= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Open thread, Oct. 5 - Oct. 11, 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 (346)
I cheered when it happened.
The interesting question is how did you decide the Arab Spring was a good thing.
Was it because the New York Times told you so? Or was it a consequence of the prior that "More democracy is always good?"
There may have been some influence from the NYT, but it was also less tyranny as well as more democracy.
Democracy is a quite deceptive word. 74% of Egyptians want Egypt to be ruled via the Sharia.
Did the NYT narrative have Egyptians suddenly stoning homosexuals which a majority of that country believes, or did it have the new government not representing the views of the Egyptian population?
As far as I remember not really. It had the idea that western democracy with people who value western value suddenly came to Egypt without really thinking it through.
"Less tyranny" isn't the same thing as "more democracy".
I'm not sure that I know what's meant with "less tyranny".
Some governments are more abusive than others, and governments which are very abusive tend not to be democracies.
What do you mean with being abusive? Democracies don't have inherent protection of minorities.
Do you believe that the Pakistani government was less abusive than prerevolution Egypt?
I can't speak for Nancy, but my own reaction to the Arab Spring was something like "oh, that looks like a good thing if it actually works out rather than leading to more repression in the end", and it was a consequence of a prior that resembles the one you describe but contains less straw: "More democracy is usually good, other things being equal".
[EDITED to add: I mention this only because I find it striking how the two possibilities you mention are both, if you'll pardon my directness, rather stupid[1], and I'm wondering on what basis you assume that Nancy's reasons were stupid ones.]
[1] Meaning "it would be rather stupid to decide on that basis" rather than "it is stupid to think that someone else might decide on that basis". And of course "stupid" is a strong word; believing whatever you read in the NYT isn't really that bad a strategy. But I'm sure you see what I mean.
This is an entirely generic attitude suitable for everything that claims to have a noble aim in mind.
Doesn't look like a workable prior given that other things are never equal. Looks like a hedged version of "the expected value of more democracy is more good".
I don't think so. Nancy is not an expert in Arab politics -- she relies on opinions of others. Given this, accepting the prevailing opinion of the media (of the appropriate political flavour) is an entirely normal thing and happens all the time. "There is another coup in Backwardistan? The newspaper I read says it's bad? Oh, I guess it must be so <yawn>".
Ditto with using general priors when you can't or can't bother to analyze the situation yourself.
Nope. For instance, abstinence-only sex education claims to have in mind the noble end of preserving the virtue of the young. I do not particularly hope that it succeeds in its aims, because I disagree about their nobility.
Regarding what the "Arab Spring" was trying to do as a noble end (as opposed to one merely claimed to be noble) says something not altogether trivial about the values of the person who so regards it.