= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
army1987 comments on Don't Get Offended - 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 (588)
If I was particularly interested in the question why people have the terminal values they have, I'd look into evolutionary psychology (start from Thou Art Godshatter) -- but if one doesn't clearly keep in mind the evolutionary-cognitive boundary, or the is-ought distinction (committing the naturalistic fallacy), then one will risk being mind-killed by evo-psy (in a way similar to this -- witness the dicks on the Internet who use evo-psy as a weapon against feminism), and if one does keep these distinctions in mind, then that question may become much less interesting.
What do you mean "use as a weapon against" and why is it obviously a bad thing? Would you say it's a fair complaint against EY that he uses Bayesianism as a "weapon against" religion?
I believe what army means is that some people mistakenly use evo-psy to make claims along the lines of "we have evolved to have [some characteristic], therefore it is morally right for us to have [aforementioned characteristic]".
Right. Many armchair evolutionary psychologists don't understand the nature of the evolutionary-cognitive boundary.
What I've seen tends to be more like, "we have evolved to have [some characteristic], asserting a deontological duty not to have [aforementioned characteristic] is not a good idea".
I'd add that many people appear to exercise motivated cognition in their use of ev-psych explanations; they want to justify a particular conclusion, so they write the bottom line and craft an argument from evolutionary psychology to work their way down to it. Although it would be hard for me to recall a precise example off the top of my head, I've certainly seen cases where people used evolutionary just-so stories to justify a sexual status quo, where I could easily see ways that the argument could have led to a completely different conclusion.
It's not evolutionary psychology so much, but I've seen quite a volume of evolutionary just-so stories in the field of diet and nutrition: everyone from raw vegans to proponents of diets based on meat and animal fats seems eager to justify their findings by reference to the EEA. Generally, the more vegetarian a diet, the more its proponents will focus on our living hominid relatives; the more carnivorous, the more the focus is on the recent evolutionary environment.
Which aren't exactly vegetarian.
Which serves as a reminder that those who tend to craft evolutionary arguments are not only those who can do so accurately.
Remember, it all adds up to normality. Thus we should not be surprised that the conclusion of evo-psych agree with the traditional ideas.
When people claim that they're final argument tends to be a lot less convincing and involve a lot more mental gymnastics than the original.
We should expect a perfected biology to predict our cultural data, not to agree with our cultural beliefs. 'Normality' doesn't mean our expectations. 'Normality' doesn't mean common sense or folk wisdom. It means our actual experiences. See Living in Many Worlds.
How strong is that tendency? Try to quantify it. Then test the explanations where possible, after writing down your prediction. Did the first get an unfair advantage from status quo bias? Did the rivals seem gerrymandered and inelegant because reality is complicated? Did any of the theories tend to turn out to be correct?
Actually, yes it does. The results of the theory should agree with our common sense and folk wisdom when dealing with situations on ordinary human scales (or whatever the appropriate analog of "ordinary human scales" is).
You're making two claims here. First, you're making a substantive claim about the general reliability of human intuitions and cultural institutions when it comes to the human realm. Second, you're making a semantic claim about what 'It all adds up to normality' means.
The former doctrine would be extremely difficult to substantiate. What evidence do you have to back it up? And the latter claim is clearly not right in any sense this community uses the term, as the LW posts about Egan's Law speak of the recreation of the ordinary world of perception, not of the confirmation of folk wisdom or tradition. The LessWrong Wiki explicitly speaks of normality as 'observed reality', not as our body of folk theory. Which is a good thing, since otherwise Egan's Law would directly contradict the principle "Think Like Reality":
"Quantum physics is not "weird". You are weird. You have the absolutely bizarre idea that reality ought to consist of little billiard balls bopping around, when in fact reality is a perfectly normal cloud of complex amplitude in configuration space. This is your problem, not reality's, and you are the one who needs to change.
"Human intuitions were produced by evolution and evolution is a hack."
Indeed, I would say that this claim, that our natural intuitions and common sense and folk wisdom and traditions are wont to be systematically mistaken, is one of the most foundational LessWrong claims. It lies at the very core of the utility of the heuristics/biases literature, which is a laundry list of ways we systematically misconstrue or imperfectly construe the truth. LessWrong is about not trusting your intuitions and cultural traditions (except where they have already been independently confirmed, or where the cost of investigating them exceeds the expected benefit of bothering to confirm them -- and in neither case is this concession an affirmation of any intrinsic trustworthiness on the part of 'common sense' or 'intuition' or 'folk wisdom' or 'tradition').
It is true that common sense comes from somewhere, and that the existence of intuitions and cultural assumptions is a part of 'normality', is part of what a theory must ultimately account for and predict. But the truth of those beliefs is not a part of 'normality', is not a part of the data, the explanandum. They may or may not turn out to be correct; but there is no Bayesian reason to think that they must turn out right in the end, or even that they must turn out to at all resemble the right answer.
