Oppose moral pressures. Anyone using the word “should” is a hypocrite, or a wannabe dictator. (There is no objective morality, right?)
When moral pressures have been co-opted, observant (but not necessarily rational) people might reasonably tend to take on the belief that all moral pressures are suspect. Reversed stupidity is not wisdom: the correct answer is not “enforce all moral pressures, regardless of how draconian”; nor is it “reject all moral pressures as draconian”. The correct answer is “figure out what the RIGHT moral pressures are, in terms of which moral pressures ACTUALLY PRODUCE the amount of cooperation we want, and then ensure that those moral pressures are the ones being applied in this community.”
Find moral excuses for all kinds of defection. (You can’t reasonably expect someone to cooperate, if the person is hungry, angry, lonely, tired, bored, poor, opressed, etc.).
Alternatively, identify external factors that can be statistically shown to increase defection, and then lower the influence of those external factors rather than expect people to magically overcome them. If you can statistically demonstrate that hungry people are more likely to defect, and you don’t want people to defect, what will suit you better: bitching that anyone who defects because they’re hungry is a morally bad person, or actually handing them a meal?
We’re supposed to be empiricists here, after all.
Oppose reputational pressures. Saying that some people are better and some people are worse is undemocratic elitism.
When reputational pressures have been co-opted, observant (but not necessarily rational) people will notice that a system’s current idea of “better” and “worse” is flawed; in such situations it is understandable (but not rational) for them to take on the belief that reputational pressures are suspect. Reversed stupidity is not wisdom; the correct answer is not “enforce all reputation pressures, no matter how unfair and unbalanced” or “reject all reputational pressures as institutional bigotry”; the correct answer is “figure out what the RIGHT reputational pressures are, in terms of which reputational pressures ACTUALLY PRODUCE the desired amount of cooperation, and then ensure that those pressures are the ones being applied in the community.”
(Also, it is obvious that you focus on criticizing X merely because X is a member of a group you hate.)
Alternatively, acknowledge that all systems have a tendency towards capture and corruption, and actively work to fight that tendency rather than building strawman caricatures of the people who tend to be most vocal about the current nature of that corruption.
Oppose institutional pressures. We don’t need any punishments, because punishments are evil, and only evil people want to punish other people.
When institutional goals are not applied fairly or rationally, observant (but not necessarily rational) people will recognize that the community is not behaving in their best interest at all, and will become understandably skeptical of institutional punishment systems. Moreso, when numerousstudiesindicate that proper rehabilitation works better than the punishment methods we currently employ, one begins to wonder why we continue to perform them.
Somehow all these anti-patterns seem to me like: This is what many educated people around me use for signalling.
I would argue that you are presenting a caricature of an argument, rather than an actual argument. You should resolve to make your opponent’s position stronger before defeating them rather than weaker, if you want to actually convince us that their position is wrong.
All problems should be resolved by love (and it that fails, we need even more love). Everyone deserves a second chance.
Alternatively, people who cannot operate properly within society need to be identified as damaged and repaired, rather than identified as valid targets for violence and violated.
Oppose security pressures. If we don’t trust each other, we are not a good community.
When security takes a back seat to ineffective and intrusive “security theatre”, observant (but not necessarily rational) people will recognize that they are being snowed, and will justifiably become suspicious of all “security”-based justifications for increasing authority.
Alternatively, identify external factors that can be statistically shown to increase defection, and then lower the influence of those external factors rather than expect people to magically overcome them. If you can statistically demonstrate that hungry people are more likely to defect, and you don’t want people to defect, what will suit you better: bitching that anyone who defects because they’re hungry is a morally bad person, or actually handing them a meal?
I’m not sure that’s the entirety of what he’s getting at. I think he’s saying “don’t make it acceptable for people to make excuses for defecting, because people will then use that as an excuse in cases where they would otherwise cooperate.”
That said, your idea is still a good solution to the way you interpreted that statement.
I’m not sure that’s the entirety of what he’s getting at. I think he’s saying “don’t make it acceptable for people to make excuses for defecting, because people will then use that as an excuse in cases where they would otherwise cooperate.”
Fortunately, there are numerousstudies examining the efficacy of that strategy, too.
