= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
play_therapist comments on [Poll] Who looks better in your eyes? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (98)
B. I prefer people who might not be bright to dishonest, manipulative people.
...did you just call closeted atheists in theocracies dishonest and manipulative?
And nearly any other religious minority in such a regime as well.
Good point. What I should have said is something along the lines of , "I prefer people who might not be bright to people who are dishonest or manipulative for personal gain." There is a big difference between that and "pretending to share the interpretation of reality shared by others for safety reasons." They are two very different questions.
Thinking about it more, though- I think it all depends on the circumstances. There are cases where being honest leads to discrimination. I heard that when my uncle, who had a PhD in chemistry, applied for a job at General Mills in the late 1930's or early 1940's, the employment application asked his religious preference. Discrimination against anyone other then Christians was legal and rampant at the time. He was a secular Jew, atheist. He wrote on the application, "I have no preference, I think all religions are lovely." I don't blame him in the least.
Like every situation in life ever?
Practicality anything that I disclose will shift someone assessments of me on some metric or another, and from what we know of status assessment and things like the halo effect we can infer this is almost never neatly contained. I don't quite see how in principle selective dishonesty in the form of disclosing information that improves my standing rather than hurts it is anything but typical human behaviour. Sure one can argue that its justified only for when I have good reason to believe what I disclosed would be used to judged unfairly.
But all people tend to view any heuristics that can discriminate against them as baseless and unfair.
I think you don't have a clear picture of what the problem this poll is talking about is, because you're both very practiced at softening unpleasant truths, and firmly in group (B).
Would it be fair to say that perhaps we LWers might on the whole be motivated to think up reasons why person A looks better than person B, because a substantial number of us are person A on some matters?
To the extent that 'manipulative' describes A I reject the usefulness of the term. Not everyone has the luxury of undiscriminating candor. In fact, in most cases those who lack this most rudimentary of social graces cannot be trusted as social allies.
What's your opinion about radical honesty?
I think this comic illustrates what you're talking about in a cute way, http://www.dilbert.com - go to Aug. 31.
I think it's generally best for people to be diplomatic and tactful. It's generally best to think through the likely consequences of saying things and to filter what one says. I see nothing wrong with telling "white lies" to spare some one's feelings, in general.