You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Eugine_Nier comments on [Link] Social interventions gone wrong - Less Wrong Discussion

24 [deleted] 20 August 2012 09:24AM

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

Comments (75)

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

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 22 August 2012 07:48:04PM 1 point [-]

I'm curious what sort of procedures might use "stigma and fear" to reduce unwed teen pregnancy in poor women. If we take seriously the article CronoDAS posted regarding the rational motivations for young poor women having babies, then presumably addressing those specific motivations might do it.

While the motivations described to the article are in some sense rational, they're rational in an adaptation executor kind of way. Thus, other adaptations, e.g., the desire to avoid social shaming, can be used to contract them.

(Notably, we would not expect preaching traditionalist views via religion, or other means that did not change the material utility landscape, to work. If, as the article holds, young women choose to have babies on the basis of their material expected outcomes, then the procedures would have to alter the young women's material expected outcomes; and — to qualify as relevant here — would have to do so using stigma and fear.)

Compare the situation today with the situation 60 years ago. Notice what is and isn't different.

The same could be said for a lot of other views; that's scarcely unique to one end of a political spectrum.

So you agree that "stigma and fear" is in fact an effective way to change people's behavior.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 22 August 2012 09:01:03PM *  1 point [-]

Thus, other adaptations, e.g., the desire to avoid social shaming, can be used to contract them.

It's an interesting thought. How would you control for the baseline levels of social shame that racial minorities, poor people, and teen mothers are already subjected to?

Compare the situation today with the situation 60 years ago. Notice what is and isn't different.

All sorts of things. There's a lot less lead paint on the walls, for instance; a lot more black men in prison for victimless crimes, too; "the situation" is hardly simple. What leads you to single out your particular claim?

So you agree that "stigma and fear" is in fact an effective way to change people's behavior.

Running a power drill through the eyeballs of people you dislike might "change people's behavior" too, but that doesn't make it a policy proposal rather than a psychopathy symptom.

In other words, it isn't clear that this is the same sort of thing at all. And specifically, the reasons certain proposals wouldn't work have to do with political realities — e.g. if you try to generate "stigma and fear" by forbidding doctors from treating teen mothers, the doctors are not likely to cooperate.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 22 August 2012 09:46:59PM 2 points [-]

Compare the situation today with the situation 60 years ago. Notice what is and isn't different.

All sorts of things.

Specifically, I was referring to the fact that Blacks were even poorer back than so following the argument CronoDAS's link was making we would expect there to be more unwed motherhood among them. On the other hand unwed motherhood was much more stigmatized (and no it didn't involve laws forbidding doctors from treating teen mothers).

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 23 August 2012 06:40:29PM 0 points [-]

a lot more black men in prison for victimless crimes, too;

This is unrelated to the main argument, but I'm not sure the crimes in question are truly victimless for reasons given in these two posts.