I’m just not sure if you really mean it when you say you’d trade 28 mortal lives for a single immortal one.
Ha ha ha. I find it amusing that you should ask me of all people about this. I’d push a big red button killing through neglect 28 cute Romanian orphans if it meant a 1% or 0.5% or even 0.3% chance of revival in an age that has defeated ageing. It would free up my funds to either fund more research, or offer to donate the money to cryopreserve a famous individual (offering it to lots of them, one is bound to accept, and him accepting would be a publicity boost) or perhaps just the raw materials for another horcrux.
Also why employ children in the example? Speaking of adults the idea seemed fine, children should probably be less of a problem since they aren’t fully persons in exactly the same measure adults are no? It seems so attractive to argue to argue that killing a child costs the world more potential happy productive man years, yet have you noted that in many societies the average expected life span is so very low mostly because of the high child mortality? A 20 year old man in such a society has already passed a “great filter” so to speak. This is probably true in many states in Africa. And since we are on the subject…
There are more malnourished people in India than in all of sub-Saharan Africa, yet people always invoke an African example when wishing to “fight hunger”. This is true of say efforts to eradicate malaria or making AIDS drugs affordable or “fighting poverty” or education intiatives, ect. I wonder why? Are they more photogenic?Does helping Africans somehow signal more altruism than helping say Cambodians? I wonder.
Taken at face value, the comments above are those of a sociopath. This is so not because this individual is willing to sacrifice others in exchange for improved odds of his own survival (all of us do that every day, just by living as well as we do in the Developed World), but because he revels in it. It is even more ominous that he sees such choices as being inevitable, presumably enduring, and worst of all, desirable or just. Just as worrisome is the lack of response to this pathology on this forum, so far.
The death and destruction of other human beings is a great evil and a profound injustice. It is also extremely costly to those who survive, because in the deaths of others we lose irreplaceable experience, the opportunity to learn and grow ourselves, and not infrequently, invaluable wisdom. Even the deaths of our enemies diminishes us, if for no other reason than that they will not live long enough to see that they were wrong, and we were right.
Such a mind that wrote the words above is of a cruel and dangerous kind, because it either fails, or is incapable of grasping the value that interaction and cooperation with others offers. It is a mind that is willing to kill children or adults it doesn’t know, and is unlikely to know in a short and finite lifetime, because it does not understand that much, if not almost all of the growth and pleasure we have in life is a product of interacting with people other than ourselves, most of whom, if we are still young, we have not yet met. Such a mind is a small and fearful thing, because it cannot envision that 10, 20, 30, or 500 years hence, it may be the wisdom, the comfort, the ideas, or the very touch of a Romanian orphan or of a starving sub-Saharan African “child” from whom we derive great value, and perhaps even our own survival. One of the easiest and most effective ways to drive a man mad, and to completely break his will, is to isolate him from all contact with others. Not from contact with high intellects, saintly minds, or oracles of wisdom, but from simple human contact. Even the sociopath finds that absolutely intolerable, albeit for very different reasons than the sane man.
Cryonics has a blighted history of not just attracting a disproportionate number of sociopaths (psychopaths), but of tolerating their presence and even of providing them with succor. This has arguably has been as costly to cryonics in terms of its internal health, and thus its growth and acceptance, as any external forces which have been put forward as thwarting it. Robert Nelson was the first high profile sociopath of this kind in cryonics, and his legacy was highly visible: Chatsworth and the loss of all of the Cryonics Society of California’s patients. Regrettably, there have been many others since.
It is a beauty of the Internet that it allows to be seen what even the most sophisticated psychological testing can often not reveal: the face of the florid sociopath. Or perhaps, in this case I should say, the name of same, because putting a face to that name is another matter altogether.
Cryonics has a blighted history of not just attracting a disproportionate number of sociopaths (psychopaths), but of tolerating their presence and even of providing them with succor
Details?
I’ve seen a couple of cases of people disliking cryonics because they see its proponents as lacking sufficient gusto for life, but no cases of disliking or opposing cryonics because there are too many sociopaths associated with it.
For what it’s worth, LessWrong has done a pretty good job of firming up exactly that perspective for me.
In fairness, I don’t mind psychopathic behavior, and I’m still signing up. I’ve definitely developed a much lower opinion of cryonics advocacy since being here, though.
The post by “Voldemort” was an obvious joke/fakepost, though, and Eliezer’s comment was on the mark even if he did use a webcomic to illustrate his point...
What makes you so certain that the Voldemort post was a joke, and not simply a sociopath posting on an alternate account to avoid the social consequences of holding such a stance? Certainly, there seem to be quite a few other people here who would pick immortality over saving 28 other lives, if you put the two choices “side by side”.
Lots of people let akrasia, compartmentalization, etc. keep themselves from realizing that it’s actually a choice. When they’re put side by side and the answer is a casual “of course I’d choose my own life”, I tend to consider that stronger evidence of sociopathic behavior.
That said, yes, I consider most people to exhibit some degree of sociopathic behavior. LessWrong just demonstrates more :)
Lots of people choose luxury over saving 28 lives.
Actually, this is true even for rather low values of “luxury”. I, like tens of millions of other people in the developed world, am a homeowner. Yes, the cost of my (rather modest) home would have saved ~100 lives if I had instead donated it to a maximally effective charity. That isn’t what I did. That isn’t what the other tens of millions of homeowners did. If you want to count that as sociopathic behavior, fine. But that casts a rather wide net for what would count in that category. Is “sociopathic behavior” even a useful category if it is extended so widely? Is there much behavior left that falls outside it?
It still says something about the author of that character, that they (a) went through the effort of writing that reply and (b) there is not a single reply in the empathic/non-sociopathic direction demonstrating an equal amount of effort. I don’t really see the relevance of it being a role-playing character at all—it’s hardly incompatible that it’s both a RP character and a sociopath who has chosen a sane cover for posting their socially unacceptable views (after all, Voldemort has all of 28 karma; he clearly gets down voted a decent amount)
The simple Bayesian evidence is that someone cared enough to write a sociopathic reply that was fairly in depth, and the only non-sociopathic replies were a link to a webcomic and personal preferences of “well, yeah, I’d pick immortality over 28 lives...”
Also, lumping Clippy in with clearly fictional characters is just rude ;)
a sociopath posting on an alternate account to avoid the social consequences of holding such a stance?
There are easier ways to avoid the social consequences of holding said stance; one of them is to denounce that stance. Another is to fail to comment on the matter. Logging in to an alternate account in order to say something they don’t want to be seen saying has a small prior to begin with.
p(Author is a sociopath | Author chose to RP as Voldemort specifically) > p(Author is a sociopath | Author went with a different pseudonym) is my basic assertion here. People who roleplay sociopaths are more likely to be sociopaths—roleplaying Voldemort is a safe outlet for that tendency.
That the author is writing Voldemort also seems like evidence for the hypothesis that the author agrees with Voldemort (I’d assume possibly not to that extreme, but who knows). Much the same as everyone assumes that the author behind shokwave agrees with shokwave’s writing...
Sure, roleplaying as Voldemort may be evidence for sociopathy, but if I had to estimate how much evidence, I’d call it epsilon. Roleplaying, and humour, is fun. And fun is tempting, especially on the internet.
Roleplaying, and humour, is fun. And fun is tempting, especially on the internet.
I’ve been running campaigns for, wow, 16 years now, and I played intermittently even before then. Roleplaying is not something that is unfamiliar to me. One of the things I’ve noticed is that, for the most part, people play characters that think like they do. It is difficult for most people to play a well-developed character that doesn’t largely agree with their own personal philosophy (playing a simple caricature is much easier, but Voldemort does not strike me as such)
If it’s only an epsilon of evidence then my life is an absolutely ridiculous statistical anomaly o.o
I play roleplaying games a lot and most of my characters aren’t much like me. I’ve played evil characters, stupid characters, characters who considered violence the first and best answer, religiously devout characters, and a rainbow-obsessed boy-crazy twice-married wizardess who liked to attack her enemies with colors and wear outrageously loud outfits. I’m not evil, stupid, violent, religious, or rainbowy.
I’ve written fiction with characters of an even greater variety.
I was claiming that people like you exist, but are rare. Just like sociopaths exist, but are rare. So given the two possibilities, and knowing only that both groups are fairly rare, it would be silly to assume that someone is probably a good roleplayer instead of a sociopath.
Those mostly seem too unlike you, from what I can tell, to be clear examples of someone playing a non-caricature.
The exceptions are the devout characters. Looking back on my experience as a deontologist, I don’t think it would be too hard to role play many other deontologists, provided the rules were clear enough. So I think those characters are too like you to prove the point either, unless they were devout non-compartmentalized thinkers, i.e. “devout moderates” who aren’t in a moderate religion because of lack of faith or willpower or indeed directly because of any other character flaw.
I will simply take your word you role play characters who neither think like you do nor are caricatures, You have not lowered the amount I would have to believe you to the level of merely having to believe that you role played the listed characters, because I still have to believe that the characters are good examples, which is not self evident.
Far more people play chaotic evil than can be explained by them being fine with killing people for personal gain.
Remember that the point of all this is to substantiate the claim that roleplaying Voldemort is evidence for sociopathy, or lack of empathy. Playing a character that thinks differently isn’t quite the same as playing one with different specific moral values, and I don’t think the latter is particularly hard. Villains are often portrayed as more rational and driven than the heroes of stories (who usually get most of their wins for free), so it can be easy to identify with them if you’re a kind of person who respects those characteristics. That’s the “way of thinking” that’s attractive. The specific object-level morality is pretty much hot-swappable.
(Plus, we wouldn’t want to fall victim to the fundamental attribution error on the basis of a single blog comment, I don’t think...)
I suppose I may have been unclear. There’s often a lot of surface differences—my roommate has played a raver, a doctor, and now an AVON sales lady who fights zombies. But at the same time, there’s deeper similarities in conversational style, use of language, decision-making methods, and personal preferences that mean they all play fairly similarly (in her case, she loses her temper quickly—for some characters this makes them very verbally hostile, while others move quickly to combat)
It does also depend on your audience. Playing a “convincing” sociopath is pretty easy if no one in your group knows a real sociopath. And, of course, there ARE some people who have the knack for truly capturing other mindsets. However, half the books on my shelf are from authors that can’t even convincingly write characters of the opposite sex.
Maybe Voldemort has sociopathic tendencies. Maybe they’re just a good roleplayer. However, I don’t think sociopath is really that much rarer than a good, convincing role player.
(playing a simple caricature is much easier, but Voldemort does not strike me as such)
Why thank you, I do try.
One of the things I’ve noticed is that, for the most part, people play characters that think like they do.
Except for stealing everything that isn’t nailed down you mean?
To step out of character, my regular account has 2000+ karma on LW and I don’t think I’ve been acused of sociopathy before. I guess I’m just that good at hiding it.
LW has a few role-playing characters identifiable by usernames, while others don’t appear to be playing such games and don’t use speaking usernames. So “Voldemort” is likely a fictional persona tailored to the name, rather than a handle chosen to describe a real person’s character.
Correct, though I prefer to think of it as using another man’s head to run a viable enough version of me so that I may participate in the rationalist discourse here.
LOL! You don’t have to be a genius to be evil and, speaking from long, hard and repeated experience, you don’t have to be a genius to a great deal of harm—just being evil is plenty sufficient. This is especially true when the person who has ill intentions also has disproportionately greater knowledge than you do, or than you can easily get access to in the required time frame. The classic example has been the used car salesman. But better examples are probably the kinds of situations we all encounter from time to time when we get taken advantage of.
I don’t know much about computers, so I necessarily rely on others. In an ideal world, I could take all the time necessary to make sure that the guy who is selling me hardware or software that I urgently need is giving me good advice and giving me the product that he says he is. But we don’t live in an ideal world. Many people have this kind of problem with medical treatment choices, and for the same reasons. Another, related kind of situation, is where the elapsed time between the time you contract for a service and the time you get it is very long. Insurance and pension funds are examples. Lots of mischief there, and thus lots of regulation. It doesn’t take evil geniuses in such situations to cause a lot of loss and harm.
And finally, while this may seem incredible, in my experience those few people who are both geniuses and evil, usually tell you exactly what they are about. They may not say, “I intend to torture and kill you,” but they very often will tell you with relish how they’ve tortured others, or about how they are willing to to torture and kill others. The problem for me for way too long was not taking such people seriously. Turns out, they usually are serious; deadly serious.
Right, I’m just saying, that’s how I know it’s not the real Voldemort posting.
in my experience those few people who are both geniuses and evil, usually tell you exactly what they are about. They may not say, “I intend to torture and kill you,” but they very often will tell you with relish how they’ve tortured others,
We may have different standards for “genius”; I don’t think I’ve ever heard of someone who I would classify as both malicious (negated utility function, actually wants to hurt people rather than just being selfish) and brilliant. I also doubt that any such person exists nowadays, because, you see, we’re not all dead.
A person who greatly enjoys abducting, torturing, and killing a few people every couple months is plausible, whereas a person who wants to maximize death and pain is much less so. A genius of the former kind does not kill us all.
Voldemort is the taken name of the main antagonist of the popular fantasy book series Harry Potter.
Eliezer Yudkowsky, one of the founders and main writers for lesswrong.com, also writes a Harry Potter fanfiction, called Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. (HPATMOR)
Because of this, several accounts on this forum are references to Harry Potter characters.
[edit] Vol de mort is also french for Flight of Death.
I feel obligated to point out that one of the links at the end of the OP was a link to Darwin’s review of the last Harry Potter movie; he knows who Voldemort the character is.
I hate to repeat myself but let me ease your mind.
Ha ha ha. I find it amusing that you should ask me of all people about this.
Only I can live forever. - is a powerful ethical argument if there is a slim but realistic chance of you actually achieving this.
...or perhaps just the raw materials for another horcrux.
Despite the risk of cluttering I even made a posts who’s only function was to clear up ambiguity:
Ah, even muggles can be sensible occasionally.
I thought it was more than probable the vast majority of readers here would be familiar with me. Perhaps I expect too much of them. I do that sometimes expect too much of people, it is arguably one of my great flaws.
When you say: “I thought it was more than probable the vast majority of readers here would be familiar with me,” you imply a static readership for this list serve, or at least a monotonic one. I don’t think either of those things would be good for this, or most other list serves with an agenda to change minds. New people will frequently be coming into the community and their very diversity may be one of their greatest values.
Voldemort is a fictional character from one of the most popular novel and movie series in the last 20 years (of which one of the top posters of this site is writing a fanfiction). I don’t think it’s too much to expect almost all english speakers with an internet connection who might have an interest in this site to have at least heard of him, regardless of whether we have a “static readership”.
Robert Nelson was the first high profile sociopath of this kind in cryonics, and his legacy was highly visible: Chatsworth and the loss of all of the Cryonics Society of California’s patients.
Nelson has also managed to get director Errol Morris to make a movie based on his version of cryonics history, which suggests that he may have the last word on his reputation, depending on how the film portrays him.
The ugly truth is that sometimes sociopaths are useful, though you are probably correct in stating that visible and prominent sociopaths that support cryonics hurt it.
As Mike Darwin pointed out above, we can’t reliably tell if a joke comment is a joke.
But you know, this isn’t my strongest objection. It’s the noise-to-signal ratio. What I’m really concerned about is the opportunity cost of recognizing a joke as a joke, and having to work harder to find the serious branches of discussion.
How much effort did it actually take you to recognize that the comment “GRYFFINDOR!” by a user named “SortingHat” is a joke? It is silly to be worried about the opportunity cost here.
There are more malnourished people in India than in all of sub-Saharan Africa
At least in the IT and call centre industries in the United States, “India” is synonymous with “cheap outsourcing bastards who are stealing our jobs.” Quite a few customers are actively hostile towards India because they “don’t speak English”, “don’t understand anything”, and are “cheap outsourcing bastards who are stealing proper American jobs”.
I absolutely hate this idiocy, but it’s a pretty compelling case not to try and use India as an emotional hook...
I’d also assume that people are primed to the idea of “Africa = poor helpless children”, so Africa is a much easier emotional hook.
It seems Lucid fox has a point. LW isn’t that heavily dominated by US based users, also dosen’t it seem wise for LW users to try and avoid such uses when thinking of difficult problems of ethics or instrumental rationality?
No, but if my example is going to evoke the opposite response in 10-20% of my audience, it’s probably a bad choice :)
avoid such uses when thinking of difficult problems of ethics or instrumental rationality?
Conceeded. I was interested in gauging emotional response, though, not an intellectual “shut up and multiply”. The question is less one of math and more one of priorities, for me.
Ha ha ha. I find it amusing that you should ask me of all people about this. I’d push a big red button killing through neglect 28 cute Romanian orphans if it meant a 1% or 0.5% or even 0.3% chance of revival in an age that has defeated ageing. It would free up my funds to either fund more research, or offer to donate the money to cryopreserve a famous individual (offering it to lots of them, one is bound to accept, and him accepting would be a publicity boost) or perhaps just the raw materials for another horcrux.
Also why employ children in the example? Speaking of adults the idea seemed fine, children should probably be less of a problem since they aren’t fully persons in exactly the same measure adults are no? It seems so attractive to argue to argue that killing a child costs the world more potential happy productive man years, yet have you noted that in many societies the average expected life span is so very low mostly because of the high child mortality? A 20 year old man in such a society has already passed a “great filter” so to speak. This is probably true in many states in Africa. And since we are on the subject…
There are more malnourished people in India than in all of sub-Saharan Africa, yet people always invoke an African example when wishing to “fight hunger”. This is true of say efforts to eradicate malaria or making AIDS drugs affordable or “fighting poverty” or education intiatives, ect. I wonder why? Are they more photogenic?Does helping Africans somehow signal more altruism than helping say Cambodians? I wonder.
Taken at face value, the comments above are those of a sociopath. This is so not because this individual is willing to sacrifice others in exchange for improved odds of his own survival (all of us do that every day, just by living as well as we do in the Developed World), but because he revels in it. It is even more ominous that he sees such choices as being inevitable, presumably enduring, and worst of all, desirable or just. Just as worrisome is the lack of response to this pathology on this forum, so far.
The death and destruction of other human beings is a great evil and a profound injustice. It is also extremely costly to those who survive, because in the deaths of others we lose irreplaceable experience, the opportunity to learn and grow ourselves, and not infrequently, invaluable wisdom. Even the deaths of our enemies diminishes us, if for no other reason than that they will not live long enough to see that they were wrong, and we were right.
Such a mind that wrote the words above is of a cruel and dangerous kind, because it either fails, or is incapable of grasping the value that interaction and cooperation with others offers. It is a mind that is willing to kill children or adults it doesn’t know, and is unlikely to know in a short and finite lifetime, because it does not understand that much, if not almost all of the growth and pleasure we have in life is a product of interacting with people other than ourselves, most of whom, if we are still young, we have not yet met. Such a mind is a small and fearful thing, because it cannot envision that 10, 20, 30, or 500 years hence, it may be the wisdom, the comfort, the ideas, or the very touch of a Romanian orphan or of a starving sub-Saharan African “child” from whom we derive great value, and perhaps even our own survival. One of the easiest and most effective ways to drive a man mad, and to completely break his will, is to isolate him from all contact with others. Not from contact with high intellects, saintly minds, or oracles of wisdom, but from simple human contact. Even the sociopath finds that absolutely intolerable, albeit for very different reasons than the sane man.
Cryonics has a blighted history of not just attracting a disproportionate number of sociopaths (psychopaths), but of tolerating their presence and even of providing them with succor. This has arguably has been as costly to cryonics in terms of its internal health, and thus its growth and acceptance, as any external forces which have been put forward as thwarting it. Robert Nelson was the first high profile sociopath of this kind in cryonics, and his legacy was highly visible: Chatsworth and the loss of all of the Cryonics Society of California’s patients. Regrettably, there have been many others since.
It is a beauty of the Internet that it allows to be seen what even the most sophisticated psychological testing can often not reveal: the face of the florid sociopath. Or perhaps, in this case I should say, the name of same, because putting a face to that name is another matter altogether.
I imagine that’s the point of writing under a Voldemort persona.
A Dark Lord, no less!
Details?
I’ve seen a couple of cases of people disliking cryonics because they see its proponents as lacking sufficient gusto for life, but no cases of disliking or opposing cryonics because there are too many sociopaths associated with it.
For what it’s worth, LessWrong has done a pretty good job of firming up exactly that perspective for me.
In fairness, I don’t mind psychopathic behavior, and I’m still signing up. I’ve definitely developed a much lower opinion of cryonics advocacy since being here, though.
I’m curious as to what brought you to these conclusions. Can you explain further?
Well, that line captures a lot of it.
Eliezer’s response was to link me to an XKCD comic.
So, thus far, the quality of discourse here has been sociopathic fictional characters and webcomics...
The post by “Voldemort” was an obvious joke/fakepost, though, and Eliezer’s comment was on the mark even if he did use a webcomic to illustrate his point...
What makes you so certain that the Voldemort post was a joke, and not simply a sociopath posting on an alternate account to avoid the social consequences of holding such a stance? Certainly, there seem to be quite a few other people here who would pick immortality over saving 28 other lives, if you put the two choices “side by side”.
Lots of people choose luxury over saving 28 lives. Doing so may be wrong, but if it’s that common, it can’t be strongly indicative of sociopathy.
Lots of people let akrasia, compartmentalization, etc. keep themselves from realizing that it’s actually a choice. When they’re put side by side and the answer is a casual “of course I’d choose my own life”, I tend to consider that stronger evidence of sociopathic behavior.
That said, yes, I consider most people to exhibit some degree of sociopathic behavior. LessWrong just demonstrates more :)
I’m inclined to agree with steven0461,
Actually, this is true even for rather low values of “luxury”. I, like tens of millions of other people in the developed world, am a homeowner. Yes, the cost of my (rather modest) home would have saved ~100 lives if I had instead donated it to a maximally effective charity. That isn’t what I did. That isn’t what the other tens of millions of homeowners did. If you want to count that as sociopathic behavior, fine. But that casts a rather wide net for what would count in that category. Is “sociopathic behavior” even a useful category if it is extended so widely? Is there much behavior left that falls outside it?
The Voldemort account is overtly a role-playing character, which are not that uncommon here (see also: Quirinus_Quirrell, GLaDOS, and Clippy).
It still says something about the author of that character, that they (a) went through the effort of writing that reply and (b) there is not a single reply in the empathic/non-sociopathic direction demonstrating an equal amount of effort. I don’t really see the relevance of it being a role-playing character at all—it’s hardly incompatible that it’s both a RP character and a sociopath who has chosen a sane cover for posting their socially unacceptable views (after all, Voldemort has all of 28 karma; he clearly gets down voted a decent amount)
The simple Bayesian evidence is that someone cared enough to write a sociopathic reply that was fairly in depth, and the only non-sociopathic replies were a link to a webcomic and personal preferences of “well, yeah, I’d pick immortality over 28 lives...”
Also, lumping Clippy in with clearly fictional characters is just rude ;)
There are easier ways to avoid the social consequences of holding said stance; one of them is to denounce that stance. Another is to fail to comment on the matter. Logging in to an alternate account in order to say something they don’t want to be seen saying has a small prior to begin with.
p(Author is a sociopath | Author chose to RP as Voldemort specifically) > p(Author is a sociopath | Author went with a different pseudonym) is my basic assertion here. People who roleplay sociopaths are more likely to be sociopaths—roleplaying Voldemort is a safe outlet for that tendency.
That the author is writing Voldemort also seems like evidence for the hypothesis that the author agrees with Voldemort (I’d assume possibly not to that extreme, but who knows). Much the same as everyone assumes that the author behind shokwave agrees with shokwave’s writing...
Sure, roleplaying as Voldemort may be evidence for sociopathy, but if I had to estimate how much evidence, I’d call it epsilon. Roleplaying, and humour, is fun. And fun is tempting, especially on the internet.
I’ve been running campaigns for, wow, 16 years now, and I played intermittently even before then. Roleplaying is not something that is unfamiliar to me. One of the things I’ve noticed is that, for the most part, people play characters that think like they do. It is difficult for most people to play a well-developed character that doesn’t largely agree with their own personal philosophy (playing a simple caricature is much easier, but Voldemort does not strike me as such)
If it’s only an epsilon of evidence then my life is an absolutely ridiculous statistical anomaly o.o
I play roleplaying games a lot and most of my characters aren’t much like me. I’ve played evil characters, stupid characters, characters who considered violence the first and best answer, religiously devout characters, and a rainbow-obsessed boy-crazy twice-married wizardess who liked to attack her enemies with colors and wear outrageously loud outfits. I’m not evil, stupid, violent, religious, or rainbowy.
I’ve written fiction with characters of an even greater variety.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/6vq/on_the_unpopularity_of_cryonics_life_sucks_but_at/4pas
I was claiming deeper differences than that.
I was claiming that people like you exist, but are rare. Just like sociopaths exist, but are rare. So given the two possibilities, and knowing only that both groups are fairly rare, it would be silly to assume that someone is probably a good roleplayer instead of a sociopath.
Ah, I see. It wasn’t plain to me from the bare link which part of the comment you were pointing at.
Those mostly seem too unlike you, from what I can tell, to be clear examples of someone playing a non-caricature.
The exceptions are the devout characters. Looking back on my experience as a deontologist, I don’t think it would be too hard to role play many other deontologists, provided the rules were clear enough. So I think those characters are too like you to prove the point either, unless they were devout non-compartmentalized thinkers, i.e. “devout moderates” who aren’t in a moderate religion because of lack of faith or willpower or indeed directly because of any other character flaw.
I will simply take your word you role play characters who neither think like you do nor are caricatures, You have not lowered the amount I would have to believe you to the level of merely having to believe that you role played the listed characters, because I still have to believe that the characters are good examples, which is not self evident.
Far more people play chaotic evil than can be explained by them being fine with killing people for personal gain.
Remember that the point of all this is to substantiate the claim that roleplaying Voldemort is evidence for sociopathy, or lack of empathy. Playing a character that thinks differently isn’t quite the same as playing one with different specific moral values, and I don’t think the latter is particularly hard. Villains are often portrayed as more rational and driven than the heroes of stories (who usually get most of their wins for free), so it can be easy to identify with them if you’re a kind of person who respects those characteristics. That’s the “way of thinking” that’s attractive. The specific object-level morality is pretty much hot-swappable.
(Plus, we wouldn’t want to fall victim to the fundamental attribution error on the basis of a single blog comment, I don’t think...)
That’s interesting..
If my current wizard ever dies, I think I’m going to try playing a psychopathic psion. I think I’d be able to give it a decent go.
I suppose I may have been unclear. There’s often a lot of surface differences—my roommate has played a raver, a doctor, and now an AVON sales lady who fights zombies. But at the same time, there’s deeper similarities in conversational style, use of language, decision-making methods, and personal preferences that mean they all play fairly similarly (in her case, she loses her temper quickly—for some characters this makes them very verbally hostile, while others move quickly to combat)
It does also depend on your audience. Playing a “convincing” sociopath is pretty easy if no one in your group knows a real sociopath. And, of course, there ARE some people who have the knack for truly capturing other mindsets. However, half the books on my shelf are from authors that can’t even convincingly write characters of the opposite sex.
Maybe Voldemort has sociopathic tendencies. Maybe they’re just a good roleplayer. However, I don’t think sociopath is really that much rarer than a good, convincing role player.
Why thank you, I do try.
Except for stealing everything that isn’t nailed down you mean?
To step out of character, my regular account has 2000+ karma on LW and I don’t think I’ve been acused of sociopathy before. I guess I’m just that good at hiding it.
Can you expand on that claim? I find this claim to be very shocking.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/6vq/on_the_unpopularity_of_cryonics_life_sucks_but_at/4ozz I’ll go ahead and keep this to one thread for my own sanity :)
To be absolutely clear, the commenter you are responding to is a troll and a fictional character.
I’m curious as to how you know “Voldemort” is a troll?
LW has a few role-playing characters identifiable by usernames, while others don’t appear to be playing such games and don’t use speaking usernames. So “Voldemort” is likely a fictional persona tailored to the name, rather than a handle chosen to describe a real person’s character.
Who are the other role-playing characters on LessWrong?
GLaDOS started as one, though the account seems to be being used for regular interaction now.
Quirinus Quirrell.
Correct, though I prefer to think of it as using another man’s head to run a viable enough version of me so that I may participate in the rationalist discourse here.
True evil geniuses don’t reveal their intentions openly. (They also don’t post this blog comment.)
That’s what you’d like us to think.
LOL! You don’t have to be a genius to be evil and, speaking from long, hard and repeated experience, you don’t have to be a genius to a great deal of harm—just being evil is plenty sufficient. This is especially true when the person who has ill intentions also has disproportionately greater knowledge than you do, or than you can easily get access to in the required time frame. The classic example has been the used car salesman. But better examples are probably the kinds of situations we all encounter from time to time when we get taken advantage of.
I don’t know much about computers, so I necessarily rely on others. In an ideal world, I could take all the time necessary to make sure that the guy who is selling me hardware or software that I urgently need is giving me good advice and giving me the product that he says he is. But we don’t live in an ideal world. Many people have this kind of problem with medical treatment choices, and for the same reasons. Another, related kind of situation, is where the elapsed time between the time you contract for a service and the time you get it is very long. Insurance and pension funds are examples. Lots of mischief there, and thus lots of regulation. It doesn’t take evil geniuses in such situations to cause a lot of loss and harm.
And finally, while this may seem incredible, in my experience those few people who are both geniuses and evil, usually tell you exactly what they are about. They may not say, “I intend to torture and kill you,” but they very often will tell you with relish how they’ve tortured others, or about how they are willing to to torture and kill others. The problem for me for way too long was not taking such people seriously. Turns out, they usually are serious; deadly serious.
