I’m not sure, maybe, but more of a problem here is to select your goals. The choice seems to be arbitrary, and as far as I can tell, human psychology doesn’t really even support having value systems that go deeper than that “lip service” + conformism state.
But I’m really confused when it comes to this, so I thought I could try describing my confusion here :)
Can you make sense of those biographies without going deeper than “lip service” + conformism state?
Dunno, haven’t read any of those. But if you’re sure that something like that exists, I’d like to hear how is it achievable on human psychology.
I mean, paperclip maximizer is seriously ready to do anything to maximize paperclips. It really takes the paperclips seriously.
On the other hand, there are no humans that seem to care about anything in particular that’s going on in the world. People are suffering and dying, misfortune happens, animals go extinct, and relatively few do anything about it. Many claim they’re concerned and that they value human life and happiness, but if doing something requires going beyond the safe zone of conformism, people just don’t do it. The best way I’ve figured out to overcome this is to manipulate that safe zone to allow more actions, but it would seem that many people think they know better. I just don’t understand what.
I could go on and state that I’m well aware that the world is complicated. It’s difficult to estimate where our choices do lead us to, since net of causes and effects is complex and requires a lot of thinking to grasp. Heuristics human brain uses exist pretty much because of that. This means that it’s difficult to figure out how to do something beside staying in the safe zone that you know to work at least somehow.
However, I still think there’s something missing here. This just doesn’t look like a world where people do particularly care about anything at all. Even if it was often useful to stay in a safe zone, there doesn’t really seem to be any easy way to snap them out of it. No magic word, no violation of any sort of values makes anyone stand up and fight. I could literally tell people that millions are dying in vain(aging) or that the whole world is at stake(existential risks), and most people simply don’t care.
At least, that’s how I see it. I figure that rare exceptions to the rule there can be explained as a cost of signalling something, requirements of the spot in the conformist space you happen to be occupy or something like that.
I’m not particularly fond of this position, but I’m simply lacking a better alternative.
Dunno, haven’t read any of those. But if you’re sure that something like that exists, I’d like to hear how is it achievable on human psychology.
Biographies as in the stories of their lives not as in books about those stories. Try wikipedia, these aren’t obscure figures.
On the other hand, there are no humans that seem to care about anything in particular that’s going on in the world.
This is way too strong, isn’t it? I also don’t think the reason a lot of people ignore these tragedies has as much to do with conformism as it does self-interest. People don’t want to give up their vacation money. If anything there is social pressure in favor of sacrificing for moral causes. As for values, I think most people would say that the fact they don’t do more is a flaw. “If I was a better person I would do x” or “Wow, I respect you so much for doing x” or “I should do x but I want y so much.” I think it is fair to interpret these statements as second order desires that represent values.
If they want to care about stuff, that’s kinda implying that they don’t actually care about stuff (yet). Also, based on simple psychology, someone who chooses a spot in the conformist zone that requires giving lip service to something creates cognitive dissonance which easily produces second order desire to want what you claim you want. But what is frightening here is how this choice of values is arbitrary to the ultimate. If you’d judged another spot to be cheaper, you’d need to modify your values in a different way.
On both cases though, it seems that people really rarely move any bit towards actually caring about something.
Lip service is “Oh, what is happening in Darfur is so terrible!”. That is different from “If I was a better person I’d help the people of Darfur” or “I’m such a bad person, I bought a t.v. instead of giving to charity”. The first signals empathy the second and third signal laziness or selfishness (and honesty I guess).
If they want to care about stuff, that’s kinda implying that they don’t actually care about stuff (yet).
Why do values have to produce first order desires? For that matter, why can’t they be socially constructed norms which people are rewarded for buying into? When people do have first order desires that match these values we name those people heroes. Actually sacrificing for moral causes doesn’t get you ostracized it gets you canonized.
But what is frightening here is how this choice of values is arbitrary to the ultimate.
Not true. The range of values in the human community is quite limited.
On both cases though, it seems that people really rarely move any bit towards actually caring about something.
People are rarely complete altruists. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t care about anything. The world is full of broke artists who could pay for more food, drugs and sex with a real job. These people value art.
Lip service is “Oh, what is happening in Darfur is so terrible!”. That is different from “If I was a better person I’d help the people of Darfur” or “I’m such a bad person, I bought a t.v. instead of giving to charity”. The first signals empathy the second and third signal laziness or selfishness (and honesty I guess).
Both are hollow words anyway. Both imply that you care, when you really don’t. There are no real actions.
Why do values have to produce first order desires?
Because, uhm, if you really value something, you’d probably want to do something? Not “want to want”, or anything, but really care about that stuff which you value. Right?
For that matter, why can’t they be socially constructed norms which people are rewarded for buying into?
Sure they can. I expressed this as safe zone manipulation, attempting to modify your envinroment so that your conformist behavior leads to working for some value.
The point here is that actually caring about something and working towards something due to arbitrary choice and social pressure are quite different things. Since you seem to advocate the latter, I’m assuming that we both agree that people rarely care about anything and most actions are result of social pressure and stuff not directly related to actually caring or valuing anything.
Which brings me back to my first point: Why does it seem that many people here actually care about the world? Like, as in paperclip maximizer cares about paperclips. Just optical illusion and conscious effort to appear as a rational agent valuing the world, or something else?
I’m confused. Have you never seen long-term goal directed behavior?
I’m not sure, maybe, but more of a problem here is to select your goals. The choice seems to be arbitrary, and as far as I can tell, human psychology doesn’t really even support having value systems that go deeper than that “lip service” + conformism state.
But I’m really confused when it comes to this, so I thought I could try describing my confusion here :)
I think you need to meet better humans. Or just read about some.
John Brown, Martin Luther, Galileo Galilei, Abraham Lincoln, Charles Darwin, Mohandas Gandhi
Can you make sense of those biographies without going deeper than “lip service” + conformism state?
Edit: And I don’t even necessarily mean that these people were supremely altruistic or anything. You can add Adolph Hitler to the list too.
Dunno, haven’t read any of those. But if you’re sure that something like that exists, I’d like to hear how is it achievable on human psychology.
I mean, paperclip maximizer is seriously ready to do anything to maximize paperclips. It really takes the paperclips seriously.
On the other hand, there are no humans that seem to care about anything in particular that’s going on in the world. People are suffering and dying, misfortune happens, animals go extinct, and relatively few do anything about it. Many claim they’re concerned and that they value human life and happiness, but if doing something requires going beyond the safe zone of conformism, people just don’t do it. The best way I’ve figured out to overcome this is to manipulate that safe zone to allow more actions, but it would seem that many people think they know better. I just don’t understand what.
I could go on and state that I’m well aware that the world is complicated. It’s difficult to estimate where our choices do lead us to, since net of causes and effects is complex and requires a lot of thinking to grasp. Heuristics human brain uses exist pretty much because of that. This means that it’s difficult to figure out how to do something beside staying in the safe zone that you know to work at least somehow.
However, I still think there’s something missing here. This just doesn’t look like a world where people do particularly care about anything at all. Even if it was often useful to stay in a safe zone, there doesn’t really seem to be any easy way to snap them out of it. No magic word, no violation of any sort of values makes anyone stand up and fight. I could literally tell people that millions are dying in vain(aging) or that the whole world is at stake(existential risks), and most people simply don’t care.
At least, that’s how I see it. I figure that rare exceptions to the rule there can be explained as a cost of signalling something, requirements of the spot in the conformist space you happen to be occupy or something like that.
I’m not particularly fond of this position, but I’m simply lacking a better alternative.
This is way too strong, isn’t it? I also don’t think the reason a lot of people ignore these tragedies has as much to do with conformism as it does self-interest. People don’t want to give up their vacation money. If anything there is social pressure in favor of sacrificing for moral causes. As for values, I think most people would say that the fact they don’t do more is a flaw. “If I was a better person I would do x” or “Wow, I respect you so much for doing x” or “I should do x but I want y so much.” I think it is fair to interpret these statements as second order desires that represent values.
Remember what I said about “lip service”?
If they want to care about stuff, that’s kinda implying that they don’t actually care about stuff (yet). Also, based on simple psychology, someone who chooses a spot in the conformist zone that requires giving lip service to something creates cognitive dissonance which easily produces second order desire to want what you claim you want. But what is frightening here is how this choice of values is arbitrary to the ultimate. If you’d judged another spot to be cheaper, you’d need to modify your values in a different way.
On both cases though, it seems that people really rarely move any bit towards actually caring about something.
What is a conformist zone and why is it spotted?
Lip service is “Oh, what is happening in Darfur is so terrible!”. That is different from “If I was a better person I’d help the people of Darfur” or “I’m such a bad person, I bought a t.v. instead of giving to charity”. The first signals empathy the second and third signal laziness or selfishness (and honesty I guess).
Why do values have to produce first order desires? For that matter, why can’t they be socially constructed norms which people are rewarded for buying into? When people do have first order desires that match these values we name those people heroes. Actually sacrificing for moral causes doesn’t get you ostracized it gets you canonized.
Not true. The range of values in the human community is quite limited.
People are rarely complete altruists. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t care about anything. The world is full of broke artists who could pay for more food, drugs and sex with a real job. These people value art.
Both are hollow words anyway. Both imply that you care, when you really don’t. There are no real actions.
Because, uhm, if you really value something, you’d probably want to do something? Not “want to want”, or anything, but really care about that stuff which you value. Right?
Sure they can. I expressed this as safe zone manipulation, attempting to modify your envinroment so that your conformist behavior leads to working for some value.
The point here is that actually caring about something and working towards something due to arbitrary choice and social pressure are quite different things. Since you seem to advocate the latter, I’m assuming that we both agree that people rarely care about anything and most actions are result of social pressure and stuff not directly related to actually caring or valuing anything.
Which brings me back to my first point: Why does it seem that many people here actually care about the world? Like, as in paperclip maximizer cares about paperclips. Just optical illusion and conscious effort to appear as a rational agent valuing the world, or something else?