I find the treatment of the term “entitled” to be rather uncharitable as to addressing my intention.
I can imagine someone acting nicely out of purely selfish motives, but I don’t think that that is most people’s reason. I think most people, even at Less Wrong, have some sense of moral obligation to act civilly. The idea that anyone who is not insulting me is so refraining purely for personal benefit is rather horrific to me. And if one is coming from a pure utilitarian point of view, what useful purpose does it serve to accuse me of dishonesty?
I think most people, even at Less Wrong, have some sense of moral obligation to act civilly. The idea that anyone who is not insulting me is so refraining purely for personal benefit is rather horrific to me.
This basically means that Buddhism is a very horrific moral framework for you.
The same goes for modern communication theories like nonviolent communication. In nonviolent communication expecting another people to fulfill an obligation is a violent act. The are many areas where people have spent a lot of time to get rid of “must” and “should” and not base their social interactions on those concepts.
Christianity is full of “must” and “should” and uses those tools to get people to act in a moral way. The Social Justice movement where I would expect you to come from is also full of “musts” and “shoulds”.
Most of the people on LW don’t have that kind of morality. The same goes for most people who meditate. New Agey people who are very kind and loving usually don’t act based on “musts” and “shoulds”.
I imagine that the idea that there are people who are nice purely because they enjoy it to be nice can come as a huge culture shock to someone out of the Social Justice background.
And if one is coming from a pure utilitarian point of view, what useful purpose does it serve to accuse me of dishonesty?
If you believe that someone is lying, openly saying that he’s lying can sometimes have utility.
This basically means that Buddhism is a very horrific moral framework for you.
I am not aware of any properties of Buddhism that would result in that conclusion.
The same goes for modern communication theories like nonviolent communication. In nonviolent communication expecting another people to fulfill an obligation is a violent act.
That doesn’t make any sense. Besides the fact that it is not, in fact, a violent act, and it simply abusing nomenclature to say it is, the clear implicature of referring to something as a “violent act” is to say that one believes that others have an obligation to not do it, and expects them to fulfill that obligation.
The are many areas where people have spent a lot of time to get rid of “must” and “should” and not base their social interactions on those concepts.
And the implicature of that statement is that LW is such an area. LW, where EA is a frequent topic of discussion, and where EY and Harry!MOR constantly refer to following rationalist precepts in moral language. The way you’re talking, I’d think I were posting on an Objectivist discussion board, not a Rationalist one.
The Social Justice movement where I would expect you to come from is also full of “musts” and “shoulds”.
That is an odd inference. I think people shouldn’t be rude and arrogant, therefore you expect that I come from the SJM?
Most of the people on LW don’t have that kind of morality.
Then they don’t have any morality. Morality, by definition, is concerned with what one should do.
New Agey people who are very kind and loving usually don’t act based on “musts” and “shoulds”.
Sure they do. They might come up with other labels for the concepts, but they’re still acting based on the idea of obligation.
I imagine that the idea that there are people who are nice purely because they enjoy it to be nice can come as a huge culture shock to someone out of the Social Justice background.
I think that you are trying to equivocate between two ideas:
“I am nice, and am nice not merely out of a sense of obligation, but because I like being nice” vs. “I am nice, but only because I feel like being nice. If I were to ever to feel like being an asshole, I would be an asshole, without any moral qualms”
It is the latter that you are literally saying, and I am expressing horror at.
If you believe that someone is lying, openly saying that he’s lying can sometimes have utility.
That doesn’t really answer my question. It simply asserts that an answer may exist.
That is an odd inference. I think people shouldn’t be rude and arrogant, therefore you expect that I come from the SJM?
The interesting thing is that you don’t perceive your own behavior in this case to be rude. That means you have a quite different idea of “rude” then a lot of people I know. The way you argued with Gwern is more complex than just “Gwern shouldn’t be rude and arrogant” it a bunch of cultural habits that come together. That pattern of social expectations pattern matches in my mind to the social justice community. The fact that you purposefully chose to avoid gendered pronouns just confirmed my suspicion.
Sure they do. They might come up with other labels for the concepts, but they’re still acting based on the idea of obligation.
No. I know a bunch of people in that space who are very clear that they have no responsibility for anything that happens outside of their body. On the other hand they prefer acting out their own needs and desires in an authentic way.
In Buddhism you get bad karma if you kill another person. The Buddhist idea is that you don’t go around killing other people because it’s in your own self interest not to mess up your own karma. It has nothing to do with having obligations not to kill.
For Cognitive Behavior Therapy there a self study book called: “The Feeling Good Handbook”. It calls using should statement for other people a form of “distorted thinking”.