First let me repeat part of my comment with the phrase you seem to have missed in bold:
In particular had Newton claimed that apples fall up, that would have been reason to reject his theory.
That nevertheless works, and frequently works better than what our System II (conscious reasoning)-based theories can do. And remember our conscious reasoning is itself also a product of evolution.
A program to compute the area of a circle that uses pi=3.14 will be systematically mistaken, it is also likely to be sufficiently close for all practical purposes.
Your intuitions and cultural traditions are evidence. As for possessing "intrinsic trustworthiness" I have no idea what you mean by that phrase.
There is a Bayesian reason to think that our intuitions will in most cases resemble the right answer, at least in the sense that GR resembles Newtonian mechanics.
But this just isn't so. Humans get things wrong about the human realm all the time, make false generalizations and trust deeply erroneous intuitions and aphorisms every day of their lives. 'It all adds up to normality' places a hard constraint on all reasonable theories: They must reproduce exactly the data of ordinary life. In contrast, what you mean by 'It all adds up to normality' seems to be more like 'Our naive beliefs are generally right!' The former claim is The Law (specifically, Egan's Law); the latter is a bit of statistical speculation, seems in tension with the historical record and the contemporary psychology literature, and even if not initially implausible would still need a lot of support before it could be treated as established Fact. So conflating these two claims is singularly dangerous and misleading.
You're conflating three different claims.
Egan's Law: The correct model of the world must yield the actual data/evidence we observe.
We should generally expect our traditions, intuitions, and folk theories to be correct in their human-scale claims.
Our biases are severe, but not cripplingly so, and they are quite handy given our evolutionary history and resource constraints.
'It all adds up to normality' means 1, not 2. And the claim I was criticizing is 2, not 3 (the one you're now defending).
The evidence shows that in a great many cases, our intuitions and traditions aren't just useful approximations of the truth, like Newtonian physics; they're completely off-base. A lot of folk wisdom asserts just the opposite of the truth, not only about metaphysics but about ordinary human history, psychology, and society. So if 'it all adds up to normality' means 'it all (in the human realm) confirms our folk expectations and intuitions', then 'it all adds up to normality' is false. (But, as noted, this isn't what 'normality' means here.)
Sure, they're evidence; but they're not very strong evidence, without external support. And they're data; but the data in question is that something is intuitive, not that the intuition itself is correct. The claims made by our scientifically uncultivated intuitions and culture are just models like any other, and can be confirmed or disconfirmed like any scientific model, no matter how down-to-earth and human-scaled they are. They do not have the special status of 'normality' assigned to the data -- data, not theory -- of everyday life, that Egan's Law draws our attention to.
When Newton(?) claimed that objects of different mass but negligible air friction fell at the same rate, that theory was rejected.
Copernicus.
Natural intuitions, common sense, and folk wisdom have consistently shown that they cannot identify a theory which explains the actual observations better than they can.
Common sense and folk wisdom say that has changed, and we will now accept a new, more correct theory without challenging it.
I'm not sure I understand quite what this means.
To clarify: if at a given time common sense and folk wisdom are understood to predict a result R1 from experiment E where E involves a situation on ordinary human scales (or some appropriate analog), and at some later time E is performed and gives result R2 instead, would you consider that state of affairs consistent with the rule "the results of the theory should agree with our common sense and folk wisdom", or in conflict with it?
So the Aztec add up to normal? Because I'm not seeing how a culture that thought human sacrifice was a virtue has much folk wisdom in common with the modern era.
Why was this down-voted? This is an on-point and sane response. If 'normality' is defined as tradition, then history should be a sequence of confirmations of past traditions and common sense (e.g., the common sense claim that the Earth is stationary and the Sun goes around it), as opposed to disconfirming our beliefs and providing alternative explanations of our perceptual data. The epistemic disagreement between cultures, and the epistemic change within cultures, both refute this idea.
'It all adds up to normality' in the original sense of 'The right theory must predict our ordinary experience' is a correct generalization 100% of the time. (It's The Law.) 'It all adds up to normality' in Eugine's sense of 'The right theory must agree with folk wisdom, common sense, and traditional doctrine' is a generalization that, historically, has almost never been right strictly, and has only sometimes been right approximately.
Well, I didn't downvote, but saying the Aztecs viewed human sacrifice as a virtue is at best an oversimplification. They sacrificed a lot of people and believed they were virtuous in doing so, but my understanding is that sacrifice within the Aztec belief system was instrumental to worship, not virtuous in itself; you wouldn't be lauded for sacrificing your neighbor to Homer Simpson, only for sacrifices serving established religious goals.
The broader point, though, seems to be that the appeal to societal normality equally well justifies norms that call for (e.g.) sacrificing children to the rain god Tlaloc, if sufficiently entrenched. That logic seems sound to me.
Given the way they ran their empire, it would probably have collapsed without the intimidation factor that human sacrifice provided.
If we take as given that a nonspecific criminal act against a specific-but-not-here-identified person is required to sustain an empire, does that mean that drone strikes have virtue?
(Vague and awkward phrasing to avoid discussing a violent act against an identifiable person) (Note the hypothetical statement; in the least convenient world that statement is provably true)
The problem is that adding up to normality, while necessary, is not sufficient. It's possible to explain the sexual status quo by appealing to patriarchy, sexism and institutionalized male privilege just as easy as by appealing to evo-psych. Any number of mutually-inconsistant theories can each indivually add up to normality; adding up to normality by itself does not tell us which theory is right.
I never said it was sufficient. One common criticism of evolutionary psychology is that "it justifies the sexual status quo", my point is that this criticism doesn't hold water.
If my observations are unreliable, I should not expect more rigorous study of the subject to confirm my observations.
Yes; OTOH, if you can already guess in which direction your observations will be moved by more rigorous study, you should move them already.
Not quite true. Say I have a d100 and I have two hypotheses---it is either fair or it is biased to roll '87' twice as often as any other number. I can already guess that my observation from rolling the die once will move me in the direction of believing the die is fair (ie. I can reliably guess that I will roll any number except 87). However, if I do happen to roll an 87 then I will update towards 'biased' to a greater degree.
It isn't the direction of the expected evidence that is conserved. It's the expectation (the directions of all the possibilities multiplied by their respective degrees).
Yup. There is, of course, potentially a big difference between how confident I am that my position will change, and how confident I am that my position will change in some specific direction.
Not if the "traditional ideas" don't necessarily reflect how things have been done for much of human history. Some of the gender norms people support with such arguments are genuine human universals, many others are not.
I've known people to make evo-psych arguments justifying a sexual status quo which were implausible or even refuted by known anthropology. I think you're assuming a higher baseline level of credibility among people who ascribe to your own position than is actually the case.
Because anthropology is not at all full of people doing shoddy work and using it to justify pre-concieved beliefs. <\sarcasm>
Edit: added link to Gene Expression.
I didn't mean that using a theory as weapon against (i.e., in orter to argue against) a different theory is always obviously a bad thing; in particular, I don't think that using Bayesianism to argue against religion is bad (so long as you don't outright insult religious people or similar). But in this particular case, evo-psy is a descriptive theory, feminism is a normative theory, and you cannot derive “ought” from “is” without some meta-ethics, so if someone's using evo-psy to argue against feminism there's likely something wrong. (The other replies you've got put it better than I could.)
Feminists frequently make "is" assertions, and justify their "ought" assertions on the basis of said "is" assertions.
In any case, you seem to be arguing that feminism will now be joining religion in the trying to survive by claiming to be non-refutable club.
They do, but their “is” assertions are stuff like “women have historically (i.e. in the last several millennia) been, and to a certain extent still are, oppressed by men”, which aren't actually contradicted by evolutionary psychology, which says stuff like “humans are X because, in the last several hundred millennia, X-er apes have had more offspring in average”. (And the “ought” assertions they justify based on “is” assertions are stuff like “we're further south than where we want to be, so we ought to move northwards”; IOW, they're justifying instrumental values, not terminal values.)
That wasn't my intention, but at the moment I can't think of a good way to edit my comment to make it clearer.
That's a far more complicated claim than it appears, with much of the complexity hiding inside the word "oppressed".
Another typical feminist claim is "differences between the behavior of boys and girls are due to socialization". This is, as you'd imagine, the kind of claim that is easily subject to falsification by evolutionary psychology. The related normative claim that "we ought to socialize boys and girls as androgynously as possible", becomes challenged by the evolutionary psychology claim that "we ought to socialize boys and girls in ways that take into account their inherent differences.
And both claims are wrong- The only correct way of phrasing the normative claim is "We ought to socialize boys and girls in the way that maximizes instrumental value."
It might have instrumental value to socialize boys and girls differently, even if there is no biological basis for the difference. It might be more valuable to socialize them the same, even if there is a biological reason why they are different.
I expect claim C1: "for all differences D between the behavior of boys and girls, D is due solely to socialization" is false, and I expect claim C2: "there exist differences D between the behavior of boys and girls such that D is due solely to socialization" is true.
I expect claim C3: "differences between the behavior of boys and girls are due to socialization" to generate more heat than light, by virtue of being ambiguous between C1 and C2.
If I assume by C3 you mean C1... I expect the claim C4: "there are people who would assert C1, and that the vast majority of such people self-label as feminist" is true, and I expect the claim C5: "the majority of people who self-label as feminist would assert C1" is false.
I expect the claim C6: "'differences between the behavior of boys and girls are due to socialization' is a typical feminist claim" to shed more heat than light, by virtue of being ambiguous between C4 and C5.
