many things that are detrimental to collective human health
You mean “immoral” actions? This definition includes many healthy things, which are deemed bad by a large number of people who are too weak to undertake said healthy things.
To give you an example in which this effect is visible, bad students might mock their nerdy friends for getting good grades in school, discouraging them from competing and getting ahead.
A less obvious example is banning competitions in schools, or the general consensus that competition is evil/cruel. Some people are discouraged by competition, while others almost need it to reach their potential. Depending on which type you are yourself, your preference is likely to change to suit the one which would help people like yourself thrive. So when society has a majority of people who aren’t confident in their own abilities, it develops a general consensus that competition is evil.
Envy is one of the ugliest and most anti-social motivations, and the hardest one to defend. But does most of the modern society not think similiarly to Thag? Don’t they think that the losers are good while the winners are bad? That all rich people are evil and that all privilege is a result of exploitation of the harmless (and thus innocent and good) average person? If the average person was to think like this, who would stop them from forming a consensus using the power of numbers?
You mean “immoral” actions? This definition includes many healthy things, which are deemed bad by a large number of people who are too weak to undertake said healthy things.
No, because of the subjective nature of the term as commonly used. The average person’s moral compass is strongly influenced by appeals to emotion and other common irrational arguments. This is precisely the reason why it is important to work to overcome as much of our own biases as we can.
> bad students might mock their nerdy friends for getting good grades in school, discouraging them from competing and getting ahead. > That all rich people are evil and that all privilege is a result of exploitation of the harmless (and thus innocent and good) average person?
Yes, it seems to be a common fallacy today that all success must be intrinsically at someone else’s expense. In the generalization it is forgotten (or never realized) that interpersonal and economic interactions are a spectrum ranging from mutually beneficial to parasitic and everything in between.
A useful flag for spotting an opinion based on faulty reasoning is if they try to label an entire broad category of <subject> as absolutely good or absolutely evil. E.G. “all rich people are evil”.
I agree, but society is still run entirely by these biases, and even the LW community is, and that can’t be helped because we’re human. If we erase the biases we erase our humanity, but it’s important that we don’t change these processes in order to get what we want, as we’re designed to not get what we want.
I enjoy self-improvement, and I have fun with that, as long as there’s still improvements to be made. If a superintelligent entity appeared and said “there, now you’re perfect”, I’d quickly turn miserable, as the feeling of growth and progress is what gives my life meaning. Solving all my problems would be the most cruel thing you could do to me, and why would it be different for other people?
The only thing which crushes people is when difficulties appear faster than they can be overcome, and the individual in question enters a negative spiral rather than an upwards one, until their self-esteem is in the gutter.
Upon reflection, I think the fatal mistake that the modern society makes is that it tries to control complex systems rather than letting them control themselves. interfering is the biggest cause of problems. Most things which are “good”, you will never arrive at by aiming at them directly. They’re side effects, more often than not born out of their opposites.
The so-called “Good people”, who tell other people what to do (rather than leading by example and encouraging others to do like them without coercion) have likely caused more evil in the world than any other group. But perhaps every single “improvement” starts with control—censorship, surveillance, prosecution, rules, regulations. Coercive and unnatural methods of forcing unwilling parties to align. There’s a game of cat and mouse between new regulations and loopholes in which everyone loses. Not even the “experts” knows what’s best for everyone, and theory rarely aligns with reality anyway (changing the data until it filts the theory is the norm, but this is a silly act of self-deception)
The second largest cause of bad conflict is that the representation of data is skewed. If your experiences with, say, mormons is postive or negative, then your stance is completely justified. If you hear 100 good or bad stories of them, and that casuses you to like them or hate them, then your intuition about said group is not based on reality, but on the bias of the media in which you learn about them. Any other like or dislike, being based on reality, is frankly healthy and valid, and not something that other people are justified in “fixing”, given of course that it’s not an improperly generalized, vague stereotype/mental boogeyman (but such mental associations only form in echochambers).
