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.

Lumifer comments on The map of cognitive biases, errors and obstacles affecting judgment and management of global catastrophic risks - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: turchin 16 July 2016 12:11PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (63)

CC Licenced

Comments (63)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: Algernoq 16 July 2016 08:15:25PM 2 points [-]

Assuming this is all true...it's not at all clear that cooperation is my best move.

I refuse to sacrifice my life to protect billionaires who would not do the same for me. I won't labor under pointlessly annoying conditions to protect an ownership class that despises the technological progress and growth that I worked to create.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but...scientists get less sex than criminals.

In my personal experience...all of my ex-girlfriends had sex with someone who doesn't share my values -- a criminal, a future lawyer/financier, or an actual Owner with inherited wealth -- before meeting me, and lied to me about it. I experienced mental anguish and other negative consequences as a result of this bad system.

It's not illegal to always defect in prisoner's dilemmas. It's illegal to punish people who always defect in prisoner's dilemmas.

Fuck this; I'm out.

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

Comment author: Algernoq 16 July 2016 10:21:58PM 3 points [-]

I don't ask but it comes up. Certain occupations have corresponding values, that align with "cooperate" or "defect" strategies. For example, scientists "cooperate", while criminals and finance guys "defect" whenever they think it'll be profitable.

I notice you are using shaming language. I realize my beliefs are unusual but I am not clear what your question means.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 July 2016 10:59:44PM * 0 points [-]

For example, scientists "cooperate", while criminals and finance guys "defect" whenever they think it'll be profitable.

I think that's a picture of the world that's crude enough to be unusable.

I notice you are using shaming language.

Not quite, I don't shame people, but I do find your attutude unusual. What it maps to for me is the concept of a class enemy. A nice proletarian girl isn't supposed to sleep with a bourgeious man, that makes her worse than a slut -- that makes her a traitor. And the thing about class enemies, you don't care about who they personally are, you just label them by class (e.g. "an actual Owner"). I'm somewhat surprised to find this attitude on the 'net in 2016.

Comment author: Algernoq 17 July 2016 08:13:37AM * 3 points [-]

A nice proletarian girl isn't supposed to sleep with a bourgeoise man, that makes her worse than a slut -- that makes her a traitor.

If she can get a bourgeoise man to marry her, good for her. But chances are she won't, and she will never tell the proletarian man she ends up marrying about her past with the bourgeoisie man. This causes the proletarian man to suffer increased health risks.

I'm somewhat surprised to find this attitude on the 'net in 2016.

This is liberal shaming language.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 July 2016 05:19:48PM 0 points [-]

If she can get a bourgeoise man to marry her, good for her.

Heh. "My sister got lucky, married a yuppie..." :-) But the point is the whole framework where the important thing about the girl is that she's a proletarian and the about that man is that he's bourgeoisie.

This is liberal shaming language.

I do not intend to shame. How do you think I can express my surprise without you reading it as shaming?

Comment author: Algernoq 19 July 2016 04:59:16AM * 1 point [-]

But the point is the whole framework where the important thing about the girl is that she's a proletarian and the about that man is that he's bourgeoisie.

Yes. Making generalizations about groups of people is a powerful, useful tool for decision-making.

express my surprise without you reading it as shaming?

Your surprise implies criticism. I assume you believe "it's dirty/wrong to generalize about groups of people. it's especially dirty/wrong to have negative beliefs about poor people and about lower-class people". I appreciate the criticism, though I imagine you find my beliefs repugnant.

Comment author: Lumifer 19 July 2016 05:33:20AM -1 points [-]

Making generalizations about groups of people is a powerful, useful tool for decision-making.

Sometimes. And sometimes it will lead you astray. Especially if your classification scheme is... suspect.

Your surprise implies criticism.

Why? I am surprised at a lot of things, finding something unexpected and finding something worthy of criticism are orthogonal things.

I assume you believe "it's dirty/wrong to generalize about groups of people. it's especially dirty/wrong to have negative beliefs about poor people and about lower-class people".

I am sorry to disappoint you, I believe no such thing. Nothing even close to that.

Comment author: Algernoq 19 July 2016 06:06:10AM 1 point [-]

I don't follow what about my beliefs is surprising to you, then.

Comment author: Lumifer 19 July 2016 03:51:00PM -1 points [-]

As I mentioned, I associate your approach with the idea of a "class enemy". This comes straight out of Marxism and was a popular approach around the turn of the century -- the XX century, so more than a hundred years ago.

Marxism (and in particular the whole idea that social interactions are defined by the class struggle) has been pretty much discredited by now. Outside of some diehard pockets (in academia and hard-left organizations) no one really tries to claim that the class struggle is what drives social relationships. LW isn't particularly Marxist, either.

So that's why I was surprised to see what to me is an old and unpopular idea here -- and moreover, see it applied to a girlfriend/boyfriend relationship, not even to employment or something like that.

continue this thread »

Lumifer comments on The map of cognitive biases, errors and obstacles affecting judgment and management of global catastrophic risks - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (63)

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 (63)

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