I suspect that many of the feminists who are willing to admit C1 is technically false will insist it applies to the particular D under discussion. In any case, claims of the form C1(D) "the difference D between boys and girls is due solely to socialization" work just as well for my point.
I suppose now you'll claim that most feminists never really believed that the differences in question where solely due to socialization, and this discussion will develop a tone similar to that of debating a theist who gradually dials down what his religion actually claims.
Out of curiosity, Eugine, what sort of background do you have with feminism, feminists, feminist texts, etc.? Many feminists define feminism as 'gender egalitarianism', 'activism for gender equality', or 'activism for gender equality plus belief that women are disproportionately disadvantaged by current sociocultural norms relative to men'. How would you define 'feminism'? What is your view of the importance of specifically anti-sexist intervention and memecraft, and/or on the prevalence of harmful or overapplied gender schemas? I want to get a clearer idea on the background and aims you're bringing to this conversation, rather than skirting around the heart of the matter.
Feminism has two common definitions
1) Someone who believes in equality of opportunity for women.
2) Someone who accepts the results of feminist critical theory.
A lot of feminists tend to play bait-and-switch games with the above two definitions. In this context I mean something closer to (2).
What reaction do you expect to get by pre-emptively putting words in my mouth with this kind of a sneering tone? Because my reaction is to immediately lose all interest in further discussion with you.
If that was the reaction you expected, then you're successfully predicting the results of your behavior, which is great.
If that wasn't the reaction you expected, then I hope this helps you calibrate your behavior better in the future.
Tapping out; downvoting.
I don't mean to criticize you choice here, because you certainly are entitled to set your own boundaries.
But I want to note for any readers of this thread that this is what evaporative cooling of group beliefs can look like on a particular topic.
I was trying to preempt a way the discussion could go. As for how I expected you to react, I'm generally not in the habit of psychoanalyzing my interlocutors. Although here is an example of how I respond to words being put in my mouth without flipping out.
What would count as evidence that a particular behavior was caused solely by socialization? I'll admit that evidence of sex-linked behavior among non-human primates is evidence that the similar behavior in humans is sex-linked. But before we start talking about proof, we need to agree what sorts of things count as evidence.
There are many behavior differences that cannot be explained solely on the basis of socialization. The most obvious is that women generally sit to pee, while men generally do not. Or we could look to some pregnancy related behavior that is not performed by men since they generally don't get pregnant.
Likewise, there are some behaviors that we have strong reason to believe are pure socialization. For example, male preference for blue and female preference for pink is less than a century old.
Citation needed. A more typical claim might be "socialization is the cause of the vast majority (but not the entirety) of the observed difference between boys' and girls' behaviors and skills," and this easily falsifiable claim is borne out by the available data, never mind evo psych just-so stories about what worked in the EEA.
A lot of nitpicky LW discussion could be avoided if we implicitly qualified absolute-sounding claims about relations in real life with "in most cases". It would be rare that someone would object to e.g. a claim such as "differences between the behavior of boys and girls are due to socialization" being amended by "in the vast majority of case", or by "... but there are exceptions."
We can default to claims as absolute when they refer to theoretical frameworks, for which absolute claims typically work out more, and are intended more often.
I've danced this dance before, with Robin Hanson no less.
Let me side with your youthful incarnation from five years ago:
Beyond just clarifying, you did seem to have taken the initial comment at face value, even though you probably suspected the intended meaning.
I agree with you regarding making the intended meaning as plain as possible as best practice; however, sidetracking the discussion in such a way often leads to "gotcha" continuations of minor details (minor because most people will side with you interpreting claims about human behavior as non-absolute by default, and follow the discussion correctly without such clarifications/rebuttals), which tend to replace other, more substantive discussions.
Or, you know, a google search. From memory even a google site search would be adequate.
(Which is not to say that such claim is inherent to feminism itself. Merely that the specific observation by Eugine that it is often made by feminists is not worthy of 'citation needed' stigma.)
Since the claim that is actually often made by feminists is both weaker and, according to current research, true, Eugine's "observation" is a strawman. And I snort at the notion that my reply imparts a "stigma".
meta: I find it interesting that your post got voted down.
I didn't downvote but I was ambivalent. The main point was good but that was offset by the unnecessary inflammatory crap that was tacked on.
What was inflammatory? Also: I find it wryly interesting that a post with a good point and informative links would be judged inflammatory in an article about not getting offended.
I insulted anti-feminist amateur evolutionary psychologists.
;-)
(Actually, I hadn't noticed that, but that's a great reason (excuse?) to not edit my comment.)
I think both you and ialdabaoth have missed the point of the post. It is definitely not an invitation to be more inflammatory. It encourages not taking offense because taking offense has negative side effects. To the extent those side effects matter provoking them in others would also seem undesirable.