What the world is currently doing, is attacking the very best things we’ve come up with, demanding that they change. Why? Japan has some of the lowest crime rates, so if anything, we should be more like Japan. Instead, we’re demanding that Japan be more like the America, which has much more crime. We say it’s “immoral” because immigration is difficult, but what if this is the reason Japan is doing well? This too is partly due to the innate human bias that makes us look for bad things to eliminate rather than good things to imitate, and our tendency to look at minor factors when we should be judging holistically. And the only people who are justified in judging anything are those who are involved. e.g. Should 4chan be shut down? That’s for 4chan users to judge. Is the Indian Caste system bad? That’s for Indians to judge.
To summarize, I guess: Humans are less intelligent than self-regulating systems, and interference is not recommended.
Here’s what I see as one key difference of opinion between my view and yours. I would say that society manages to function in spite of these biases, not because of them.
>Upon reflection, I think the fatal mistake that the modern society makes is that it tries to control complex systems rather than letting them control themselves. interfering is the biggest cause of problems. Most things which are “good”, you will never arrive at by aiming at them directly. They’re side effects, more often than not born out of their opposites.
I think the reason you tend to see only comments from people who agree with you is those who disagree see how effort-prohibitive it would be to make an attempt to address so many broad conclusions that have no clear explanation of reasoning given. For example: “the fatal mistake”, “interfering is the biggest”, “Most things which are “good” are so vague and general that they are unreasonably ‘slippery’ to qualify and evaluate. What reasoning do you have to support these conclusions as opposed to any of the other potential options one could draw? A common problem with such generalizations is that they fail to adequately apply to everything they’re attempting to describe.
The answers to those questions would require a post of their own. It would be a waste to write such an in-depth explanation in a comment thread. If you do decide to take the time to go through and explain your reasoning from the ground up then let me know, I’d be happy to read it.
> If your experiences with, say, mormons is postive or negative, then your stance is completely justified.
Opinions based on anecdotal evidence are not intrinsically good justification for forming a generalized opinion about an entire group, even if first hand experiences are more reliable than hearsay. I don’t see any distinction between that and “The rich people I’ve seen/heard of are greedy and selfish, therefore all rich people are evil.”
> Any other like or dislike, being based on reality
That’s not necessarily the case. Individuals frequently draw factually incorrect conclusions from their own experiences, which then influence their opinions. While opinions are themselves subjective and therefore neither “true” nor “untrue”, if a belief one holds about the world turns out to be false, every opinion based on it is more or less invalidated, depending on if there are other supporting factors involved in the formation of the opinion.
>What the world is currently doing, is attacking the very best things we’ve come up with, demanding that they change. Why? Japan has some of the lowest crime rates, so if anything, we should be more like Japan. Instead, we’re demanding that Japan be more like the America, which has much more crime. We say it’s “immoral” because immigration is difficult, but what if this is the reason Japan is doing well?
I’m not sure who “we” is referring to in this case or what specific policies you’re talking about here.
I should clarify, human instincts are what keeps us alive, and modern values, which we assume are based on logic but which are actually just rationalizations urged by poor mental health, are ruining everything.
> so many broad conclusions that have no clear explanation of reasoning given
This comment got quite broad, I’m usually much more specific. But my observations aren’t much more complex than say, The Fun Theory Sequence. Aiming at things directly doesn’t work, happiness is a great example here. And I assume that most intelligent people have spottet this pattern by now: The proper solution is often the exact opposite of what’s intuitive. If I want a proper sleep, I shouldn’t aim at rest but at hard work. If I want people to compliment me then I should be modest, if I want to run away from my fears then I should face them instead, if I want to receive love then I should give it. If you want X, then you should go for whatever results in X.
I also assume that most people know of an online game, a website, a club, or some other community which thrived until somebody decided to improve it by imposing rules on it. Sadly, most of them will attribute this to nostalgia. But they probably know that, whatever magic they experienced, is unlikely to ever appear in this world again. They required something which won’t ever happen again. Do people not reflect on what such things are?
