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.

Vaniver comments on What truths are actually taboo? - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: sunflowers 16 April 2013 11:40PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (293)
Tags: gender racism politics taboo

Comments (293)

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

Comment author: Vaniver 17 April 2013 07:01:27PM 8 points [-]

It's sound inference.

I agree that it's sound inference, given the hypotheses "racist" and "not racist."

What is more important is the importance given to those hypotheses. I think you're mistaken about what taboos are: they're signals of "not my tribe." Someone who supports Palestine over Israel is against the 'tribe of Israel,' in the way that a measured discussion of the Holocaust after professing love for the tribe isn't. It may be socially or instrumentally rational to yield to such politics, but never mistake it for epistemic rationality. (That is, the phrase "politically correct" is literally true.)

Are we really not allowed to do a reasonable, thoughtful cost-benefit analysis of immigration?

What do you mean by "we," "really," and "allowed"? No one will throw you in jail if you do such analysis and post it on your blog, but don't be surprised when the SPLC puts you on hatewatch. The more important question is, "are the people who actually decide immigration laws doing a reasonable, thoughtful cost-benefit analysis?"

Comment author: sunflowers 17 April 2013 07:19:22PM -1 points [-]

I agree that it's sound inference, given the hypotheses "racist" and "not racist."

Yes, given mutually exclusive and exhaustive - if fuzzy - categories that necessarily exist. Ok. Are you saying that it's an unsound inference?

What is more important is the importance given to those hypotheses. I think you're mistaken about what taboos are: they're signals of "not my tribe."

My tribe here being correct and not completely morally reprehensible, which includes lots of people who aren't in what I consider my in-group.

Someone who supports Palestine over Israel is against the 'tribe of Israel,' in the way that a measured discussion of the Holocaust after professing love for the tribe isn't.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with this debate. If you were, you would understand it to be a reflexive response against criticism of Israeli expansion and aggression. The Jewish critics of Israeli militarism are also called anti-Semitic. It has a lot more to do with power worship than tribal signalling, though the latter certainly plays a role in party discipline.

It may be socially or instrumentally rational to yield to such politics, but never mistake it for epistemic rationality.

You'd probably think Bill is a racist. Bill is an extreme example, but for him or a more realistic case could you let me know why inferring this would be a failure of rationality?

What do you mean by "we," "really," and "allowed"? No one will throw you in jail if you do such analysis and post it on your blog, but don't be surprised when the SPLC puts you on hatewatch.

I would be very surprised. I've followed Hatewatch before. Give me an example of this. If these exist, they must not be common.

The more important question is, "are the people who actually decide immigration laws doing a reasonable, thoughtful cost-benefit analysis?"

More important? Sure. Related? No. Of course they aren't. The party that wants the xenophobe vote doesn't need to do that, and the party that wants the Hispanic vote doesn't need to do that.

Comment author: Vaniver 17 April 2013 07:32:49PM 2 points [-]

My tribe here being correct and not completely morally reprehensible

You may be interested in this article.

Comment author: sunflowers 17 April 2013 07:39:43PM 0 points [-]

I've read it. Still waiting for your examples.

Comment author: Vaniver 17 April 2013 08:02:35PM 4 points [-]

Still waiting for your examples.

Of Hatewatch targeting people who oppose immigration? You realize that's one of their tags, right?

I've read it.

I recommend reading it again. Consider what you wrote in the great-grandparent:

The party that wants the xenophobe vote doesn't need to do that, and the party that wants the Hispanic vote doesn't need to do that.

Don't it seem odd that the only dimension on which immigration is politically relevant is personal warmth towards Hispanics? As a policy decision, it has way more impacts than that. To pick just one dimension, where are the environmentalists comparing per capita carbon production in Mexico and America, and analyzing what impact Mexicans moving to America will have on global carbon production?

Comment author: sunflowers 17 April 2013 08:14:00PM *  1 point [-]

Of Hatewatch targeting people who oppose immigration? You realize that's one of their tags, right?

Yes, and I searched that tag before responding, and I didn't find people listed for doing careful cost-benefit analyses. Instead, I saw neo-Nazis and "minutemen."

Don't it seem odd that the only dimension on which immigration is politically relevant is personal warmth towards Hispanics?

Don't it seem odd that ain't what I said?

As a policy decision, it has way more impacts than that.

Duh, but your question was whether or not politicians are conducting cost-benefit analyses to arrive at their positions. They aren't. Republicans are busy trying to figure out how to get more of the hispanic vote without "alienating the base." Do you think the base will be alienated out of a concern for carbon emissions?

