It also requires him being apriori a better judge of instrumental value than the vast majority of women, and some truly vast good being created that outweighs the ugliness of publicly disrespecting and humiliating any entire gender in such away. Also, he never once even mentioned the dangers of judging moral significance as a caveat.
(To answer your question directly: I maintain that a person’s total instrumental value as perceived by others is, especially in social relations, often nearly impossible to detach from intristic value, and an attempt to treat them separately can be very harmful for the subject and society at large. At risk of being downvoted, I’d like to mention once again that left-wing thought has been grappling with this problem since Marx.)
Anyway, would you mind elaborating? What is the precise position under which what’s best for women requires treating them like third-class citizens?
Suppose there’s a research project to do something important, say cure cancer, build FAI, etc. You will agree that it’s best for everyone if it’s staffed by the best people, even though it’s in some sense “unfair” to the people who will be denied the chance to participate in such a prestigious project because of their genes and/or upbringing.
The same principal applies to other projects where for the same reason it makes sense to assign people based to their comparative advantage. Now you may be asking, “Who decides what someone’s comparative advantage is and what about their biases?” Turns out there is a system that does a reasonably good job allocating people base on their comparative advantage and also avoids the problem of having a central judge of people’s value. It’s called the free market.
How the flying fuck does this have anything to do with publicly expressing disrespect and contempt for a genetically determined group of people, anyway? I agree that the issue of perceived fairness vs. market efficiency isn’t clear-cut, but our attitude towards the people who get unlucky must be particularly sensitive.
Would you want Yudkowsky to call anyone who can’t work on FAI or get qualified to do so a useless dullard whose only worth to society is donating to SIAI? If you wouldn’t, why wouldn’t you condemn Aurini’s words?
How the flying fuck does this have anything to do with publicly expressing disrespect and contempt for a genetically determined group of people, anyway?
Sorry, I was responding to your question about the difference between instrumental and intrinsic value.
As for Aurini’s comment, he’s arguing that people (ok in his case women, but I’m generalizing) should be disrespected and treated with contempt when they behave in histrionic or otherwise inappropriate ways, as this will cause them to stop it. Note that if someone is genetically or otherwise predisposed to act in such ways then it’s necessary to apply even more pressure for them to stop.
Would you want Yudkowsky to call anyone who can’t work on FAI or get qualified to do so a useless dullard whose only worth to society is donating to SIAI?
As for Aurini’s comment, he’s arguing that people (ok in his case women, but I’m generalizing) should be disrespected and treated with contempt when they behave in histrionic or otherwise inappropriate ways
Hmm, let’s see...
most women are incredibly stupid, and quite useless without a strong male presence guiding them (says nothing about inappropriate behavior, only judges ability and character in a very aggressive way)
So do you agree with the line above, or not? Do you think that this is a good thing to feel and believe?
People like you are savage and destructive, and a symptom of just how badly feminism has poisoned our culture… I’m glad I live in Canada; we have far fewer violent, passive aggressive, wrecks of masculinity here than there seem to be in the United States.
What about this style of “argument”? Do you endorse it?
most women are incredibly stupid, and quite useless without a strong male presence guiding them (says nothing about inappropriate behavior, only judges ability and character in a very aggressive way)
He goes on to talk about “histrionic behaviour” in the next paragraph.
So do you agree with the line above, or not?
I’d assign it a lower probability then Aurini but probably higher then you.
People like you are savage and destructive, and a symptom of just how badly feminism has poisoned our culture… I’m glad I live in Canada; we have far fewer violent, passive aggressive, wrecks of masculinity here than there seem to be in the United States.
What about this style of “argument”? Do you endorse it?
My main (but not the only) motherfucking problem with the whole thing is that Aurini holds men to be a superior species: i.e. they can’t be disciplined by women when they act stupidly or rashly, they aren’t said to be largely stupid while women are actually less likely to have an IQ below the mean (and defining “stupid” as just 100 IQ or above is pretty damn unjustified), etc. He completely avoids criticizing his own gender, but seizes upon every opportunity to insult the other one. And by the looks of it you’re acting in the same hypocritical and unfair manner.
I’d assign it a lower probability then Aurini but probably higher then you.
What the flying fuck. So in your worldview women are largely “useless” and men have to “guide” them, but there are no situations where men are useless, and women have to influence them? E.g. to make them calm down, prevent them from acting on emotion, etc.
Not to accidentally insult your parents or upbringing, but haven’t you seen your own mother and father helping each other to make the better decision or resolve a problem when one spouse is acting irrationally? I’m aware, of course, that in many poorly functioning families children only get to see the father dictating the mother what to do, but not the mother helping him make decisions as a valued and respected partner. But this is clearly a wrong and appaling relationship model to learn!
In any case, even holding a belief such a nasty thing (objectively “nasty” by our culture’s standards, not as a judgment of the believer) is very dangerous in itself.
I’d assign it a lower probability then Aurini but probably higher then you.
What the flying fuck. So in your worldview women are largely “useless” and men have to “guide” them, but there are no situations where men are useless, and women have to influence them? E.g. to make them calm down, prevent them from acting on emotion, etc.
I don’t see how this flows from my quote. In any case, I don’t agree with it.
