LESSWRONG
LW

All of MaxG's Comments + Replies

You are probably underestimating how good self-love can be
MaxG30

Cross-posting this from the EA forum, in case somebody here finds it useful:

I enjoyed this post and really appreciate all the great resources! Recently I have also been thinking about this and just posted a short article on how to make metta meditation a bit easier for people who struggle with it. Maybe it will be useful to some of you, I would love to hear your feedback.

Here is an excerpt:

Instead of beginning with yourself, you first picture someone with whom you have a really uncomplicated and positive relationship. Wishing them well is much easier. Not

... (read more)
Reply
Can you be 100% confident in your moral beliefs?
MaxG10

The clarification makes sense. As I wrote above, I should have thought of murder being defined this way. 

Well, I'm pretty sure that "1 + 1 = 2" but couldn't I be convinced otherwise? In that case, is it still reasonable to say that I am 100% confident that "1 + 1 = 2"? I feel like this is exactly what I am trying to ask here. 

Reply
Can you be 100% confident in your moral beliefs?
MaxG30

Yes, ethics often deals with stuff that is not clear cut and obvious. 

I guess my conception of confidences might be flawed, do you have any recommended reading or some video clearing up what confidences are exactly? It seems that a lot of disagreements boil down to using some term in a different way, right? Isn't this what Yudkowsky wrote about?

Reply
5lsusr
There are two issues: One of them is using the same term in different ways. The deeper mistake is believing words have well-defined meanings at all. I think the deeper issue is the more important one. If you solve the deeper issue then the first issue might solve itself. Yudkowsky's Disputing Definitions is a good place to start. Other good readings along these lines is How to Do Philosophy by Paul Graham and The Specificity Sequence by Liron. A good (thought not perfect) definition of confidence is what odds you would bet on. That's why so many readers of this website are interested in betting markets and the Kelly Criterion.
Can you be 100% confident in your moral beliefs?
MaxG20

Thank you for the answer! I thought the Goodheart effect was about metrics turning bad when they become the thing you are optimising for. Does the term apply to something else here? 

The term "murder" refering to something immoral by definition makes sense, I should have thought about this more explicitely. 

Your advice in the last paragraph resonates with me. My experience has also been that people often seem to prioritize signaling. I am not a big fan of Jordan Peterson, but this reminded me of a quote of his: "If you can't understand why someone is doing something, look at the consequences of their actions, whatever they might be, and then infer the motivations from their consequences."

Reply
1Rudi C
Goodhart effect is a truly deep insight IMO. Goodhart itself states that lots of great metrics and “signals”, and in general, communicatory material, will lose its value when adopted by social systems. This leads to second order effects, such as people and society defending against this effect. This can be seen in speech easily: if your friend did not depend on your speech for various purposes, your speech would be a truly great way to learn about your “true” self. But now that he does depend on your speech, he has to guard against you lying and optimizing your speech to manipulate him and shift risks unto him. So he cannot accept your noncommittal stance on, e.g., “murder,” and requires you to commit your position. I have heard there are studies (beware replication crisis and yadada) that women prefer men with virtue ethics over utilitarians; One reason might be that virtue ethics constrains people much more effectively than “consequentialism,” where you’re your own auditor.