Epiphany comments on Open Thread, September 1-15, 2012 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 01 September 2012 08:13AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (353)

Comments (353)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: beoShaffer 02 September 2012 06:22:46AM * 3 points [-]

I believe in social hierarchies or that social hierarchies even exist. (I see them as an illusion).

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

B. The specific reason I am attracted to these qualities is due to an attraction to people in a certain position in the social hierarchy. The reasons I want someone who is able to defeat me in a debate are: 1.It gets extremely tedious to disagree with people who can't. I end up teaching them things endlessly in order to get us to a point of agreement, while learning too little. 2.I might get careless if nobody knocks me down for a long time. It's not good for me. 3.It is rather uncomfortable and awkward in a relationship or even a friendship if one person is always right and the other always loses debates. That feels wrong.

These are decent reasons to intentionally seek out someone who can out debate you, however as far as actual attraction goes they make just as much, if not more sense as post-hoc rationalizations as real reasons. As Yvain has explained all introspection of the type you are engaging is prone to this error mode and while reasons your reasons 1 & 3 aren't completely inconsistent with our knowledge of human attraction they don't fit as well as the hypothesis that you are attracted to behaviors that signal high IQ and/or status while side-steping your issues with the most common ways of displaying those traits (this is largely based on what I've been told in various psychology classes, I don't have the original studies that my professors based their conclusions on on hand).

-edit if anyone knows how to make blockquote play nice with the original formatting let me know, I think this works for now.

Comment author: Epiphany comment score below threshold [+] (34 children)

Comment author: Epiphany 02 September 2012 08:52:01AM * -4 points [-]

My social hierarchy view:

Imagine a picture of a bunch of people. As you're looking at it, a ring jumps out at you. Your brain is recognizing a pattern, in a sea of heads. So, you take a crayon and you draw a circle over the picture, connecting all the little heads like little dots - in a circle. You say "It's a social circle." In fact, the people in the picture do not know each other at all. The circle is irrelevant.

That's how I see social hierarchy. I'll explain more specifically:

Nearby, there's a gigantic technology company, (well, Seattle has several of them), tens of thousands of employees each, a lot of them making 6 figures. These guys are near the top of the social hierarchy, right?

Well, not too far away, I bet there are a bunch of poor people who pick food for a living. They're barely getting paid. Who has the power?

The IT workers can buy whatever they want. But they need the poor workers to survive.

The poor people can't buy whatever they want, but they don't need the IT workers to survive.

If all of the IT workers decided to quit, what would happen to the poor workers? They'd still pick food, and they'd be fine.

If all the poor workers stopped picking food, what would happen? It will spoil, and the IT people won't eat.

Another example:

You're in France, it's 1789, you're rich and privileged, you're part of the bourgeois. Well the rest of the population decides they're not having it. Goodbye!

Who had the power?

The rich and privileged thought THEY had the power, but the people had it all along.

So, first of all, this view that the rich people are somehow at the top of a structure is inaccurate. The structure is really more of a system, there is no top or bottom.

Another problem, two examples: Random person wins the lottery. They are upper class now, no? Not too long after, the money is gone. (This is common, from what I have read.) What class are they? A greedy woman finds herself a rich man and marries him. She has his credit cards, she can spend what she wants to. Is she upper class now, or is she just a prostitute? If class and status are not inherent to the person, it's improper to attribute these qualities to people as if they were.

Choosing based on class is a hasty generalization that probably makes you somewhat more likely to choose somebody who is going to survive and be able to help pay for offspring, somewhat more likely to choose somebody functional over somebody dysfunctional, but it isn't rational. The qualities that determine whether somebody is going to survive, be functional and help with offspring are a lot more complicated than that.

It would really make more sense to assess the overall situation when choosing a mate, not use some oversimplified model of a system that's far more complicated than the word "hierarchy" implies. That's why I'm seeing this as irrelevant pattern recognition - we're seeing triangles in noise, thinking we're seeing something useful.

Comment author: Gabriel 02 September 2012 05:56:20PM 8 points [-]

Um, I wouldn't call any of this arguing for the nonexistence of social hierarchies. More like arguing that hierarchies are unstable, context-dependent and, well, social.

If all of the IT workers decided to quit, what would happen to the poor workers? They'd still pick food, and they'd be fine.

