Lumifer comments on Why I Am Not a Rationalist, or, why several of my friends warned me that this is a cult

Comment author: Algernoq 23 July 2014 12:07:35AM * 8 points [-]

Wow. You just:

ignored my evidence
blamed me for society's problems

More politely, you fell into the cognitive bias of incorrectly discounting unpleasant information.

This kind of shit is exactly what I've read rape victims have to put up with. People don't want to believe unpleasant things, and prefer to blame the victim's normal choices instead of recognizing that there's a problem.

If you actually have evidence to support me being unable to perceive the world accurately, please tell me what it is. Otherwise, don't tell me that I'm not feeling what I know I'm feeling.

Some of my specific examples:

I've met two sociopaths socially, coincidentally both management consultants. Trustworthy mutual friends confirmed they had long-term partners and that they also cheated a lot without regard for others' feelings. I also saw this personally: on different occasions I saw each of them with a long-term partner and with a short-term hookup. One of these people tried to seduce my long-term girlfriend, and the other tried to set me up with someone he was tired of hooking up with, without disclosing his involvement with her. Both of them failed, but it wasn't a sure thing in either case. This is an extreme example; more generally I don't like seeing people get lied to, and don't like competing in an environment where the baseline assumption is that the other people are emotionally-damaged liars (because the people with these issues tend to do the most dating). I'm also somewhat bothered that the social norm is generally to pretend not to know about cheating/lying in friends' relationships, because there's no positive reward to sharing the information.

At work, in my current job, the technically competent senior engineer with average social skills was passed over for promotion in favor of a technically incompetent senior engineer who covers for his incompetence with posturing and salesmanship. I'm also tired of frequent calls from salesmen who want me to pay 30% too much for something I don't need.

More generally, the structure of many organizations rewards sociopaths. Look up the MacLeod hierarchy for one popular theory.

Please update on this information, and let me know if you have any true or useful information that's relevant here. In other circumstances I'd recommend an apology as well, for following a conversational pattern that typically offends people and is factually incorrect.

Comment author: Lumifer comment score below threshold [+] (14 children)

Comment author: Algernoq 23 July 2014 02:24:26AM * 5 points [-]

I have doubts that it is actually true

What do you mean? The conventional meaning of these words, in context, is to tell me that:

I didn't see what I saw.
I'm not tired of interacting with sociopaths.

To quote XKCD: "communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness. I hope we've learned something today."

you are dating wrong people and working at a wrong place

What do you mean? It sounds like you're just telling me to change my environment.

Do you know of a human society to join that does not contain sociopaths?

Do you know of a reliable way to identify sociopaths prior to interacting with them?

That's hearsay and it seems to me to be not too reliable...

Can you be more specific about how things that I observe firsthand are "heresy"?

How do you reconcile dismissing my statements with the base rate for sociopathy? A few percent is enough for most people to meet many sociopaths during their life.

So? Maybe they have an open relationship.
what does that have to do with sociopathy?
You recommendation was considered and rejected.

I disagree with each of these statements for obvious reasons. If you're not trolling, I would be happy to discuss further.

In summary:

I believe I have met sociopaths. I believe the evidence strongly supports this. It looks like you're ignoring evidence. What is your motivation/goal here?
The suggestion to change my environment is not useful, because other environments will also have sociopaths. I agree that avoiding unpleasant environments is bad in general.
My earlier post was intended to say that large status differentials are usually bad for the lower-status person in the relationship, whether in poly- or mono- relationships. I also wanted to get confirmation that other people have similar problems with sociopaths and rape, and hopefully get ideas for addressing these from the unique perspective of LW. Both of these goals were apparently not communicated clearly.

Again, my goal was:

I'd like to see more "calm discussion" of status differentials in relationships, because a general solution here would address nearly all concerns about polyamory.

This seems to have failed.

I give you one karma in the spirit of the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma.

Comment author: Lumifer 23 July 2014 03:52:15AM -1 points [-]

What do you mean?

I mean that I doubt your assessment of the situation. "Sociopath" is a clinical diagnosis, are you sure you're qualified to make it?

What do you mean? It sounds like you're just telling me to change my environment.

Why, yes, I do :-) Note that I do not blame you for society's problems. And neither do I tell you what you are feeling. But I did offer you a piece of advice -- to change your environment.

Do you know of a human society to join that does not contain sociopaths?

You don't interact with the whole society. You interact with your social circle and your co-workers.

"heresy"

My spelling problems are not that bad :-) I did mean hearsay.

A few percent is enough for most people to meet many sociopaths during their life.

You were not talking about meeting some sociopaths. You said "I'm tired of competing with sociopaths in dating and at work" -- that's goes quite a fair bit above and beyond the base rate.

It looks like you're ignoring evidence.

I don't have any evidence other than your assertions. I don't doubt your honesty but I doubt your capability to evaluate the situation in an unbiased way.

because other environments will also have sociopaths.

I don't have sociopaths either in my social circle or among my co-workers -- at least easily recognizable ones.

large status differentials are usually bad for the lower-status person in the relationship

Probably true, but I'm not sure what are you suggesting -- that relationships do not cross status (class) boundaries? That doesn't sound too appealing.

I also wanted to get confirmation that other people have similar problems with sociopaths and rape

One data point for you -- I don't.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 July 2014 11:38:40AM 6 points [-]

I'm going to partially agree with both of you and say that, whereas certain social circles and workplaces do contain many fewer evil people than others, it's not easy for certain people to change social circle or workplace in certain circumstances.

Comment author: Algernoq 23 July 2014 06:35:47AM * 0 points [-]

I mean that I doubt your assessment of the situation.

I'm claiming is that people have tried to take advantage of me, including the examples I gave above, as well as every car salesman I've ever met. It's not a high percentage -- most people are good/neutral -- but there are some people who are mildly amused by trying to hurt me.

What are you trying to prove? Why is it so important to you that the world is...what? Free of evil intent in your immediate social circle? Free of injustice affecting people you consider your peers?

It sounds like you're twisting my words to fit your worldview, and trying to make me doubt my sanity.
Specifically:

You were not talking about meeting some sociopaths.
I doubt your capability to evaluate the situation in an unbiased way.
"Sociopath" is a clinical diagnosis, are you sure you're qualified to make it?
You don't interact with the whole society.

Who is truly unbiased and therefore in your view able to make reliable decisions? How sociopathic would an example have to be to meet your arbitrary criteria? Are you proposing I stop interacting with unknown people?

Do you want to be better? Do you want the truth, or not?

I want you to acknowledge that the people in the examples I gave more likely than not tried to hurt me for reasons including their own amusement.

This is important as a first step toward talking about solutions. I want better solutions for negotiating with and ideally changing sociopathy, both personally as I advance in my career and encounter high-stakes situations more often, and for my own dreams of world improvement.

I also wanted to get confirmation that other people have similar problems with sociopaths

One data point for you -- I don't.

Given the base rate for these things, it appears that you're choosing to ignore information so you don't feel obligated to deal with it.

To change your mind, among other options, I could tell you some true stories about people who are much richer than you taking advantage of people in your class.

Also, it sounds like your goal is to increase your status by bashing my position, not actually resolving the issue.

(Suggesting) that relationships do not cross status (class) boundaries?

Yes, because these relationships are risky for the lower-status person, and impose externalities on others. Social mobility is provided by education, skill, etc. -- I'm not proposing hereditary classes.

It sounds like you're OK with polyamory with status differences. In that case, it appears the "winning" strategy is to build a harem of lower-status partners. This approach is arguably good for the individual but bad for others (less investment in children, more crime by low-status men who can't get sex, leads to infighting within the harem). For example, several Google executives are in open relationships with a wife who'd rather be monogamous plus some more attractive young people, and several players I know usually have a few partners at any one time. As there's no incentive for the players to be honest, this imposes costs on others.

How much sociopathy do you see in your community? None? Why is this important to you? Why is your community different from the average community with equivalent wealth/background?

Comment author: Jiro 23 July 2014 03:00:03PM 5 points [-]

I also wanted to get confirmation that other people have similar problems with sociopaths

One data point for you -- I don't.

Given the base rate for these things, it appears that you're choosing to ignore information so you don't feel obligated to deal with it.

Isn't that the same sort of data-ignoring that you're complaining that he does? You just asked for some data, he gave it to you (he told you he doesn't have such problems) and you refused to believe it. What's the point of even asking people to confirm something if you won't accept "no, I confirm the opposite" as an answer?

Comment author: Algernoq 24 July 2014 12:54:02AM 2 points [-]

I read his comment as "I don't want to know about other people having problems with sociopaths", not as "I don't have problems with sociopaths".