As it turns out, being generous to people who need it and letting a few people get away with pretending to need it is much more cost-effective than trying to root out all the “cheats”.
Unless, of course, the specific goal is to maintain a status hierarchy simply for the sake of staying on top of it, with no real concern for the costs or benefits of that hierarchy.
Unless, of course, the specific goal is to maintain a status hierarchy simply for the sake of staying on top of it, with no real concern for the costs or benefits of that hierarchy.
Yep. Being determines consciousness, and social being in particular is a great predictor of social consciousness. And cheering for authoritarianism among high-IQ, economically secure, white, male, first-world, tech geeks is going to school in black—increasingly so.
I mean, just regular old proclamations that Liberal Democracy Ain’t All That? Pfft, that’s been among the safest and most polite kinds of contrarian posturing since before there were liberal democracies to snub. Every political position imaginable can do it from some angle. I do it. Respectable authors do it.
But direct, unapologetic support for the aesthetics and praxis of dictatorial control? The beauty and utility of hierarchies of dominance? Of deliberate asymmetries of power? Unsettling.
Thank you so very much. I wanted to do a point-by-point takedown like this… but I’m feeling a little burnt out when considering just how much similarly glib pro-authoritarian fare on LW needs this treatment.
You’ve said many things that I wanted to say; I’d only note that I think your rejection of authoritarianism here is lacking a meta level:
When moral pressures have been co-opted, observant (but not necessarily rational) people might reasonably tend to take on the belief that all moral pressures are suspect. Reversed stupidity is not wisdom: the correct answer is not “enforce all moral pressures, regardless of how draconian”; nor is it “reject all moral pressures as draconian”. The correct answer is “figure out what the RIGHT moral pressures are, in terms of which moral pressures ACTUALLY PRODUCE the amount of cooperation we want, and then ensure that those moral pressures are the ones being applied in this community.”
The problem is, once we concede that Reverse Authoritarianism doesn’t let us do much, WHO exactly is going to figure out which authoritarian-like actions are “legitimate” and “needed”? It can’t be all planned out in advance by community consensus, either.
This would be like a Leninist today defending an argument for a second Bolshevik revolution (against the obvious historical evidence) with: “Oh, but we KNOW what went wrong! We just shouldn’t let more Stalinists get into the party, that’s all! And this time we won’t be purging any innocent people; that was so silly and counterproductive of us!”
To avoid yet more abuse of power, you can’t merely tell people to make the object-level “correct” decision; you need a system that would constantly correct for self-serving rationalizations, corruption and power-blindness among the decision makers. If abuse and tyranny emerge as “spontaneous orders”, then their prevention must be a perpetual and multi-faceted process, not a one-time Gordian knot to cut.
The problem is, once we concede that Reverse Authoritarianism doesn’t let us do much, WHO exactly is going to figure out which authoritarian-like actions are “legitimate” and “needed”? It can’t be all planned out in advance by community consensus, either.
...
To avoid yet more abuse of power, you can’t merely tell people to make the object-level “correct” decision; you need a system that would constantly correct for self-serving rationalizations, corruption and power-blindness among the decision makers. If abuse and tyranny emerge as “spontaneous orders”, then their prevention must be a perpetual and multi-faceted process, not a one-time Gordian knot to cut.
The rational response would be to acknowledge that this is a Hard Problem, and that there are not yet good answers. This is exciting, because it identifies places where significant progress can be made.
When moral pressures have been co-opted, observant (but not necessarily rational) people might reasonably tend to take on the belief that all moral pressures are suspect. Reversed stupidity is not wisdom: the correct answer is not “enforce all moral pressures, regardless of how draconian”; nor is it “reject all moral pressures as draconian”. The correct answer is “figure out what the RIGHT moral pressures are, in terms of which moral pressures ACTUALLY PRODUCE the amount of cooperation we want, and then ensure that those moral pressures are the ones being applied in this community.”
Alternatively, identify external factors that can be statistically shown to increase defection, and then lower the influence of those external factors rather than expect people to magically overcome them. If you can statistically demonstrate that hungry people are more likely to defect, and you don’t want people to defect, what will suit you better: bitching that anyone who defects because they’re hungry is a morally bad person, or actually handing them a meal?
