= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Algernoq comments on Why I Am Not a Rationalist, or, why several of my friends warned me that this is a cult - 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 (192)
I'm claiming is that people have tried to take advantage of me, including the examples I gave above, as well as every car salesman I've ever met. It's not a high percentage -- most people are good/neutral -- but there are some people who are mildly amused by trying to hurt me.
What are you trying to prove? Why is it so important to you that the world is...what? Free of evil intent in your immediate social circle? Free of injustice affecting people you consider your peers?
It sounds like you're twisting my words to fit your worldview, and trying to make me doubt my sanity.
Specifically:
Who is truly unbiased and therefore in your view able to make reliable decisions? How sociopathic would an example have to be to meet your arbitrary criteria? Are you proposing I stop interacting with unknown people?
Do you want to be better? Do you want the truth, or not?
I want you to acknowledge that the people in the examples I gave more likely than not tried to hurt me for reasons including their own amusement.
This is important as a first step toward talking about solutions. I want better solutions for negotiating with and ideally changing sociopathy, both personally as I advance in my career and encounter high-stakes situations more often, and for my own dreams of world improvement.
Given the base rate for these things, it appears that you're choosing to ignore information so you don't feel obligated to deal with it.
To change your mind, among other options, I could tell you some true stories about people who are much richer than you taking advantage of people in your class.
Also, it sounds like your goal is to increase your status by bashing my position, not actually resolving the issue.
Yes, because these relationships are risky for the lower-status person, and impose externalities on others. Social mobility is provided by education, skill, etc. -- I'm not proposing hereditary classes.
It sounds like you're OK with polyamory with status differences. In that case, it appears the "winning" strategy is to build a harem of lower-status partners. This approach is arguably good for the individual but bad for others (less investment in children, more crime by low-status men who can't get sex, leads to infighting within the harem). For example, several Google executives are in open relationships with a wife who'd rather be monogamous plus some more attractive young people, and several players I know usually have a few partners at any one time. As there's no incentive for the players to be honest, this imposes costs on others.
How much sociopathy do you see in your community? None? Why is this important to you? Why is your community different from the average community with equivalent wealth/background?
Isn't that the same sort of data-ignoring that you're complaining that he does? You just asked for some data, he gave it to you (he told you he doesn't have such problems) and you refused to believe it. What's the point of even asking people to confirm something if you won't accept "no, I confirm the opposite" as an answer?
I read his comment as "I don't want to know about other people having problems with sociopaths", not as "I don't have problems with sociopaths".
That makes sense...his comment isn't quite as bad then. To put it in another context (poverty instead of sociopathy), he meant something like "I'm not poor, hahah!" and I thought he meant "I like to ignore the poor, haha!" He's just saying he's high-status, and I thought he was saying he enjoys enjoying laughing at low-status people.
I think even that is being unfair to him. "I don't have problems with sociopaths and I think it's because I'm not the kind of person who sociopaths bother" may be a claim of high status, but "I don't have problems with sociopaths and I think that's because people in general don't have problems with sociopaths, and you're biased or unlucky" is not. (It can't be a claim of high status--if it is, that would mean that your question is a catch-22, where anyone who actively fails to confirm you is automatically claiming high status.)
I agree it sounds like he's claiming the above. I don't see how this is useful or accurate, because it fits the pattern of "people in general don't have problems with (X widely known problem)".
I agree, someone who does not notice sociopaths likely has higher status than someone who does.
I can believe he genuinely doesn't see sociopaths in his community. Given the base rate for sociopathy is ~1% and that he has probably met, very roughly, 4,000 people, the probability that he has never met a sociopath in his community is (.99)^(4,000)=3.47*10^-18. In other words, the probability that he has met a sociopath and didn't realize it is ~100%.
This conversation becomes pointless. As Thucydides said: questions of justice only exist between equal powers.
"I don't have problems with sociopaths" doesn't mean that he has met absolutely zero sociopaths, so this calculation is meaningless.
The point is that it's not higher status. What you basically did was a catch-22 where you "asked for information", but set it up so that everyone would either have to agree with you, or be interpreted as making a status grab.
Ah. It looks to me that some of our disagreement, as is often the case, is a terminology problem.
