Imagine being in a telepathic linkage with people who are habitually very angry (perhaps especially at people like you), depressed. cruel, unfocused, and/or have whatever mental/emotional traits especially get on your nerves.
Now, it’s possible that the telepathic society has ways of moderating those effects—this is suggested by the fact that most people who join it stay there, though it’s also conceivable that it has really strong propaganda. It may also be that a lot of mental dysfunction is caused by fear of being alone, and a telepathic society alleviates that.
It’s also possible that the telepathic society is good for most people, but there are some people who are just cross-grained to it. It actually wouldn’t surprise me if there’s more than one telepathic culture in addition to people who want to be like 21st century humans.
In short, it isn’t obvious to me that there’s something wrong with people who don’t want to live in the telepathic society.
Imagine being in a telepathic linkage with people who are habitually very angry (perhaps especially at people like you), depressed. cruel, unfocused, and/or have whatever mental/emotional traits especially get on your nerves.
I was unclear. Your own thoughts are public, but you are not forced to read everyone’s thoughts.
That’s intriguing, but I wonder how it would play out in practice. Suppose you’re concerned that some interaction is going badly because of malice towards you. You can check, and the good news might be that it was an honest mistake on someone’s part.
On the other hand, how would a limited telepathic society of the kind you describe handle malice?
On the other hand, how would a limited telepathic society of the kind you describe handle malice?
Presumably malicious people would naturally be shunned, as most others recoil in disgust from their thoughts. They are also unable to cause any serious harm, as their intentions are open to scrutiny. I imagine that in a society where people come to rely on routinely going through each other’s mental states being ignored is a big downside. Tight feedback loop.
Suppose you have some strong preference which is generally hated—imagine that your telepathy society had started before efforts had been made to make homosexuality socially acceptable.
There’s still quite a bit of prejudice, but it’s not universal.
It’s possible that telepathy would lead to the mainstream realizing that there’s nothing especially wrong with homosexuality, but that’s hardly guaranteed.
The thing you’re missing is that malice directed against people one doesn’t like can be quite a strong pleasure.
How would you characterize the process that resulted in homosexuality becoming socially unacceptable in the first place? And how would you characterize the process that resulted in homosexuality becoming increasingly socially acceptable?
In my experience, an important part of the former process is marginalizing the unacceptable minority and encouraging the “mainstream” to think of them as basically alien. “Othering” them, to use a bit of popular jargon. And an important part of the latter process is getting people to acknowledge the actual perspectives of the unacceptable minority.
I expect the former to be a lot more difficult and the latter easier when we can all experience their thoughts.
So, yeah, I expect it to be a lot harder in the shminux-telepathy scenario to get these sorts of arbitrary strong hatreds started in the first place, and a lot easier to get rid of them. Is it guaranteed? No, of course not. But I like my odds a lot better than in the “normal” society, where harmful prejudice is demonstrably possible. (To put it mildly.)
The thing you’re missing is that malice directed against people one doesn’t like can be quite a strong pleasure.
Sure, of course it is, agreed. Smashing people’s windows in the real world can be a hoot, too. And yet, despite the fact that we all have the physical ability to smash each others’ windows, it somehow turns out that most windows stay unsmashed. Why do you think that is?
For my part, I think it’s because most people are capable of abstaining from an act that would be pleasurable if the act is sufficiently antisocial, and generally choose to do so.
No, I’m not just saying “it might work”. As I said, I like my odds a lot better in the telepathic society than in the “normal” society, for the reasons I gave.
If you disagree with me, and think your odds are better in the normal society, that’s a good enough reason to opt out. Which is fine. But I’ve made a claim and you disagree with it.
I have no idea where “early adopter” comes from here; in this scenario both societies have existing members.
Imagine being in a telepathic linkage with people who are habitually very angry (perhaps especially at people like you), depressed. cruel, unfocused, and/or have whatever mental/emotional traits especially get on your nerves.
Now, it’s possible that the telepathic society has ways of moderating those effects—this is suggested by the fact that most people who join it stay there, though it’s also conceivable that it has really strong propaganda. It may also be that a lot of mental dysfunction is caused by fear of being alone, and a telepathic society alleviates that.
It’s also possible that the telepathic society is good for most people, but there are some people who are just cross-grained to it. It actually wouldn’t surprise me if there’s more than one telepathic culture in addition to people who want to be like 21st century humans.
In short, it isn’t obvious to me that there’s something wrong with people who don’t want to live in the telepathic society.
I was unclear. Your own thoughts are public, but you are not forced to read everyone’s thoughts.
That’s intriguing, but I wonder how it would play out in practice. Suppose you’re concerned that some interaction is going badly because of malice towards you. You can check, and the good news might be that it was an honest mistake on someone’s part.
On the other hand, how would a limited telepathic society of the kind you describe handle malice?
Well, let’s start with what we know and build out from there: how would you characterize how our current societies handle malice?
Presumably malicious people would naturally be shunned, as most others recoil in disgust from their thoughts. They are also unable to cause any serious harm, as their intentions are open to scrutiny. I imagine that in a society where people come to rely on routinely going through each other’s mental states being ignored is a big downside. Tight feedback loop.
People who are different will be naturally shunned.
Don’t forget that all y’all here on LW are freaks from the “normal society” point of view.
Speak for yourself.
Suppose you have some strong preference which is generally hated—imagine that your telepathy society had started before efforts had been made to make homosexuality socially acceptable.
There’s still quite a bit of prejudice, but it’s not universal.
It’s possible that telepathy would lead to the mainstream realizing that there’s nothing especially wrong with homosexuality, but that’s hardly guaranteed.
The thing you’re missing is that malice directed against people one doesn’t like can be quite a strong pleasure.
How would you characterize the process that resulted in homosexuality becoming socially unacceptable in the first place? And how would you characterize the process that resulted in homosexuality becoming increasingly socially acceptable?
In my experience, an important part of the former process is marginalizing the unacceptable minority and encouraging the “mainstream” to think of them as basically alien. “Othering” them, to use a bit of popular jargon. And an important part of the latter process is getting people to acknowledge the actual perspectives of the unacceptable minority.
I expect the former to be a lot more difficult and the latter easier when we can all experience their thoughts.
So, yeah, I expect it to be a lot harder in the shminux-telepathy scenario to get these sorts of arbitrary strong hatreds started in the first place, and a lot easier to get rid of them. Is it guaranteed? No, of course not. But I like my odds a lot better than in the “normal” society, where harmful prejudice is demonstrably possible. (To put it mildly.)
Sure, of course it is, agreed.
Smashing people’s windows in the real world can be a hoot, too.
And yet, despite the fact that we all have the physical ability to smash each others’ windows, it somehow turns out that most windows stay unsmashed.
Why do you think that is?
For my part, I think it’s because most people are capable of abstaining from an act that would be pleasurable if the act is sufficiently antisocial, and generally choose to do so.
You’re giving reasons why it might work—I still think my reasons are strong enough for it to be reasonable to not be an early adopter.
No, I’m not just saying “it might work”. As I said, I like my odds a lot better in the telepathic society than in the “normal” society, for the reasons I gave.
If you disagree with me, and think your odds are better in the normal society, that’s a good enough reason to opt out. Which is fine. But I’ve made a claim and you disagree with it.
I have no idea where “early adopter” comes from here; in this scenario both societies have existing members.