hyporational comments on White Lies - Less Wrong

38 Post author: ChrisHallquist 08 February 2014 01:20AM

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

Comments (893)

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

Comment author: hyporational 08 February 2014 07:24:27AM *  1 point [-]

It wasn't a criticism, it was a question. I'm just going with the information I have.

If your interests include being hostile to people who you think deserve it, then being hostile to said people furthers your interests in a fairly straightforward way, it seems to me.

Should I assume the person has this goal, or should I ask him questions?

Comment author: SaidAchmiz 08 February 2014 07:35:23AM 0 points [-]

Should I assume the person has this goal, or should I ask him questions?

I think it's a good assumption to default to. That is, if someone claims to be deliberately doing something, and you have no information to the effect that this action doesn't further their goals, then you should default to assuming that it does.

That said, the issue was that your questions came off reading like criticisms. (Which is not itself a criticism, just an explanation of my reply.) You implied (so it seemed to me) that not trusting the people in question, rather than being hostile to them, was better, or was the sensible default, and that therefore being hostile to them was something that needed to be justified.

(And that said, the parenthetical in the grandparent was not directed at you specifically.)

Comment author: hyporational 08 February 2014 07:53:52AM 1 point [-]

That is, if someone claims to be deliberately doing something, and you have no information to the effect that this action doesn't further their goals, then you should default to assuming that it does.

How well does this go with all that heuristics and biases stuff we've been talking about for years now?

You implied (so it seemed to me) that not trusting the people in question, rather than being hostile to them, was better, or was the sensible default, and that therefore being hostile to them was something that needed to be justified.

Being hostile to people makes them hostile to you. If you're a human being that sucks. So yeah, some justification would be healthy to have.

Comment author: SaidAchmiz 08 February 2014 05:12:30PM 3 points [-]

How well does this go with all that heuristics and biases stuff we've been talking about for years now?

On LessWrong? Quite well, I should think.

Being hostile to people makes them hostile to you. If you're a human being that sucks. So yeah, some justification would be healthy to have.

How likely is it, do you think, that Carinthium has just not considered the fact that hostility reciprocates?

If you will allow me to suggest a rephrasing of your original question:

"You say that you deliberately act rude and hostile to the people in question. As we both know, hostility reciprocates. Do you find this consequence to be problematic for you? If not, why not? If so, how do you deal with that?"

Does that capture what you wanted to find out from Carinthium? (If not, why not? ;)

Comment author: hyporational 08 February 2014 06:43:59PM *  1 point [-]

How likely is it, do you think, that Carinthium has just not considered the fact that hostility reciprocates?

I think he has considered it and likely underestimated it. My theory of mind is limited to "neurotypicals", and if he's far on some other spectrum I have no clue what he might think.

Does that capture what you wanted to find out from Carinthium

It does, thanks. I'm not sure what was so difficult about this. Perhaps I took this a bit too personally since one man's ridiculous ultimatum wreaked havoc on my grandparents' psyches quite recently. It's not clear he knew the damage he was doing. I thought I had accepted his actions but judging from these brain farts of mine I probably haven't.