That makes sense...his comment isn't quite as bad then. To put it in another context (poverty instead of sociopathy), he meant something like "I'm not poor, hahah!" and I thought he meant "I like to ignore the poor, haha!" He's just saying he's high-status, and I thought he was saying he enjoys enjoying laughing at low-status people.

Comment author: Jiro 24 July 2014 09:21:33AM 3 points [-]

I think even that is being unfair to him. "I don't have problems with sociopaths and I think it's because I'm not the kind of person who sociopaths bother" may be a claim of high status, but "I don't have problems with sociopaths and I think that's because people in general don't have problems with sociopaths, and you're biased or unlucky" is not. (It can't be a claim of high status--if it is, that would mean that your question is a catch-22, where anyone who actively fails to confirm you is automatically claiming high status.)

Comment author: Algernoq 25 July 2014 02:01:18AM 3 points [-]

people in general don't have problems with sociopaths

I agree it sounds like he's claiming the above. I don't see how this is useful or accurate, because it fits the pattern of "people in general don't have problems with (X widely known problem)".

I agree, someone who does not notice sociopaths likely has higher status than someone who does.

I can believe he genuinely doesn't see sociopaths in his community. Given the base rate for sociopathy is ~1% and that he has probably met, very roughly, 4,000 people, the probability that he has never met a sociopath in his community is (.99)^(4,000)=3.47*10^-18. In other words, the probability that he has met a sociopath and didn't realize it is ~100%.

This conversation becomes pointless. As Thucydides said: questions of justice only exist between equal powers.

continue this thread »

Comment author: Lumifer 23 July 2014 02:53:17PM * -1 points [-]

I'm claiming is that people have tried to take advantage of me, including the examples I gave above, as well as every car salesman I've ever met. It's not a high percentage -- most people are good/neutral -- but there are some people who are mildly amused by trying to hurt me.

I want you to acknowledge that the people in the examples I gave more likely than not tried to hurt me for reasons including their own amusement.

Ah. It looks to me that some of our disagreement, as is often the case, is a terminology problem.

You've been talking about sociopaths. "Sociopath" is a diagnosis of a mental illness, a personality disorder. You asked:

How sociopathic would an example have to be to meet your arbitrary criteria?

The answer to that is provided by the DSM. You can read it here. Sociopathy is not common.

I don't think you are using this term properly. Instead I'd like to offer you two other alternative expressions.

On a colloquial level those you've been talking about are usually called assholes (and sometimes dicks/bitches as appropriate). Assholes are certainly plentiful in the world and complaints about being surrounded by dicks and assholes...

...must...not...make...bad...allegories...

...oh, where was I? sorry. So, there are lots of assholes and there are lots of complaints about them throughout the history in pretty much every society. You want to join the litany? Sure, the line is over there, please take a number, it is sevenbillionmumblemumble, wait for it to be called.

On a slightly more analytical level, I think a better word for you to use is amoral (or, maybe, immoral). It seems to me that you're not bothered by these people's lack of emotional reaction, you're bothered by what they find fine to say and do -- and that's morality and ethics. You probably think that their morals are either absent or bad.

That is different from claims of sociopathy and -- surprise -- also very very common.

Why is it so important to you that the world is...what?

I am participating in a conversation on an internet forum. In the great scheme of things that's not particularly important to me. But the (meta) subject of this discussion is accuracy of maps, not features of the territory.

I want better solutions for negotiating with and ideally changing sociopathy

If you want to learn negotiating, any B&N will have a shelf of books devoted to that. I think you'll be able to find a variety of materials on LW as well which will be helpful.

By "changing sociopathy" I think you mean changing the morality of some people. I don't think it's going to be a fruitful endeavour, but that's just me.

Who is truly unbiased and therefore in your view able to make reliable decisions?

Someone who is not too excitable and not emotionally invested in particular conclusions.

I could tell you some true stories about people who are much richer than you taking advantage of people in your class.

LOL. You are not referring to something like political assassination stories from Salon about how the Koch brothers orgasm every time their tentacles tighten a bit more around the throats of hard-working widows and orphans..?

And what is my "class", by the way?

because these relationships are risky for the lower-status person

A relationship with another low-status person is risky, too, in different ways. If you are a trailer-park girl, is it really better for you to choose a trailer-park mate?

It sounds like you're OK with polyamory with status differences. In that case, it appears the "winning" strategy is to build a harem of lower-status partners.

