wedrifid comments on Human Evil and Muddled Thinking - Less Wrong

40 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 13 September 2007 11:43PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (138)
Tags: hypocrisy politics

Comments (138)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: lessdazed 27 August 2011 10:51:18PM 2 points [-]

Can you explain?

The article says things such as:

...human evil and muddled thinking intertwine like conjugate strands of DNA...To make our stupidity obvious, even to ourselves - this is the heart of Overcoming Bias...Evil sneaks, hidden, through the unlit shadows of the mind. We look back with the clarity of history, and weep to remember the planned famines of Stalin and Mao, which killed tens of millions..For perpetrators of evil to avoid its natural opposition, the revulsion must remain latent. Clarity must be avoided at any cost...Does Tyler seriously think that scope insensitivity to the value of human life is on the same level with trying to create plans that will really save as many lives as possible?

B.H. replies:

Stalin and Hitler did not suffer from lack of clarity...Intellectuals who supported, and support, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Osama, Saddam, and so forth, knew what they doing...Helping people to open their eyes and see human suffering, raising children to be compassionate, will do far more to get rid of the Hitlers and Castros than logic and writing classes.

B.H. seems to think that intellectuals of the past century suffered from a lack of compassion and desire to do good, and were good at thinking clearly. I think that they were compassionate and had good intentions, yet had muddled thinking. It is this contrast that I was trying to bring out, and this is not anon sequitur.

Comment author: wedrifid 28 August 2011 01:47:10AM 2 points [-]

Can you explain?

You had a valid point to make (or at least an interesting point that would appeal to the lesswrong philosophy). It did not apply to the quote you set it up as a refutation of. Refuting a somewhat different position that what you are quoting is the foundation of debating but I consider it bad form. Particularly because it works so well against human minds.

If you just made your point without the vaguely relevant quote then I would not have commented.

For my part I don't particularly agree with either of you. I wouldn't focus on 'teaching compassion' or 'teaching clear thinking'. I would focus on setting up institutions and power structures in which corruption and things-I-call-evil just aren't the most efficient way to gain power.

Comment author: lessdazed 28 August 2011 03:09:56AM *  0 points [-]

I think that they were compassionate and had good intentions, yet had muddled thinking.

I don't particularly agree with either of you.

I think you read into what I said some things that weren't there.

I wouldn't focus on 'teaching compassion' or 'teaching clear thinking'. I would focus on setting up institutions and power structures in which corruption and things-I-call-evil just aren't the most efficient way to gain power.

I agree with the value of that approach to group and societal problems, but the smaller the scale, the less relevant that approach is and the more relevant overcoming bias is, so which I think better to focus on for a situation depends on specifics. B.H. was discounting clear thought in favor of good intentions, I addressed that, without intending to malign auxiliary approaches. I do not believe that many people are the villains of their personal narrative, and so think that "teaching compassion" is not too important, and that teaching clear thinking is. Teaching clear thinking isn't always the right approach.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit