Ignorance also saves lives. Depending on the culture I could save your life, for example, by refraining from giving you information. Fortunately we don’t condone casual murder by leaders in western civilisation. So correcting people when it is inappropriate could just get you fired. Arrested too—don’t correct cops on points of law unless you have a lot of witnesses present.
Seeing an opportunity to do good, and then avoiding it because of a perceived status hit to oneself, is evil.
I disagree. I think this attitude is naive, bad math and dangerous.
because of a perceived status hit
Status matters. A lot. Really. I read this as similar to “because of a percieved potential loss of a limb” (calibrate limb loss probability to match the expected value of the status risk).
So correcting people when it is inappropriate could just get you fired. Arrested too—don’t correct cops on points of law unless you have a lot of witnesses present.
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
Even when the thing that would be destroyed by the truth would be your daughter? Or 3^^^3 puppies?
When Eliezer first made that claim the sentiment appealed to me but at the same time I hoped there wouldn’t be people who went and took it literally, without the clearly necessary disclaimers. Note that Eliezer censors things that are true when he believes it suits his purposes.
I must ask: to what degree do you act on your stated belief that not correcting someone’s map when you can is evil as such? How assiduously do you attempt to correct error in interaction on the Internet? Please describe the process you apply in practice here. Is the cartoon an exaggeration, or your life? To what degree?
It’s not a status hit to you. It’s a status hit to them. Feel free to make whatever noble choices you want about being willing to make yourself look stupid in a public forum, but you don’t have the right to make that choice for someone else.
Yep. Ignorance kills. Seeing an opportunity to do good, and then avoiding it because of a perceived status hit to oneself, is evil.
Not if it is an inconsequential detail like who wrote what book...
Ignorance also saves lives. Depending on the culture I could save your life, for example, by refraining from giving you information. Fortunately we don’t condone casual murder by leaders in western civilisation. So correcting people when it is inappropriate could just get you fired. Arrested too—don’t correct cops on points of law unless you have a lot of witnesses present.
I disagree. I think this attitude is naive, bad math and dangerous.
Status matters. A lot. Really. I read this as similar to “because of a percieved potential loss of a limb” (calibrate limb loss probability to match the expected value of the status risk).
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
But it might be best to wait for an opportune time.
Even when the thing that would be destroyed by the truth would be your daughter? Or 3^^^3 puppies?
When Eliezer first made that claim the sentiment appealed to me but at the same time I hoped there wouldn’t be people who went and took it literally, without the clearly necessary disclaimers. Note that Eliezer censors things that are true when he believes it suits his purposes.
well said
It’s no accident that the aphorism says “should” and not “must”.
I must ask: to what degree do you act on your stated belief that not correcting someone’s map when you can is evil as such? How assiduously do you attempt to correct error in interaction on the Internet? Please describe the process you apply in practice here. Is the cartoon an exaggeration, or your life? To what degree?
Given that sex helps you save the world this is a surprisingly important question! ;)
What are your thoughts on WikiLeaks?
It’s not a status hit to you. It’s a status hit to them. Feel free to make whatever noble choices you want about being willing to make yourself look stupid in a public forum, but you don’t have the right to make that choice for someone else.