Perhaps he is referring to the entire thing. The story-telling format might be considered dark arts, in that it appeals to your emotions rather than making rational argument.
Other than that it is remarkably neutral (and thus unlikely to be dark-arts-ish), the only violations that I see are “Better dead than Red” and the mention of a spouse and children.
in that it appeals to your emotions rather than making rational argument.
Appealing to emotions in a transparent fashion as a way of helping deal with problems that arise from the same emotional cluster doesn’t seem to be dark arts. The solution to emotion creating irrationality is not to turn into a straw Vulcan.
the only violations are “Better dead than Red” and the mention of a spouse and children.
I have to say, I was also a little puzzled that the idea being accepted here was communism. To give it a favorable interpretation, I just assume it’s being used as an cultural idiom to convey the idea of preferring death to submission to an ideological opponent.
Basically this, I’m surprised to find people taking it literally, my bad. If you’d like to put it into Eliezer’s conventional terminology, you could try “better dead than blue”.
I actually meant that the use of the idiom (I’m confident that it’s only an idiom) would bias people against “red” ideas. Mocking “red” ideas with this routine idiom might lead someone to more firmly entrench themselves in a belief that “red” ideas are perpetually and eternally wrong, and that as someone opposed to “red” ideas they are perpetually and eternally right. Very minor, but I felt compelled to mention it for the purpose of completeness.
For what it’s worth, my 0th-order reaction to “Better dead than Red” is a bias in the opposite direction. I grew up during the Vietnam war, in the U.S., so I got to watch my government repeatedly lie through its teeth, and the US was the opposition to the Reds—so, when I hear, “Better dead than Red”, I expect it paired with deceit. (It’s a low level bias—the Soviets are gone, and the cold war has been replaced by other conflicts, so this reaction is largely moot at this point)
OK—I had been assuming that “dark arts” meant “use of techniques socially considered mean, nasty or evil; may be employed for either selfish or altruistic purposes”.
It seems the LW definition is more specifically about manipulation. (I’m just bringing this up in case any other readers suffered the same confusion).
This page on the Dark Arts points out “there’s no clear distinction between using these skills and regular social interaction”. Does the LW community consider “regular social interaction” to be a dark art, or is there some line you have to cross?
I once made a post about hanging out with cheerful, positive Christians in order to be more cheerful and positive, because a number of my atheist friends are also more negative and cynical. Someone commented that this verges on the Dark Arts. (Manipulating my own mind?) I’ve come to the conclusion that I can distinguish myself using Dark Arts from “regular social interaction” but I’m not going to stop doing it unless someone can prove that doing this harms others.
OK—I had been assuming that “dark arts” meant “use of techniques socially considered mean, nasty or evil
The meaning should be considered divorced from what is socially considered. Many things that fit in that category are not dark at all. In fact a lot of what ‘dark arts’ entail is doing things because they fly under the radar of social disapproval while still being effective. There are also many techniques that are socially considered mean nasty or evil while not being dark arts. Those techniques often also qualify for such labels as banal, honest, blunt and naive.
It seems the LW definition is more specifically about manipulation.
That’s the one. With an emphasis on persuasion via manipulation. But the concept runs into the same problems as manipulation does in general. The line between ‘manipulation’ and ‘actually having social skills’ is basically non-existent.
I don’t tend to use the phrase ‘dark arts’ myself. It’s too cute, rather imprecise and places the emphasis on entirely the wrong thing—including things that are not even objectionable. I talk about bullshit instead.
Perhaps he is referring to the entire thing. The story-telling format might be considered dark arts, in that it appeals to your emotions rather than making rational argument.
Other than that it is remarkably neutral (and thus unlikely to be dark-arts-ish), the only violations that I see are “Better dead than Red” and the mention of a spouse and children.
Appealing to emotions in a transparent fashion as a way of helping deal with problems that arise from the same emotional cluster doesn’t seem to be dark arts. The solution to emotion creating irrationality is not to turn into a straw Vulcan.
Agreed, I was simply attempting to gain insight into drawde’s perspective.
I have to say, I was also a little puzzled that the idea being accepted here was communism. To give it a favorable interpretation, I just assume it’s being used as an cultural idiom to convey the idea of preferring death to submission to an ideological opponent.
Basically this, I’m surprised to find people taking it literally, my bad. If you’d like to put it into Eliezer’s conventional terminology, you could try “better dead than blue”.
I actually meant that the use of the idiom (I’m confident that it’s only an idiom) would bias people against “red” ideas. Mocking “red” ideas with this routine idiom might lead someone to more firmly entrench themselves in a belief that “red” ideas are perpetually and eternally wrong, and that as someone opposed to “red” ideas they are perpetually and eternally right. Very minor, but I felt compelled to mention it for the purpose of completeness.
For what it’s worth, my 0th-order reaction to “Better dead than Red” is a bias in the opposite direction. I grew up during the Vietnam war, in the U.S., so I got to watch my government repeatedly lie through its teeth, and the US was the opposition to the Reds—so, when I hear, “Better dead than Red”, I expect it paired with deceit. (It’s a low level bias—the Soviets are gone, and the cold war has been replaced by other conflicts, so this reaction is largely moot at this point)
OK—I had been assuming that “dark arts” meant “use of techniques socially considered mean, nasty or evil; may be employed for either selfish or altruistic purposes”.
It seems the LW definition is more specifically about manipulation. (I’m just bringing this up in case any other readers suffered the same confusion).
This page on the Dark Arts points out “there’s no clear distinction between using these skills and regular social interaction”. Does the LW community consider “regular social interaction” to be a dark art, or is there some line you have to cross?
I once made a post about hanging out with cheerful, positive Christians in order to be more cheerful and positive, because a number of my atheist friends are also more negative and cynical. Someone commented that this verges on the Dark Arts. (Manipulating my own mind?) I’ve come to the conclusion that I can distinguish myself using Dark Arts from “regular social interaction” but I’m not going to stop doing it unless someone can prove that doing this harms others.
The meaning should be considered divorced from what is socially considered. Many things that fit in that category are not dark at all. In fact a lot of what ‘dark arts’ entail is doing things because they fly under the radar of social disapproval while still being effective. There are also many techniques that are socially considered mean nasty or evil while not being dark arts. Those techniques often also qualify for such labels as banal, honest, blunt and naive.
That’s the one. With an emphasis on persuasion via manipulation. But the concept runs into the same problems as manipulation does in general. The line between ‘manipulation’ and ‘actually having social skills’ is basically non-existent.
I don’t tend to use the phrase ‘dark arts’ myself. It’s too cute, rather imprecise and places the emphasis on entirely the wrong thing—including things that are not even objectionable. I talk about bullshit instead.