= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SaidAchmiz comments on LW Women- Minimizing the Inferential Distance - LessWrong
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 (1254)
These are food for thought indeed. My thoughts on some of them, intended as ruminations and not refutations:
I'm not sure what I think about this one. I do note that it would probably be perceived differently by someone who was aware of its truth (this person would certainly be hurt by the reminder of the bad thing), than by someone who was not (i.e. a religious person).
Exploitation of cognitive biases in the audience. Certainly an unethical and underhanded tactic, but note that its effectiveness depends on insufficient sanity in the listeners. Granted, however, that the bar for "sufficient sanity" is relatively high in such matters.
This one is interesting. A tangential thought: have there been studies to determine the power of stereotype threat to affect people who are aware of stereotype threat?
I think I'd have to agree that harping on such a fact would be annoying, at best. I do want to note that one solution I would vehemently oppose would be to forbid such statements from being made at all.
There's something wrong with your assessment here and I can't quite put my finger on it. Intuitively it feels like the category of "blame" is being abused, but I have to think more about this one.
The problem here, I think, is that some people use "X is going to happen" with the additional meaning of "X should happen", often without realizing it; in other words they have the unconscious belief that what does happen is what should happen. Such people often have substantial difficulty even understanding replies like "Yes, X will happen, but it's not right for X to happen"; they perceive such replies as incoherent. The quoted statement can well be true, and if said by someone who is clear on the distinction between "is" and "ought", is not, imo, offensive.
See above. Also, there's a difference between "A black man will never hold the highest office in this country, and therefore I will not vote for Barack Obama" and "A black man will never hold the highest office in this country; this is an empirical prediction I am making, which might be right or wrong, and is separate from what I think the world should be like."
If I think X will happen (or not happen), it's important (imo) that I have the ability and right to make that empirical prediction, unimpeded by social norms against offense. If people who are afflicted with status quo bias, or other failures of reasoning, fail to distinguish between "is" and "ought" and in consequence take my prediction to have some sort of normative content — well, it may be flippant to say "that's their problem", but the situation definitely falls into the "audience is insufficiently intelligent/sane" category. Saying "this statement is offensive" in such a case is not only wrong, it's detrimental to open discourse.
I happen to be reading Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate right now, and he comments on that well-known failing of twentieth-century social sciences, the notion that "we must not even consider empirical claims of inequality in people's abilities, because that will lead to discrimination". Aside from the chilling effect this has on, you know, scientific inquiry, there's also an ethical problem:
If you think that pointing out differences in ability will lead to discrimination, then you must think that it's not possible to treat people with equal fairness unless they are the same along all relevant dimensions. That's a fairly clear ethical failing. In other words, if your objection to "some people are less intelligent than other people" is "but then the less intelligent people will be discriminated against!", you clearly think that it's not possible to treat people fairly regardless of their intelligence... and if that's the case, then that is the problem we should be opposing. We shouldn't say "No no, all people are the same!" We should say, "Yes, people are different. No, that's not an excuse to treat some people worse."
Agreed. I just think that branding certain sorts of statements as "offensive" is entirely the wrong way to go about treating this issue with the care it deserves, because of the detrimental effects that approach has on free discourse.
Agreed, and I think this is a special case of the illusion of transparency.
(P.S. Today I learned the word "perlocutionary". Thank you.)
As an aside, I almost forgot a really good example of the phenomenon of "harmful facts," which is that the suicide rate in a region goes up whenever a suicide is reported on the news. Indeed, death rates in general go up whenever a suicide is reported, because many suicides are not recognized as such (e.g., somebody steers into oncoming traffic).
For this reason, police tend to hush suicides up (at least, they did in my old hometown & I think it's widespread).
Maybe, although I strongly suspect religious people alieve that their relatives are gone (otherwise, as others have noted, a funeral would be more like a going-away party).
Good question. Wikipedia turns up this link, which would seem to say "Yes." So happily, the corrective for this contextually harmful empirical statement is a contextually helpful empirical statement.
Oh yes, certainly. Refusing to notice ingroup/outgroup differences is just the opposite failure mode.
I am still philosophically confused about this issue, although I have been thinking about it for a while. You are probably objecting to the fact that ex hypothesi, less revealing clothing leads to fewer sexual assaults, so why wouldn't we follow that advice - yes? As I say, I don't have a full account of that. All I wanted to draw attention to is the ethical questionable-ness of making such a statement without any acknowledgement that one is asking potential victims to change their (blameless) behaviour in order to avoid (blameworthy) assault from others. Compounding the issue is the suspicion that statements like this ALSO tend to be a form of whitewashed slut-shaming.
Yes, in my experience this is very common in muggle society.
Right. The rubric that I try to use in such situations is essentially a consequentialist one. Roughly speaking, the idea is that you should try to predict how your statements might be misinterpreted by a (possibly silly) audience, and if the expected harm of the misinterpretation is significant as compared to the potential benefit of your statement, then reformulate/be silent/narrow your audience/educate your audience about why they shouldn't misinterpret you. I sympathize, believe me! It's incredibly annoying to be read uncharitably. But if you know how to prevent an uncharitable/harmful reading, and don't as a matter of principle because the audience should know better... I think the LW term for that would be "living in the should-universe."
As it happens, I broadly agree about the term "offensive," which is an incredibly censorious and abuse-prone word. I think we should try to give better fault assessments than that - and happily, on LW most people usually do.
Would you have similar objections if I advised you to lock your house to reduce theft?
Doesn't that depend on the context of the advice?
If the context is that you (or others) are telling me that it wasn't the thief's fault that they stole my TV, or that the fact that my house was unlocked is evidence that I consented to the taking of my TV, that context may make the advice seem part and parcel of the blame-shifting.
For that matter, the reason to lock your house may well be to avoid being low-hanging fruit — IOW, someone else's TV gets stolen, not yours; theft is not actually reduced, just shifted around. There's no guarantee that everyone locking their house would reduce theft. The thieves learn to pick locks and everyone's costs are higher — but now a person who doesn't pay that cost is stigmatized as too foolish to protect themselves.
As an old boss of mine used to say, "locks are to keep your friends out." They work against casual intruders, not committed ones.
That also depends. An insurance company would be well within its rights to charge you a higher premium if you refused to lock your house.
Right — but an insurance company would do that even if it didn't reduce theft overall, but merely shifted theft away from their insured customers onto others. It could even be negative-sum thanks to the cost of locks. If we actually want to reduce theft overall, shifting it around doesn't suffice.
The whole point is that this is a strawman.
(Not sure what the point of the rest is - clarification please?)
It's not. Maybe you're lucky enough to have never encountered it.
That is, no-one here is arguing for that position. I am well aware that there are people out there who hold all sorts of unjustifiable beliefs, but conflating then with my reasonable claims is logically rude.
One counter-example: In Julia Sweeney's Letting Go of God (an account of how Bible study eventually led a Catholic to become an atheist) , she says that accepting that there is no afterlife led to her having to mourn all her relatives again.
Perhaps there is something between verbal belief and gut-level alief.
Alternative hypothesis: some religious people are mourning the fact that they will never be able to interact with the person again, not the fact that the person's mind has been irrevocably destroyed.