Here’s the bit I hope folks will read and think about:
An example: I cannot in good faith entertain the argument that high-scarcity societies are right in having restrictive, assigned-sex-based gender roles, even if these social structures result in measurable maximized utility (i.e. many much kids). [...] This is because respect for said arguments and/or the idea behind them is a warning sign for either 1) passively not respecting my personhood or 2) actively disregarding my personhood, both of which are, to use some vernacular, hella fucking dangerous to me personally.
This is, yes, a signaling argument.
It is an argument that if you signal that it’s A-OK for your friends and associates to waver on whether certain humans are to be treated as full persons (as opposed to baby-making machines, slaves, marks, or maybe food), then those certain humans are pretty likely to get the hell away from you and your friends and associates. Especially given the alternative of hanging out with people who clearly (and expensively) signal the opposite.
It’s why you can hardly ever get honest answers to questions like “would you sleep with a member of the same sex for a million dollars.”
If it came down to actually making the choice, I’m pretty sure most straight men would sleep with a man for a million dollars. Only the naive are going to admit to it when it’s a hypothetical, though, because the hypothetical question leaks information about your character. Choosing between a million dollars and your hetero-normal reputation is one thing—choosing between saying that you’d take the million dollars and saying that you’re too hetero-normal to do so is another.
I’m curious what your confidence level about the counterfactual is here. I both would answer that question no, and would honestly expect most other men to genuinely refuse this offer if actually presented with it.
Possibly I’m hitting myself with the typical mind fallacy here (I test as purely-straight when taking analyses of sexual preference, so maybe men who test as mostly-straight would behave differently; I’m also much less materialistic than most people—I could have chosen more lucrative careers but preferred to do something I enjoy.)
Is there really any experimental evidence for your assertion?
Let’s play the money as dead children game for a bit. Now, when the article was written you could plausibly save 1life for about $1000, but these days I think the number is a bit higher. Let’s say $10000 just to be safe.
Essentially, you’re saying that you would sacrifice the lives of 100 people in order to avoid a brief homosexual experience, using basic consequentialism. Perhaps you won’t change your mind even when thinking about the proposition from this perspective, but I know personally it would be too difficult ethically for me to refuse.
It doesn’t have to be lives, of course. If you’re more of a preferential consequentialist, you can help pay off your mates’ crippling student debt or mortgage, or donate to a longevity charity to help your chances of not dying, or even MIRI or something.
In any case, a million dollars has a lot of potential utility. Refusing because you’re not ‘materialistic’ is a bit short-sighted, I think.
I would enthusiastically answer yes to both questions. The first is a million dollars for 35 minutes of moderate discomfort. The second signals that I’m both tolerant and confident in my heterosexuality. I don’t even have to ponder this.
It gets more interesting as the price comes down and I would have clarifying questions if we wanted to determine the exact level, and the answers would probably be different. I don’t know how common my answer is, but I suspect very common among my demographic cohort (white, urban, mid-twenties, of the liberal tribe). A rationalist friend recently gave his price as $200, which would be too low for me.
would honestly expect most other men to genuinely refuse this offer if actually presented with it.
That’s more of an issue with making sure that the logistics work right—the prior for someone going around with a million dollars to spend to get straight men to sleep with them is so low that “this is obviously a scam or a ruse of some sort” eats up the remaining probability mass.
Imagine instead of some guy coming up to you with the offer, you get a phone call from your attorney. He says he is in the room with some %celebrity’s attorney with a million dollar check on the table, and lays out the offer for you.
The problem is how specifically we define what “treating as full persons” means. Because, you know, one gets internet activist points for exaggerating and taking offense.
For example, if the article about Asch’s conformity experiment says that women conformed more to the social pressures… well, if a wrong person said this at the wrong moment, they could easily get accused of not treating women as full persons. Also anyone who would try to defend them.
However, the EA subgroup will not force her into assigned-sex-based gender role.
They will tell her it is comparatively immoral to have children.