If I take a thing at a time, I’d probably have to write 5-10 posts with 10-20 pages of material each, even if I’m being somewhat concise. I will consider doing this in the future.
I don’t see any distinction
Your own experiences are only a sample, but they will quickly converge towards reality. Whatever you hear will be whatever people can profit from telling you, and it’s very likely that you will hear things which conflict with your experienced reality. You might notice that food costs 2x more than it did just a few years ago, and then read a media article about food is getting cheaper. In either case, I don’t believe it’s proper to attack people for voicing their experienced reality, and people changing their behaviour based on positive/negative reinforcement is exactly how small changes happen organically. For instance, communities tend to dislike it when many new people appear, in case these people don’t follow the communities conventions. This behaviour (gatekeeping and elitism) is now disappearing due to political (and ‘moral’?) pressure, but I consider this the unfortunate overwriting of the instinct of self-preservation. Notice how the things which are being demonized (nationalism, borders, discrimination, gatekeeping, egoism) have one thing in common, they’re self-preferring.
Individuals frequently draw factually incorrect conclusions from their own experiences
That does happen, but I don’t consider truth and falsehood very important here. It’s preferences, values, and ways of viewing the world. God likely doesn’t exist, neither does things like honor and “face”, but if a group of people are happy to make one of these sacred, then why not let them? There’s not a lot of actual objective truth to draw from, most sentences that we deem true are actually interpretations of facts rather than facts themselves.
I’m not sure who “we”
The majority. It’s the leading way of thinking. Progressives, the UN, the WEF? Whoever reversed the public opinion on immigration in all English-speaking countries (including most of Europe) in just 15 years. Everything is so connected by now that it doesn’t matter. I have friends in more than 20 different countries, and the things they talk about, their opinions, their way of talking, their jokes, it’s all converging towards the same few things. Am I the only one seeing these things?
I’m puzzled by your use of the word “intelligence.” Intelligence refers to a capacity to understand facts, acquire knowledge and process information. Humans are presently the only members of the set of intelligent self-regulating systems.
Yeah I should explain that. I’d argue that instinct is a form of intelligence. People also differ a bit in how they think. Autistic people tend to be quite logical, analytical and systematic, but this also seems to be precisely why they have difficulties with socializing (not judging, I’m autistic myself). They don’t let it occur naturally, they try to control it, getting in the way of system 1 thinking.
But this is a great metaphor for what we’re doing to society, we’re messing up in a very similar way.
Also, organic/natural change is bottom-up, local changes causing global ones, but powerful entities control society top-down, with global changes causing local ones.
You mean “immoral” actions? This definition includes many healthy things, which are deemed bad by a large number of people who are too weak to undertake said healthy things.
To give you an example in which this effect is visible, bad students might mock their nerdy friends for getting good grades in school, discouraging them from competing and getting ahead.
A less obvious example is banning competitions in schools, or the general consensus that competition is evil/cruel. Some people are discouraged by competition, while others almost need it to reach their potential. Depending on which type you are yourself, your preference is likely to change to suit the one which would help people like yourself thrive. So when society has a majority of people who aren’t confident in their own abilities, it develops a general consensus that competition is evil.
Envy is one of the ugliest and most anti-social motivations, and the hardest one to defend. But does most of the modern society not think similiarly to Thag? Don’t they think that the losers are good while the winners are bad? That all rich people are evil and that all privilege is a result of exploitation of the harmless (and thus innocent and good) average person? If the average person was to think like this, who would stop them from forming a consensus using the power of numbers?
No, because of the subjective nature of the term as commonly used. The average person’s moral compass is strongly influenced by appeals to emotion and other common irrational arguments. This is precisely the reason why it is important to work to overcome as much of our own biases as we can.
> bad students might mock their nerdy friends for getting good grades in school, discouraging them from competing and getting ahead.
> That all rich people are evil and that all privilege is a result of exploitation of the harmless (and thus innocent and good) average person?