Ah, but once the IT workers invent food-picking robots, poor people are screwed.

If all the poor workers stopped picking food, what would happen? It will spoil, and the IT people won't eat.

They can always eat whatever the striking food-pickers eat (and will win the competition to get it, if there's a scarcity problem). As a side-question, what does a food-picking job actually entail? (I'm not a native speaker)

The IT-workers vs food-pickers example doesn't really hold up very well and even if it did it wouldn't be an argument for the nonexistence of social hierarchies except under very narrow and artificial definitions of the word 'hierarchy'.

Different people are treated differently. Some are deferred to more than others. Some are regarded with suspicion more than others. Those differences tend to be stable over time within a given group. That's your social hierarchy. That those relations are different in different groups, that they can change rapidly in unusual circumstances and that ultimately they are determined by the contents of human minds doesn't mean they aren't a real phenomenon.

Comment author: Epiphany 02 September 2012 07:16:53PM * -2 points [-]

Um, I wouldn't call any of this arguing for the nonexistence of social hierarchies. More like arguing that hierarchies are unstable, context-dependent and, well, social.

If I showed you a scribble and told you it was a circle, would you feel it was a good argument if I said "This type of circle is unstable and context-dependent, and, well, it is this type of circle".

I think your argument would be "You need to choose something other than a circle to model this amount of complexity. The circle's not working".

That's what I am saying.

Ah, but once the IT workers invent food-picking robots, poor people are screwed.

And if the survival of poor people is threatened enough, they'll kill all the rich people and take all their stuff. They do outnumber them.

They can always eat whatever the striking food-pickers eat (and will win the competition to get it, if there's a scarcity problem).

The following is meant in a neutral sense like "those who do it for a living are likely to be better at it" / practice makes perfect NOT in the sense that "nerds are weak" / hasty generalization. I am a nerd, and I know that some of us do work out, know martial arts or just don't fit the weak, scrawny stereotype:

A bunch of computer nerds who sit at their desk all day are going to beat up people who exercise for a living?

It is assumptions like the ones you just made that keep highlighting for me how illusory social hierarchy is. People act as if upper class people are always going to win, as if they're better in every way - this is ridiculous. I chalk this up to looking for a false sense of security -- and finding it.

"Different people are treated differently. Some are deferred to more than others. Some are regarded with suspicion more than others. Those differences tend to be stable over time within a given group. That's your social hierarchy."

If the debate was about whether people ACT like there's a social hierarchy, you'd have won. However, the point I made was that social hierarchy is an illusion, not that people don't believe in the illusion.

Comment author: Alicorn 02 September 2012 07:32:07PM * 4 points [-]

A bunch of computer nerds who sit at their desk all day are going to beat up people who exercise for a living?

My dad is a computer nerd who sits at his desk all day. Also, he has a black belt in jiujitsu.

Be less free with generalizations.

Comment author: Rhwawn 03 September 2012 12:34:51AM 0 points [-]

Also, he has a black belt in jiujitsu.

As martial artists have pointed out for a long time, holding a black belt is a fairly weak predictor of success in a true fight.

Comment author: Gabriel 03 September 2012 02:04:53PM 1 point [-]

That depends on the type of martial art. As far as I know, jiujitsu mostly focuses on grappling and throwing and is practiced in pairs where people alternate between performing a technique and having it performed on them by their partner. This should be far more difficult to screw up than a striking art in which you can create the illusion of learning by having people strike at the air repeatedly.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 03 September 2012 02:36:21PM -1 points [-]

How to tell a martial art (e.g. art used for making war in the old days) from a "martial" art (e.g. a version of soccer one drives the kids to two times a week): it doesn't award belts.

Comment author: Epiphany 02 September 2012 08:09:53PM * -2 points [-]

It would be a good point except that you may be implying the opposite generalization - that poor people don't also know martial arts. And even if more nerds do know martial arts, if they're sedentary while their opponents exercise for a living, does that not give them a disadvantage?

Comment author: wedrifid 03 September 2012 01:22:23AM 0 points [-]

And even if more nerds do know martial arts, if they're sedentary while their opponents exercise for a living, does that not give them a disadvantage?

Certainly, if they are, in fact, sedentary. The assumption that after "sitting at a desk all day" they go home and sit on the couch all evening is part of the stereotyping that Alicorn may reject. The training required to get a black belt in jijitsu is rather intensive and also the kind of thing nerds seem more likely to engage in. "Nerds" vs "People who exercise a lot" is just rather useless as a dichotomy---especially once highschool is over.

Comment author: Epiphany 03 September 2012 04:06:03AM * 0 points [-]

I'm a self-described nerd with a sedentary IT job that exercises, myself, and I know a lot of us get exercise. Here's my point: do you know a single nerd who exercises 40 hours a week? I don't. That'd be over half your free time. If you're a low-paid worker picking food all day, you might be forced to exercise more than 40 hours a week in order to make ends meet. But there's a huge difference between intentionally getting exercise a few times a week because you know you're otherwise sedentary versus exercising all day long, just the same way that there's often a huge difference in skill level between people who do something for a hobby and people who do it for a living.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 03 September 2012 04:19:00AM * 2 points [-]

(You are currently pursuing the question of fighting capability of nerds. What valuable lessons does this help anyone to learn? Alicorn's comment that triggered this thread contained a general point ("be less free with generalizations"), but such points don't seem to be present in the consequent discussion.)

Comment author: wedrifid 03 September 2012 06:04:19AM * 3 points [-]

You are currently pursuing the question of fighting capability of nerds. What valuable lessons does this help anyone to learn?

I'm interested. The subject is the impact of lifestyle choices on physical fitness and the associated combat potential. It's probably more practically useful than the majority of conversations. The initial generalization was legitimately offensive but discussing the topic at all is perfectly legitimate. You aren't obliged to participate but suggesting the conversation is in some way unacceptable for any reason beyond your personal preference is ill founded and unwelcome.

continue this thread »

Comment author: Epiphany 03 September 2012 06:13:33AM 0 points [-]

You're right, this discussion is not getting anywhere. I think we're just practicing our debate skills or enjoying disagreement. There are plenty of better topics to debate on.

Comment author: radical_negative_one 03 September 2012 05:04:47AM * -2 points [-]

I remember once we had a big Open Thread argument about Pirates Vs Ninjas. IIRC it involved dozens of posts and when somebody pointed out that it had gone on too long, and how silly it had become, somebody else argued that it was, in fact, a useful rationality exercise.

Perhaps this [edit: cutting the conversation short] is a sign that the community has matured in some way.

Comment author: wedrifid 03 September 2012 06:24:41AM * 0 points [-]

Here's my point: do you know a single nerd who exercises 40 hours a week? I don't.

Me. I'm training for a marathon that I'm running in a matter of weeks and I'm not willing to give up my weight training in the mean time. The thing is, if I wanted to be in optimal combat condition I would exercise less.

If you're a low-paid worker picking food all day, you might be forced to exercise more than 40 hours a week in order to make ends meet. But there's a huge difference between intentionally getting exercise a few times a week because you know you're otherwise sedentary versus exercising all day long

There is... but you seem to be suggesting that the difference is in favor of the light exercise all day long implied by fruit picking. That is a terrible form of exercise. On the other hand consider exercising actively and deliberately three times a week because you want to be fit. Off the top of my head, say, 45 minutes of weights followed by interval training. When I'm not doing endurance training that's approximately the program I use as a default and it is the kind of training that gives significant fitness benefits and if you are going to actual train at all then all spending your day doing manual labor is going to achieve is make you too tired to train properly and put you more at risk of overtraining if you do.

Comment author: Epiphany 03 September 2012 10:08:23AM * 0 points [-]

The thing is, if I wanted to be in optimal combat condition I would exercise less.

I did not think of that.

There is... but you seem to be suggesting that the difference is in favor of the light exercise all day long implied by fruit picking. That is a terrible form of exercise.

Hauling around baskets of apples and climbing trees might not be light exercise. But it might be a terrible form of exercise.

I think you're right that doing exercise designed to train for combat would be better than arbitrary food picking exercises for 40 hours a week. After all, if food picking was the best kind of exercise, there should be some way to optimize even that. I honestly don't know whether the type of exercise the average nerd actually gets would lead to better combat advantages than the type of exercise that food pickers get, but you did think of a way to corner me.

