= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Algernoq comments on The map of cognitive biases, errors and obstacles affecting judgment and management of global catastrophic risks - 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
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (63)
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.
I think that's a picture of the world that's crude enough to be unusable.
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.
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.
This is liberal shaming language.
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.
I do not intend to shame. How do you think I can express my surprise without you reading it as shaming?
Yes. Making generalizations about groups of people is a powerful, useful tool for decision-making.
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.
Sometimes. And sometimes it will lead you astray. Especially if your classification scheme is... suspect.
Why? I am surprised at a lot of things, finding something unexpected and finding something worthy of criticism are orthogonal things.
I am sorry to disappoint you, I believe no such thing. Nothing even close to that.
I don't follow what about my beliefs is surprising to you, then.
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.
Can you argue the content? "Old" and "unpopular" are weak refutations.
Classism is part of current politics, as well as my personal experience.
I was explaining my surprise, not arguing the content, but do you want me to argue against the the claim that the class struggle is the main driver behind social organization and social relationships? I think it's a well-trodden ground.
On the basic level, the Marxist approach lacks explanatory power and makes wrong predictions.