I said it would be more convincing, not that it would necessarily be a better argument. And I think the money pump is just a little more demonstrable than the devil.
In any case, the way that you would achieve the subtle threats when evangelizing standard, popular religions wouldn’t be with any kind of direct argument like that one. Rather, you would innocently drop references to how popular it already is, how the social connections provided by the religion help its members, how they have strength in numbers and strength members’ fanaticism (hinting how it can be deployed against those it deems a threat) … you get the idea.
the money pump is just a little more demonstrable than the devil.
I’ve asked this before: Why don’t rationalist run money pumps?
As far as I know, none of us are exploiting biases or irrationality for profit in any systematic way, which is itself irrational if we really believe this is an option.
We’re either an incredibly ethical group, or money pumping isn’t as easy as it would seem from reading the research.
I’ve asked this before: Why don’t rationalist run money pumps?
I think you’ve answered your own question. Let me elaborate:
1) Rationalists significantly overestimate people’s vulnerability to money pumps, often based on mistaken views about how e.g. religious irrationality “must” spill over into other areas.
2) Even if you don’t care about ethics, scamming people will just make the population more suspicious of people claiming mastery of rationalist ideas.
To do money pumping on a grand scale, you have to be in the financial markets; but there are no money pumps there which aren’t being busily pumped away. (‘Bears make money, bulls make money; pigs get slaughtered’.) This is true for pumps like casinos, too—lots of competition.
The potential for a money pump is an indication that the preference system is inconsistent and so potential for exploit to some extent. It does not mean that the agent in question must be incapable of altering their preferences in the face of blantant exploit. ‘Patching’ of a utility function in the face of inconsistencies that are the most easy to exploit comes naturally to humans.
With that in mind I observe that bizarre and irrational preferences and the exploitation thereof are extremely prevalent and I would go as far as to say a significant driver of the economy. Of course, it isn’t only rationalists that enjoy the benefits of exploiting suckers.
I’m not disagreeing with you, I think. Until rationalists start showing tangible social benefits like the ones backing the subtle threats you mentioned, it will be hard to get people in the door who aren’t already predisposed.
Though I have had trouble developing a demonstrable money pump that can’t be averted by saying “I would simply be too suspicious of somebody who offered me repeated deals to allow them to continually take my money.” Of course, the standard retort might be “you play the lottery,” but then that’s not a great way to make people like rationalists/rationalism.
Okay, we’re in agreement; I just wasn’t sure what your ultimate point was, and used the opportunity to point out how the technique is used in other contexts.
I said it would be more convincing, not that it would necessarily be a better argument. And I think the money pump is just a little more demonstrable than the devil.
In any case, the way that you would achieve the subtle threats when evangelizing standard, popular religions wouldn’t be with any kind of direct argument like that one. Rather, you would innocently drop references to how popular it already is, how the social connections provided by the religion help its members, how they have strength in numbers and strength members’ fanaticism (hinting how it can be deployed against those it deems a threat) … you get the idea.
I’ve asked this before: Why don’t rationalist run money pumps?
As far as I know, none of us are exploiting biases or irrationality for profit in any systematic way, which is itself irrational if we really believe this is an option.
We’re either an incredibly ethical group, or money pumping isn’t as easy as it would seem from reading the research.
I think you’ve answered your own question. Let me elaborate:
1) Rationalists significantly overestimate people’s vulnerability to money pumps, often based on mistaken views about how e.g. religious irrationality “must” spill over into other areas.
2) Even if you don’t care about ethics, scamming people will just make the population more suspicious of people claiming mastery of rationalist ideas.
To elaborate your elaboration:
To do money pumping on a grand scale, you have to be in the financial markets; but there are no money pumps there which aren’t being busily pumped away. (‘Bears make money, bulls make money; pigs get slaughtered’.) This is true for pumps like casinos, too—lots of competition.
And most ways to make a money pump in other areas have been outlawed or are regulated; working money pumps like Swoopo (see http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001196.html ) are usually walking a fine line.
The potential for a money pump is an indication that the preference system is inconsistent and so potential for exploit to some extent. It does not mean that the agent in question must be incapable of altering their preferences in the face of blantant exploit. ‘Patching’ of a utility function in the face of inconsistencies that are the most easy to exploit comes naturally to humans.
With that in mind I observe that bizarre and irrational preferences and the exploitation thereof are extremely prevalent and I would go as far as to say a significant driver of the economy. Of course, it isn’t only rationalists that enjoy the benefits of exploiting suckers.
I’m not disagreeing with you, I think. Until rationalists start showing tangible social benefits like the ones backing the subtle threats you mentioned, it will be hard to get people in the door who aren’t already predisposed.
Though I have had trouble developing a demonstrable money pump that can’t be averted by saying “I would simply be too suspicious of somebody who offered me repeated deals to allow them to continually take my money.” Of course, the standard retort might be “you play the lottery,” but then that’s not a great way to make people like rationalists/rationalism.
Okay, we’re in agreement; I just wasn’t sure what your ultimate point was, and used the opportunity to point out how the technique is used in other contexts.