= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Very well written, as usual. But many other modern institutions have analogous ancient institutions that look rather silly by modern standards. Consider trial by combat in law, or ancient scholastic obsessions with the "true" meaning of ancient texts. If lawyers and academics can disavow these ancient practices, while still embracing a true essence of law or academia, why can't religious folks disavow ancient religious practice in favor of some true essence that makes sense in modern terms?
In response to
Religion's Claim to be Non-Disprovable
Perhaps not what most religious folks would call its 'essence' (part of the problem that they won't admit this really) but certain religion-based social norms which are still relevant in today's world.
In response to
[LINK] "The nirvana would be if the questions raised by Oprah Winfrey would be answered by the faculty at Harvard."
If it is a good idea to hold off on proposing solutions, then why isn't it okay to have a division of labour between those that merely discuss a problem as thoroughly as possible (in this case, some philosophers) and those that settle on a final solution (in this case, some scientists and engineers)?
Note: I believe that philosophy has solved some problems and that these solutions are usually the fundamental principles of an immature science (at which point they stop considering such problems as being within the domain of philosophy).
In response to
comment
by
on
[LINK] "The nirvana would be if the questions raised by Oprah Winfrey would be answered by the faculty at Harvard."
The question is not about philosophy but institutionalized philosophy.
a) Would those immature sciences not have been born if not for institutionalized philosophy? b) Do you expect new sciences to be born within the philosophy departments we have today?
Or do you expect rather that a new science is more likely to arise as a result of Big Questions being asked in the mundane disciplines of our empirical sciences?
In response to
Feed the spinoff heuristic!
I really like this. It emphasizes the fundamentally instrumental nature of rationality.
Though note that the relevant criteria is not so much what other people actually consider to be high-prestige, but what the person themselves considers to be high prestige. (I wonder if I should have emphasized this part a little more, seeing how the discussion seems to be entirely about status in the eyes of others.) For various reasons, I felt quite strongly about graduating quickly.
I was aware of that yes. But I was also assuming what you considered to be high prestige within this community was well calibrated.
I can attest that I had those exact reactions on reading those sections of the article. And in general I am more impressed by someone who graduated quickly than one who took longer than average, and by someone who wrote a book rather than one who hasn't. "But what if that's not the case?" is hardly a knock-down rebuttal.
I think it's more likely you're confusing the status you attribute to Kaj for candidness and usefulness of the post, with the status you would objectively add or subtract from a person if you heard that they floundered or flourished in college.
What I has in mind was his devotion to the cause, even as it ultimately harmed it, we think more than compensates for his lack of strategic foresight and late graduation.
With that book, we think of him less for not contributing in a more direct way to the book, even as we abstractly understand what a vital job it was.
Though of course that may just be me.
Isn't the general strategy to join or create communities where status is awarded for actually doing the right thing?
How many such communities can you be part of (because surely you don't only have one goal) and still not have them a diluted effect on yourself? How many such communities don't fall prey to lost purposes? How many can monitor your life with enough fidelity that they can tell if you go astray?
In response to
The curse of identity
It seems like a large part of the problem is not that our brains unconsciously optimize for prestige per se, but they incorrectly optimize for prestige. Surely, having to take extra years to graduate and damaging one's own cause are not particularly prestigious. Helping Eliezer write a book will at least net you an acknowledgement, and you also get to later brag about how you were willing to do important work that nobody else was.
I don't have much empirical data to support this, but I suspect it might help (or at least might be worth trying to see if it helps) if you consciously optimized for prestige and world-saving simultaneously (as well as other things that you unconsciously want, like leisure), instead of trying to fight yourself. I have a feeling that in the absence of powerful self-modification technologies, trying to fight one's motivation to seek prestige will not end well.
I'm not so sure we accord Kaj less status overall for having taking more years to graduate and more status for helping Eliezer write that book. Are we so sure we do? We might think so, and then reveal otherwise by our behavior.
In response to
The curse of identity
This is a difficult problem. I have come to realize there is no one solution. The general strategy I think is to have consistency checks on what you are doing. Your subconscious can only trick you into seeking status and away from optimizing your goals by hiding the contradictions from you. But as 'willpower' is not the answer, eternal vigilance isn't either. But rather you pick up via a mass of observation the myriad ways in which you are led astray, and you fix these individually. Pay attention to something different you regularly do every day and check if this comports with your goals. If you are lucky, your subconscious cannot trick you the same way twice. Though it is quite ingenious.
In response to
The curse of identity
I don't try to not seek status, I try to channel my status-seeking drive into things that will actually be useful.
In other words you try to legislate your actions. But your subconscious will find loopholes and enforcement will slip.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
The attraction of prizes that is relevant here is mostly to the prize awarders, not the prize recipients.
Surely the costs/benefits to everybody, including third-parties, counts. Surely the real issue is the ultimate economic efficiency of these prizes as a way to allocate our collective resources toward achieving the most collective benefit from solved problems.