Opponent is a word. Here, it refers to the person advocating the opposite view to mine. If you would like, I can use a different word, but it will change very little. Arguing over semantics is not a productive way to cause each other to update. Though to be honest, I ceased having much hope that you were in this discussion for the learning and updates when you started using ad hominem and fully general counterarguments. (Saying that your opponent is defensive and emotional and “opponentist” is also a fully general counterargument and also ad hominem. “Not even blaming me” for not agreeing with you is another example with an extra dash of emotive condescension. You have a real talent.)
Quite often, people have useful information about themselves because they know themselves quite well. I’m a useful data point when I’m thinking about stuff that affects me, because I know more about myself than I know about other examples. But I could also point out other examples of women in my community who are protectors. For instance, I know a single mother who is not only a national-level athlete but had to rush each of her children to hospital for separate issues four times in the last week. Twice it was because their lives were threatened. She stays strong and protects them fiercely, keeps up with her life and her training, and is frankly astonishingly brave. She is far, far more of a “traditional strong figure” than any man I have ever met. Of course, this is still anecdata. I haven’t got big quantitative data because I can’t think of a test for protectorness that we could do on a large scale; can you suggest one?
Your idea, as I understood it, was that men can carry out protective roles and therefore they should have high social status and prestige. I think this is a pretty good example of what I’ve heard called the Worst Argument in the World. I believe that protective and self-sacrificing individuals should be accorded high prestige. I agree that protectiveness can loosely correlate with being male. But protective women exist in high numbers, and non-protective men exist in high numbers, and many women exist who are significantly better at protectiveness than the average male. According protective women low prestige because they are women, and according useless men high prestige because they are men, is an entirely lost purpose. It is irrational sexism, pure and simple. You’re doing the same thing as people who say “Gandhi was a criminal, therefore Gandhi should be dismissed and given low social status.” You’re saying that it would be good if people said, “Individual X is a male, therefore he should be accorded high prestige and conscripted. Individual Y is a female, therefore she should be given low prestige and not conscripted” even if X doesn’t fit the protective-and-strong criteria and Y does fit the protective-and-strong criteria. Forcing protective strong women to stop doing that and accept low prestige, and forcing non-protective weaker men to try and fill protective roles, just hurts everyone.
You still haven’t answered my question. You want to make a society where men get conscripted (an astonishingly rare event in a modern liberal democracy, by the way...) and protect those around them, and in return get high prestige. I know, and I presume you also know, numerous men who would be unsuitable for conscription and don’t protect those around them. Some women would be perfectly suitable for conscription, and protect those around them. Why do those women not deserve the prestige that you want to give all the men?
Can you also tell me why you think “the same stuff the mainstream media, BuzzFeed or Tumblr pouring on day and night” is necessarily uninteresting/wrong? Shouldn’t a large number of people agreeing with an ethical position usually correlate with that ethical position being correct? I mean, it’s not a perfect correlation, there are exceptions, but in general people agree that murder and rape and mugging are undesirable, and agree that happiness and friendship and knowledge are desirable. Calling a position popular or fashionable should not be an insult and I am intrigued by how you could have come up with the idea that something that is “done to death” must be bad. Has “murder is wrong” been “done to death”?
If this conversation keeps going downhill, I’m just going to disengage. It is rather low utility.
This is getting more interesting now. To sum the history of things, you had this discussion with VoiceOfRa and you stressed primarily you want to save people from getting killed. I butted in and proposed you don’t have to redesign the whole world to do that, it is possible in a traditional setup as well. Turned out we are optimizing for different things, I am trying to preserve older-time stuff while also changing them to the extent needed to address real, actual complaints of various people and work out compromises (calling it moderatism or moderate conservatism would be OK), while you are more interested in tearing things down and building them up. OK. But I think there are more interesting things here lurking under the surface.
An offer: retreat a few meta levels up, and get back to this object level later on.
IRL I discuss pretty much everything with people inside my age range (30-60), which means we rely not only on our intelligence and book knowledge (you obviously have immense amounts of both) but on our life experience as well. That is a difficult thing to convey because it is something that is not even learned in words (so there are no good books that sum it up, to my knowledge) but non-verbal pattern recognition. Yet it is pretty much this thing, this life experience that makes the difference between your meta level assumptions and mine. What can one do? I will try the impossible and try to translate it into words. Don’t expect it to go very well, but maybe a glimpse will be transmitted. Also my tone will be uncomfortably personal and subjective because it is per definition something happening inside people’s heads.
When I was 17 I assumed, expected and demanded the world to be logical and ethical. I vibrated between assuming it and angrily demanding it when I found it is not the case. University did not help—it was a very logical and sheltered environment.
When I started working (25) I had to realize how truly illogical the world is, and not because it was waiting for mr smart guy to reorganize it but because most people are plain simply idiots. I worked at implementing business software, like order processing, accounting and MRP. Still do. I had to face problems like when order processing employees did not know the price of an item, they just invoiced it at zero price. Gave away for free. The managers were no better, instead of doing something sensible (such as incentive pay or entering a price list for everything into the software and not letting the employees change them), they demanded us to make a technical solution like not allow a zero price, just give out an error message. From them on, the folks used a price of 1 currency when they did not know the correct price. The irony was really breath-taking—if there is one thing that is supposed to be efficient in this sorry world, it is corporations chasing profits: and they were incompetent at that very basic level of not giving away stuff for free. (They were selling fertilizers to farmers, in the kind of place
where paved roads are rare.)
My first reaction was rage and complaining about humanity’s idiocy. I was sort of similar to Reddit /r/atheism. Full of snark.
I would say the life experience part was not as much as learning the basic rule, namely that most folks are idiots, but really swallowing and digesting it, learning to resign myself to it, accept it, and see what can be done. That was what took long. I had to accept a Heideggerian “we are thrown into this shit and must cope, anyhow”. This is my sorry species. These zombies are my peers. If I want to help people, I need to help them on their level.
