Do you think lesswrong.com has a dogma which is somewhat complex and engenders a group identity? Cryonics anybody? Religious tolerance around here consists of a truce between the one-boxers and the two-boxers. I was told just the other day that if I didn’t think sentience arises from the operation of a turing machine that I was probably in the wrong place.
How about the academic world of PhD physicists? Their dogma is not expensive because it is “wrong” but rather it is expensive because it requires great and specialized skills and knowledge to manipulate it. It results in people who characteristically have different opinions than their complementary group, and who tend to trust each other in certain arenas more than they would trust non-phd physicists.
I suspect that this affiliation through agreed-upon dogma is more a feature than a bug, more a mechanism for creating larger more complex creations through uniting the efforts of many people. For the groups we agree with we prefer not to notice that they have some real features in common with the groups we don’t agree with, but I submit that our tribe dogma should include a recognition of that fact (and actually, I think it mostly does.)
I think the distinction is not between logical and illogical ideas, but between high-cost and low-cost ideas.
Illogical ideas are generally high-cost, for the reasons outlined in the OP, unless you live in a society in which everyone accepts the high-cost idea (for instance, Creationism in the American South). Cryonics is a high-cost idea: it may be right, but it is also deeply weird and unlikely to find acceptance among non-transhumanists. PhD physicists have high-cost ideas because of the time and effort required to understand them. Even jargon might count as a high-cost idea because of the price you pay in ease of communication, especially jargon that those outside the group tend to understand differently than those inside the group (for instance, feminists tend to use patriarchy to mean “the system of institutionalized societal sexism”, while most non-feminists interpret it as meaning “all men oppressing all women”).
Of course, all this is purely speculative. And the causation might go the other way: instead of adopting a high-cost idea signalling one’s membership in the group, it might be that high-cost ideas tend to create groups, because low-cost ideas tend to be adopted by large numbers of people.
Of course, all this is purely speculative. And the causation might go the other way: instead of adopting a high-cost idea signalling one’s membership in the group, it might be that high-cost ideas tend to create groups, because low-cost ideas tend to be adopted by large numbers of people.
My thinking is that the discussion of high cost ideas being dopey and primarily for signalling membership in a group is only partially correct, only a part of the story. In the case of physics, engineering, more applied parts of math and computer science, and probably many forms of understanding of management, politics, and “social engineering,” these high cost ideas have high benefit in terms of what you can manage to do.
Also I would imagine the causation does go both ways what with these being natrualistic systems. Nature has never been shy about exploiting valuable causalities just to keep the story simple, it seems to me.
In general, I think a lot of the signalling arguments tend to overstate things, staring so excitedly at the secondary effects of group cohesion and definition and missing the intrinsic value that many of these signals have. If spending 7 years getting a phd in physics (I enjoyed myself, I wasn’t in a rush, that’s my story and i’m sticking to it) is signalling my membership in a group I very much want to be in, it has also created in me a bunch of very valuable capabilities in terms of mastering the physical world around me and mastering the intellectual (social political) world around me in certain narrow ways. I guess I feel as though the REASON I want to be in this group is because the people in this group can do stuff I want to be able to do. THat is, I’m impressed by their wizards and want to learn some of their magick.
See what I mean? Religious jargon of signalling and membership seems one way when you are talking about something that you think is BS but an entirely different way when talking about something that you “believe in.” But it is the same human stuff. Its a tool that we benefit from using every bit as much as do the people in other groups. Indeed, if we are to “win”, we better be benefitting from it more than they are.
I’d suggest that high-cost ideas are generally high-benefit, or at least high-apparent-benefit (see: love-bombing in cults), in order to incentivize people to believe them.
I definitely think it’s important to recognize that almost all group beliefs are both signalling and something that people actually believe and that has effects on their life. The PhD’s role as a signal of membership in the Physicist Conspiracy doesn’t conflict with the PhD’s role of learning interesting things about physics; in fact, they’re complementary. (However, it’s certainly possible to imagine someone who can signal “being a physicist” without having learned interesting things about physics (fake PhD) or vice versa (extremely skilled autodidact), which why I think they’re probably two separate but related functions.)
(However, it’s certainly possible to imagine someone who can signal “being a physicist” without having learned interesting things about physics (fake PhD) or vice versa (extremely skilled autodidact), which why I think they’re probably two separate but related functions.)
I think the Physicist Conspiracy in which I am a member with my PhD and all does NOT require a PhD to join. Freeman Dyson for example is clearly accepted in the club despite never bothering to get a degree beyond B.A.
I hope that the cynicism I reject in my own self-examination of my membership in my own church of rational physics engineering leads me to reject cynicism when trying to understand other people’s churches. There ARE reasons people believe things and they are by no means all stupid reasons.
I hope that the cynicism I reject in my own self-examination of my membership in my own church of rational physics engineering leads me to reject cynicism when trying to understand other people’s churches. There ARE reasons people believe things and they are by no means all stupid reasons.
