I don’t think these are quite in the original spirit of the thread but seem related to several of the discussions that developed. I would like to have discussions about all of these points merely in the hope that I can be convinced to update away from them.
Things I REALLY hope aren’t true and suspect might be. Honestly don’t read this if you’re already depressed right now.
Human beings WANT maximally brutal leaders up to the limit of being able to plausibly signal that they don’t want maximally brutal leaders.
People can be tortured to create a lower set point on the hedonic treadmill. This allows for far more overall utility.
Male/female sexual relationships are fundamentally adversarial due to the differences in dominant mating strategies.
There is a large class of violent people for whom no current treatment is available who simply need to be put down.
Humans don’t care about torture.
We could create a virtual utopia fairly trivially by investing in lucid dream research but nobody actually cares because:
Anyone with the ability to make the world better almost by definition has a vested stake in the current fucked up one.
There is a large class of violent people for whom no current treatment is available who simply need to be put down.
How large? Executing / permanently imprisoning serial killers e.g. is fairly mainstream, though certainly controversial.
Humans don’t care about torture.
What makes you suspect something like that? Pretty much any tribe gets pissed off when starts torturing members of . Maybe you mean torture as established part of the justice system, as was common throughout much of history? Even then I’d suspect there are plenty of people who have no problem as long as it only affects or .
It’s probably stupid to reply to comment from more than three years ago, but Antisocial personality disorder does not imply violence. There are examples of psychopaths who were raised in good homes that grew up to become successful assholes.
People can be tortured to create a lower set point on the hedonic treadmill. This allows for far more overall utility.
I wonder if this reasoning might be related to the longevity of the boarding school institution as implemented by early 20th century Britain, or of other similarly unpleasant forms of institutionalized child… I’m not sure I want to call it “abuse”, but at least systematic deprivation.
Or of hazing or initiation ordeals in general, really.
I read once that when looking at the childhoods of people who are high up in industry or otherwise notable, there’s a larger than expected fraction of childhoods scarred by abuse or neglect; which says interesting things to me about means and variances and societally optimal amounts of abuse. But I’ve never been able to refind the essay...
Male/female sexual relationships are fundamentally adversarial due to the differences in dominant mating strategies.
AFAIK there’s a sizable portion of feminists who believe this statement (or at least the first half of it) is true, and thus the statement is not as terribly controversial as your other ones.
People can be tortured to create a lower set point on the hedonic treadmill. This allows for far more overall utility.
Who said that this isn’t being done to us right now, from the inside as well as the outside of our mind? (Consequently, I’m not scared but neither do I approve of this.)
Anyone with the ability to make the world better almost by definition has a vested stake in the current fucked up one.
Very much believe this. Cure is a sense that more is possible.
People can be tortured to create a lower set point on the hedonic treadmill. This allows for far more overall utility.
I think this is a pretty common belief among religious people. You can explain evil people by free will being important, but there’s a lot of bad stuff that’s nobody’s fault.
People can be tortured to create a lower set point on the hedonic treadmill. This allows for far more overall utility.
Why would this be bad? I mean, it’s a pretty big IF, but if tortureworld is actually better, then just imagine a perfect world without torture, and that’s a lower bound on how great tortureworld is.
Male/female sexual relationships are fundamentally adversarial due to the differences in dominant mating strategies.
I don’t buy it! & not only based on personal experience—there’s just too much variation in humanity, and we’re getting pretty good at breaking out of supposed evolutionary imperatives.
Anyone with the ability to make the world better almost by definition has a vested stake in the current fucked up one.
I think I’d prefer to live now than in pretty much any prior era.
Why would this be bad? I mean, it’s a pretty big IF, but if tortureworld is actually better, then just imagine a perfect world without torture, and that’s a lower bound on how great tortureworld is.
True, but I don’t necessarily want to be inserted into it by mandate
I don’t buy it! & not only based on personal experience—there’s just too much variation in humanity, and we’re getting pretty good at breaking out of supposed evolutionary imperatives.
I hope you are right.
I think I’d prefer to live now than in pretty much any prior era.
this strikes me as the difference between pessimists and optimists. You look at the world compared to what has been, I look at it compared to what I think it optimally should be. Depression and creativity ARE linked after all ;)
True, but I don’t necessarily want to be inserted into it by mandate
Counterfactually, yes you do! I think the fact that it’s such an unpleasant conclusion is evidence that the initial assumption—tortureworld being highter utility—is flawed.
I hope you are right.
I mean, how could it be that human sexuality is bound to a specific kind of adversarial relationship in heterosexuals, but otherwise encompasses homosexuals, asexuals, dragon/car sex fetishists, master/slave dynamics, power bottoms...
this strikes me as the difference between pessimists and optimists. You look at the world compared to what has been, I look at it compared to what I think it optimally should be. Depression and creativity ARE linked after all ;)
I think perhaps you have mistaken me! What I mean is—now is better than the past, therefore “Anyone with the ability to make the world better almost by definition has a vested stake in the current fucked up one” either isn’t historically true, or things are getting better anyway.
Anyway I like to spend my time being happy and creative, so I reject your latest conclusion as well >;D
In exploring people’s preferences I have discovered that I am weird. I don’t think positive utility cancels out negative utility.
I mean, how could it be that human sexuality is bound to a specific kind of adversarial relationship
I’ve recently been made aware of the fact that it is more likely that it is a specific kind of middle class farmer culture (in the hansonian sense) sexual norm that I am objecting to, not a universal one.
so I reject your latest conclusion as well
it isn’t my conclusion, though I’m too lazy to dig up the citations right now.
As for things getting better despite everyone fighting against it, yes, that is basically what I believe. Tech innovation has been and continues to be sharply limited by crappy social conditions.
I don’t think these are quite in the original spirit of the thread but seem related to several of the discussions that developed. I would like to have discussions about all of these points merely in the hope that I can be convinced to update away from them.
Things I REALLY hope aren’t true and suspect might be. Honestly don’t read this if you’re already depressed right now.
Human beings WANT maximally brutal leaders up to the limit of being able to plausibly signal that they don’t want maximally brutal leaders.
People can be tortured to create a lower set point on the hedonic treadmill. This allows for far more overall utility.
Male/female sexual relationships are fundamentally adversarial due to the differences in dominant mating strategies.
There is a large class of violent people for whom no current treatment is available who simply need to be put down.
Humans don’t care about torture.
We could create a virtual utopia fairly trivially by investing in lucid dream research but nobody actually cares because:
Anyone with the ability to make the world better almost by definition has a vested stake in the current fucked up one.
P.S. throium reactors. God damn it humans.
How large? Executing / permanently imprisoning serial killers e.g. is fairly mainstream, though certainly controversial.
What makes you suspect something like that? Pretty much any tribe gets pissed off when starts torturing members of . Maybe you mean torture as established part of the justice system, as was common throughout much of history? Even then I’d suspect there are plenty of people who have no problem as long as it only affects or .
I’m talking about putting certain people diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder down before they do anything.
Our medical/legal establishment routinely tortures people so that everyone else can feel slightly better about certain aspects of mortality.
It’s probably stupid to reply to comment from more than three years ago, but Antisocial personality disorder does not imply violence. There are examples of psychopaths who were raised in good homes that grew up to become successful assholes.
I wonder if this reasoning might be related to the longevity of the boarding school institution as implemented by early 20th century Britain, or of other similarly unpleasant forms of institutionalized child… I’m not sure I want to call it “abuse”, but at least systematic deprivation.
Or of hazing or initiation ordeals in general, really.
I’ve always thought of those sorts of institutions to largely be the result of path dependence.
I read once that when looking at the childhoods of people who are high up in industry or otherwise notable, there’s a larger than expected fraction of childhoods scarred by abuse or neglect; which says interesting things to me about means and variances and societally optimal amounts of abuse. But I’ve never been able to refind the essay...
AFAIK there’s a sizable portion of feminists who believe this statement (or at least the first half of it) is true, and thus the statement is not as terribly controversial as your other ones.
when i say fundamental I include CEV.
Who said that this isn’t being done to us right now, from the inside as well as the outside of our mind? (Consequently, I’m not scared but neither do I approve of this.)
I think this is a pretty common belief among religious people. You can explain evil people by free will being important, but there’s a lot of bad stuff that’s nobody’s fault.
Why would this be bad? I mean, it’s a pretty big IF, but if tortureworld is actually better, then just imagine a perfect world without torture, and that’s a lower bound on how great tortureworld is.
I don’t buy it! & not only based on personal experience—there’s just too much variation in humanity, and we’re getting pretty good at breaking out of supposed evolutionary imperatives.
I think I’d prefer to live now than in pretty much any prior era.
True, but I don’t necessarily want to be inserted into it by mandate
I hope you are right.
this strikes me as the difference between pessimists and optimists. You look at the world compared to what has been, I look at it compared to what I think it optimally should be. Depression and creativity ARE linked after all ;)
Counterfactually, yes you do! I think the fact that it’s such an unpleasant conclusion is evidence that the initial assumption—tortureworld being highter utility—is flawed.
I mean, how could it be that human sexuality is bound to a specific kind of adversarial relationship in heterosexuals, but otherwise encompasses homosexuals, asexuals, dragon/car sex fetishists, master/slave dynamics, power bottoms...
I think perhaps you have mistaken me! What I mean is—now is better than the past, therefore “Anyone with the ability to make the world better almost by definition has a vested stake in the current fucked up one” either isn’t historically true, or things are getting better anyway.
Anyway I like to spend my time being happy and creative, so I reject your latest conclusion as well >;D
In exploring people’s preferences I have discovered that I am weird. I don’t think positive utility cancels out negative utility.
I’ve recently been made aware of the fact that it is more likely that it is a specific kind of middle class farmer culture (in the hansonian sense) sexual norm that I am objecting to, not a universal one.
it isn’t my conclusion, though I’m too lazy to dig up the citations right now.
As for things getting better despite everyone fighting against it, yes, that is basically what I believe. Tech innovation has been and continues to be sharply limited by crappy social conditions.
It would seem that you are using a different definition of the word “utility” than the one which is used in technical game theoretical analysis.
yes this is true.
Well, suffice to say I agree that utility models are pretty terrible for modeling people.
The depression / creativity thing I have heard before, and is possibly quite true, though luckily it’s not a hard-and-fast rule.