Interesting. That's a... revealing comment. What "winning" means is defined by your values. Looking at myself (since I can speak for myself), I would not consider lording over a harem of low-status partners to be "winning", in fact if I would probably actively try to avoid such a situation. But do you think that's what "winning" is?

with a wife who'd rather be monogamous

LOL. And how do you know this, do tell... You're not engaging is some blatant gender stereotyping, are you?

Comment author: Algernoq 25 July 2014 02:55:40AM -2 points [-]

How sociopathic would an example have to be to meet your arbitrary criteria?

The answer to that is provided by the DSM. You can read it here.

I looked at your link (dsm.pdf at the psi.uba.ar website) and it doesn't mention sociopathy. Do a word search. If you're going to troll with sources, at least pick relevant ones.

Sociopathy is not common.

The DSM does say that antisocial personality disorder includes what used to be called sociopathy. Multiple sources indicate that about 0.6% of US adults have antisocial personality disorder. If you've met an unusually small number of people (which my limited interaction with you suggests is possible), for example only 2000 people, then the probability of you never having met a sociopath is about (.994)^(2000)=0.000006. In other words, the probability that you're ignoring evidence is ~100%.

LOL

This is how you practice Rationality?? Protip: this is a bias called "emotional reasoning".

there are lots of assholes and there are lots of complaints about them

I hoped LW would discuss clever ways to solve universal problems, such as death and assholery.

You are not referring to something like political assassination stories from Salon

Correct. Real GDP growth is minimal and real stock market values are flat/decreasing on average, while capital owners are becoming much richer. The law also heavily favors people who can afford expert lawyers.

And what is my "class", by the way?

I'm guessing you're white and male, average attractiveness/intelligence, early 20s, earning less than $50,000/year, and spend a lot of time unproductively on the Internet. So, higher than the global average, but not on track to ever reach the 1%. Am I right?

If you want to learn negotiating

I'm learning already! Based on your helpful input, I've found a solution to my problem and I'm enjoying some new-found freedom of expression.

any B&N

They haven't gone bankrupt yet?

I think you'll be able to find a variety of materials on LW as well which will be helpful.

Yup, if you're a white male, being a narcissistic asshole without self-awareness is a winning strategy in most modern situations.

That's a... revealing comment.

Hahaahaha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Nice rhetoric. Oh, my aching sides.

the (meta) subject of this discussion is accuracy of maps

Let me know when you're ready to talk about the actual subject of this discussion.

Comment author: wedrifid 25 July 2014 10:23:33AM 2 points [-]

I'm guessing you're white and male, average attractiveness/intelligence, early 20s, earning less than $50,000/year, and spend a lot of time unproductively on the Internet. So, higher than the global average, but not on track to ever reach the 1%. Am I right?

Lumifer is distinctly above average in intelligence. That, combined with what I infer is somewhat more experience at the game, is why he is beating you at the one-upmanship contest you two are having. He is coming off less badly despite displaying more antagonism. Feel free to keep practicing, but note that you can tell from the voting patterns that the audience has tired of the show (downvoting both sides) so it may be better to discuss with different, more cooperative, discussion partners for a while.

Comment author: Lumifer comment score below threshold [+] (1 child)

Comment author: MugaSofer 05 September 2014 06:37:19PM * 0 points [-]

I'm curious, how do you know they were sociopaths? You seem to imply your evidence was that they were unfaithful and generally skeevy individuals besides, but was there anything else?

(Actually, does anyone know how we know that sociopaths are better at manipulating people? I've absorbed this belief somehow, but I don't recall seeing any studies or anything.)

Comment author: Algernoq 23 July 2014 12:29:14AM * 0 points [-]

In addition to disagreeing with Lumifer's position here for the obvious reasons stated above, I humbly submit that the up-votes on his comment above are evidence that "many LWers are not very rational". While I don't know what the base rate is for this, I hoped for better.
Edit: Looks like the vote total has corrected itself to the negative.

Comment author: Algernoq 23 July 2014 12:20:26AM * 0 points [-]

In addition to disagreeing with Lumifer's position here for the obvious reasons stated below, I humbly submit that the up-votes on his comment above are evidence that "many LWers are not very rational". While I don't know what the base rate is for this, I hoped for better.

Lumifer comments on Why I Am Not a Rationalist, or, why several of my friends warned me that this is a cult - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (192)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Open Threads

Recent Rationality Diaries

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (192)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login