First of all, I had to accept a change in my ethics: making most people happy is an impossible goal. The best I can do is supporting ideas that prevent the dumbass majority shooting themselves in the foot in the worst ways. Give a wild guess, will the majority those types of ideas be more often classified as “liberal” or “conservative” ?
Second, I had to realize that I was a selfish ass when I was young and “liberal”. I wanted things to be logical, hence I wanted things to suit people who are logical. I wanted things to suit people like me. I wanted a world optimized for me and my folk, for intellectuals. That would be a horrible world for the vast majority of people who can’t logic. They need really foolproof and dumbed-down systems that cut with the grain of their illogical instincts, not against it.
The corollary of this all was that I should support rules and systems that I hate and I would never obey them. I had to become a hypocrite e.g. to support keeping drugs illegal (because I saw fools i.e. normal people would only get more foolish from them) while being perfectly accepting and supporting of my intellectual friends who got great philosophical insights for them. The non-hypocritical solution would have been, of course, different rules for different people. Yes, that is actually one thing liberal democracy is not so good at making, so hypocrisy was the only way to deal with it.
It was during this, my rather horrified awakening process when I came accross as really unusual book, Theodore Dalrymple’s Life At The Bottom. It is a book that probably would be classified “conservative”, but it was refreshingly non-ideological, it was about the experiences collected by decades of working as a psychiatrist treating the underclass of Birmingham, UK. I was actually living there, attracted by the manufacturing prowess of the region, was good for me career-wise, and the book was actually able to explain the high levels of WTFery I experienced every day, such as I smoke a cig outside (I have my own idiotic side as well), a mother with a small kid in a pram and with an about 9 years old boy, and the boy walks up to me and asks for a cigarette. I look at the mom completely astonished. Blank face. WTF I do now? At any rate, Dalrymple said the basic issue is that intellectuals made rules that worked very well for themselves, such as atheism, sexual liberty and similar things. He was of course atheist too. But according to him this wrecked misery amongst the low-IQ underclass, they really needed their old churches and traditions and Gods Of The Copybook Headings to restrain their impulsivity and bad choices. Rules that work well for intellectuals (“liberal” rules) don’t work well for everybody else, at all. Maybe if I wanted to offer a book that is life experience translated to words, even though it is not really possible, that is that book, I can only add it is not made up, I really saw these folks.I had to change my political and social views completely. I could no longer demand the kind of stuff that makes sense for ethical and intelligent people. I had to learn to demand stuff I
would personally dislike.
I either have to demand really dumbing things down, or maybe designing things from the assumption of stupidity up. Which means either intellectuals sacrificing their own interests and accepting a world made of stupid, or publicly supporting rules but privately wiggling out of them (Victorian era) or different rules for different people (aristocracy). Cont. below
Um, how exactly do you want to preserve older things while I want to tear everything down and build it back up again? I don’t want to tear things down. I want the trends that are happening—everything gets fairer and more liberal over time—to continue. To accelerate them if I can. (To design a whole new State if and only if it seems like it will make most people much happier, and even then I kinda accept that I’d need to talk to a whole lot of other people and do a whole lot of small scale experiments first.) None of those trends are making society end in fire. They’re just nice things, like prejudiced views becoming less common, and violence happening less. I’m trying to optimise for making people happy; if you’re optimising for something else, then I’m afraid I’m just going to have to inform you that your ethics are dumb. Sorry.
The problem with “life experience” as an argument is that people use “life experience” as a fully general counterargument. If you’re older than me, any time I say something you don’t like, you can just yell “LIFE EXPERIENCE!” and nothing I can do—no book you can suggest, nothing I can go observe—will allow me to win the argument. I cannot become older than you. This would be fine as an argument if we observed that older people were consistently right and younger people were consistently wrong, but as you’ll know if you have a grandparent who tries to use computers, this just ain’t so.
Just because you have been made jaded and cynical by your experience of the world, that doesn’t mean that jaded and cynical positions are the correct ones. For one thing, most other people of your own age who also experienced the world ended up still disagreeing with you. There’s a very good chance that I get to the age you are now, and still disagree with you. And if you observe most other people your own age with similar experiences (unless you’re old enough that you’re part of the raised-very-conservative generation) most of them will disagree with you. What is magic and special about your own specific experience that makes yours better than all those people who are the same age as you? Why should I listen to your conclusions, backed up by your “life experience”, when I could also go and listen to a lefty who’s the same age as you and their lefty conclusions backed up by their “life experience”?
Life experience can often make people a lot less logical. Traumatised people often hold illogical views—like, some victims of abuse are terrified of all men. That doesn’t mean that, because they have life experience that I don’t, I should go, ‘oh, well, I actually think all men aren’t evil, but I guess their life experience outweighs what I think’. It means that they’ve had an experience that damaged them, and we should have sympathy and try and help them, and we should even consider constructing shelters so they don’t have to interact with the people they’re terrified of, but we certainly shouldn’t start deferring to them and adopting their beliefs just because we lack their experiences. The only things we should defer to should be logical arguments and evidence.
“Life experience”, as a magical quality which you accumulate more of the more negative things happen to you, is pretty worthless. Rationalists do not believe in magical qualities.
If there is a version of the “life experience” argument that can be steelmanned, it’s “I’ve lived a long time and have observed many things which caused me to make updates towards my beliefs, and you haven’t had a chance to observe that.” But that still makes no sense because you should be able to point out the things you observed to me, or show your observations on graphs, so I can observe them too. If you observed someone being a total idiot, and that makes you jaded about the possibility of a system that requires a lot of intelligence to function, then you should be able to make up for the fact that I haven’t observed that idiocy by pulling out IQ charts or studies or other evidence that most people are idiots. If you can’t produce evidence to convince someone else, consider that your experience may be anecdata that doesn’t generalise well.
