with that.

[-][anonymous]12y20

I can safely presume that anyone identifying as an anarchist but not a feminist is being dishonest with themselves.

currents within the anarchist mileu often disavow feminism both personally and as an implication of anarchism, since anarchism is for "freedom for everyone" and feminism is for "freedom for women."

Wait, what? I'm confused, how do these not contradict?

or that "Identity politics is a waste of time."

Is that intended to fall under the "(false) claim" modifier?

It's annoying that less wrong's reddit instance doesn't hyperlink raw links, but I dislike hiding what I'm linking to, so... sorry if you're too lazy to cut and paste, I suppose.

That's easily fixed - just write the link like [url](url).

[-][anonymous]12y20

Well, if you don't tell anyone else and don't publish it anywhere, you could trivially keep anything secret. But then, why would anyone bother to research such stuff in the first place? (Other than personal benefit, I mean.)

This is the scenario I'm talking about.

Presumably, if you found yourself in a field where you constantly couldn't publish things because of your consequentialist ethics, you'd switch fields (or ethics).

[-][anonymous]12y20

I could give you a link to my website, or the website of any of my colleagues, but you still wouldn't know what they're working on at any given time.

In my particular group, the whole group knows in general what everyone's current project is, but only small subgroups know the particulars of each project, and individual people within a focus might work on something individually for a long while.

So, in my experience, it'd be pretty trivial for me to entirely discard some set of findings I disliked (and this happens a lot for accepted reasons, like "I can't publish this"), and the Internet doesn't really change that.

[-][anonymous]12y20

I am presently employed as a researcher at a major university. Do you know what I've worked on in the last year? Do you think anyone on the Internet does?

If a scientist (read: professor or grad student at a university in almost all cases) wanted to keep a finding secret, they could trivially do so.

I acknowledge that the theoretical distinction between sex and gender is not universally accepted, but I think the distinction is incredibly useful. I'm talking about physical causes of gender roles, and it's essentially impossible to deny that they exist. The fact that "able to get pregnant" != "woman" is irrelevant to my argument - and I reject any assertion that the exceptions deserve the negative moral judgments that society places on them.

If some feminists would like to totally ignore physical facts, I assert their political tactics are likely to be ineffective. In terms of outreach, acknowledging physical facts and dismissing their relevance is more effective than denying the physical facts exist.

Briefly checked it, and it looks like straw-economics to me. (I stopped reading at the point where they claimed that economists assume no barriers to entry.)

I don't get it either. Seems to happen every time politics is brought up. My own posts in this thread have gone up and down several times. Reflexive down voting over politics I can understand, even if I think it's silly.

The up votes are actually harder to explain. It's possible I could have educated some one, but given the people who post here, that seems doubtful.

Everyone agrees on that fact. But the relevant question, when I'm deciding whether it would be good on net to regulate an industry, is whether the jobs in a state of economic nature (bargained down in terms of wages and working conditions to just better than the marginal employee's best alternative) are worse for the general welfare than the regulated jobs (and the associated economic tradeoffs) would be.

Sometimes regulation is clearly a win for society (like the workplace safety regulations in the US following the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire and othe... (read more)

I'm not sure if I'd go all the way to good. Only an improvement over nothing

Why is "nothing" the alternative to compare a given job to?

When people complain about a job, they generally don't say "I wish I was unemployed", they say things like "I wish I was paid more" or "I wish I wasn't forced to work as many hours for fear of losing my job" or "I wish I had better working conditions".

To compare any job to unemployment seems to be missing the point of such complaints. It's not that the people would prefer unemployment. They'd prefer a better job.

Are you assuming perfect rationality on the part of the actors?

Sexism can mean a whole bunch of different things. It's not a simple binary predicate: this is sexist, that isn't. In general, I mean a cluster of attitudes and actions that harm people based on their sex. Usually, its women being harmed, but definitely not always.

Affirmative action is, of course, an interesting case. On its face, it involves advantaging one group, which naturally comes at the expense of all other groups. So, of course it's sexism in one sense of the word. So why does anyone think it's fair? Because there are believed to be cognitiv... (read more)

Banning defamation (knowingly making false statements to maliciously cause harm) is a content restriction which is pretty well supported even by serious free-speech folks — at least when the target is a private individual. Defamation of famous people, politicians, corporations, products, etc. is a somewhat less well supported idea.

It can also treat people as the ends, instead of the means, of desirable world states.

In practice at best it treats people as some combination of tools and victory points.

I intuit that there is also something along the lines of 'equal objectification'; if everyone, including oneself, is objectified equally, is that really objectification? I don't know and must consider that.

Taboo 'objectification'.