In any case, even holding a belief such a nasty thing (objectively “nasty” by our culture’s standards, not as a judgment of the believer) is very dangerous in itself.
So you’re saying that the belief is so “nasty” that assigning it any non-zero probability is a bad idea.
So you’re saying that the belief is so “nasty” that assigning it any non-zero probability is a bad idea.
No. I’m only saying that it’s dangerous, and that even if you truly think that such a belief would have the advantage of reflecting reality better, you still have to trade that against the disadvantage of it being extremely unsuited to your cultural environment.
No. I’m only saying that it’s dangerous, and that even if you truly think that such a belief would have the advantage of reflecting reality better, you still have to trade that against the disadvantage of it being extremely unsuited to your cultural environment.
How is this even relevant outside some weird partisan definition of “socialist” and “cultural environment”? And how is this not a purely political jab at all?
My point is that I don’t believe this constitutes your true rejection, and was trying to argue by pointing to a belief you hold that isn’t exactly mainstream.
It also requires him being apriori a better judge of instrumental value than the vast majority of women, and some truly vast good being created that outweighs the ugliness of publicly disrespecting and humiliating any entire gender in such away. Also, he never once even mentioned the dangers of judging moral significance as a caveat.
(To answer your question directly: I maintain that a person’s total instrumental value as perceived by others is, especially in social relations, often nearly impossible to detach from intristic value, and an attempt to treat them separately can be very harmful for the subject and society at large. At risk of being downvoted, I’d like to mention once again that left-wing thought has been grappling with this problem since Marx.)
Anyway, would you mind elaborating? What is the precise position under which what’s best for women requires treating them like third-class citizens?
Suppose there’s a research project to do something important, say cure cancer, build FAI, etc. You will agree that it’s best for everyone if it’s staffed by the best people, even though it’s in some sense “unfair” to the people who will be denied the chance to participate in such a prestigious project because of their genes and/or upbringing.
The same principal applies to other projects where for the same reason it makes sense to assign people based to their comparative advantage. Now you may be asking, “Who decides what someone’s comparative advantage is and what about their biases?” Turns out there is a system that does a reasonably good job allocating people base on their comparative advantage and also avoids the problem of having a central judge of people’s value. It’s called the free market.
How the flying fuck does this have anything to do with publicly expressing disrespect and contempt for a genetically determined group of people, anyway? I agree that the issue of perceived fairness vs. market efficiency isn’t clear-cut, but our attitude towards the people who get unlucky must be particularly sensitive.
Would you want Yudkowsky to call anyone who can’t work on FAI or get qualified to do so a useless dullard whose only worth to society is donating to SIAI? If you wouldn’t, why wouldn’t you condemn Aurini’s words?
Sorry, I was responding to your question about the difference between instrumental and intrinsic value.
As for Aurini’s comment, he’s arguing that people (ok in his case women, but I’m generalizing) should be disrespected and treated with contempt when they behave in histrionic or otherwise inappropriate ways, as this will cause them to stop it. Note that if someone is genetically or otherwise predisposed to act in such ways then it’s necessary to apply even more pressure for them to stop.
Well, he’s more or less done something like that.
Hmm, let’s see...
So do you agree with the line above, or not? Do you think that this is a good thing to feel and believe?
What about this style of “argument”? Do you endorse it?
He goes on to talk about “histrionic behaviour” in the next paragraph.
I’d assign it a lower probability then Aurini but probably higher then you.
No, I don’t like bulverism.
My main (but not the only) motherfucking problem with the whole thing is that Aurini holds men to be a superior species: i.e. they can’t be disciplined by women when they act stupidly or rashly, they aren’t said to be largely stupid while women are actually less likely to have an IQ below the mean (and defining “stupid” as just 100 IQ or above is pretty damn unjustified), etc. He completely avoids criticizing his own gender, but seizes upon every opportunity to insult the other one. And by the looks of it you’re acting in the same hypocritical and unfair manner.
What the flying fuck. So in your worldview women are largely “useless” and men have to “guide” them, but there are no situations where men are useless, and women have to influence them? E.g. to make them calm down, prevent them from acting on emotion, etc.
Not to accidentally insult your parents or upbringing, but haven’t you seen your own mother and father helping each other to make the better decision or resolve a problem when one spouse is acting irrationally? I’m aware, of course, that in many poorly functioning families children only get to see the father dictating the mother what to do, but not the mother helping him make decisions as a valued and respected partner. But this is clearly a wrong and appaling relationship model to learn!
In any case, even holding a belief such a nasty thing (objectively “nasty” by our culture’s standards, not as a judgment of the believer) is very dangerous in itself.
I don’t see how this flows from my quote. In any case, I don’t agree with it.
So you’re saying that the belief is so “nasty” that assigning it any non-zero probability is a bad idea.
No. I’m only saying that it’s dangerous, and that even if you truly think that such a belief would have the advantage of reflecting reality better, you still have to trade that against the disadvantage of it being extremely unsuited to your cultural environment.
And yet, you claim to be a socialist.
How is this even relevant outside some weird partisan definition of “socialist” and “cultural environment”? And how is this not a purely political jab at all?
My point is that I don’t believe this constitutes your true rejection, and was trying to argue by pointing to a belief you hold that isn’t exactly mainstream.