Perhaps your argument is “I’ve lived a long time and have observed very many very small pieces of evidence, and all of those small pieces of evidence caused me to make lots of very small updates, such that I cannot give you a single piece of evidence which you can consider which will make you update to my beliefs, but I think mine are right anyway.” However, even if you can’t give me a single piece of evidence that I can observe and update on, you ought to be able to produce graphs or something. Graphs are good at showing lots-of-small-bits-of-evidence-over-time stuff. If you want me to change my beliefs, you still have to produce evidence, or at least a logical argument. Appeals to “life experience” are nothing more than appeals to elder prestige.
Now, to address your actual argument. It seems to be (correct me if I misunderstand): liberal views are correct and work, but there are many stupid people in the world and liberal views don’t work well for stupid people. Stupid people need clear rules that tell them in simple terms what to do and what not to do.
But if I were going to make up a set of really clear simple rules to tell a stupid person what to do and what not to do, they would be something like: 1. Be nice to people and try not to hurt people. 2. Don’t try and prevent clever people from doing things you don’t understand. Listen to the clever people. 3. Try and be productive and contribute what you can to society.
I cannot see any evidence that adding more rules beyond those three, like, “Defer to males because male-ness is loosely correlated with prestige-wanting and protectiveness” (even though male-ness isn’t correlated with prestige-deserving, that seems about equal between genders) would do any good whatsoever. Since there are just as many stupid males as stupid females—male average IQ is actually slightly lower than female average IQ—a rule like that wouldn’t do any good, would certainly not prevent people letting young kids have cigarettes or people beating one another or anything like that, and would in fact just lead to a lot of stupid people going “oh, it must be okay to hurt and disparage females and not let them have education then” and going around hurting lots of women.
And the view of mine, that liberal views don’t hurt people and sexist/racist views do hurt people… certainly seems to fit the evidence. Liberal views are increasing over time, and crime and violence are decreasing over time. I can’t find any studies, but I predict that if we do a study, we’ll find that holding the belief “women and men are equal” is strongly correlated with being non-violent and not hurting women, and almost all of the violence and abuse cases committed against women will be by people who don’t think they are equal. Similarly, doing stupid things like giving cigarettes to children and giving away products for free will be correlated with holding conservative views—though admittedly that could just be ’cause being uneducated is correlated with holding conservative views. And because men are on average more violent and more likely to hurt people. But then, that’s a very good argument against putting them in charge, isn’t it...?
Acty, a question. What are you information sources? This is very general question—I’m not asking for citations, I’m asking on the basis of which streams of information do you form your worldview?
For example, for most people these streams would be (a) personal experiences; (b) what other people (family, friends) tell them; (c) what they absorb from the surrounding culture, mostly from mainstream media; and (d) what they were taught, e.g. in school.
You use phrases like “I cannot see any evidence” -- where cannot you see evidence? Who or what, do you think, reliably tells you what is happening in the world and how the world works?
Thanks for the extended answer. If I may make a couple of small suggestions—first, in figuring out where you views come from look at your social circle, both in meatspace and on the ’net. Bring to your mind people you like and respect, people you hope to be liked and respected by. What are their views, what kind of positions are acceptable in their social circle and what kind are not? What is cool and what is uncool?
And second, you are well aware that your views change. I will make a prediction: they will continue to change. Remember that and don’t get terribly attached to your current opinions or expect them to last forever. A flexible, open mind is a great advantage, try not to get it ossified before time :-)
but if I expected to change my mind about something in the future, surely I’d just change it now?
No, because you don’t know (now) in which direction will you change your mind (in the future).
As a general observation, you expect to learn a lot of things in the future. Hopefully, you will update your views on the basis of things you have learned—thus the change. But until you actually learn them, you can’t update.
This is also complicated by the fact that views that go out of favor tend to be characterized as not liberal regardless of whether they actually were liberal. Eugenics is one of the better known examples.
I can’t find any studies, but I predict that if we do a study, we’ll find that holding the belief “women and men are equal” is strongly correlated with being non-violent and not hurting women, and almost all of the violence and abuse cases committed against women will be by people who don’t think they are equal.
Saying “I don’t have a study, but I predict that if I do a study I will see X” is no better than just asserting X.
Also, “women and men are equal” is vague. Do you want equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?
Even “violence against women” is vague. ISIS likes to kidnap women, but they also like to kill all the men at the time they are kidnapping the women. So ISIS causes the absolute amount of violence against women to increase, but the relative amount (compared to violence against men) to decrease.
And now a bit closer to the object level of our previous discussion. Look at this mess about sex, gender, orientation and roles and whatnot. If it was about designing rules for an island where only smart people live, it would be fairly obvious: completely do away with terms like man, woman, feminine, masculine, straight, gay. Measure T levels and simply establish a hormonal gender based on that, a sliding scale, divided into maybe five quintiles or however you want to. Do away with straight or gay—people can date however they wish to, but expect that most people will choose a partner from the other end of the scale than themselves, because people naturally converge to dom-sub, top-bottom setups. Give high-T people more status because they really seem to crave it 1 while low-T people are comfortable enough with being deferential to them, in return make high-T people willing to risk their lives protecting low-T people who should have things safe and comfortable. Base everything on this—risky venture capital type stuff for the high end, predictable welfare/union job stuff for the low-end.
This would make sense, right? I must stress this hormonal scale would be independent of biological sex, social gender or orientation—those are abolished in this scenario. Why, I find it likely you would end up higher on the T-based gender scale than me although I am guy, but you seem to give out more aggressive vibes than I do (I don’t mean it in a bad way, your engines are just more fired up, that is good if you use it for good things). And of course this scenario was
made for an island populated by only smart people.
And then back to the real world. To have any chance of it working for sorry stupid species of humankind, it has to be dumbed down mercilessly. The average human’s cognitive level is about Orwell’s “two legs bad four legs good”. Of course by dumbing down we lose accuracy and efficiency. Of course by dumbing down quite some people won’t fit. Still it has to be done. And now you tell me, if you want to make it really, really primitive, if you want to dumb it down to the point where a blatantly obvious biological switch would determine if people are treated as belonging to the high end or the low end, what switch would that be? Which switch would be the
most obvious?
