Lumifer comments on "3 Reasons It’s Irrational to Demand ‘Rationalism’ in Social Justice Activism" - Less Wrong

9 Post author: PhilGoetz 29 March 2016 03:16PM

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

Comments (247)

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

Comment author: Lumifer 31 March 2016 08:21:00PM -1 points [-]

...could be controlled ...It may be true ...we could imagine

You're still floating in vacuum.

I took issue with you saying there was a bias against non-Christians.

On the basis of what, do you think, she made this statement?

If you're lumping it all together under "religious people sincerely believing in the reality of a significant afterlife incentive structure", let's make a slight change: one should expect to be helped more in a Muslim country than in a non-Muslim country. Is that a true statement? I see no difference with a s/Muslim/Christian version.

Based on what empirical evidence?

Based on my perception of the world which includes personal experience.

Comment author: Brillyant 31 March 2016 09:56:39PM *  1 point [-]

On the basis of what, do you think, she made this statement?

I don't know. I replied to the idea it was "bigoted" and biased. I originally just pointed out it was reasonable to believe someone would behave more charitably if given an incentive.

If you're lumping it all together under "religious people sincerely believing in the reality of a significant afterlife incentive structure", let's make a slight change: one should expect to be helped more in a Muslim country than in a non-Muslim country. Is that a true statement? I see no difference with a s/Muslim/Christian version.

The religion is only important to the extent it's supernatural incentive structure is significant and sincerely believed. Doesn't matter what it is. Xtianity and Islam just happen to be super popular.

Based on my perception of the world which includes personal experience.

So, nothing beyond that? Forgive me if I'm not convinced.

By the way, I've met lots of Christians who behave charitably explicitly because of their eschatology. I've also read a lot about the suicide bombers who are steeped in an interpretation of Islam. In both cases, it's largely behavior being affected by belief.

Comment author: Lumifer 01 April 2016 12:09:22AM -1 points [-]

I replied to the idea it was "bigoted" and biased.

Jiro said it "borders on bigotry". I said it was a bias. I still think it's a bias.

I originally just pointed out it was reasonable to believe someone would behave more charitably if given an incentive.

Which is the same old shit of atheists being amoral because why would they have morals without incentives.

Forgive me if I'm not convinced.

I'm not trying to convince you.

Comment author: Lamp2 07 April 2016 07:12:41AM 1 point [-]

I said it was a bias. I still think it's a bias.

Really, which bias are you referring to.

Which is the same old shit of atheists being amoral because why would they have morals without incentives.

Well, a lot of atheists are amoral.

Original thread here.

Comment author: Brillyant 01 April 2016 01:08:31AM *  1 point [-]

Which is the same old shit of atheists being amoral because why would they have morals without incentives.

No. Not one bit. No one said atheists were amoral. I think we all have incentives to act morally.

Do you have any empirical evidence to suggest the promise of reward in the afterlife is not an incentive to many sincere religious people? Or that it doesn't affect their willingness to engage in charitable behavior? Or that helping out someone who crashed their bike is not an example of the type of charitable behavior that a sincere religious person may believe will benefit them in said afterlife?

Or do you reject that incentives affect behavior?

If I lie to someone and tell them I will give them $1,000,000 in 10 years if they walk one old lady across everyday, to the extent the person believes me, this will affect their behavior, right?

This all seems pretty obvious to me and it feels like you know something I don't about human behavior. You said:

Based on my perception of the world which includes personal experience.

What experiences have you had? What is your perception of the world in regard to this issue?

Comment author: Lumifer 01 April 2016 03:02:24PM *  0 points [-]

We've wandered far afield. I'll sum up my position and bail.

Yes, people respond to incentives. Of course. But if you are going to pull out one specific incentive and look at it carefully, the question becomes whether it's relevant and does it make any noticeable difference. Statistically speaking, you're interested in the effect size and not merely in p-value proving the existence of something.

Human actions are the net sum of a very large variety of forces, some of which are incentives and there are a lot of different ones, too. Does the particular incentive that you're interested in make a detectable difference in the outcome you care about? If not, then why are you talking about it? Quantum effects exist and affect the trajectory of the golf ball and yet no one incorporates them into the optimization of their golf swing -- for a very good reason.

"Exists but irrelevant" is a description that can (and should) be applied to many things.

Comment author: Brillyant 01 April 2016 04:56:42PM *  2 points [-]

I have no idea how anyone could deny religious afterlife beliefs have no significant impact in human motivation and, thereby, human behavior. I think we have abundant evidence to the contrary, and you've provided no evidence for your view.

Good chat.

Comment author: entirelyuseless 01 April 2016 03:11:07PM *  1 point [-]

I have at least noticed a change in incentives in my own life, and yes, it makes a detectable difference in outcomes. I am certainly not about to become a serial killer, but there are many good things that I am less motivated to do than I used to be, and consequently, noticeably less likely to actually do.

I agree with Brillyant that his argument is basically obviously, and arguing against it is simply wishful thinking.

Comment deleted 01 April 2016 02:09:35AM [-]
Comment author: Lumifer 01 April 2016 02:44:09PM *  0 points [-]

Really, which bias are you referring to.

The bias of believing (to various degrees) that your in-group is children of the light and your out-group is the spawn of darkness.

Well, a lot of atheists are amoral.

A lot of people are amoral. So what?

Comment author: Lamp2 07 April 2016 07:11:00AM 1 point [-]

The bias of believing (to various degrees) that your in-group is children of the light and your out-group is the spawn of darkness.

Whose ingroup around here do you think is Christians?

Comment deleted 01 April 2016 09:34:18PM [-]
Comment author: Lumifer 02 April 2016 12:31:33AM 0 points [-]

Alia1d's.