We’re supposed to be empiricists here, after all.
When reputational pressures have been co-opted, observant (but not necessarily rational) people will notice that a system’s current idea of “better” and “worse” is flawed; in such situations it is understandable (but not rational) for them to take on the belief that reputational pressures are suspect. Reversed stupidity is not wisdom; the correct answer is not “enforce all reputation pressures, no matter how unfair and unbalanced” or “reject all reputational pressures as institutional bigotry”; the correct answer is “figure out what the RIGHT reputational pressures are, in terms of which reputational pressures ACTUALLY PRODUCE the desired amount of cooperation, and then ensure that those pressures are the ones being applied in the community.”
Alternatively, acknowledge that all systems have a tendency towards capture and corruption, and actively work to fight that tendency rather than building strawman caricatures of the people who tend to be most vocal about the current nature of that corruption.
When institutional goals are not applied fairly or rationally, observant (but not necessarily rational) people will recognize that the community is not behaving in their best interest at all, and will become understandably skeptical of institutional punishment systems. Moreso, when numerous studies indicate that proper rehabilitation works better than the punishment methods we currently employ, one begins to wonder why we continue to perform them.
I would argue that you are presenting a caricature of an argument, rather than an actual argument. You should resolve to make your opponent’s position stronger before defeating them rather than weaker, if you want to actually convince us that their position is wrong.
Alternatively, people who cannot operate properly within society need to be identified as damaged and repaired, rather than identified as valid targets for violence and violated.
When security takes a back seat to ineffective and intrusive “security theatre”, observant (but not necessarily rational) people will recognize that they are being snowed, and will justifiably become suspicious of all “security”-based justifications for increasing authority.
I’m not sure that’s the entirety of what he’s getting at. I think he’s saying “don’t make it acceptable for people to make excuses for defecting, because people will then use that as an excuse in cases where they would otherwise cooperate.”
That said, your idea is still a good solution to the way you interpreted that statement.
Fortunately, there are numerous studies examining the efficacy of that strategy, too.
As it turns out, being generous to people who need it and letting a few people get away with pretending to need it is much more cost-effective than trying to root out all the “cheats”.
Unless, of course, the specific goal is to maintain a status hierarchy simply for the sake of staying on top of it, with no real concern for the costs or benefits of that hierarchy.
Yep. Being determines consciousness, and social being in particular is a great predictor of social consciousness. And cheering for authoritarianism among high-IQ, economically secure, white, male, first-world, tech geeks is going to school in black—increasingly so.
I mean, just regular old proclamations that Liberal Democracy Ain’t All That? Pfft, that’s been among the safest and most polite kinds of contrarian posturing since before there were liberal democracies to snub. Every political position imaginable can do it from some angle. I do it. Respectable authors do it.
But direct, unapologetic support for the aesthetics and praxis of dictatorial control? The beauty and utility of hierarchies of dominance? Of deliberate asymmetries of power? Unsettling.
Thank you so very much. I wanted to do a point-by-point takedown like this… but I’m feeling a little burnt out when considering just how much similarly glib pro-authoritarian fare on LW needs this treatment.
You’ve said many things that I wanted to say; I’d only note that I think your rejection of authoritarianism here is lacking a meta level:
The problem is, once we concede that Reverse Authoritarianism doesn’t let us do much, WHO exactly is going to figure out which authoritarian-like actions are “legitimate” and “needed”? It can’t be all planned out in advance by community consensus, either.
This would be like a Leninist today defending an argument for a second Bolshevik revolution (against the obvious historical evidence) with: “Oh, but we KNOW what went wrong! We just shouldn’t let more Stalinists get into the party, that’s all! And this time we won’t be purging any innocent people; that was so silly and counterproductive of us!”
To avoid yet more abuse of power, you can’t merely tell people to make the object-level “correct” decision; you need a system that would constantly correct for self-serving rationalizations, corruption and power-blindness among the decision makers. If abuse and tyranny emerge as “spontaneous orders”, then their prevention must be a perpetual and multi-faceted process, not a one-time Gordian knot to cut.
The rational response would be to acknowledge that this is a Hard Problem, and that there are not yet good answers. This is exciting, because it identifies places where significant progress can be made.