You've been talking about sociopaths. "Sociopath" is a diagnosis of a mental illness, a personality disorder. You asked:
The answer to that is provided by the DSM. You can read it here. Sociopathy is not common.
I don't think you are using this term properly. Instead I'd like to offer you two other alternative expressions.
On a colloquial level those you've been talking about are usually called assholes (and sometimes dicks/bitches as appropriate). Assholes are certainly plentiful in the world and complaints about being surrounded by dicks and assholes...
...must...not...make...bad...allegories...
...oh, where was I? sorry. So, there are lots of assholes and there are lots of complaints about them throughout the history in pretty much every society. You want to join the litany? Sure, the line is over there, please take a number, it is sevenbillionmumblemumble, wait for it to be called.
On a slightly more analytical level, I think a better word for you to use is amoral (or, maybe, immoral). It seems to me that you're not bothered by these people's lack of emotional reaction, you're bothered by what they find fine to say and do -- and that's morality and ethics. You probably think that their morals are either absent or bad.
That is different from claims of sociopathy and -- surprise -- also very very common.
I am participating in a conversation on an internet forum. In the great scheme of things that's not particularly important to me. But the (meta) subject of this discussion is accuracy of maps, not features of the territory.
If you want to learn negotiating, any B&N will have a shelf of books devoted to that. I think you'll be able to find a variety of materials on LW as well which will be helpful.
By "changing sociopathy" I think you mean changing the morality of some people. I don't think it's going to be a fruitful endeavour, but that's just me.
Someone who is not too excitable and not emotionally invested in particular conclusions.
LOL. You are not referring to something like political assassination stories from Salon about how the Koch brothers orgasm every time their tentacles tighten a bit more around the throats of hard-working widows and orphans..?
And what is my "class", by the way?
A relationship with another low-status person is risky, too, in different ways. If you are a trailer-park girl, is it really better for you to choose a trailer-park mate?
Interesting. That's a... revealing comment. What "winning" means is defined by your values. Looking at myself (since I can speak for myself), I would not consider lording over a harem of low-status partners to be "winning", in fact if I would probably actively try to avoid such a situation. But do you think that's what "winning" is?
LOL. And how do you know this, do tell... You're not engaging is some blatant gender stereotyping, are you?
I looked at your link (dsm.pdf at the psi.uba.ar website) and it doesn't mention sociopathy. Do a word search. If you're going to troll with sources, at least pick relevant ones.
The DSM does say that antisocial personality disorder includes what used to be called sociopathy. Multiple sources indicate that about 0.6% of US adults have antisocial personality disorder. If you've met an unusually small number of people (which my limited interaction with you suggests is possible), for example only 2000 people, then the probability of you never having met a sociopath is about (.994)^(2000)=0.000006. In other words, the probability that you're ignoring evidence is ~100%.
This is how you practice Rationality?? Protip: this is a bias called "emotional reasoning".
I hoped LW would discuss clever ways to solve universal problems, such as death and assholery.
Correct. Real GDP growth is minimal and real stock market values are flat/decreasing on average, while capital owners are becoming much richer. The law also heavily favors people who can afford expert lawyers.
I'm guessing you're white and male, average attractiveness/intelligence, early 20s, earning less than $50,000/year, and spend a lot of time unproductively on the Internet. So, higher than the global average, but not on track to ever reach the 1%. Am I right?
I'm learning already! Based on your helpful input, I've found a solution to my problem and I'm enjoying some new-found freedom of expression.
They haven't gone bankrupt yet?
Yup, if you're a white male, being a narcissistic asshole without self-awareness is a winning strategy in most modern situations.
Hahaahaha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Nice rhetoric. Oh, my aching sides.
Let me know when you're ready to talk about the actual subject of this discussion.
Lumifer is distinctly above average in intelligence. That, combined with what I infer is somewhat more experience at the game, is why he is beating you at the one-upmanship contest you two are having. He is coming off less badly despite displaying more antagonism. Feel free to keep practicing, but note that you can tell from the voting patterns that the audience has tired of the show (downvoting both sides) so it may be better to discuss with different, more cooperative, discussion partners for a while.