= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MathiasZaman comments on Stupid Questions March 2015 - 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 (199)
Here's my speculation: By getting really angry about it, you're acting in a way that would make the desirable belief (don't misgender trans people, for example) common sense. Most people would get angry if you openly state stuff like "Women shouldn't be allowed to drive cars because they're stupid." By getting angry about less accepted stuff, you (try to?) give your belief a more mainstream status.
The complication is that you can succeed at getting specific behaviors by showing anger.
Compassion and/or full inclusion in one's group is reflected by a much more complex and flexible set of behaviors, and I'm not sure anger is a useful tool for getting that.
Good point! Salemicus convinced me well that anger is an emotion felt over the felt violation of social rules, thus it can also be used to generate consensus and cohesion about social rules: http://lesswrong.com/lw/lsw/rationality_quotes_thread_march_2015/c2yn?context=1#c2yn
One thing that is working on even me, even though I easily fall into flight-or-fight reflexes shutting down my capabilities to empathize, is "OMG I can't believe you just said that! Must be irony right?" Such a simple "trick" and works on me every time, I instantly wonder "Wait, I just violated a rule most people agree about and I was not even aware of its existence? Better crawl back under a stone, I don't seem to be able to keep up." The "trick" is that censure, judgement given with such a confidence feels like actually having a strong social support behind it, even when it is not the case.