I'll ask once more for you to answer the question you keep refusing to answer: where is the failure of rationality in inferring that Bill is a racist? Why is it that true statements cannot serve as signals for the presence of false beliefs, or why is it that that rule, if sometimes sound, is not sound in this or similar cases?

Edit: Whoa I needed to fix some grammar.

Comment author: Vaniver 18 April 2013 12:15:04AM 2 points [-]

I didn't find people listed for doing careful cost-benefit analyses. Instead, I saw neo-Nazis and "minutemen."

Did you seriously expect the SPLC to say "this guy is an evil racist who hates immigrants, but he brings up sound, quantitative points that we ought to consider"? To the best of my knowledge, there is no American Thilo Sarrazin. Peter Brimelow might be close (and the SPLC excoriates him accordingly), but I haven't looked for or found anything carefully quantitative by Brimelow. Similarly, Steve Sailer is worth paying attention to, but calls for cost-benefit analyses rather than doing them himself (beyond back-of-the-envelope ones).

I'll ask once more for you to answer the question you keep refusing to answer: where is the failure of rationality in inferring that Bill is a racist?

Thank you for repeating the question; that made it clearer what you were interested in.

In my opinion, strongly caring whether or not Bill is a racist is a mistake. There are reputational concerns about associating with racists, but I think it is poor epistemic hygiene to weight those concerns highly.

Even then, supposing it were important to care whether or not Bill was a racist, I think that most people overestimate the likelihood ratio of racism vs. non-racism upon hearing a politically incorrect comment.

Comment author: MugaSofer 18 April 2013 07:50:44PM 1 point [-]

In my opinion, strongly caring whether or not Bill is a racist is a mistake.

I suspect most people do, in fact, weigh this too highly, but could you articulate why?

Comment author: Vaniver 19 April 2013 01:20:25AM *  3 points [-]

This is a good place to start. If you have more time, chapter IX of Mysterious Stranger is also relevant.

That made him laugh again, and he said, "Yes, I was laughing at you, because, in fear of what others might report about you, you stoned the woman when your heart revolted at the act - but I was laughing at the others, too."

"Why?"

"Because their case was yours."

"How is that?"

"Well, there were sixty-eight people there, and sixty-two of them had no more desire to throw a stone than you had."

"Satan!"

"Oh, it's true. I know your race. It is made up of sheep. It is governed by minorities, seldom or never by majorities. It suppresses its feelings and its beliefs and follows the handful that makes the most noise. Sometimes the noisy handful is right, sometimes wrong; but no matter, the crowd follows it. The vast majority of the race, whether savage or civilized, are secretly kind-hearted and shrink from inflicting pain, but in the presence of the aggressive and pitiless minority they don't dare to assert themselves. Think of it! One kind-hearted creature spies upon another, and sees to it that he loyally helps in iniquities which revolt both of them. Speaking as an expert, I know that ninety-nine out of a hundred of your race were strongly against the killing of witches when that foolishness was first agitated by a handful of pious lunatics in the long ago. And I know that even to-day, after ages of transmitted prejudice and silly teaching, only one person in twenty puts any real heart into the harrying of a witch. And yet apparently everybody hates witches and wants them killed. Some day a handful will rise up on the other side and make the most noise - perhaps even a single daring man with a big voice and a determined front will do it - and in a week all the sheep will wheel and follow him, and witch-hunting will come to a sudden end.

Comment author: MugaSofer 19 April 2013 11:52:40AM *  -2 points [-]

I'm ... not entirely clear why that's relevant.

Are you saying we should deliberately handicap our estimation of racism, because even people who disagree will go along with it?

Comment author: sunflowers 18 April 2013 05:24:29AM 0 points [-]

Did you seriously expect the SPLC to say "this guy is an evil racist who hates immigrants, but he brings up sound, quantitative points that we ought to consider"?

No. What I don't expect is for somebody who does decent work to end up on Hatewatch. Which is what you said I should expect. Which I don't. Because I shouldn't. Because the stuff about immigration which ends up on Hatewatch actually tends to be in the indefensible territory.

Thank you for repeating the question; that made it clearer what you were interested in.

Good, so we'll be answering it!

In my opinion, strongly caring whether or not Bill is a racist is a mistake. There are reputational concerns about associating with racists, but I think it is poor epistemic hygiene to weight those concerns highly.

No, we'll be saying it's not worth answering. Well shit.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit