don’t go into the evolutionary psychology of politics or the game theory of punishing non-punishers
OK, so you’re saying that to change someone’s mind, identify mental behaviors that are “world view building blocks”, and then to instill these behaviors in others:
...come up with exercises which, if people go through them, causes them to experience the 5-second events
Such as:
...to feel the temptation to moralize, and to make the choice not to moralize, and to associate alternative procedural patterns such as pausing, reflecting...
Or:
...to feel the temptation to doubt, and to make the choice not to doubt, and to associate alternative procedural patterns such as pausing, prayer...
The 5-second method is sufficiently general to coax someone into believing any world view, not just a rationalist one.
The 5-second method is sufficiently general to coax someone into believing any world view, not just a rationalist one.
Um, yes. This is supposed to increase your general ability to teach a human to do anything, good or bad. In much the same way, having lots of electricity increases your general ability to do anything that requires electricity, good or bad. This does not make electrical generation a Dark Art.
Actually, it occurs to me that this can be generalized. We might feel morally worried about a technique for initial epistemic persuasion which can operate equally to convince people of true statements or false statements, which is being used without the person’s knowledge and before they’ve come to an initial decision about the worth of the idea (i.e., it’s not like they already believe it and you’re trying to help them alieve it). This is what some people (not me, please note) termed the Dark Arts.
Instrumental techniques which are useful for accomplishing anything, good or bad, depending on the user’s utility function? Those are fine. Those are great. Nothing Dark about them.
Good to see you’ve morally condoned the 5 second method.
It looked to me more like he was discussing the consequences.
It was a bit of both, at least with some elements under discussion. But the moralizing was relatively mild and mostly via connotation rather than overt. Not at a level I would comment on specifically.
OK, so you’re saying that to change someone’s mind, identify mental behaviors that are “world view building blocks”, and then to instill these behaviors in others:
Such as:
Or:
The 5-second method is sufficiently general to coax someone into believing any world view, not just a rationalist one.
Um, yes. This is supposed to increase your general ability to teach a human to do anything, good or bad. In much the same way, having lots of electricity increases your general ability to do anything that requires electricity, good or bad. This does not make electrical generation a Dark Art.
Actually, it occurs to me that this can be generalized. We might feel morally worried about a technique for initial epistemic persuasion which can operate equally to convince people of true statements or false statements, which is being used without the person’s knowledge and before they’ve come to an initial decision about the worth of the idea (i.e., it’s not like they already believe it and you’re trying to help them alieve it). This is what some people (not me, please note) termed the Dark Arts.
Instrumental techniques which are useful for accomplishing anything, good or bad, depending on the user’s utility function? Those are fine. Those are great. Nothing Dark about them.
I think the usual statement of this idea is something like, “Tool X can be used for good or evil.”
Most tools can be. Tools with moral dimensions are rare.
Good to see you’ve morally condoned the 5 second method.
It looked to me more like he was discussing the consequences.
It was a bit of both, at least with some elements under discussion. But the moralizing was relatively mild and mostly via connotation rather than overt. Not at a level I would comment on specifically.