= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Emile comments on Constructing fictional eugenics (LW edition) - 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 (174)
I was thinking of something more in that ballpark, though not particularly in terms of explicit goals; more in terms of the content of political debates (candidate vs. candidate, or politician vs. journalist), where cheap shots, simplifications, righteous indignation and misdirection would be less effective, and nuance, complex models and discussions of tradeoffs and incentives would be more effective than they are now.
Complex models provide more room for complex rhetorical and logical maneuvers that trick or mislead your opponent in the debate.
If two people debating publicly are dishonest, willing to lie or mislead when they can get away with it, and are not trying to refute their own argument the way a truth-seeking rationalist would, then increasing their intelligence only improves their techniques, it doesn't force them to be more honest. Unless you think that with higher intelligence, defense will become stronger than offence (i.e. it will become harder to decieve than to expose deception and prove it to a third party observer).
I'm not claiming the politicians would be more honest, I'm claiming we would see less idiotic arguments, which to my eyes counts as "more reasonable political debate".
Again, the biggest effects doesn't come from improving their intelligence, but improving the public's intelligence: even if those two people stay completely dishonest, a smart public shifts the topics they can talk about; instead of birth certificates and conspiracy theories and Jesus they can talk about fiscal policy and other substantive issues (even if they lie just as much as before!).
So instead of idiotic arguments, they'd be presenting cunning, apparently sane arguments that are actually full of misleading lies and traps. I prefer the idiotic arguments - at least then I can easily tell they're wrong, and they're not wasting anything but the time spent arguing.