And then of course you end up with a system you don’t like, and most intellectuals don’t like—it is a really poor fit for intellectuals. At this point the choices are: sacrifice humankind for intellectuals? Sacrifice intellectuals for humankinds? Make the rules that fit for humankind official while let intellectuals bend the rules in private? Establish an aristocracy and make different rules for intellectuals? Archipelago?
Huh. This would be the meta arch of these things. If you still want we can return to stuff like if it is the WATW or whether a large number of people aggreeing with something makes it usually ethically correct and so on, because I would then interpret these objections in these light, but I hope I managed to resolve those with this article.
Then why do the linked researchers use it as a marker of that?
Maybe, it is about status of a different kind. Maybe this reduces to that it is not a well defined word and we always get into rather unresolvable debates because of that.
Let’s try this: there are two kinds of status, one is more like being a commanding officer or a schoolteacher towards kids, it is respect and deference and maybe a bit of fear (but does not 1:1 translate to dominance, although close), the other kind is being really popular and liked. Remember school. The difference between the teacher’s status and the really likeable kid’s status is key here. The CEO vs. the Louis CK type well liked comedian. The politician vs. the best ballet dancer.
To the linked article: being good at math does not make one liked. It makes one respected. Closer to the first type.
We don’t live in a world where low testosterone people want high testosterone people to have more power.
Yes I want policemen to have a certain kind of status but policemen don’t need to be high testosterone. Empathic policemen who are actually good at reading other people have advantages in a lot of police tasks.
Schoolteachers need respect but they don’t need to be high testosterone either. A teacher does a better job if he understands the student.
You should really think that over. For the police example, we have two conflicting requirements, first is to be so scary (or more like respect-commanding) that he rarely needs to get physical, that is always messy. The opposite requirement is the smiling, nice, service-oriented, positive community vibes stuff, like the policemen who visited me and told me I forgot to lock my car. (The reading people is more of an investigator level stuff, not street level.) The question is, which one is more important? If you have one optimal and one less optimal, which one is better? Similarly we want teachers to be kind and understanding with students with genuine difficulties, but be more scary to the kind of thuggish guys half my class was.
The point is really how pessimistic or cautious is your basic view. Do you see the police as a thin blue line separating barbarism from civilization? Do you see every generation of children as “barbarians needing to be civilized” (Hannah Arendt) Or you have a more optimistic view, seeing the vast majority of people behaving well and the vast majority of kids genuinely trying to do good work?
Furthermore—and this is even more important—would you rather get more pessimistic than things are and thus slow down progress, or more optimistic and risk systemic shocks?
I think you know my answers :) I have no problem with a slow and super-safe progress. I don’t exactly want to flee from the present or the past.
For the police example, we have two conflicting requirements, first is to be so scary
No, policemen don’t need to be scary to do their jobs.
A police that can be counted on doing a proper investigation that punishes criminals can deter crime even when the individual policmen aren’t scary.
A policemen being scary can also reduce the willingness of citizens to report crimes because they are afraid of the police. Whole minority communities don’t like to interact with police and thus try to solve conflicts on their own with violence because they don’t trust the police.
Similarly we want teachers to be kind and understanding with students with genuine difficulties
Being empathic is not simply about being “kind and understanding” it allows the teacher to have more information about the mental state of a student and more likely see when a student gets confused and react towards it. A smart student also profits when the teacher get’s that the student already understands what the teacher wants to tell him.
The point is really how pessimistic or cautious is your basic view. Do you see the police as a thin blue line separating barbarism from civilization? Do you see every generation of children as “barbarians needing to be civilized” (Hannah Arendt) Or you have a more optimistic view, seeing the vast majority of people behaving well and the vast majority of kids genuinely trying to do good work?
Neither. I rather care about the expected empiric result of a policy than about seeing people are inherently good or inherently evil. I think you think too much in categories like that and care too little about the empirical reality that we do have less crime than we had in the past.
It’s like discussing global warming not on the scientific data about temperature changes but on whether we are for the environment or for free enterprise. The nonscientific framing leads to bad thinking.
A policemen being scary can also reduce the willingness of citizens to report crimes because they are afraid of the police. Whole minority communities don’t like to interact with police and thus try to solve conflicts on their own with violence because they don’t trust the police.
It’s not clear how much of that is this and how much is them being more afraid of the kingpins of their ethnic mafias than they are of the police.
But according to him this wrecked misery amongst the low-IQ underclass, they really needed their old churches and traditions and Gods Of The Copybook Headings to restrain their impulsivity and bad choice
Have things steadily been marching in the direction of greater liberalism, though? There are a bunch of things you can no longer get away with, such as spousal abuse.
That was precisely what TD wrote they got away with all the time. Just of course not amongst educated or middle-class people. Underclass woman gets admitted to the hospital with a broken arm, docs find it unlikely it was an accident, arrange a meeting with the local psychiatrist i.e. TD. Yeah, it was the boyfriend in a fit of jealousy. Police, testimony? Nope. Why not? She’s making up all kinds of excuses for the guy. OK maybe she is scared, explain about the battered women shelter where nothing bad can come to her. Still not, and does not look scared or dependent or something. Finally the reason becomes clear: the “bad boy” is sexually exciting. And according to TD this happened all the time. 16 years old boy taken in to psychiatric treatment, suicidial. Mom’s latest boyfriend was beating the boys head in the concrete. Why mom won’t call the police? She said “he is a good shag” and rather the boy should try not be too much at home to avoid him. And so on, endless such stories. Get that book...
I was actually getting a weird impression from that book. The primary reason laws and institutions are indeed increasingly aware of and trying to deal with spousal abuse is not that it gets more noticed today, but because it actually does happen more than in the past where communal pressure could have worked against it. TD seems to imply that people’s behavior got worse faster than the laws or police procedures evolved, so it is a net negative.
I was actually getting a weird impression from that book. The primary reason laws and institutions are indeed increasingly aware of and trying to deal with spousal abuse is not that it gets more noticed today, but because it actually does happen more than in the past where communal pressure could have worked against it.
Casual assumptions that things were better in the past, .or that the authors favoured theories must have worked, need to be taken with some scepticism.
Second biggest city of the world’s fourth biggest economy at that time? Not really a huge conincidence IMHO. Sort of in the world top 20-30 list of places to work one one’s career. Not really in the top 20 to enjoy life though. (OK it wasn’t too bad, we had a park behind the house where bands played frequently, it turned out Caribbean takeaways are really delicious, and going to the Godskitchen was a teenage dream came true 15 years later.)
Opponent is a word. Here, it refers to the person advocating the opposite view to mine. If you would like, I can use a different word, but it will change very little. Arguing over semantics is not a productive way to cause each other to update. Though to be honest, I ceased having much hope that you were in this discussion for the learning and updates when you started using ad hominem and fully general counterarguments. (Saying that your opponent is defensive and emotional and “opponentist” is also a fully general counterargument and also ad hominem. “Not even blaming me” for not agreeing with you is another example with an extra dash of emotive condescension. You have a real talent.)
Quite often, people have useful information about themselves because they know themselves quite well. I’m a useful data point when I’m thinking about stuff that affects me, because I know more about myself than I know about other examples. But I could also point out other examples of women in my community who are protectors. For instance, I know a single mother who is not only a national-level athlete but had to rush each of her children to hospital for separate issues four times in the last week. Twice it was because their lives were threatened. She stays strong and protects them fiercely, keeps up with her life and her training, and is frankly astonishingly brave. She is far, far more of a “traditional strong figure” than any man I have ever met. Of course, this is still anecdata. I haven’t got big quantitative data because I can’t think of a test for protectorness that we could do on a large scale; can you suggest one?
Your idea, as I understood it, was that men can carry out protective roles and therefore they should have high social status and prestige. I think this is a pretty good example of what I’ve heard called the Worst Argument in the World. I believe that protective and self-sacrificing individuals should be accorded high prestige. I agree that protectiveness can loosely correlate with being male. But protective women exist in high numbers, and non-protective men exist in high numbers, and many women exist who are significantly better at protectiveness than the average male. According protective women low prestige because they are women, and according useless men high prestige because they are men, is an entirely lost purpose. It is irrational sexism, pure and simple. You’re doing the same thing as people who say “Gandhi was a criminal, therefore Gandhi should be dismissed and given low social status.” You’re saying that it would be good if people said, “Individual X is a male, therefore he should be accorded high prestige and conscripted. Individual Y is a female, therefore she should be given low prestige and not conscripted” even if X doesn’t fit the protective-and-strong criteria and Y does fit the protective-and-strong criteria. Forcing protective strong women to stop doing that and accept low prestige, and forcing non-protective weaker men to try and fill protective roles, just hurts everyone.
You still haven’t answered my question. You want to make a society where men get conscripted (an astonishingly rare event in a modern liberal democracy, by the way...) and protect those around them, and in return get high prestige. I know, and I presume you also know, numerous men who would be unsuitable for conscription and don’t protect those around them. Some women would be perfectly suitable for conscription, and protect those around them. Why do those women not deserve the prestige that you want to give all the men?
Can you also tell me why you think “the same stuff the mainstream media, BuzzFeed or Tumblr pouring on day and night” is necessarily uninteresting/wrong? Shouldn’t a large number of people agreeing with an ethical position usually correlate with that ethical position being correct? I mean, it’s not a perfect correlation, there are exceptions, but in general people agree that murder and rape and mugging are undesirable, and agree that happiness and friendship and knowledge are desirable. Calling a position popular or fashionable should not be an insult and I am intrigued by how you could have come up with the idea that something that is “done to death” must be bad. Has “murder is wrong” been “done to death”?
If this conversation keeps going downhill, I’m just going to disengage. It is rather low utility.
This is getting more interesting now. To sum the history of things, you had this discussion with VoiceOfRa and you stressed primarily you want to save people from getting killed. I butted in and proposed you don’t have to redesign the whole world to do that, it is possible in a traditional setup as well. Turned out we are optimizing for different things, I am trying to preserve older-time stuff while also changing them to the extent needed to address real, actual complaints of various people and work out compromises (calling it moderatism or moderate conservatism would be OK), while you are more interested in tearing things down and building them up. OK. But I think there are more interesting things here lurking under the surface.
An offer: retreat a few meta levels up, and get back to this object level later on.
IRL I discuss pretty much everything with people inside my age range (30-60), which means we rely not only on our intelligence and book knowledge (you obviously have immense amounts of both) but on our life experience as well. That is a difficult thing to convey because it is something that is not even learned in words (so there are no good books that sum it up, to my knowledge) but non-verbal pattern recognition. Yet it is pretty much this thing, this life experience that makes the difference between your meta level assumptions and mine. What can one do? I will try the impossible and try to translate it into words. Don’t expect it to go very well, but maybe a glimpse will be transmitted. Also my tone will be uncomfortably personal and subjective because it is per definition something happening inside people’s heads.
When I was 17 I assumed, expected and demanded the world to be logical and ethical. I vibrated between assuming it and angrily demanding it when I found it is not the case. University did not help—it was a very logical and sheltered environment.
When I started working (25) I had to realize how truly illogical the world is, and not because it was waiting for mr smart guy to reorganize it but because most people are plain simply idiots. I worked at implementing business software, like order processing, accounting and MRP. Still do. I had to face problems like when order processing employees did not know the price of an item, they just invoiced it at zero price. Gave away for free. The managers were no better, instead of doing something sensible (such as incentive pay or entering a price list for everything into the software and not letting the employees change them), they demanded us to make a technical solution like not allow a zero price, just give out an error message. From them on, the folks used a price of 1 currency when they did not know the correct price. The irony was really breath-taking—if there is one thing that is supposed to be efficient in this sorry world, it is corporations chasing profits: and they were incompetent at that very basic level of not giving away stuff for free. (They were selling fertilizers to farmers, in the kind of place where paved roads are rare.)
