= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jack comments on Less Wrong’s political bias - 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 (352)
Analysis that is connected to values doesn't have to mean embedding the values in the analysis. Pick a policy. Talk, in neutral terms, about what you think it will do. Then express how you feel about those impacts. Then the progressive you're talking with can say "oh, I don't care about that impact at all" or "I certainly care about that impact but disagree that the policy does it." You can't have conversations about terminal values. You can have them about policies which is why you have to take terminal values out of your conversations about policies.
Right, so clearly express those values. But don't attach the values to progressive policies. If it is the policies themselves that you loathe, how is a progressive supposed to argue for them?
I think this is probably wrong for (most) humans. We're immediately distracted by status signals and emotions. Once the conversation is about that that is all it's about.
Most people can't play by Crocker's rules. I'm not even sure the people who say they play by Crocker's rules do all that well.
Fair enough.
To be clear: if you had said "I loathe libertarian policies" I would have made the same objection. Both sides ought to lower the stakes.
This is interesting and I would be interested in hearing you expand on them. Part of why your language seems unnecessary to me is that I'm somewhere between a libertarian and a Progressive and I don't see any differences in values so much as I see Progressives not understanding how incentives work.
Sure you can. You can explain yours to the other guy, and likely discover something about them yourself in the process.
I agree about the possibility of discussing the likely outcomes of a policy divorced from the valuation of the policy. But the valuation provides both the motivation for the discussion and the punchline to it.
He argues by showing me how I am mistaken or not fully aware of things entailed by the policy that I would value positively.
I suppose for some people. But since I think the valuations are an important part of the conversation, if those people can't do valuations and objective analysis, they won't be very fruitful partners in the discussion.
Nope. Both sides should be as clear as they can about what the stakes are. I think that's what's missing. Here are my values. Here's why I loathe your policies. Once put on the table, I think there is some hope of setting aside for moments and doing the objective analysis. But until honestly confronted, I'd expect the "objective" discussion to be polluted by both attempts to insert them, and interpretations on the look out for them.
There aren't, necessarily. But I think statistically, there are.
I don't think they care to understand. It's not rocket science. They are motivated by something other than achieving outcomes. Some people want to do something. Some people want to be something. I think they tend toward the latter.