I think that you are trying to equivocate between two ideas: “I am nice, and am nice not merely out of a sense of obligation, but because I like being nice” vs. “I am nice, but only because I feel like being nice. If I were to ever to feel like being an asshole, I would be an asshole, without any moral qualms”
It is the latter that you are literally saying, and I am expressing horror at.
Yes, I do mean the later. And those people who follow that philosophy are generally more nice and loving. In the moment where you repress the desire to be an asshole that desire doesn’t go away. It’s going to come out in some passive aggressive behavior or you might simply snap because the desire becomes too strong.
People who don’t disassociate their emotions but act authentically deal with them and thereby learn not to feel like wanting to be an asshole.
I don’t trust people who feel like they would like to be an asshole towards me but only act nicely because they perceive an obligation to be nice.
Just to be clear, I don’t claim that no person on LW has a mental concept of not reasoning with obligations.
The interesting thing is that you don’t perceive your own behavior in this case to be rude.
I certainly don’t consider my behavior prior to being accused of dishonesty as being rude. Do you? After I was accused of dishonesty, I still trying to resolve the issue civilly. As I endured more and more abuse from gwern, I became increasingly short with him, but I don’t think anything I said was inappropriate, given his behavior, and I find your proposition that it was to be poorly defended with vague, contradictory, and outright false statements.
The fact that you purposefully chose to avoid gendered pronouns just confirmed my suspicion.
Is that so surprising, as to provide significant information?
No. I know a bunch of people in that space who are very clear that they have no responsibility for anything that happens outside of their body.
I’m sure in pretty much any group there will be some who reject the concept of obligation. That doesn’t mean that this is the predominant strain of thought.
In Buddhism you get bad karma if you kill another person. The Buddhist idea is that you don’t go around killing other people because it’s in your own self interest not to mess up your own karma. It has nothing to do with having obligations not to kill.
I find it disingenuous to claim that there is no sense of obligation connected with the concept of karma, especially as conceived in its Western versions. That’s like saying that in Christianity, there is no sense of obligation in the concept of sin; Christians avoid sin merely out self interest, wanting to avoid hell.
In the moment where you repress the desire to be an asshole that desire doesn’t go away.
So, I shouldn’t repress the desire to be an asshole?
People who don’t disassociate their emotions but act authentically deal with them and thereby learn not to feel like wanting to be an asshole.
That sound like a bunch of hooey to me. And I have a problem with the word “authentically” being redefined to mean “without inhibitions”.
I don’t trust people who feel like they would like to be an asshole towards me but only act nicely because they perceive an obligation to be nice.
What’s, there’s something dishonest about not being an asshole? Maybe if gwern were to repress his desire to be an asshole long enough to have a civil discussion with me, he would discover that I have legitimate reasons for thinking as I do, and then would lose his motivation for being an asshole. Being a rationalist means not being ruled by System 1, and allowing for errors to be corrected.
I certainly don’t consider my behavior prior to being accused of dishonesty as being rude. Do you?
You behaved in a way that predictable annoyed gwern. I don’t care very much about whether or not to apply the word “rude” to that behavior.
I find your proposition that it was to be poorly defended with vague, contradictory, and outright false statements.
Basically you still fail to understand what I’m arguing. Nothing less, nothing more.
Is that so surprising, as to provide significant information?
Confirmations of past predictions are in their nature not surprising. That’s why they are called confirmations. When doing pattern matching it’s useful to see whether you find confirmations or disconfirmation for the patterns that you see.
I’m sure in pretty much any group there will be some who reject the concept of obligation. That doesn’t mean that this is the predominant strain of thought.
I find it disingenuous to claim that there is no sense of obligation connected with the concept of karma, especially as conceived in its Western versions. That’s like saying that in Christianity, there is no sense of obligation in the concept of sin; Christians avoid sin merely out self interest, wanting to avoid hell.
There might be some Western people who misunderstand what Buddhists mean with karma, that doesn’t change much about the Buddhist concept.
A good Christian doesn’t sins because God is an authority in which he trusts and God put out rules that the Christian isn’t supposed to do certain things.
Buddhist thought doesn’t have a God that does things like that.
If you jump up gravity pulls you down but that has nothing to do with you having an obligation to be near the ground. Buddhist karma is supposed to work just the same.
So, I shouldn’t repress the desire to be an asshole?
I’m not telling you what you should or shouldn’t do.
In practice you might pretty soon stop desiring to act like an asshole when you act based on those desires and suffer the costs of acting like an asshole.
Being a rationalist means not being ruled by System 1, and allowing for errors to be corrected.
You are not correcting the error of frequently wanting to be an asshole towards other people.
If I think about what outcome I want to achieve based on enlightened self interest and pick the actions that leads to that outcome I don’t have to let myself be ruled by my System 1.
You behaved in a way that predictable annoyed gwern.