Well, if that was the position, then it wouldn't be any more immoral not to help an unconscious person than to not help a broken swing. That seems fairly problematic, so I doubt that's a successful solution.

Right. But that's a guide to action, not a description of the good (which utilitarianism purports to be). The utilitarian would justify that course of action with reference to its leading to higher expected utility. If the empirical facts about humanity were such that it is more efficient for us to calculate expected utility for every action individually, then those folks would not advocate following rules, while "rule utilitarians" still would.

Okay, so to know what virtues are, you need to know what things are good to have in the first place. So its use is not to figure out what you care about, it's to remind yourself you care about it. Like, a great swordsman insults you, you're afraid but you remember that courage and pride are virtues, so you challenge him to a duel and get killed, all's fine. But you can't actually do that, because then you remember that rashness and vanity are vices, and you need to figure out on which side the duel falls. How is any of this virtuous mess supposed to help at all?

2thomblake12y
The theory is an attempt to explain the content of ethics. I'm not sure it's any use to "remind yourself you care about it". In general, one should proceed along established habits of action - we do not have the time to deliberate about every decision we make. According to virtue ethics, one should try to cultivate the virtues so that those established habits are good habits. Suppose you're sitting down in your chair and you decide you'd like a beer from the refrigerator. But you need to pick a good path to the refrigerator! The utilitarian might say that you should evaluate every possible path, weigh them, and pick the one with the highest overall net utility. The Kantian might say that you should pick a path using a maxim that is universalizable - be sure not to cause any logical contradictions in your path-choosing. The virtue ethicist would suggest taking your habitual path to the refrigerator, with the caveat that you should in general try to develop a habit of taking virtuous paths. And importantly, the previous paragraph was not an analogy, it was an example.
[-][anonymous]12y20

Aristotle argued that you don't even know whether someone lived a good life until after they died and you have time to reflect on their life and achievements, and even then I think he was going by "I'll know it when I see it".

I'm under the impression that Aristotle argues the very opposite (in NE I.10, for example). Can you cite a passage for me?

The key question is not whether leftist politicians have become elites (they do regularly) but whether their agenda supports elites and whether they get support from the elites, which happens very rarely. There is a lot of self-serving political decisions made by both left and right politicians from which politicians benefit, but the left politicians are nevertheless still more connected with lower classes than the right politicians.

Somewhat special example were/are communist countries where the non-political aspects of social status are reduced and the gr... (read more)

2Eugine_Nier12y
I wasn't just referring to politicians, but to the liberal intelligentsia. I don't know what the situation is in the Czech Republic, but in the US while this was probably somewhat true a generation ago, it's highly dubious today. (Although of course liberals like to think it's still true.)
3thomblake12y
I'm reminded of a quote from a hippy band during the Vietnam War. Paraphrased:
2Vaniver12y
Especially when you consider things like gay marriage or free immigration, causes universally approved of (in public, at least) by the liberal intelligentsia, but very unpopular among several core Democratic groups.

Many people who use the arguments mentioned would have different philosophical reasons for believing the claims. The Christian groups that claim abortion/euthansia is murder would appeal to it being wrong because only God has a right to kill, and the libertarians who argue that taxation is theft would appeal to the right to property. Both would refuse to argue on utilitarian grounds.

Interesting example. I'm trying to figure out how it fulfills the second criteria for the WAITW namely "as though it also had those features even though it doesn't"

I asked Alicorn for an intro to virtue ethics appropriate for Less Wrongers or toddlers and she said to ask you. The Wikipedia article on virtue ethics explains deontology and consequentialism but not virtue ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia article is better but unclear on what virtues are or do. Where's Virtue Ethics 101?

6thomblake12y
I think those are actually pretty good intros, and I'm not aware of another one that's available online. Virtue Ethics for Consequentialists here on Less Wrong is pretty good. That said, I can provide a short summary. I've noticed at least 3 things called 'virtue ethics' in the wild, which are generally mashed together willy-nilly (I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out in the literature yet, and virtue ethicists seem to often believe all 3): 1. an empirical claim, that humans generally act according to habits of action and doing good things makes one more likely to do good things in the future, even in other domains 2. the notion that ethics is about being a good person and living a good life, instead of whether a particular action is permissible or leads to a good outcome 3. virtue as an achievement; a string of good actions can be characterized after the fact as virtuous, and that demonstrates the goodness of character. A 'virtue' is a trait of character. It may be a "habit of action". A virtue is good for the person who has it. A good human has many virtues. Traditionally, it is thought that any good can be taken in the right amount, too much, or too little, and virtue is the state of having the proper amount of a good, or concern for a good. Vice is failing at virtue for that good. So "Courage" is the proper amount of concern for one's physical well-being in the face of danger. "Cowardice" is too much concern, and "Rashness" is too little. For fun, I've found a table of virtues and vices from Aristotle here. 'Virtue' is also used to describe inanimate objects; they are simply the properties of the object that make it a good member of its class. For example, a good sword is sharp. Whether "Sharpness" is a good or a virtue for swords is left as an exercise to the reader.
2MixedNuts12y
Thanks! How do you pick virtues, though? (A virtue is what for the person who has it?) And how do you know when you have the proper amount of courage? And what's wrong with never getting angry anyway?