Right, I’m just saying, that’s how I know it’s not the real Voldemort posting.
We may have different standards for “genius”; I don’t think I’ve ever heard of someone who I would classify as both malicious (negated utility function, actually wants to hurt people rather than just being selfish) and brilliant. I also doubt that any such person exists nowadays, because, you see, we’re not all dead.
That’s how you know it’s not Voldemort posting?
A person who greatly enjoys abducting, torturing, and killing a few people every couple months is plausible, whereas a person who wants to maximize death and pain is much less so. A genius of the former kind does not kill us all.
The people who cause the most damage do it because they have disproportionate power rather than disproportionate knowledge.
Voldemort is the taken name of the main antagonist of the popular fantasy book series Harry Potter.
Eliezer Yudkowsky, one of the founders and main writers for lesswrong.com, also writes a Harry Potter fanfiction, called Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. (HPATMOR)
Because of this, several accounts on this forum are references to Harry Potter characters.
[edit] Vol de mort is also french for Flight of Death.
I feel obligated to point out that one of the links at the end of the OP was a link to Darwin’s review of the last Harry Potter movie; he knows who Voldemort the character is.
I have seen all the movies, most more than once. I have not yet read the books.
I hate to repeat myself but let me ease your mind.
Despite the risk of cluttering I even made a posts who’s only function was to clear up ambiguity:
I thought it was more than probable the vast majority of readers here would be familiar with me. Perhaps I expect too much of them. I do that sometimes expect too much of people, it is arguably one of my great flaws.
When you say: “I thought it was more than probable the vast majority of readers here would be familiar with me,” you imply a static readership for this list serve, or at least a monotonic one. I don’t think either of those things would be good for this, or most other list serves with an agenda to change minds. New people will frequently be coming into the community and their very diversity may be one of their greatest values.
Voldemort is a fictional character from one of the most popular novel and movie series in the last 20 years (of which one of the top posters of this site is writing a fanfiction). I don’t think it’s too much to expect almost all english speakers with an internet connection who might have an interest in this site to have at least heard of him, regardless of whether we have a “static readership”.
Nelson has also managed to get director Errol Morris to make a movie based on his version of cryonics history, which suggests that he may have the last word on his reputation, depending on how the film portrays him.
The ugly truth is that sometimes sociopaths are useful, though you are probably correct in stating that visible and prominent sociopaths that support cryonics hurt it.
GRYFFINDOR!
No.
This cannot be allowed to continue. These novelty accounts are cute, but you and the others are standing in the way of actual discourse.
I strongly recommend LW put an end to all novelty/roleplaying accounts, or limit them to some corner of the site.
Seconded.
That is simply not true. We have discussion trees here. We can appreciate a joke comment as a joke and continue discourse in a more serious branch.
As Mike Darwin pointed out above, we can’t reliably tell if a joke comment is a joke.
But you know, this isn’t my strongest objection. It’s the noise-to-signal ratio. What I’m really concerned about is the opportunity cost of recognizing a joke as a joke, and having to work harder to find the serious branches of discussion.
How much effort did it actually take you to recognize that the comment “GRYFFINDOR!” by a user named “SortingHat” is a joke? It is silly to be worried about the opportunity cost here.
I imagine someone said a similar thing during Reddit’s infancy.
I was there when someone said a similar thing in Everything2′s infancy.
This seems like a question which should be considered in a top-level post.
At least in the IT and call centre industries in the United States, “India” is synonymous with “cheap outsourcing bastards who are stealing our jobs.” Quite a few customers are actively hostile towards India because they “don’t speak English”, “don’t understand anything”, and are “cheap outsourcing bastards who are stealing proper American jobs”.
I absolutely hate this idiocy, but it’s a pretty compelling case not to try and use India as an emotional hook...
I’d also assume that people are primed to the idea of “Africa = poor helpless children”, so Africa is a much easier emotional hook.
It seems Lucid fox has a point. LW isn’t that heavily dominated by US based users, also dosen’t it seem wise for LW users to try and avoid such uses when thinking of difficult problems of ethics or instrumental rationality?
No, but if my example is going to evoke the opposite response in 10-20% of my audience, it’s probably a bad choice :)
Conceeded. I was interested in gauging emotional response, though, not an intellectual “shut up and multiply”. The question is less one of math and more one of priorities, for me.