LESSWRONG
LW

All of Yulia's Comments + Replies

The Seeker’s Game – Vignettes from the Bay
Yulia110

For everyone who wanted to participate in the poll but didn't because it seemed like too much work – I updated it! Here's the updated version. It should be easier to answer now :) 

Reply
The Seeker’s Game – Vignettes from the Bay
Yulia20

Thank you so much for the feedback! I think you're totally right. Here's the updated poll. 

Reply
Embracing the Opposition's Point
Yulia40

That's a very good point! I haven't considered that excessive faith comes with its own problems. Thanks for pointing that out!

Reply
Embracing the Opposition's Point
Yulia31

Thanks for the context! 

I think your reading is in fact over-charitable. He is clearly referring to "weird creatives" as people who behave oddly without explicit negative effects, and is trying to argue that oddness has some diffuse, unobservable cost on society

So far, three different interpretations of weirdo have come up. If weirdos are social non-cooperators, then the statement that society should grudgingly tolerate them is at its strongest. The argument becomes weaker if the word refers to highly flexible and open-minded peopl... (read more)

Reply
2ramble
Agree on the first point. On the second point, my comment doesn't rely on Peterson arguing in bad faith, merely that he is arguing with excessive faith in his priors - Bayesian reasoning doesn't work if one person has 100% confidence in their initial position, and may be very inefficient if you have extremely strong priors and don't update well. He may sincerely believe that same-sex families can't bring up children properly, but if his position is unlikely to change much from the argument, the social effects of how you engage with it (the effects on onlookers who may be insulted by the argument or marginally update towards his viewpoint) may be larger than the benefit of his marginal update.
Embracing the Opposition's Point
Yulia30

What I try to do isn't so different, just less formal. I usually simply agree or disagree directly on individual points that come up through trying to understand things in general.

I don't think you need the agreement-extent game then :) This more formal approach is probably helpful for people like me who tend to go on the offensive in face-to-face interactions.

How much does the original sound like your version of the argument? Is this their argument in your words, or your related argument?

Most of what I wrote is my version of the argument. The two quotes I... (read more)

Reply
Embracing the Opposition's Point
Yulia10

Thanks for your perspective! I had the impression that Peterson used the words creative and weird almost interchangeably in the video. Looking back at it, I think my reading is uncharitable. It's not unlikely that I have a pro-unconventionality bias, so I associate weird with something positive by default. "Weirdo" may be a stand-in for a social non-cooperator. Given that meaning, the argument does become much more solid!

Reply
2ramble
I think your reading is in fact over-charitable. He is clearly referring to "weird creatives" as people who behave oddly without explicit negative effects, and is trying to argue that oddness has some diffuse, unobservable cost on society; if they are simply (creatively) stealing there would be no need to argue this. I think it's also important to remember in these discussions that there's often skin in these games. Trying to find baileys to which bigots can retreat might promote dialogue and openness that results in wandering truth-wards, but may simply spread misinformation. It's worth flagging that there's more than 50 years worth of consistent evidence that children from same-sex families do as well as [1, 2, 3], if not better [4], than those from straight families, and his statements based on weird extrapolations from straight couples contribute to their marginalisation. In this specific case, Peterson is explicitly arguing against updating in the face of evidence and arguments ("conservatives do things because it's how we assume we've always done the and we can't be expected to remember why"), which breaks a lot of otherwise good Bayesian argument advice.  [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1550428X.2013.869486 [2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15504280802177615 [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12361102/ [4] https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fsgd0000203 
Embracing the Opposition's Point
Yulia30

Weirdos are valuable, but should be somewhat rare. Further, weirdos have a much wider distribution of success, with many living miserable lives, and a few living great ones.  Trying to adjust this is a harmful encouragement for normals to be weird.

Your point about the normal2weirdo-ratio is excellent! I haven't considered that yet. I agree that you're more likely to struggle when you're an outlier than be a success story. 

Additionally, even if an unconventional set of behaviours benefits an individual, it might not be scalable. An example that co... (read more)

Reply
Embracing the Opposition's Point
Yulia10

Thank you! It took me some courage to post here, but I'm glad I did. 

I don't remember Peterson mentioning that. The two quotes I posted are pretty much everything he explicitly stated on that topic. It's in the spirit of the agreement extent game to generate your own pro-arguments for the opposition's point, though. 

I think you make an intriguing point with the "check your privilege" argument. Another example of social norms that protect poor/oppressed people is the idea that certain things that are off-limits to acquire/take – even if you have the recourses to pull it off. We would probably have many more Jeffrey Epsteins if not for that norm.

Reply