Another way the subcultures on LW are not overlapping.
As a woman, I am annoyed at both approaches, but I can cope.
Here’s the bit I hope folks will read and think about:
This is, yes, a signaling argument.
It is an argument that if you signal that it’s A-OK for your friends and associates to waver on whether certain humans are to be treated as full persons (as opposed to baby-making machines, slaves, marks, or maybe food), then those certain humans are pretty likely to get the hell away from you and your friends and associates. Especially given the alternative of hanging out with people who clearly (and expensively) signal the opposite.
It’s why you can hardly ever get honest answers to questions like “would you sleep with a member of the same sex for a million dollars.”
If it came down to actually making the choice, I’m pretty sure most straight men would sleep with a man for a million dollars. Only the naive are going to admit to it when it’s a hypothetical, though, because the hypothetical question leaks information about your character. Choosing between a million dollars and your hetero-normal reputation is one thing—choosing between saying that you’d take the million dollars and saying that you’re too hetero-normal to do so is another.
Probably because it’s a trap :-D
Which sex acts, exactly, would I be expected to perform? I may have difficulty sustaining an erection under the circumstances… ;)
I’m curious what your confidence level about the counterfactual is here. I both would answer that question no, and would honestly expect most other men to genuinely refuse this offer if actually presented with it.
Possibly I’m hitting myself with the typical mind fallacy here (I test as purely-straight when taking analyses of sexual preference, so maybe men who test as mostly-straight would behave differently; I’m also much less materialistic than most people—I could have chosen more lucrative careers but preferred to do something I enjoy.)
Is there really any experimental evidence for your assertion?
Let’s play the money as dead children game for a bit. Now, when the article was written you could plausibly save 1life for about $1000, but these days I think the number is a bit higher. Let’s say $10000 just to be safe.
Essentially, you’re saying that you would sacrifice the lives of 100 people in order to avoid a brief homosexual experience, using basic consequentialism. Perhaps you won’t change your mind even when thinking about the proposition from this perspective, but I know personally it would be too difficult ethically for me to refuse.
It doesn’t have to be lives, of course. If you’re more of a preferential consequentialist, you can help pay off your mates’ crippling student debt or mortgage, or donate to a longevity charity to help your chances of not dying, or even MIRI or something.
In any case, a million dollars has a lot of potential utility. Refusing because you’re not ‘materialistic’ is a bit short-sighted, I think.
I think he’s questioning your claim about “most people”, not whether that claim applies to himself, which I think he has already admitted.
I would enthusiastically answer yes to both questions. The first is a million dollars for 35 minutes of moderate discomfort. The second signals that I’m both tolerant and confident in my heterosexuality. I don’t even have to ponder this.
It gets more interesting as the price comes down and I would have clarifying questions if we wanted to determine the exact level, and the answers would probably be different. I don’t know how common my answer is, but I suspect very common among my demographic cohort (white, urban, mid-twenties, of the liberal tribe). A rationalist friend recently gave his price as $200, which would be too low for me.
That’s more of an issue with making sure that the logistics work right—the prior for someone going around with a million dollars to spend to get straight men to sleep with them is so low that “this is obviously a scam or a ruse of some sort” eats up the remaining probability mass.
Imagine instead of some guy coming up to you with the offer, you get a phone call from your attorney. He says he is in the room with some %celebrity’s attorney with a million dollar check on the table, and lays out the offer for you.
The problem is how specifically we define what “treating as full persons” means. Because, you know, one gets internet activist points for exaggerating and taking offense.
For example, if the article about Asch’s conformity experiment says that women conformed more to the social pressures… well, if a wrong person said this at the wrong moment, they could easily get accused of not treating women as full persons. Also anyone who would try to defend them.
However, the EA subgroup will not force her into assigned-sex-based gender role. They will tell her it is comparatively immoral to have children. Another way the subcultures on LW are not overlapping.
As a woman, I am annoyed at both approaches, but I can cope.