It certainly wasn’t predicted by me. If your point is that asking people to clarify their position will predictably annoy them, and that’s a standard norm here, and that if I want to avoid annoying people, one step to accomplish that would be to not ask people to clarify their statements, well, that really doesn’t sound like a discussion board I have much interest in participating in.
I don’t care very much about whether or not to apply the word “rude” to that behavior.
Then why did you bring it up? You said “The interesting thing is that you don’t perceive your own behavior in this case to be rude.”
Basically you still fail to understand what I’m arguing. Nothing less, nothing more.
If you have no concern for whether you are understood, why are you posting? If you are concerned, why do you not try to correct your failure to communicate what you are saying?
Confirmations of past predictions are in their nature not surprising.
Then they are not evidence on which one can make a conclusion. Your conclusion came from some other piece of evidence.
A good Christian doesn’t sins because God is an authority in which he trusts and God put out rules that the Christian isn’t supposed to do certain things.
And the Christian conflates moral obligation with divine command.
Buddhist thought doesn’t have a God that does things like that.
What difference does God make? God puts out rules, karma puts out rules. God can say “should” all He wants, but those are irrelevant until someone adopts the “I should follow God” rule. Christians follow the rules that they believe God has put forth because they believe that they have a moral obligation to do so, and that moral obligation can’t come from God, because if it did come from God, it would just be another one of God’s rules, and what reason would anyone have to follow the “You should follow Me” rule?
If you jump up gravity pulls you down but that has nothing to do with you having an obligation to be near the ground. Buddhist karma is supposed to work just the same.
I don’t believe that Buddhists believe that karma is simply an arbitrary rule that doesn’t reflect morality.
You are not correcting the error of frequently wanting to be an asshole towards other people.
“Error” refers to actions, not to emotions.
If I think about what outcome I want to achieve based on enlightened self interest and pick the actions that leads to that outcome I don’t have to let myself be ruled by my System 1.
But that would, in my understanding of what you’re saying, not be being authentic.
I find the treatment of the term “entitled” to be rather uncharitable as to addressing my intention.
I can imagine someone acting nicely out of purely selfish motives, but I don’t think that that is most people’s reason. I think most people, even at Less Wrong, have some sense of moral obligation to act civilly. The idea that anyone who is not insulting me is so refraining purely for personal benefit is rather horrific to me. And if one is coming from a pure utilitarian point of view, what useful purpose does it serve to accuse me of dishonesty?
This basically means that Buddhism is a very horrific moral framework for you.
The same goes for modern communication theories like nonviolent communication. In nonviolent communication expecting another people to fulfill an obligation is a violent act. The are many areas where people have spent a lot of time to get rid of “must” and “should” and not base their social interactions on those concepts.
Christianity is full of “must” and “should” and uses those tools to get people to act in a moral way. The Social Justice movement where I would expect you to come from is also full of “musts” and “shoulds”.
Most of the people on LW don’t have that kind of morality. The same goes for most people who meditate. New Agey people who are very kind and loving usually don’t act based on “musts” and “shoulds”.
I imagine that the idea that there are people who are nice purely because they enjoy it to be nice can come as a huge culture shock to someone out of the Social Justice background.
If you believe that someone is lying, openly saying that he’s lying can sometimes have utility.
I am not aware of any properties of Buddhism that would result in that conclusion.
That doesn’t make any sense. Besides the fact that it is not, in fact, a violent act, and it simply abusing nomenclature to say it is, the clear implicature of referring to something as a “violent act” is to say that one believes that others have an obligation to not do it, and expects them to fulfill that obligation.
And the implicature of that statement is that LW is such an area. LW, where EA is a frequent topic of discussion, and where EY and Harry!MOR constantly refer to following rationalist precepts in moral language. The way you’re talking, I’d think I were posting on an Objectivist discussion board, not a Rationalist one.
That is an odd inference. I think people shouldn’t be rude and arrogant, therefore you expect that I come from the SJM?
Then they don’t have any morality. Morality, by definition, is concerned with what one should do.
Sure they do. They might come up with other labels for the concepts, but they’re still acting based on the idea of obligation.
I think that you are trying to equivocate between two ideas: “I am nice, and am nice not merely out of a sense of obligation, but because I like being nice” vs. “I am nice, but only because I feel like being nice. If I were to ever to feel like being an asshole, I would be an asshole, without any moral qualms”
It is the latter that you are literally saying, and I am expressing horror at.
That doesn’t really answer my question. It simply asserts that an answer may exist.
The interesting thing is that you don’t perceive your own behavior in this case to be rude. That means you have a quite different idea of “rude” then a lot of people I know. The way you argued with Gwern is more complex than just “Gwern shouldn’t be rude and arrogant” it a bunch of cultural habits that come together. That pattern of social expectations pattern matches in my mind to the social justice community.
The fact that you purposefully chose to avoid gendered pronouns just confirmed my suspicion.