My first reaction was rage and complaining about humanity’s idiocy. I was sort of similar to Reddit /r/atheism. Full of snark.
I would say the life experience part was not as much as learning the basic rule, namely that most folks are idiots, but really swallowing and digesting it, learning to resign myself to it, accept it, and see what can be done. That was what took long. I had to accept a Heideggerian “we are thrown into this shit and must cope, anyhow”. This is my sorry species. These zombies are my peers. If I want to help people, I need to help them on their level.
First of all, I had to accept a change in my ethics: making most people happy is an impossible goal. The best I can do is supporting ideas that prevent the dumbass majority shooting themselves in the foot in the worst ways. Give a wild guess, will the majority those types of ideas be more often classified as “liberal” or “conservative” ?
Second, I had to realize that I was a selfish ass when I was young and “liberal”. I wanted things to be logical, hence I wanted things to suit people who are logical. I wanted things to suit people like me. I wanted a world optimized for me and my folk, for intellectuals. That would be a horrible world for the vast majority of people who can’t logic. They need really foolproof and dumbed-down systems that cut with the grain of their illogical instincts, not against it.
The corollary of this all was that I should support rules and systems that I hate and I would never obey them. I had to become a hypocrite e.g. to support keeping drugs illegal (because I saw fools i.e. normal people would only get more foolish from them) while being perfectly accepting and supporting of my intellectual friends who got great philosophical insights for them. The non-hypocritical solution would have been, of course, different rules for different people. Yes, that is actually one thing liberal democracy is not so good at making, so hypocrisy was the only way to deal with it.
It was during this, my rather horrified awakening process when I came accross as really unusual book, Theodore Dalrymple’s Life At The Bottom. It is a book that probably would be classified “conservative”, but it was refreshingly non-ideological, it was about the experiences collected by decades of working as a psychiatrist treating the underclass of Birmingham, UK. I was actually living there, attracted by the manufacturing prowess of the region, was good for me career-wise, and the book was actually able to explain the high levels of WTFery I experienced every day, such as I smoke a cig outside (I have my own idiotic side as well), a mother with a small kid in a pram and with an about 9 years old boy, and the boy walks up to me and asks for a cigarette. I look at the mom completely astonished. Blank face. WTF I do now? At any rate, Dalrymple said the basic issue is that intellectuals made rules that worked very well for themselves, such as atheism, sexual liberty and similar things. He was of course atheist too. But according to him this wrecked misery amongst the low-IQ underclass, they really needed their old churches and traditions and Gods Of The Copybook Headings to restrain their impulsivity and bad choices. Rules that work well for intellectuals (“liberal” rules) don’t work well for everybody else, at all. Maybe if I wanted to offer a book that is life experience translated to words, even though it is not really possible, that is that book, I can only add it is not made up, I really saw these folks.I had to change my political and social views completely. I could no longer demand the kind of stuff that makes sense for ethical and intelligent people. I had to learn to demand stuff I would personally dislike.
I either have to demand really dumbing things down, or maybe designing things from the assumption of stupidity up. Which means either intellectuals sacrificing their own interests and accepting a world made of stupid, or publicly supporting rules but privately wiggling out of them (Victorian era) or different rules for different people (aristocracy). Cont. below
Um, how exactly do you want to preserve older things while I want to tear everything down and build it back up again? I don’t want to tear things down. I want the trends that are happening—everything gets fairer and more liberal over time—to continue. To accelerate them if I can. (To design a whole new State if and only if it seems like it will make most people much happier, and even then I kinda accept that I’d need to talk to a whole lot of other people and do a whole lot of small scale experiments first.) None of those trends are making society end in fire. They’re just nice things, like prejudiced views becoming less common, and violence happening less. I’m trying to optimise for making people happy; if you’re optimising for something else, then I’m afraid I’m just going to have to inform you that your ethics are dumb. Sorry.
The problem with “life experience” as an argument is that people use “life experience” as a fully general counterargument. If you’re older than me, any time I say something you don’t like, you can just yell “LIFE EXPERIENCE!” and nothing I can do—no book you can suggest, nothing I can go observe—will allow me to win the argument. I cannot become older than you. This would be fine as an argument if we observed that older people were consistently right and younger people were consistently wrong, but as you’ll know if you have a grandparent who tries to use computers, this just ain’t so.
Just because you have been made jaded and cynical by your experience of the world, that doesn’t mean that jaded and cynical positions are the correct ones. For one thing, most other people of your own age who also experienced the world ended up still disagreeing with you. There’s a very good chance that I get to the age you are now, and still disagree with you. And if you observe most other people your own age with similar experiences (unless you’re old enough that you’re part of the raised-very-conservative generation) most of them will disagree with you. What is magic and special about your own specific experience that makes yours better than all those people who are the same age as you? Why should I listen to your conclusions, backed up by your “life experience”, when I could also go and listen to a lefty who’s the same age as you and their lefty conclusions backed up by their “life experience”?
Life experience can often make people a lot less logical. Traumatised people often hold illogical views—like, some victims of abuse are terrified of all men. That doesn’t mean that, because they have life experience that I don’t, I should go, ‘oh, well, I actually think all men aren’t evil, but I guess their life experience outweighs what I think’. It means that they’ve had an experience that damaged them, and we should have sympathy and try and help them, and we should even consider constructing shelters so they don’t have to interact with the people they’re terrified of, but we certainly shouldn’t start deferring to them and adopting their beliefs just because we lack their experiences. The only things we should defer to should be logical arguments and evidence.
“Life experience”, as a magical quality which you accumulate more of the more negative things happen to you, is pretty worthless. Rationalists do not believe in magical qualities.
If there is a version of the “life experience” argument that can be steelmanned, it’s “I’ve lived a long time and have observed many things which caused me to make updates towards my beliefs, and you haven’t had a chance to observe that.” But that still makes no sense because you should be able to point out the things you observed to me, or show your observations on graphs, so I can observe them too. If you observed someone being a total idiot, and that makes you jaded about the possibility of a system that requires a lot of intelligence to function, then you should be able to make up for the fact that I haven’t observed that idiocy by pulling out IQ charts or studies or other evidence that most people are idiots. If you can’t produce evidence to convince someone else, consider that your experience may be anecdata that doesn’t generalise well.
Perhaps your argument is “I’ve lived a long time and have observed very many very small pieces of evidence, and all of those small pieces of evidence caused me to make lots of very small updates, such that I cannot give you a single piece of evidence which you can consider which will make you update to my beliefs, but I think mine are right anyway.” However, even if you can’t give me a single piece of evidence that I can observe and update on, you ought to be able to produce graphs or something. Graphs are good at showing lots-of-small-bits-of-evidence-over-time stuff. If you want me to change my beliefs, you still have to produce evidence, or at least a logical argument. Appeals to “life experience” are nothing more than appeals to elder prestige.
Now, to address your actual argument. It seems to be (correct me if I misunderstand): liberal views are correct and work, but there are many stupid people in the world and liberal views don’t work well for stupid people. Stupid people need clear rules that tell them in simple terms what to do and what not to do.
But if I were going to make up a set of really clear simple rules to tell a stupid person what to do and what not to do, they would be something like: 1. Be nice to people and try not to hurt people. 2. Don’t try and prevent clever people from doing things you don’t understand. Listen to the clever people. 3. Try and be productive and contribute what you can to society.
I cannot see any evidence that adding more rules beyond those three, like, “Defer to males because male-ness is loosely correlated with prestige-wanting and protectiveness” (even though male-ness isn’t correlated with prestige-deserving, that seems about equal between genders) would do any good whatsoever. Since there are just as many stupid males as stupid females—male average IQ is actually slightly lower than female average IQ—a rule like that wouldn’t do any good, would certainly not prevent people letting young kids have cigarettes or people beating one another or anything like that, and would in fact just lead to a lot of stupid people going “oh, it must be okay to hurt and disparage females and not let them have education then” and going around hurting lots of women.
And the view of mine, that liberal views don’t hurt people and sexist/racist views do hurt people… certainly seems to fit the evidence. Liberal views are increasing over time, and crime and violence are decreasing over time. I can’t find any studies, but I predict that if we do a study, we’ll find that holding the belief “women and men are equal” is strongly correlated with being non-violent and not hurting women, and almost all of the violence and abuse cases committed against women will be by people who don’t think they are equal. Similarly, doing stupid things like giving cigarettes to children and giving away products for free will be correlated with holding conservative views—though admittedly that could just be ’cause being uneducated is correlated with holding conservative views. And because men are on average more violent and more likely to hurt people. But then, that’s a very good argument against putting them in charge, isn’t it...?
Acty, a question. What are you information sources? This is very general question—I’m not asking for citations, I’m asking on the basis of which streams of information do you form your worldview?
For example, for most people these streams would be (a) personal experiences; (b) what other people (family, friends) tell them; (c) what they absorb from the surrounding culture, mostly from mainstream media; and (d) what they were taught, e.g. in school.
You use phrases like “I cannot see any evidence” -- where cannot you see evidence? Who or what, do you think, reliably tells you what is happening in the world and how the world works?
--
Thanks for the extended answer. If I may make a couple of small suggestions—first, in figuring out where you views come from look at your social circle, both in meatspace and on the ’net. Bring to your mind people you like and respect, people you hope to be liked and respected by. What are their views, what kind of positions are acceptable in their social circle and what kind are not? What is cool and what is uncool?
And second, you are well aware that your views change. I will make a prediction: they will continue to change. Remember that and don’t get terribly attached to your current opinions or expect them to last forever. A flexible, open mind is a great advantage, try not to get it ossified before time :-)
--
No, because you don’t know (now) in which direction will you change your mind (in the future).
As a general observation, you expect to learn a lot of things in the future. Hopefully, you will update your views on the basis of things you have learned—thus the change. But until you actually learn them, you can’t update.
Here’s at least one that isn’t:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/17/growth-chart-of-right-to-carry/
This is also complicated by the fact that views that go out of favor tend to be characterized as not liberal regardless of whether they actually were liberal. Eugenics is one of the better known examples.
Saying “I don’t have a study, but I predict that if I do a study I will see X” is no better than just asserting X.
Also, “women and men are equal” is vague. Do you want equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?
Even “violence against women” is vague. ISIS likes to kidnap women, but they also like to kill all the men at the time they are kidnapping the women. So ISIS causes the absolute amount of violence against women to increase, but the relative amount (compared to violence against men) to decrease.
Continued form above
And now a bit closer to the object level of our previous discussion. Look at this mess about sex, gender, orientation and roles and whatnot. If it was about designing rules for an island where only smart people live, it would be fairly obvious: completely do away with terms like man, woman, feminine, masculine, straight, gay. Measure T levels and simply establish a hormonal gender based on that, a sliding scale, divided into maybe five quintiles or however you want to. Do away with straight or gay—people can date however they wish to, but expect that most people will choose a partner from the other end of the scale than themselves, because people naturally converge to dom-sub, top-bottom setups. Give high-T people more status because they really seem to crave it 1 while low-T people are comfortable enough with being deferential to them, in return make high-T people willing to risk their lives protecting low-T people who should have things safe and comfortable. Base everything on this—risky venture capital type stuff for the high end, predictable welfare/union job stuff for the low-end.
This would make sense, right? I must stress this hormonal scale would be independent of biological sex, social gender or orientation—those are abolished in this scenario. Why, I find it likely you would end up higher on the T-based gender scale than me although I am guy, but you seem to give out more aggressive vibes than I do (I don’t mean it in a bad way, your engines are just more fired up, that is good if you use it for good things). And of course this scenario was made for an island populated by only smart people.