We’re definitely in agreement there. And even the ones that are stupid may be psychologically reassuring or otherwise “make sense” even if they are completely irrational. While signalling arguments are important, I think it’s unrealistic to consider them to the exclusion of other arguments.
Do you think lesswrong.com has a dogma which is somewhat complex and engenders a group identity? Cryonics anybody? Religious tolerance around here consists of a truce between the one-boxers and the two-boxers. I was told just the other day that if I didn’t think sentience arises from the operation of a turing machine that I was probably in the wrong place.
How about the academic world of PhD physicists? Their dogma is not expensive because it is “wrong” but rather it is expensive because it requires great and specialized skills and knowledge to manipulate it. It results in people who characteristically have different opinions than their complementary group, and who tend to trust each other in certain arenas more than they would trust non-phd physicists.
I suspect that this affiliation through agreed-upon dogma is more a feature than a bug, more a mechanism for creating larger more complex creations through uniting the efforts of many people. For the groups we agree with we prefer not to notice that they have some real features in common with the groups we don’t agree with, but I submit that our tribe dogma should include a recognition of that fact (and actually, I think it mostly does.)
Definitely not. Look at the surveys.
I think the distinction is not between logical and illogical ideas, but between high-cost and low-cost ideas.
Illogical ideas are generally high-cost, for the reasons outlined in the OP, unless you live in a society in which everyone accepts the high-cost idea (for instance, Creationism in the American South). Cryonics is a high-cost idea: it may be right, but it is also deeply weird and unlikely to find acceptance among non-transhumanists. PhD physicists have high-cost ideas because of the time and effort required to understand them. Even jargon might count as a high-cost idea because of the price you pay in ease of communication, especially jargon that those outside the group tend to understand differently than those inside the group (for instance, feminists tend to use patriarchy to mean “the system of institutionalized societal sexism”, while most non-feminists interpret it as meaning “all men oppressing all women”).
Of course, all this is purely speculative. And the causation might go the other way: instead of adopting a high-cost idea signalling one’s membership in the group, it might be that high-cost ideas tend to create groups, because low-cost ideas tend to be adopted by large numbers of people.
My thinking is that the discussion of high cost ideas being dopey and primarily for signalling membership in a group is only partially correct, only a part of the story. In the case of physics, engineering, more applied parts of math and computer science, and probably many forms of understanding of management, politics, and “social engineering,” these high cost ideas have high benefit in terms of what you can manage to do.
Also I would imagine the causation does go both ways what with these being natrualistic systems. Nature has never been shy about exploiting valuable causalities just to keep the story simple, it seems to me.
In general, I think a lot of the signalling arguments tend to overstate things, staring so excitedly at the secondary effects of group cohesion and definition and missing the intrinsic value that many of these signals have. If spending 7 years getting a phd in physics (I enjoyed myself, I wasn’t in a rush, that’s my story and i’m sticking to it) is signalling my membership in a group I very much want to be in, it has also created in me a bunch of very valuable capabilities in terms of mastering the physical world around me and mastering the intellectual (social political) world around me in certain narrow ways. I guess I feel as though the REASON I want to be in this group is because the people in this group can do stuff I want to be able to do. THat is, I’m impressed by their wizards and want to learn some of their magick.
See what I mean? Religious jargon of signalling and membership seems one way when you are talking about something that you think is BS but an entirely different way when talking about something that you “believe in.” But it is the same human stuff. Its a tool that we benefit from using every bit as much as do the people in other groups. Indeed, if we are to “win”, we better be benefitting from it more than they are.
I’d suggest that high-cost ideas are generally high-benefit, or at least high-apparent-benefit (see: love-bombing in cults), in order to incentivize people to believe them.
I definitely think it’s important to recognize that almost all group beliefs are both signalling and something that people actually believe and that has effects on their life. The PhD’s role as a signal of membership in the Physicist Conspiracy doesn’t conflict with the PhD’s role of learning interesting things about physics; in fact, they’re complementary. (However, it’s certainly possible to imagine someone who can signal “being a physicist” without having learned interesting things about physics (fake PhD) or vice versa (extremely skilled autodidact), which why I think they’re probably two separate but related functions.)
I think the Physicist Conspiracy in which I am a member with my PhD and all does NOT require a PhD to join. Freeman Dyson for example is clearly accepted in the club despite never bothering to get a degree beyond B.A.
I hope that the cynicism I reject in my own self-examination of my membership in my own church of rational physics engineering leads me to reject cynicism when trying to understand other people’s churches. There ARE reasons people believe things and they are by no means all stupid reasons.
We’re definitely in agreement there. And even the ones that are stupid may be psychologically reassuring or otherwise “make sense” even if they are completely irrational. While signalling arguments are important, I think it’s unrealistic to consider them to the exclusion of other arguments.
Really? I would have just told you you were trivially and obviously wrong.
If this is an interesting point, it was actually Gwern telling someone named Chad in a thread I was participating in.