No. I know a bunch of people in that space who are very clear that they have no responsibility for anything that happens outside of their body. On the other hand they prefer acting out their own needs and desires in an authentic way.
In Buddhism you get bad karma if you kill another person. The Buddhist idea is that you don’t go around killing other people because it’s in your own self interest not to mess up your own karma. It has nothing to do with having obligations not to kill.
For Cognitive Behavior Therapy there a self study book called: “The Feeling Good Handbook”. It calls using should statement for other people a form of “distorted thinking”.
Yes, I do mean the later. And those people who follow that philosophy are generally more nice and loving. In the moment where you repress the desire to be an asshole that desire doesn’t go away. It’s going to come out in some passive aggressive behavior or you might simply snap because the desire becomes too strong.
People who don’t disassociate their emotions but act authentically deal with them and thereby learn not to feel like wanting to be an asshole.
I don’t trust people who feel like they would like to be an asshole towards me but only act nicely because they perceive an obligation to be nice.
Just to be clear, I don’t claim that no person on LW has a mental concept of not reasoning with obligations.
I certainly don’t consider my behavior prior to being accused of dishonesty as being rude. Do you? After I was accused of dishonesty, I still trying to resolve the issue civilly. As I endured more and more abuse from gwern, I became increasingly short with him, but I don’t think anything I said was inappropriate, given his behavior, and I find your proposition that it was to be poorly defended with vague, contradictory, and outright false statements.
Is that so surprising, as to provide significant information?
I’m sure in pretty much any group there will be some who reject the concept of obligation. That doesn’t mean that this is the predominant strain of thought.
I find it disingenuous to claim that there is no sense of obligation connected with the concept of karma, especially as conceived in its Western versions. That’s like saying that in Christianity, there is no sense of obligation in the concept of sin; Christians avoid sin merely out self interest, wanting to avoid hell.
So, I shouldn’t repress the desire to be an asshole?
That sound like a bunch of hooey to me. And I have a problem with the word “authentically” being redefined to mean “without inhibitions”.
What’s, there’s something dishonest about not being an asshole? Maybe if gwern were to repress his desire to be an asshole long enough to have a civil discussion with me, he would discover that I have legitimate reasons for thinking as I do, and then would lose his motivation for being an asshole. Being a rationalist means not being ruled by System 1, and allowing for errors to be corrected.
You behaved in a way that predictable annoyed gwern. I don’t care very much about whether or not to apply the word “rude” to that behavior.
Basically you still fail to understand what I’m arguing. Nothing less, nothing more.
Confirmations of past predictions are in their nature not surprising. That’s why they are called confirmations. When doing pattern matching it’s useful to see whether you find confirmations or disconfirmation for the patterns that you see.
There might be some Western people who misunderstand what Buddhists mean with karma, that doesn’t change much about the Buddhist concept. A good Christian doesn’t sins because God is an authority in which he trusts and God put out rules that the Christian isn’t supposed to do certain things. Buddhist thought doesn’t have a God that does things like that.
If you jump up gravity pulls you down but that has nothing to do with you having an obligation to be near the ground. Buddhist karma is supposed to work just the same.
I’m not telling you what you should or shouldn’t do.
In practice you might pretty soon stop desiring to act like an asshole when you act based on those desires and suffer the costs of acting like an asshole.
You are not correcting the error of frequently wanting to be an asshole towards other people.
If I think about what outcome I want to achieve based on enlightened self interest and pick the actions that leads to that outcome I don’t have to let myself be ruled by my System 1.
It certainly wasn’t predicted by me. If your point is that asking people to clarify their position will predictably annoy them, and that’s a standard norm here, and that if I want to avoid annoying people, one step to accomplish that would be to not ask people to clarify their statements, well, that really doesn’t sound like a discussion board I have much interest in participating in.
Then why did you bring it up? You said “The interesting thing is that you don’t perceive your own behavior in this case to be rude.”
If you have no concern for whether you are understood, why are you posting? If you are concerned, why do you not try to correct your failure to communicate what you are saying?
Then they are not evidence on which one can make a conclusion. Your conclusion came from some other piece of evidence.
And the Christian conflates moral obligation with divine command.
What difference does God make? God puts out rules, karma puts out rules. God can say “should” all He wants, but those are irrelevant until someone adopts the “I should follow God” rule. Christians follow the rules that they believe God has put forth because they believe that they have a moral obligation to do so, and that moral obligation can’t come from God, because if it did come from God, it would just be another one of God’s rules, and what reason would anyone have to follow the “You should follow Me” rule?
I don’t believe that Buddhists believe that karma is simply an arbitrary rule that doesn’t reflect morality.
“Error” refers to actions, not to emotions.
But that would, in my understanding of what you’re saying, not be being authentic.