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.

James_Miller comments on Open thread, Feb. 23 - Mar. 1, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: MrMind 23 February 2015 08:01AM

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

Comments (161)

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

Comment author: James_Miller 23 February 2015 06:29:52PM 3 points [-]

We have told him that other people will think less of him if he swears, that some words are attacks on groups and hearing these words will cause emotional discomfort to members of these groups, and that his swearing causes his mom some discomfort. I have told him that while I am not inherently bothered by him swearing, I don't want him to do it around me because it will make it more likely that he will swear at school, but he claims that his swearing at home doesn't increase the likelihood of him swearing at school.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 24 February 2015 09:02:01AM *  3 points [-]

he claims that his swearing at home doesn't increase the likelihood of him swearing at school

Rationalists make bets. Is he ready to make a bet on this claim? (Framing this as "bet" could be better than framing it as a "punishment". Of course there needs to be some reward if he wins the bet, otherwise there is no incentive.)

Comment author: Jiro 24 February 2015 09:41:49PM *  2 points [-]

The 10 year old is probably risk averse on this, so would have good reason not to take such a bet--pretty much anything that he would lose for losing the bet is a loss that he wouldn't be able to absorb, and no sane parent is going to give him a punishment that is small enough that he can absorb it. Of course, being a 10 year old, he wouldn't use the term "risk-averse" and may phrase it in an awkward way or be unable to put his objection into coherent words at all, but that's basically what he'd be doing.

So the fact that he would likely refuse such a bet (unless he is overly optimistic, also a possibility) won't prove that he is wrong. As a parent, you could always lie and say "if you won't take the bet, that means you don't really believe it" but you would be lying, so whether you should do that depends on what you think about using bad reasoning to make kids obey.

On the other hand, it would be perfectly rationalist to say "I'm a grownup. I know how people, and especially kids, act. If I let you swear at home you will say it somewhere else, so no, I'm not going to let you swear at home." You're not criticizing his reasoning, you're asserting that you have better priors than he does, and you most likely do.

Comment author: Larks 24 February 2015 02:07:26AM 0 points [-]

but he claims that his swearing at home doesn't increase the likelihood of him swearing at school

Tough! Many adults fail to understand that they're not perfect rational agents, so instead that their habits really matter. I guess on the bright side this could be a good opportunity to teach him that he should not encultivate habits that raise the psychic cost of virtuous behaviour, even if those habits are themselves not inherently vices.