= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Epiphany comments on Open Thread, September 1-15, 2012 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (353)
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.
Ah, but once the IT workers invent food-picking robots, poor people are screwed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
(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.)
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.
I'm not suggesting that it's "unacceptable" (I'm not sure what that means; it seems to indicate way more emphasis than I'm applying). I personally somewhat dislike discussions like this being present on LW, of which this one is not special in any way, and normally act on that with my single vote; on this occasion also with an argument that elucidates the distinction relevant for my dislike.
The distinction is between object level discussions for their own sake and discussions used as testing ground for epistemic tools. These often flow into each other for no better reason than free association.
I'm sorry you feel offended, Wedrifid. I am still not sure why I should see my statement that people who are sedentary at work are less likely to win a fight as people who exercise for a living as inherently offensive, since I meant it in the spirit of "those who do something professionally tend to be better at it than those who do it as a hobby" not "nerds are weak compared to everybody else (even compared with other people who don't exercise for a living)." Maybe part of the offense is that you knew that the type of exercise that food pickers get isn't as optimal as what a nerd who exercises as a hobby would get. I hope you can see that my intent was more "those who do it for a living are likely to be better at it" / practice makes perfect not "nerds are weak" / hasty generalization. I updated my post. hoping it is fixed
Note the difference between feeling personally offended and acknowledging that I would not consider it unreasonable for another to claim offense in a circumstance. I was trying to convey the latter. In a context where Vladimir was attempting to deprecate the conversation I was was expressing disapproval of and opposition to his move but chose to concede that one comment in particular as something I did not wish to defend. I don't know, for instance, whether or not Alicorn personally felt offended but social norms do grant that she would have the right to claim offense given the personal affiliations she mentions.
It is applicability of this in particular that I disagree with. It is true that people who do something professionally tend to be better than those who do it for a hobby but having a job that happens to involve some physical activity is not remotely like being a professional exerciser and is far closer to the 'hobbyist' end of the spectrum. In fact, I argued that someone who exercises as a hobby (I specified the an approximate level of dedication, using your thrice weekly baseline) will be more physically capable than someone who has some exercise as a side effect of their occupation.
For what it is worth my expectation is that the greatest difference in physical combat ability between various social classes (and excluding anyone qualifying for a disability) will be greater variability in the higher classes than in the lower ones. From what I understand those who actually exercise professionally (athletes, body builders, etc), high level amateur 'exercisers' and those with a serious exercise hobby are more likely to be in classes higher than those represented by the 'fruit picker' and manual laborer. Yet, as you point out, professionals are also able to be completely sedentary and still highly successful.
(It also occurs to me that class distinctions, trends and roles may be entirely different where you live than where I live. For instance, "Jock" is a concept I understand from watching teen movies but not something representative of what I ever saw at school. The relationship between physical activity, status and role just isn't the same.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
I did not think of that.
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.
On type of exercise I am confident but I am not at all sure about prevalence. If we, say, ranked all computer programmers and all fruit pickers in order of combat prowess and took the median of each I would tentatively bet on the fruit picker if given even odds when we place them in an unarmed fight to the death.
Aww. You didn't nail me.
I did some research to see whether this might be right, here it is:
Harvard Men's Health Watch, May 2004 issue
It looks like I won here, but I thought of some reasons why I may still have lost:
Females can be as big as males, and I'm sure that some have the muscle building bonuses comparable to the average male, but from what I've read and observed, males are more likely to have these benefits than females. Females can have the aggressive tendencies associated with testosterone, but do not get them as frequently as males do. Females can be nerds but most nerds are male. Food pickers may have a higher percentage of females than nerds do. Therefore the food pickers might be at a disadvantage in unarmed combat. (Though adding guns would change that completely.)
Nerds may exercise more than the average person in order to compensate for the stereotype that nerds are weak. I didn't see any research specific to how much exercise nerds do or what type they use, but it is possible that this group is more fit than average.
Having a nerdy personality may make them more likely to research the best way of exercising, and measure their progress, making exercise more effective for them.
Do you see more factors that we haven't taken into account?
Robots can fix that too!
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'.
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:
Remember, in this scenario the rich people have ROBOTS.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Okay. Poor people can steal those, too.
Because a bunch of starving people are definitely going to wait in line patiently at the food market.
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.