thomblake comments on Least Signaling Activities? - Less Wrong

27 Post author: RobinHanson 22 May 2009 02:46AM

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

Comments (98)

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

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 27 May 2009 03:43:36PM *  7 points [-]

Of course. Race, gender, disability, height, weight, age, beauty, and on and on and on. Most if not all prejudice can be described as signals, and most of the work of activists dealing with those issues is to get society to react to those signals in a way that's neutral rather than positive or negative. (Not all activists realize that, which is how you get some of the really crazy-looking ones, like feminists who freak out every time a male has more power in a given situation than a female does.)

And yes, I've seen more instances than I can count of people processing the signals and ignoring the message, or, more annoyingly, expecting me to do just that, and then blaming it on me when I don't understand them, or go do what they said instead of what they meant. I'd even go so far as to say that most of the time when someone's logic really doesn't make sense, they're not using the logic for logic, they're using it as a carrier for the signals, and hoping (or, assuming - I'm probably giving them too much credit if I imply that it's being done consciously) that you'll play along. In fact, there are times when that seems to be the most useful communication strategy, and it's one I've been working on learning for the last few months.

Comment author: thomblake 27 May 2009 03:52:43PM 3 points [-]

In fact, there are times when that seems to be the most useful communication strategy, and it's one I've been working on learning for the last few months.

I've noticed situations like this - I keep in mind Dennett's intentional stance. Just like there are some computer programs that I can beat at games by attributing beliefs and desires to them, there are some people with whom I can interact more successfully if I assume they don't have (propositional) beliefs and desires, and are instead just reacting to social cues. It's scary when I realize I place most people into the latter category.

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 27 May 2009 04:13:25PM 0 points [-]

Dennett's intentional stance.

Interesting reading. And yes, it's pretty disturbing how most people can be best understood by taking a design stance rather than an intentional stance - seeing the average Joe as being designed to respond to social, internal, or situational cues rather than intentionally following a path may be impolite, but it works more often than not.