Gabriel 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)
Tags: open_thread thread open

Comments (353)

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

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.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit