= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
army1987 comments on [LINK] Why I'm not on the Rationalist Masterlist - 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 (866)
I find stuff like “if you don't sign up your kids for cryonics then you are a lousy parent” more problematic than a sizeable fraction of what reactionaries say.
What if you qualified it, "If you believe the claims of cryonicists, are signed up for cryonics yourself, but don't sign your kids up, then you are a lousy parent"?
I would agree with it, but that's a horse of a different colour.
In discussing vaccinations, how many people choose to say something as conditional as "if you believe the claims of doctors, have had your own vaccinations, but don't let your kids be vaccinated, then you are a lousy parent"?
No, the argument is that you should believe the value of vaccinations, and that disbelieving the value of vaccinations itself makes your parenting lousy.
Well, I think Eliezer feels the same about cryonics as pretty much all the rest of us feel about vaccines -- they help protect your kids from several possible causes of death.
Which is pretty much the same argument as saying that you should baptize your children and that disbelieving the value of baptism itself makes your parenting lousy.
If the belief-set you're subtly implying is involved were accurate, then it would be.
However, I think we have a "sound" vs "sound" tree-falling-in-the-woods issue here. Is "lousy parenting" a virtue-ethics style moral judgement, or a judgement of your effectiveness as a parent?
Taboo "lousy", people. We're supposed to be rationalists.
Exactly, it all depends on the actual value of the thing in question. I believe baptism has zero value, I believe vaccines have lots of value, I'm highly uncertain about the value of cryonics (compared to other things the money could be going to).
A person is expected to say such about X if they believe X has lots of value. So why is it so very problematic for Eliezer to say it about cryonics when he believes cryonics have lots of value?
It's impolitic and I don't know how effective it is in changing minds. But then again it's the same thing we say about vaccinations, so who knows: perhaps shaming parents does work in convincing them. I'd like to see research about that.
My prior is that the results will be bi-modal: some parents can be shamed into adjusting their ways, while for others it will only force them into the bunker mindset and make them more resistant to change.