I have a small question, and this is an abstract question not specifically about any particular controversy on LW:
-Suppose there is a statement that happens to be true, but which will also lower someone’s or a group’s status resulting in offence. Will you chose not to offend and keep the statement to yourself, or will you say it?
Suppose there is a statement that happens to be true, but which will also lower someone’s or a group’s status resulting in offence. Will you chose not to offend and keep the statement to yourself, or will you say it?
You haven’t given enough information. There are a lot of offensive things that “happen to be true” that you don’t say all the time. It being offensive is a good reason not to say it, but presumably you have in mind some reason to say it. One would need to evaluate that against the ‘giving offense’ to see which one wins.
There are a lot of offensive things that “happen to be true” that you don’t say all the time.
Quick heavy-handed illustration:
You meet someone who was badly disfigured in an accident, let’s say this guy, and after taking a look at him say “Holy shit, you’re ugly!”
This is a completely true statement (being scalped by industrial machinery will do that), also rude and offensive, and has very little reason to need saying.
What about “everything that can be destroyed by the truth should be”? There might be an inconsistency between saying maximally true things and not offending people. What is the priority on LW?
On a somewhat related note, I can see it already. You spend years carefully programming your AI, calculating it’s friendliness, making sure it is perfectly bayesian and perfectly honest. You are finally done. You turn it on and the first line it prints: Oh dear, you are quite ugly.
What about “everything that can be destroyed by the truth should be”?
That statement obviously only applies when there is falsehood to be destroyed. I’m sure that guy knows he is not especially pretty. Telling him he’s ugly may be truthful but it’s also kind of like yelling “You’re really hot” at the sun.
If I were badly disfigured I would much prefer people saying that to my face than babbling off a lie. I would even prefer it to silence. If I’m talking to someone and they say nothing of my appearance I’m sure I could tell that they were at least thinking about it. I would much prefer that they think about it out loud than “behind my back” in their head.
Plus, my experience has always been that mutual insults are a great way for people to become friends. Maybe it’s the “civilized” version of play fighting that many animals (and human kids) engage in.
Under which circumstances would ‘saying true things’ win and under which other circumstances ‘not saying anything’ would win? I would also add, under which circumstances would you ‘say something you believe to be false’ or ‘agree with something you believe to be false’ in order to avoid offense?
Um. That’s a very complicated question about life, the universe, and everything. There are many circumstances during which saying particular things are beneficial.
Maybe some examples would help?
You and your friend Anna (to pick a name) are having ice cream. She’s talking about how she felt when her mom died. You point out in response that the atomic weight of molybdenum is 95.94. This is very unhelpful and probably should not have been said, and she’s offended that you don’t care about her feelings as much as she thought you did.
Now you and your friend Anna are being held at gunpoint. You are hooked up to a lie detector and asked if you think Anna looks fat in those jeans. If you lie, they shoot you both. Anna would be offended if you think she looks fat. (ETA: as it happens, you do think so.) In this case, it is probably best not to lie.
And there are various other sorts of cases as well.
I think this is a life skill which you’ve developed already but aren’t thinking of as the same thing. The stereotypical example: your mother looks terrible in a dress but really loves it and she doesn’t need to impress anyone, so you might say she looks good anyway. That’s just one point in an extremely wide spectrum the issue encloses, in which you probably have feelings already on what’s best when. I think the decisions are personal, dependent on the situation, and often hotly debated.
Statements that are true, important to the development and practice of rationality, and lower a group’s status should be said. Persons stumbling upon information of this nature would benefit from doing their best to present the information in a way that will sting the least for this group’s status (post would be less controversial, would have to hear less distress calls). The more altruistic might consider how the community benefits from conscientiously proffered information.
A person who may have been offended despite all this will probably feel compelled to comment. I think it is important not to just be irritated at someone reacting this way, but to consider whether they have any valid point. Any time someone is offended by what we say, we may have an opportunity to learn how to prevent offense in the future (while still conveying the information accurately). In some cases, we might even learn we missed something and were wrong.
