CCC comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (6th thread, July 2013) - Less Wrong

21 Post author: KnaveOfAllTrades 26 July 2013 02:35AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (513)
Tags: newcomers community introduction welcome faq

Comments (513)

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

Comment author: CCC 05 November 2014 01:22:06PM *  0 points [-]

I don't believe that being Christian and rationalist are necessarily exclusive, as one of my best friends is both, but I don't know how he does it.

I also do it. It's really quite simple; I consider it more likely, given the evidence presented to me through my life so far, that God exists than that He does not. That is to say, I make the attempt to discern the universe as it is, and that includes the probable existence of the Divine.

(Mind you, some varieties of protestant are ridiculous).

Now, as to your question:

It seems that the best option is to allow everybody to go on assuming I believe as they do, and even tell a few lies to preserve the illusion.

My advice is: don't do that. Be truthful with your family, and listen to them when they try to be truthful with you.

I wouldn't suggest making a big thing about it; but don't lie to preserve the illusion.

In support of this advised course of action, I present the following arguments:

  1. "Love thy neighbour as thyself". Whether you believe in the existence of Jesus or not, this is still an excellent general principle. If you want to call yourself a rationalist, I would assume that you do not wish to lie to yourself; I therefore advise most strongly against lying to those near to you.

  2. Don't merely consider what your friends and family would feel like if they were to believe what you say. Consider also how they would feel if the deception were to be uncovered; as it well might, as indeed might any deception. A certain amount of "distressed on your behalf" is a small price to pay for a distinct lack of "betrayed".

Finally, if you are still seriously considering lying to your friends and family, I would urge you to read this article first; it puts forward several good arguments in favour of a general strategy of complete (though not brutal) honesty.

Comment author: Jiro 05 November 2014 02:35:38PM 2 points [-]

I would assume that you do not wish to lie to yourself; I therefore advise most strongly against lying to those near to you.

That doesn't make any sense. He wants to lie to his family because of how his family would react to the truth. Lying to himself would not serve a similar purpose.

I would urge you to read this article first;

That article is about lying by claiming your ideas have too much support--claiming that your belief is less uncertain than it is, claiming the project will accomplish more or do better things than you really believe it will, and doing so because you hope it will promote your belief. That's the opposite from the kind of lying suggested here, which is to lie to conceal your ideas rather than to spread them and make them look stronger.

Comment author: CCC 06 November 2014 02:21:03PM 0 points [-]

That doesn't make any sense. He wants to lie to his family because of how his family would react to the truth. Lying to himself would not serve a similar purpose.

...huh. The only reason that I can see for lying to oneself is that one would not like one's own reaction to the truth.

What purpose do you think that lying to oneself would serve, if not that?

That article is about lying by claiming your ideas have too much support ... That's the opposite from the kind of lying suggested here, which is to lie to conceal your ideas rather than to spread them and make them look stronger.

I had read the article as being about lying about one's own thoughts and internal mental state in order to achieve what appears to be an optimal outcome; which is exactly what the original poster was asking about.

...it is interesting that we have such wildy varying interpretations of the same aticle.

Comment author: Jiro 06 November 2014 05:19:42PM *  1 point [-]

The only reason that I can see for lying to oneself is that one would not like one's own reaction to the truth.

"reaction" means different things for himself and for his family.

I doubt he would refuse to talk to himself at the dinner table, or constantly tell himself "if you don't listen to me you'll go to Hell", or keep bringing up the subject in conversations with himself to make himself feel guilty. On the other hand, I can see his family doing that.

I had read the article as being about lying about one's own thoughts and internal mental state in order to achieve what appears to be an optimal outcome; which is exactly what the original poster was asking about.

The case described in the article is a case where someone wants to lie in order to spread his ideas more effectively. While that is a type of optimal outcome, describing it as such loses nuance; there's a difference between lying to spread your ideas and lying to conceal them.

Comment author: CCC 07 November 2014 08:44:23AM 0 points [-]

I doubt he would refuse to talk to himself at the dinner table, or constantly tell himself "if you don't listen to me you'll go to Hell", or keep bringing up the subject in conversations with himself to make himself feel guilty.

Based on his description of their probable reaction, I doubt his family would do that either. I may be wrong; but all of those would be counterproductive behaviours if indulged in by his family, as they would tend to push him further away.

The case described in the article is a case where someone wants to lie in order to spread his ideas more effectively.

That is the case described, yes. It just seems to me that you are reading it too narrowly, applying it only to that single case.

I mean, consider the introduction (quote snipped slightly for brevity):

Every now and then, another one comes before me with the brilliant idea: "Let's lie!"

Lie about what?—oh, various things. (some examples snipped for brevity)

But at any rate, lie. Lie because it's more convenient than trying to explain the truth. Lie, because someone else might lie, and so we have to make sure that we lie first. Lie to grab the tempting benefits, hanging just within reach—

Eh? Ethics? Well, now that you mention it, lying is at least a little bad, all else being equal. But with so much at stake, we should just ignore that and lie. You've got to follow the expected utility, right? The loss of a lie is much less than the benefit to be gained, right?

Thus do they argue. Except—what's the flaw in the argument? Wouldn't it be irrational not to lie, if lying has the greatest expected utility?

Thus, the introduction is framed in terms of lying in an attempt to follow the greatest expected utility; and then the article goes into depth in regards to why this is a bad idea in practice. The introduction does not specify that that utility must lie in spreading ideas.

Now, the given examples of various types of lie (snipped for brevity in the quote above), are all examples of trying to spread ideas; but that is not the only type of lie that can be told, and those are merely illustrative examples, not an exhaustive list.

Comment author: Jiro 07 November 2014 03:45:40PM *  2 points [-]

I doubt his family would do that either.. all of those would be counterproductive behaviours if indulged in by his family

Unfortunately, in the real world, family does often do counterproductive things, especially when serious religious beliefs are involved.

By the way, what would you suggest to a gay teenager who is afraid that telling the truth would lead to getting thrown out of the house?

The introduction does not specify that that utility must lie in spreading ideas.

But the reasons he gives don't equally apply to spreading and concealing ideas. Lying to conceal your ideas means bringing it up in response to someone else's actions (or perhaps, their anticipated actions). It's not right to describe that as "to grab the tempting benefits" when the "benefit" consists of not being harassed. "Lie, because someone else might lie" certainly isn't a good description of lying to conceal your beliefs.

Comment author: CCC 10 November 2014 09:40:18AM 0 points [-]

Unfortunately, in the real world, family does often do counterproductive things, especially when serious religious beliefs are involved.

I suspect that one of us, probably both, are falling prey to the Typical Family Fallacy. It's similar to the Typical Mind Fallacy, only it applies to families instead.

By the way, what would you suggest to a gay teenager who is afraid that telling the truth would lead to getting thrown out of the house?

I'd recommend making sure to have someplace to move to prepared, in advance, before telling his parents. (This might take a few years to set up). The negative consequences, in such a case, appear sufficiently bad to justify caution, even temporary concealment of the truth.

I'd also recommend finding some other mentor, or authority figure, that he can trust to talk about the situation with. This other mentor might be a school counsellor, a priest, an aunt or uncle, a teacher, or a school janitor; anyone reasonably sensible who would be willing to not inform his parents would do.

It's not right to describe that as "to grab the tempting benefits" when the "benefit" consists of not being harassed.

That seems like a pretty tempting benefit to me.

"Lie, because someone else might lie" certainly isn't a good description of lying to conceal your beliefs.

That is true. It does apply to some other forms of "lie to grab the tempting benefits", though.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit