= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Knox and Sollecito freed - 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 (114)
I don't place as much moral weight as I once did on what people believe. This is heavily influenced by an improved model of what relationships beliefs have with behavior and instinct. In humans. There really was a time when I considered self deception a worthwhile excuse for subsequent bad behavior rather than just what it often takes for us to get away with what we are motivated to do anyway.
If we are going to have any success at things like raising the sanity waterline, we need to understand how and when human reasoning fails. And we need to appreciate how much that depends on circumstances. In the same way that almost any of us if we were born in the US in 1810 would have been in favor of slavery, and almost any of us born in 1930 would have been against interracial marriage, it is important to understand that we don't have some magic gift of rationality. If one of us were in the same situation as the Kerchers, we'd likely react the same way, and I'd go so far as to say that even someone as highly rational as most LWians with all the experience and awareness of cognitive biases would still likely react the same way.
To destroy bias we must understand it.
I don't see a motivation that the Kerchers would be motivated to harm Amanda Knox other than their belief that she killed their daughter. In this context, what do you think is the underlying motive that they are engaging in self-deception to accomplish?
They -- and their lawyer -- have a pecuniary incentive to seek a verdict against Knox and Sollecito, since it would entail the imposition of monetary damages in the millions of euros. Needless to say, Rudy Guédé's financial rescources are almost certainly not comparable to those of Knox and Sollecito (even though the latter two aren't themselves extraordinarily wealthy).
Of course, this probably doesn't directly pass into their conscious motivation; but it still likely affects their judgement.
Did most American citizens really support slavery then? Most Northerners and many Southerners opposed it, especially from the 1830's onward.
You are correct. I'm at least ten years too late and probably more like 20 or 30 years too late. The essential point goes through with the corrected time.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/uy/dark_side_epistemology/4xbv
I can't speak for wedrifid, obviously, but the one that immediately suggests itself to me is the desire for satisfaction and closure- it's more comforting to believe Amanda Knox killed their daughter than some random stranger they know nothing about who may or may not ever be caught.
The random stranger was caught within a month: his name is Rudy Guédé, and he was sentenced to 16 years in prison for the crime.
Oh. Oops. (Reads up on trial.) In that case, the only vaguely credible hypothesis I can see is some kind of unconscious consistency effect / sunk costs fallacy thing, where recanting a belief that has been proven to be mistaken is perceived as tremendously more costly and difficult than it actually is. Or something. Maybe wedrifid could clarify what he meant?
Is that a normal sentence? Reduced for testifying?
According to the motivation document from Guédé's appeal trial, it was reduced due to mitigating circumstances (difficult childhood, intended to turn himself in, apologized to Kercher family for "not coming to Meredith's aid").
I don't think that sentence is that far off what I'd expect in Italy. In general, prison sentences in most of Western Europe are much shorter than they are in the US.
I think it's believed that the crime had to have been committed by more than one person, so now they do have to deal with not having caught/convicted Guede's accomplice(s), whoever that is.
No; that theory is subscribed to almost exclusively by people who believe Knox and Sollecito are guilty. Knox and Sollecito's defense argued (almost certainly correctly) that Guédé acted alone.
So...in your opinion, the Kerchers are so motivated to cause harm to an innocent young woman that they have deceived themselves into believing she is guilty of the murder of their daughter, so that they can get away with it? Why? What exactly is the point of that? I suppose if you really think their daughter's death has made them want to kill random innocent people, the whole "evil" angle is more understandable, but that hypothesis really does not make sense to me.
No. Not even remotely.
Now is perhaps not the best time to attempt a detailed high quality discussion of all the various motivating factors behind seeking skapegoats.
Ok, well, bad guess on my part, then.
Indeed I don't see much motivation to seek out a scapegoat in a case where the real killer has been found and convicted.
I'm just saying...maybe they're just wrong? Sometimes that happens?
My interpretation of Wedrifid's point here is something along the lines of:
If you are going to advocate the kind of punishment sought against Amanda Knox, you have an obligation to hold yourself to high epistemic standards.
The evidence used to convict her fell so far short of that as to constitute dangerous negligence.
I agree with that too, but I still disagree on the "evil" thing.
I don't know about how the word "evil" should be wired up in our minds, but I do think that callously disapproving of the negligence is an appropriate reaction to have, and if I view use of the word "evil" as a part of that, I'm okay with it.
This would make Wedrifid's position understandable to me, which is otherwise mysterious. OK... updated.
I endorse this (and suspect wedrifid does too, but I need only speak for myself).
Yes, it seems about right.