The only way something can be offensive enough to justify banning is if its author’s intended goal was to offend, rather than to seek truth. I don’t think that Lawrence Summers was trolling, and his remarks have a non-negligible chance of being true.
if its author’s intended goal was to offend, rather than to seek truth.
False dichotomy. People can be offensive accidentally and/or ignorantly in the course of making all kinds of statements; it doesn’t have to be either deliberate or a side feature of an attempt at seeking truth.
Indeed, people can be offensive accidentally and/or ignorantly. And yet, people can also be offensive while seeking truth. The offensive thing might not even be true, but to reach a conclusion either way, the offensive thing must be entertained as a hypothesis.
What if there was a hypothetical situation where the goal of seeking truth and the goal of not offending were at odds with each other such that one had to chose one or the other? Which goal is more important, truth seeking or non offense?
People have hinted that it depends on the situation. Pretend I’m an alien and and I know nothing of our society. How would you explain this to me? What algorithm is used to decide when it’s ok and when it’s not ok to offend? And on a related note, why is it ok to offend certain groups but not ok to offend other groups? Eg. It’s ok to offend religious people but not ok to offend …
You may offend people who do or believe foolish things, unless they meet the criteria for mental illness/retardation or you can avoid it without changing the substance of your claim.
Of course, there are some situations where the need not to offend an off-limits person or group must take the backseat to some greater need.
“You may offend people who do or believe foolish things”
How does one determine which acts and beliefs are foolish?
“Of course, there are some situations where the need not to offend an off-limits person or group must take the backseat to some greater need.”
What are these situations?
Who are the off limits people?
What is the greater need?
I’m not asking to annoy, I really want to know. I don’t get it. Please explain.
I don’t have an airtight definition handy, but it seems to me that (at least in the modern day in the developed world), religion is foolish, and (for instance) being a particular gender / race / etc. is not.
Hmmm. I can see a difference between religion and gender / race etc.
So is the rule: “It’s ok to offend a group if individuals have the option of belonging or not belonging to that group, but if individuals don’t have such a choice, then it’s not ok to offend them.”?
I don’t think that’s very helpful. It doesn’t seem to me that he as a very good grasp of what ‘heresy’ means, and you didn’t explain what you meant by it in context.
Did you mean:
What you’re doing is the modern-day equivalent to heresy (which I’d need explained)
What you’re suggesting is something that could serve the same purpose of accusations of ‘heresy’ in past days
something else
Note that for literal readings, the modern-day equivalent of ‘heresy’ is ‘heresy’. It still means the same thing and is used the same way by the Church.
That’s definitely not a way that I’ve heard ‘heresy’ used. From Wikipedia:
Heresy is an introduced change to some system of belief, especially a religion, that conflicts with the previously established canon of that belief.
In the Catholic tradition, heretics (people committing heresy) were condemned for leading people to believe that Catholicism is about something that it is not, and therefore putting their souls in danger.
Perhaps in the definition you gave above, you were referring to the attitude the Church had towards heresy, rather than heresy itself?
Also, your definition doesn’t fit what Alicorn suggested above. It might if you replace ‘idea’ with ‘utterance’ and understand ‘denounce’ to not mean ‘reject as false’.
It should definitely be allowed, but the poster should also expect many to react in disagreement.
Myself, I think anyone calling Summers sexist for his comments is incorrect. But I also think Summers is incorrect in his conclusion, that the biological difference between the sexes is not great enough to be a cause of the low enrollment discussed.
Maybe we should all play a game of rationalist taboo with the words “sexist”… and another game with the word “insensitive”...? It seems to me we all have different ideas about these and related concepts. Maybe this could be a helpful response to offenders and offendees in the future—whenever and whyever it pops up.
I have a small question, and this is an abstract question not specifically about any particular controversy on LW: -Suppose there is a statement that happens to be true, but which will also lower someone’s or a group’s status resulting in offence. Will you chose not to offend and keep the statement to yourself, or will you say it?
You haven’t given enough information. There are a lot of offensive things that “happen to be true” that you don’t say all the time. It being offensive is a good reason not to say it, but presumably you have in mind some reason to say it. One would need to evaluate that against the ‘giving offense’ to see which one wins.
Quick heavy-handed illustration:
You meet someone who was badly disfigured in an accident, let’s say this guy, and after taking a look at him say “Holy shit, you’re ugly!”
This is a completely true statement (being scalped by industrial machinery will do that), also rude and offensive, and has very little reason to need saying.
What about “everything that can be destroyed by the truth should be”? There might be an inconsistency between saying maximally true things and not offending people. What is the priority on LW?
On a somewhat related note, I can see it already. You spend years carefully programming your AI, calculating it’s friendliness, making sure it is perfectly bayesian and perfectly honest. You are finally done. You turn it on and the first line it prints: Oh dear, you are quite ugly.
That statement obviously only applies when there is falsehood to be destroyed. I’m sure that guy knows he is not especially pretty. Telling him he’s ugly may be truthful but it’s also kind of like yelling “You’re really hot” at the sun.
If I were badly disfigured I would much prefer people saying that to my face than babbling off a lie. I would even prefer it to silence. If I’m talking to someone and they say nothing of my appearance I’m sure I could tell that they were at least thinking about it. I would much prefer that they think about it out loud than “behind my back” in their head.
Plus, my experience has always been that mutual insults are a great way for people to become friends. Maybe it’s the “civilized” version of play fighting that many animals (and human kids) engage in.
Beware of hypotheticals.
Would you also prefer it to talking about something relevant, like whatever you happened to be meeting about?
“Hi, I’m Amy. Nice to meet you. Now to get right down to business, let’s look at this chart...”
“Hi, I’m Amy. Nice to meet you. Man, you’re ugly...
In most cases, there’s nothing to be gained by #2.
Under which circumstances would ‘saying true things’ win and under which other circumstances ‘not saying anything’ would win? I would also add, under which circumstances would you ‘say something you believe to be false’ or ‘agree with something you believe to be false’ in order to avoid offense?
Um. That’s a very complicated question about life, the universe, and everything. There are many circumstances during which saying particular things are beneficial.
Maybe some examples would help?
You and your friend Anna (to pick a name) are having ice cream. She’s talking about how she felt when her mom died. You point out in response that the atomic weight of molybdenum is 95.94. This is very unhelpful and probably should not have been said, and she’s offended that you don’t care about her feelings as much as she thought you did.
Now you and your friend Anna are being held at gunpoint. You are hooked up to a lie detector and asked if you think Anna looks fat in those jeans. If you lie, they shoot you both. Anna would be offended if you think she looks fat. (ETA: as it happens, you do think so.) In this case, it is probably best not to lie.
And there are various other sorts of cases as well.
I think this is a life skill which you’ve developed already but aren’t thinking of as the same thing. The stereotypical example: your mother looks terrible in a dress but really loves it and she doesn’t need to impress anyone, so you might say she looks good anyway. That’s just one point in an extremely wide spectrum the issue encloses, in which you probably have feelings already on what’s best when. I think the decisions are personal, dependent on the situation, and often hotly debated.
How do these questions relate to your first comment? Are you asking if I would lie to not give offense?
Statements that are true, important to the development and practice of rationality, and lower a group’s status should be said. Persons stumbling upon information of this nature would benefit from doing their best to present the information in a way that will sting the least for this group’s status (post would be less controversial, would have to hear less distress calls). The more altruistic might consider how the community benefits from conscientiously proffered information.
A person who may have been offended despite all this will probably feel compelled to comment. I think it is important not to just be irritated at someone reacting this way, but to consider whether they have any valid point. Any time someone is offended by what we say, we may have an opportunity to learn how to prevent offense in the future (while still conveying the information accurately). In some cases, we might even learn we missed something and were wrong.
I have another question: Would statements of the type made by Lawernce Summers* be considered too offensive for LW or is discussion allowed?
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_between_the_sexes
The only way something can be offensive enough to justify banning is if its author’s intended goal was to offend, rather than to seek truth. I don’t think that Lawrence Summers was trolling, and his remarks have a non-negligible chance of being true.
False dichotomy. People can be offensive accidentally and/or ignorantly in the course of making all kinds of statements; it doesn’t have to be either deliberate or a side feature of an attempt at seeking truth.
Indeed, people can be offensive accidentally and/or ignorantly. And yet, people can also be offensive while seeking truth. The offensive thing might not even be true, but to reach a conclusion either way, the offensive thing must be entertained as a hypothesis.
What if there was a hypothetical situation where the goal of seeking truth and the goal of not offending were at odds with each other such that one had to chose one or the other? Which goal is more important, truth seeking or non offense?
People have hinted that it depends on the situation. Pretend I’m an alien and and I know nothing of our society. How would you explain this to me? What algorithm is used to decide when it’s ok and when it’s not ok to offend? And on a related note, why is it ok to offend certain groups but not ok to offend other groups? Eg. It’s ok to offend religious people but not ok to offend …
Do you want the real answer?
Humans don’t use algorithms for communication.
At the very least, they don’t use explicit ones.
You may offend people who do or believe foolish things, unless they meet the criteria for mental illness/retardation or you can avoid it without changing the substance of your claim.
Of course, there are some situations where the need not to offend an off-limits person or group must take the backseat to some greater need.
“You may offend people who do or believe foolish things” How does one determine which acts and beliefs are foolish?
“Of course, there are some situations where the need not to offend an off-limits person or group must take the backseat to some greater need.” What are these situations? Who are the off limits people? What is the greater need?
I’m not asking to annoy, I really want to know. I don’t get it. Please explain.
I don’t have an airtight definition handy, but it seems to me that (at least in the modern day in the developed world), religion is foolish, and (for instance) being a particular gender / race / etc. is not.
Hmmm. I can see a difference between religion and gender / race etc. So is the rule: “It’s ok to offend a group if individuals have the option of belonging or not belonging to that group, but if individuals don’t have such a choice, then it’s not ok to offend them.”?
That seems like an acceptable gloss of the distinction, although there are probably fine-grained intuitions it won’t cover.
I don’t like this rule. I don’t like rules that restrict truth seeking. I think this amounts to modern day heresy.
I don’t know what you mean by this. What’s ‘heresy’ outside of a religious context, and why should we care?
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
I don’t think that’s very helpful. It doesn’t seem to me that he as a very good grasp of what ‘heresy’ means, and you didn’t explain what you meant by it in context.
Did you mean:
What you’re doing is the modern-day equivalent to heresy (which I’d need explained)
What you’re suggesting is something that could serve the same purpose of accusations of ‘heresy’ in past days
something else
Note that for literal readings, the modern-day equivalent of ‘heresy’ is ‘heresy’. It still means the same thing and is used the same way by the Church.
By heresy I mean preemptively denouncing an idea because it doesn’t adhere to some doctrine with no regard to whether the idea is true or false.
That’s definitely not a way that I’ve heard ‘heresy’ used. From Wikipedia:
In the Catholic tradition, heretics (people committing heresy) were condemned for leading people to believe that Catholicism is about something that it is not, and therefore putting their souls in danger.
Perhaps in the definition you gave above, you were referring to the attitude the Church had towards heresy, rather than heresy itself?
Also, your definition doesn’t fit what Alicorn suggested above. It might if you replace ‘idea’ with ‘utterance’ and understand ‘denounce’ to not mean ‘reject as false’.
It should definitely be allowed, but the poster should also expect many to react in disagreement.
Myself, I think anyone calling Summers sexist for his comments is incorrect. But I also think Summers is incorrect in his conclusion, that the biological difference between the sexes is not great enough to be a cause of the low enrollment discussed.
Maybe we should all play a game of rationalist taboo with the words “sexist”… and another game with the word “insensitive”...? It seems to me we all have different ideas about these and related concepts. Maybe this could be a helpful response to offenders and offendees in the future—whenever and whyever it pops up.
Depends on the reason the true statement needs to be said.