And then back to the real world. To have any chance of it working for sorry stupid species of humankind, it has to be dumbed down mercilessly. The average human’s cognitive level is about Orwell’s “two legs bad four legs good”. Of course by dumbing down we lose accuracy and efficiency. Of course by dumbing down quite some people won’t fit. Still it has to be done. And now you tell me, if you want to make it really, really primitive, if you want to dumb it down to the point where a blatantly obvious biological switch would determine if people are treated as belonging to the high end or the low end, what switch would that be? Which switch would be the most obvious?
And then of course you end up with a system you don’t like, and most intellectuals don’t like—it is a really poor fit for intellectuals. At this point the choices are: sacrifice humankind for intellectuals? Sacrifice intellectuals for humankinds? Make the rules that fit for humankind official while let intellectuals bend the rules in private? Establish an aristocracy and make different rules for intellectuals? Archipelago?
Huh. This would be the meta arch of these things. If you still want we can return to stuff like if it is the WATW or whether a large number of people aggreeing with something makes it usually ethically correct and so on, because I would then interpret these objections in these light, but I hope I managed to resolve those with this article.
Low testosterone people also want status.
Then why do the linked researchers use it as a marker of that?
Maybe, it is about status of a different kind. Maybe this reduces to that it is not a well defined word and we always get into rather unresolvable debates because of that.
Let’s try this: there are two kinds of status, one is more like being a commanding officer or a schoolteacher towards kids, it is respect and deference and maybe a bit of fear (but does not 1:1 translate to dominance, although close), the other kind is being really popular and liked. Remember school. The difference between the teacher’s status and the really likeable kid’s status is key here. The CEO vs. the Louis CK type well liked comedian. The politician vs. the best ballet dancer.
To the linked article: being good at math does not make one liked. It makes one respected. Closer to the first type.
We don’t live in a world where low testosterone people want high testosterone people to have more power.
Yes I want policemen to have a certain kind of status but policemen don’t need to be high testosterone. Empathic policemen who are actually good at reading other people have advantages in a lot of police tasks.
Schoolteachers need respect but they don’t need to be high testosterone either. A teacher does a better job if he understands the student.
--
You should really think that over. For the police example, we have two conflicting requirements, first is to be so scary (or more like respect-commanding) that he rarely needs to get physical, that is always messy. The opposite requirement is the smiling, nice, service-oriented, positive community vibes stuff, like the policemen who visited me and told me I forgot to lock my car. (The reading people is more of an investigator level stuff, not street level.) The question is, which one is more important? If you have one optimal and one less optimal, which one is better? Similarly we want teachers to be kind and understanding with students with genuine difficulties, but be more scary to the kind of thuggish guys half my class was.
The point is really how pessimistic or cautious is your basic view. Do you see the police as a thin blue line separating barbarism from civilization? Do you see every generation of children as “barbarians needing to be civilized” (Hannah Arendt) Or you have a more optimistic view, seeing the vast majority of people behaving well and the vast majority of kids genuinely trying to do good work?
Furthermore—and this is even more important—would you rather get more pessimistic than things are and thus slow down progress, or more optimistic and risk systemic shocks?
I think you know my answers :) I have no problem with a slow and super-safe progress. I don’t exactly want to flee from the present or the past.
No, policemen don’t need to be scary to do their jobs. A police that can be counted on doing a proper investigation that punishes criminals can deter crime even when the individual policmen aren’t scary.
A policemen being scary can also reduce the willingness of citizens to report crimes because they are afraid of the police. Whole minority communities don’t like to interact with police and thus try to solve conflicts on their own with violence because they don’t trust the police.
Being empathic is not simply about being “kind and understanding” it allows the teacher to have more information about the mental state of a student and more likely see when a student gets confused and react towards it. A smart student also profits when the teacher get’s that the student already understands what the teacher wants to tell him.
Neither. I rather care about the expected empiric result of a policy than about seeing people are inherently good or inherently evil. I think you think too much in categories like that and care too little about the empirical reality that we do have less crime than we had in the past.
It’s like discussing global warming not on the scientific data about temperature changes but on whether we are for the environment or for free enterprise. The nonscientific framing leads to bad thinking.
It’s not clear how much of that is this and how much is them being more afraid of the kingpins of their ethnic mafias than they are of the police.
Have things steadily been marching in the direction of greater liberalism, though? There are a bunch of things you can no longer get away with, such as spousal abuse.
That was precisely what TD wrote they got away with all the time. Just of course not amongst educated or middle-class people. Underclass woman gets admitted to the hospital with a broken arm, docs find it unlikely it was an accident, arrange a meeting with the local psychiatrist i.e. TD. Yeah, it was the boyfriend in a fit of jealousy. Police, testimony? Nope. Why not? She’s making up all kinds of excuses for the guy. OK maybe she is scared, explain about the battered women shelter where nothing bad can come to her. Still not, and does not look scared or dependent or something. Finally the reason becomes clear: the “bad boy” is sexually exciting. And according to TD this happened all the time. 16 years old boy taken in to psychiatric treatment, suicidial. Mom’s latest boyfriend was beating the boys head in the concrete. Why mom won’t call the police? She said “he is a good shag” and rather the boy should try not be too much at home to avoid him. And so on, endless such stories. Get that book...
I was actually getting a weird impression from that book. The primary reason laws and institutions are indeed increasingly aware of and trying to deal with spousal abuse is not that it gets more noticed today, but because it actually does happen more than in the past where communal pressure could have worked against it. TD seems to imply that people’s behavior got worse faster than the laws or police procedures evolved, so it is a net negative.
Is that based with figures?
Nope, TD is an essayist.
Casual assumptions that things were better in the past, .or that the authors favoured theories must have worked, need to be taken with some scepticism.
His point is not that anyone who wants to batter, can, it is that the nonzero amount left is due to collusion.
I used as well. This is getting spooky.
Second biggest city of the world’s fourth biggest economy at that time? Not really a huge conincidence IMHO. Sort of in the world top 20-30 list of places to work one one’s career. Not really in the top 20 to enjoy life though. (OK it wasn’t too bad, we had a park behind the house where bands played frequently, it turned out Caribbean takeaways are really delicious, and going to the Godskitchen was a teenage dream came true 15 years later.)