That's my real question. I'm not really objecting to anything, I just found the implied estimate surprising.

2DaFranker12y
Thanks for clarifying.

Did he write that with paragraph breaks? If so, please restore them. If not... Dang, Nietsche had lousy style.

(Edited to reverse the conditionals so it made sense)

2chaosmosis12y
Please provide me with instructions as to how to insert paragraph breaks within quotes.
6arundelo12y
Same as outside of a quote -- paragraphs are separated by blank lines. (Which, in the context of a quote, means a line with nothing but a greater-than sign.) > this is > the first > paragraph > > this is > the second > paragraph

Not really, Komogorov complexity difference between various languages is bounded (for everything languages L1 and L2, there is a constant D for which, for every algorithm A, |K(L1, A) - K(L2, A)| < D, D being at most the complexity of writing a L2 compiler in L1 or vice-versa). So while it may not give exactly the same results with different languages, it doesn't "fall apart", but stays mostly stable.

[-][anonymous]12y20

I think my questions (idle though they may be) stand.

I do not possess any particularly strong intuitions regarding freedom of speech, for better or for worse. For this hypothetical arguer, could you outline what they think are the critical features?

Something along the lines of being able to say (or otherwise express) whatever you wish without fear of punishment.

The wrongness comes from wherever the wrongness of harm comes from.

Are you begging the question? I honestly can't tell from that:

  • "Things that cause harm are wrong."
  • "Theft can be wrong by virtue of being theft."
  • "X = Harm.Wrongness.TraceSource"
  • "The 'wrong' in theft comes from X."
  • Implicit: "Theft causes Harm." Therefore, Theft is wrong.

What am I missing? The above doesn't seem to clearly follow.

This line of argument is frustrating me and I'm having unwarranted strong emotional responses, which is ... (read more)

3Larks12y
Sorry I didn't get back to you; I've been travelling. The wrongness of the theft doesn't come from any harm it may or may not cause. Rather, it comes from where-ever the wrongness of harmful acts comes from. If harmful acts can be wrong simply because they are harmful, then theft can be wrong simply because it is theft. If harmful acts are wrong because they're pareto inefficient, then I can say theft is wrong because its pareto inefficient. If Yvain said harmful acts are wrong because god says so, the person he's talking to can explain that theft is wrong because god says so. In the examples, Yvain accuses people of commiting the worst argument in the world because they use the theft (or equivalent) category when it doesn't overlap with the harm category. But this only makes sense if we agreed that the only thing that ultimately matters is harm, which is not the case. (Even if it were the case that only harm mattered, this is a very contentious philosophical point, and its denial definitely does not constitute the worst argument in the world).
2DaFranker12y
Ah! That explanation did the trick, now I finally understand what you were talking about. This is something my mind had automatically skipped over, as in my model it's "obvious" that harm is "wrong" merely because the human brain is hardcoded to reject/dislike some things by default, like pain and such. I had taken "harms" as being things that fit this definition, which would make the whole thing incompatible with your arguments unless theft were to also be preprogrammed in the brain. Basically, I had assumed one specific example of this source of wrongness, and made it incompatible with "theft" or other complex behavior models, skipping over the rest. Assuming I now understand this correctly, that is.

Then please answer my main question: Where does the "wrongness" come from?

How is a crime wrong simply by virtue of being a "crime"? If we defined crimes to be "every time you touch your own sexual organs", would it still be bad because it's a crime? Does the wrongness come from the fact that society agrees to punish crimes?

You're making a very strong claim. One that almost begs the question. "Theft is wrong because it is theft", one could put it. Where does the wrong come from?

If I have a device of unexplained origi... (read more)

Even if your post remains voted down, I thought it was funny.