That is making me happy.

Normally, in this circumstance it would be my turn and I'd go see if there were any figures for these, but since they're more likely to support your point than mine, and you might enjoy nailing me with them, I will leave the opportunity open.

continue this thread »

Comment author: [deleted] 03 September 2012 06:20:21AM * 2 points [-]

And if the survival of poor people is threatened enough, they'll kill all the rich people and take all their stuff. They do outnumber them.

Robots can fix that too!

Comment author: Gabriel 02 September 2012 08:14:03PM 1 point [-]

If I showed you a scribble and told you it was a circle, would you feel it was a good argument if I said "This type of circle is unstable and context-dependent, and, well, it is this type of circle".

I would consider it a horrible argument and I consider this to be a pretty bad analogy.

This looks like a definitional dispute. Like you're not denying that there's something out there but you're denying that it can be called a 'hierarchy'.

If the debate was about whether people ACT like there's a social hierarchy, you'd have won. However, the point I made was that social hierarchy is an illusion, not that people don't believe in the illusion.

And here it seems to be a disagreement over what it means to 'exist'. I agree that social status isn't in any way intrinsic to people and that it's important and healthy to keep that in mind but calling it an illusion seems too strong. If people act like there's a social hierarchy then having a notion of social hierarchy in your model of the world will allow you to predict those people better. I interpreted you as saying that the concept of social hierarchy is a free-floating belief completely disconnected from reality.

And now for something far less serious:

And if the survival of poor people is threatened enough, they'll kill all the rich people and take all their stuff. They do outnumber them.

Remember, in this scenario the rich people have ROBOTS.

A bunch of computer nerds who sit at their desk all day are going to beat up people who exercise for a living?

I was thinking more about outbidding them at the food market. The scenario under consideration is that food-pickers went on strike, not total disorder and dissolution of society which the idea of violently competing for food implies.

Comment author: Epiphany 02 September 2012 08:30:34PM * 0 points [-]

Like you're not denying that there's something out there but you're denying that it can be called a 'hierarchy'.

Okay, define the "something" that supports the hierarchical view. I don't believe in it, so I can't define it for you, and if you want to convince me over to your side, you have to support the idea that a real hierarchy pattern exists that is not just a perception.

And here it seems to be a disagreement over what it means to 'exist'.

If you do not mean to argue that the popular perception of something equates to that thing actually existing, then we are, in fact, in agreement about what existing means. Don't you think?

If people act like there's a social hierarchy then having a notion of social hierarchy in your model of the world will allow you to predict those people better.

I agree with this, but that's not the context in which I originally stated that I don't believe in social hierarchy, and it doesn't confront my original statement that seeing a hierarchy in our social patterns is an illusion.

And if the survival of poor people is threatened enough, they'll kill all the rich people and take all their stuff. They do outnumber them.

Remember, in this scenario the rich people have ROBOTS.

Okay. Poor people can steal those, too.

I was thinking more about outbidding them at the food market.

Because a bunch of starving people are definitely going to wait in line patiently at the food market.

The scenario under consideration is that food-pickers went on strike, not total disorder and dissolution of society which the idea of violently competing for food implies.

Okay. All the food pickers go on strike. We've only got so much time till the food rots. Now what? If they don't get back to picking food soon, there won't be any food. If there is no food, society will dissolve. That was my point.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 September 2012 01:10:55PM * 3 points [-]

The poor people can't buy whatever they want, but they don't need the IT workers to survive.

Actually I'm pretty sure farmers across the world are better off with IT workers existing than not.

Comment author: Epiphany comment score below threshold [+] (2 children)

Comment author: Kindly 02 September 2012 02:52:23PM 0 points [-]

There's a limit to the power you can have that people can't take away from you (I believe one of the Name of the Wind books had a nice quote about that). If you want more power than a self-sufficient farmer, you have to rely on other people for that power.

For that matter, a lot of the things the IT guys want, the poor workers don't have. If something happens to those workers, the IT guys might drop down a few rungs on the hierarchy, say to just about where the poor workers are, or maybe still a bit higher. They're still no worse off than they would've been if they tried not to depend on anyone.

Epiphany comments on Open Thread, September 1-15, 2012 - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (353)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (353)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login