Viliam comments on "3 Reasons It’s Irrational to Demand ‘Rationalism’ in Social Justice Activism" - LessWrong

8 Post author: PhilGoetz 29 March 2016 03:16PM

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

Comments (247)

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

Comment author: Viliam 31 March 2016 09:19:38AM *  11 points [-]

Well, this is exactly the problem. First step is that people say random things just because they reflect the emotions they have at the moment. Second step is that later they sometimes derive logical consequences of what they previously said. Then bad things happen as a result.

Usually there is a boundary; people often have crazy beliefs in far mode, while having quite sensible beliefs in near mode. They can keep talking bullshit as long as it does not concern them directly, but when it becomes personal they can either conveniently forget to apply the bullshit, or have some general excuse such as "but this specific case is different". This can work surprisingly well as long as there is a social norm of not requiring people to actually act on their abstract beliefs.

Nerds usually lack the social skills to follow this strategy (because no one tells them about it explicitly; because applying this strategy to itself means never talking explicitly about it), usually harming themselves as the result, by following the norms that everyone applauds but no one except a few nerds actually follows. Sometimes they harm the others as the result, for example when they take the norm of killing unbelievers literally and become suicidal bombers; while for most of the society the same words in the holy scripture simply mean "boo unbelievers" without any impact on their everyday life.

And then there is the complication that our civilization became too complex and has too many channels where the far-mode beliefs translate into actions without people noticing that the boundary was crossed. For example, a person holding a stupid belief in far mode could never directly act upon the belief, but they might still vote according to the belief -- and then the politician in the office might actually do it.

It is a useful tool of propaganda to channel these emotions into far-mode beliefs that benefit some specific group. For example, any kind of frustration with various failures in coordination problems (what SSC readers would call "Moloch") can be channeled into hate against "Jews" or "capitalism" or "decadent western civilization", which can in turn influence the political orientation of people.

Comment author: Lumifer 31 March 2016 03:03:31PM 5 points [-]

Yep, that's a problem and an additional problem is that this mechanism is often exploited by agitprop and, generally, dark arts at the social scale.

Nerds usually lack the social skills to follow this strategy

I don't think it has anything to do with nerds or social skills. If I had to come up with an expression for what prevents people from applying their abstract beliefs in practice, it would be the trite "common sense" (which, yes, I know, isn't exactly common).

Essentially it's the matter of being able to recognize consequences when they appear in front of your eyes. Most people, thankfully, require a large amount of pushing and shoving to make the transition from "Ethnicity X is bad" to "We will go and set fire to our neighbour's house and throw stones at his children". It's not that avoiding that transition is a social skill, it's more that watching a house burn and children cry has direct emotional impact that you need very high levels of ideological belief to override.

Comment deleted 01 April 2016 02:11:25AM [-]
Comment author: Lumifer 01 April 2016 02:44:45PM 1 point [-]

I believe you meant

Your belief is mistaken.

Comment deleted 01 April 2016 09:21:04PM *  [-]
Comment author: Lumifer 02 April 2016 12:31:05AM 0 points [-]

In that case, you appear to have no idea how most people behave.

I'll take your opinion under consideration.

Well, not really.

the Illiad

Fiction.

Arabian knights

Ain't no such thing.

the bahavior of modern gangs

And what percentage of modern society is a gang member?

Comment deleted 02 April 2016 12:48:59AM [-]
Comment author: Lumifer 02 April 2016 03:11:09AM *  0 points [-]

Yes, and look at the implicit morals that the fiction assumes.

Yes, and..?

You didn't have to go that far back. Pretty much most WW2 fiction books assume the peak of morality is to kill as many Germans as possible. So?

If you restrict to the ghetto classes.

Do rednecks qualify? What about white trash? X-) Or let's go global. Do you think Chinese peasants are particularly sophisticated people? India's slum dwellers?

Comment deleted 02 April 2016 04:03:17AM [-]
Comment author: Lumifer 02 April 2016 04:35:29AM -1 points [-]

tries to include at least one "good German".

And do you believe that in Iliad all Trojans are fully bad guys and gals..?