3dspeyer12y
Voting up things purely because they're funny tends to be bad for serious discussion forums like this one. If encouraged, purely funny content has a tendency to take over and crowd out insightful content. I like funny content, but not at the risk of insightful content.
3Luke_A_Somers12y
Being funny should not be the best way to get highly upvoted, yes. And failed funny should be negative. Using votes to move things toward what you consider their 'proper level' seems the best here. Let the funny get one or two. Insight, more.
2chaosmosis12y
My comment provided an insight insofar as it explicitly connected the analysis to Immanuel Kant's writing in order to criticize it.
2J_Taylor12y
Can you think of an example of Kant using this form of argumentation?
7OpenThreadGuy12y
-Original (and in my opinion better) version of this article

I actually thought this argument was quite poor. There are lots of possible features in different cases of a type, and to claim some are vitally important seems to beg the question. Murdering a homeless loner estranged from any family or friends may lack many of the features mentioned, but there's little dispute it would qualify. And preventing the creation of a new life prevents the relationships that person would eventually develop. Pointing out that an example falls into a commonly understood category seems a pretty good starting point before delving in... (read more)

And preventing the creation of a new life prevents the relationships that person would eventually develop.

Really? An appeal to counterfactual consequences? By this line of reasoning, each day you're not having sex with the intent to procreate is tantamount to murder, starting from the moment you hit puberty until you're no longer fertile. There are no remaining schelling points in-between, AFAICT. All that remains is cold hard utilitarian multiplication. Cold hard utilitarian multiplication is, well, hard - and it might not agree with you.

My preferred approach is what you said for eugenics: just admit that I'm alright with murder some of the time, as per the economically efficient amount of crime (such as theft!).

You're hitting Cooperate and telling this the other player (whose game habits you have no information on) on a one-shot P.D. Are you sure you really want to do that?

Here's a fictive example of the "argument":

Blue: X is good!
Green: But X can in theory be defined as an element of Y!
Audience: *gasp!* Ys are bad!
Green: Indeed, Ys are bad!
Blue: Ys are bad because of K, P, Z, C and G. 50% of the badness comes from G, 40% from K, P and Z, and the remaining 10%... (read more)

5teageegeepea12y
The cold hard utilitarian calculus is hard in many cases because it aims to maximize rather than satisfice. In many ways that seems a feature rather than a bug. Deontological ethics tend to rely heavily on the act-omission distinction, which I must admit I would prefer as the bar I have to pass. But if, as Kant suggested, I ask how I would prefer others to behave, I would want them to act to increase utility. From a contractarian perspective, we can indicate to others that we will increase their utility if they increase ours. It's hard to make contracts with beings that don't exist yet, but there can still exist incentives to create them in the case of farm animals now (which I believe are produced through insemination rather than sex in factory farms) or ems in the future. My preferred approach also includes not bothering to argue with a great many people. The folk activism of argument is not going to be very effective at changing anything for most people (I definitely include myself in that set). Like Stirner, I instead converse for my own benefit. This actually makes points in disagreement more valuable because it's more likely to tell me something I don't already know. Yes, I intentionally linked to a post critiquing the actual argument I am relying on.

the Liberal Party (conservatives, ironically)

Hmm. My understanding is that the liberal parties are rather often, let us say, closer to the conservative side of the spectrum. The reason this appears strange to especially citizens of the USA is that, for convoluted historical reasons, they use the term "liberal" to refer to the progressive side of the spectrum, whereupon their liberal party needs to be called "libertarian". (And it's not particularly progressive, either.)

3TheOtherDave12y
(nods) U.S. political discourse does strange things to the word "conservative" as well.
3TGM12y
I don't find it surprising it is that "conservative" comes to mean different things. It's always struck me as an odd term: someone who hadn't heard the term before would think a "conservative" party would just be a "status quo bias" party. If you have two different countries, with different political histories, you would expect labels to mean different things. We currently view libertarians as closer to conservatives than to liberals, yet libertarians regularly seem closely aligned to 19th century writers such as Bastiat, who were described as Liberal. One could imagine an alternative history where the 19th Century Liberal tradition moved towards a typical conservative position (e.g. as a response to a Labour party). (I can't say whether this is what happened in Australia, because I don't know the necessary history)
2shelterit12y
Liberals in Australia are basically culturally conservatives and fiscal liberal.

Yeah, I was facing the same problem. Perhaps a sufficient reduction would be "progress in their personal understanding of the causes and harms of sexism".

Oddly enough, I usually don't find the term "sophisticated" to have nearly as much negative connotation as other readers.

Can you expand/clarify your last point?

Basically, and I'm not all that clear on his point myself, but basically you can create the appearance of making a point, and look cool while doing it, if you express yourself with confident quirkiness and keep your statements as ambiguous, unexplained, and as obscure as possible. People will then pattern match whatever "revelation" they can into your words and then even give you credit for it!

For example, If I'm right, and I'm always right, Bartlefink proved hypercomputational phase warps in the predimensional wave-nurgle causes a condition whereby a tiny fraction of people use all words, obviously not codimensionally, as a rudimentary Schelling fence during periods of heightened causa sui political stress. Dasein!

8Larks12y
It is a skill to not correct people when they mis-interprit you as having said something clever.