A Bayesian agent who goes through an upbringing as a boy and one who goes through an upbringing as a girl will probably not possess identical beliefs about society, the world, humanity, and so on. This is not because one has been held back or misled, nor because one is less rational than the other … but because two different partial explorations of the same territory do not yield the same map.
The apparent inconceivability (in this thread) of the notion that someone might disagree on a deep level with local memes without being insane is quite amazing. Typical mind fallacy, the lack of realisation that there exist unknown unknowns.
This matters if we care about possessing accurate maps; and it also matters a great deal if what we are trying to map includes things like “the good of humanity” or “coherent extrapolated volition of humankind” or things like that.
Yes. This thread reads like LW is aimed at realising the CEV of well-off programmers in the Bay Area. If you’re serious about working for all of humanity, it may conceivably be useful to seriously listen to some who don’t already agree with you.
The apparent inconceivability (in this thread) of the notion that someone might disagree on a deep level with local memes without being insane is quite amazing. [...] If you’re serious about working for all of humanity, it may conceivably be useful to seriously listen to some who don’t already agree with you.
I don’t think that’s the case. If people would find that notion inconceivability I doubt that the thread would be upvoted to 19 at the point of this writing.
I would also point out that the kind of ideology that expressed in the linked post comes from the Bay Area. As far as core differences in ideologies goes pitting one Bay Area ideology against another Bay Area ideology isn’t real diversity of opinion.
I would also point out that the kind of ideology that expressed in the linked post comes from the Bay Area. As far as core differences in ideologies goes pitting one Bay Area ideology against another Bay Area ideology isn’t real diversity of opinion.
There are various countries in Africa where a majority of the population thinks that it’s a good idea to punish homosexuality with death.
If you want diversity in moral opinions than you should create an environment where someone from such a country can freely talk about his morality.
I have a much better understanding of the moral position of a third wave feminist than I have and understanding of the position of someone with mainstream Ugandian morality.
I think I understand the third wave feminist even better than someone from China.
If you would want to someone represent the majority of humanity it makes much more sense to specifically write post arguing conversative positions that appeal to the majority of the world population than to try to be more accommodating to social justice warriors as there aren’t that many social justice warriors in the world.
But I wouldn’t advocate going down that road but instead advocate that people focus on the quality of arguments.
The apparent inconceivability (in this thread) of the notion that someone might disagree on a deep level with local memes without being insane is quite amazing. Typical mind fallacy, the lack of realisation that there exist unknown unknowns.
I considered posting a third-hand account in the rationality quotes of a blind couple who, in a public park and not hearing anyone else nearby, decided to have sex. They told the judge they did not know that anyone could see them; maybe they didn’t, what with plausibly having no idea what vision is capable of.
It felt too lengthy, and it wasn’t originally intended as a parable, so I decided against posting it. I think it more easily explains itself in this context, though.
I don’t see where those who disagree with local memes are being accused of insanity, and not noticing something like that scares me. Could you please point out where it’s happening?
Oh, well that actually looks fine and I think I agree with it. I was worried the comment you were replying to implied some stuff that was invisible to me due to biases.
To be fair to Lumifer, that comment now has zero karma, and US conservatives plausibly are a group of “people who disagree with local memes”, given that they’re in a tiny minority here (about 2%; in the 2012 survey there were 20 self-identified US conservatives, out of 1001 responses giving both a country and a political alignment).
The apparent inconceivability (in this thread) of the notion that someone might disagree on a deep level with local memes without being insane is quite amazing. Typical mind fallacy, the lack of realisation that there exist unknown unknowns.
Yes. This thread reads like LW is aimed at realising the CEV of well-off programmers in the Bay Area. If you’re serious about working for all of humanity, it may conceivably be useful to seriously listen to some who don’t already agree with you.
I don’t think that’s the case. If people would find that notion inconceivability I doubt that the thread would be upvoted to 19 at the point of this writing.
I would also point out that the kind of ideology that expressed in the linked post comes from the Bay Area. As far as core differences in ideologies goes pitting one Bay Area ideology against another Bay Area ideology isn’t real diversity of opinion.
True, but evidently it’s still a stretch locally.
There are various countries in Africa where a majority of the population thinks that it’s a good idea to punish homosexuality with death.
If you want diversity in moral opinions than you should create an environment where someone from such a country can freely talk about his morality.
I have a much better understanding of the moral position of a third wave feminist than I have and understanding of the position of someone with mainstream Ugandian morality.
I think I understand the third wave feminist even better than someone from China.
If you would want to someone represent the majority of humanity it makes much more sense to specifically write post arguing conversative positions that appeal to the majority of the world population than to try to be more accommodating to social justice warriors as there aren’t that many social justice warriors in the world.
But I wouldn’t advocate going down that road but instead advocate that people focus on the quality of arguments.
I considered posting a third-hand account in the rationality quotes of a blind couple who, in a public park and not hearing anyone else nearby, decided to have sex. They told the judge they did not know that anyone could see them; maybe they didn’t, what with plausibly having no idea what vision is capable of.
It felt too lengthy, and it wasn’t originally intended as a parable, so I decided against posting it. I think it more easily explains itself in this context, though.
I don’t see where those who disagree with local memes are being accused of insanity, and not noticing something like that scares me. Could you please point out where it’s happening?
http://lesswrong.com/lw/jfr/link_why_im_not_on_the_rationalist_masterlist/aakh—found with a quick Ctrl-F for “insan”.
Oh, well that actually looks fine and I think I agree with it. I was worried the comment you were replying to implied some stuff that was invisible to me due to biases.
Well, in several places Eliezer uses “insane” and synonyms to mean irrational (according to his view). Search for “people are insane”.
Another example
That post is at negative karma, and is about US conservatives rather than about people who disagree with local memes.
To be fair to Lumifer, that comment now has zero karma, and US conservatives plausibly are a group of “people who disagree with local memes”, given that they’re in a tiny minority here (about 2%; in the 2012 survey there were 20 self-identified US conservatives, out of 1001 responses giving both a country and a political alignment).