Yes, it seems to be a common fallacy today that all success must be intrinsically at someone else’s expense. In the generalization it is forgotten (or never realized) that interpersonal and economic interactions are a spectrum ranging from mutually beneficial to parasitic and everything in between.
A useful flag for spotting an opinion based on faulty reasoning is if they try to label an entire broad category of <subject> as absolutely good or absolutely evil. E.G. “all rich people are evil”.
I agree, but society is still run entirely by these biases, and even the LW community is, and that can’t be helped because we’re human. If we erase the biases we erase our humanity, but it’s important that we don’t change these processes in order to get what we want, as we’re designed to not get what we want.
I enjoy self-improvement, and I have fun with that, as long as there’s still improvements to be made. If a superintelligent entity appeared and said “there, now you’re perfect”, I’d quickly turn miserable, as the feeling of growth and progress is what gives my life meaning. Solving all my problems would be the most cruel thing you could do to me, and why would it be different for other people?
The only thing which crushes people is when difficulties appear faster than they can be overcome, and the individual in question enters a negative spiral rather than an upwards one, until their self-esteem is in the gutter.
Upon reflection, I think the fatal mistake that the modern society makes is that it tries to control complex systems rather than letting them control themselves. interfering is the biggest cause of problems. Most things which are “good”, you will never arrive at by aiming at them directly. They’re side effects, more often than not born out of their opposites.
The so-called “Good people”, who tell other people what to do (rather than leading by example and encouraging others to do like them without coercion) have likely caused more evil in the world than any other group. But perhaps every single “improvement” starts with control—censorship, surveillance, prosecution, rules, regulations. Coercive and unnatural methods of forcing unwilling parties to align. There’s a game of cat and mouse between new regulations and loopholes in which everyone loses. Not even the “experts” knows what’s best for everyone, and theory rarely aligns with reality anyway (changing the data until it filts the theory is the norm, but this is a silly act of self-deception)
The second largest cause of bad conflict is that the representation of data is skewed. If your experiences with, say, mormons is postive or negative, then your stance is completely justified. If you hear 100 good or bad stories of them, and that casuses you to like them or hate them, then your intuition about said group is not based on reality, but on the bias of the media in which you learn about them. Any other like or dislike, being based on reality, is frankly healthy and valid, and not something that other people are justified in “fixing”, given of course that it’s not an improperly generalized, vague stereotype/mental boogeyman (but such mental associations only form in echochambers).
What the world is currently doing, is attacking the very best things we’ve come up with, demanding that they change. Why? Japan has some of the lowest crime rates, so if anything, we should be more like Japan. Instead, we’re demanding that Japan be more like the America, which has much more crime. We say it’s “immoral” because immigration is difficult, but what if this is the reason Japan is doing well?
This too is partly due to the innate human bias that makes us look for bad things to eliminate rather than good things to imitate, and our tendency to look at minor factors when we should be judging holistically. And the only people who are justified in judging anything are those who are involved. e.g. Should 4chan be shut down? That’s for 4chan users to judge. Is the Indian Caste system bad? That’s for Indians to judge.
To summarize, I guess: Humans are less intelligent than self-regulating systems, and interference is not recommended.
Here’s what I see as one key difference of opinion between my view and yours. I would say that society manages to function in spite of these biases, not because of them.
>Upon reflection, I think the fatal mistake that the modern society makes is that it tries to control complex systems rather than letting them control themselves. interfering is the biggest cause of problems. Most things which are “good”, you will never arrive at by aiming at them directly. They’re side effects, more often than not born out of their opposites.
I think the reason you tend to see only comments from people who agree with you is those who disagree see how effort-prohibitive it would be to make an attempt to address so many broad conclusions that have no clear explanation of reasoning given. For example: “the fatal mistake”, “interfering is the biggest”, “Most things which are “good” are so vague and general that they are unreasonably ‘slippery’ to qualify and evaluate.
What reasoning do you have to support these conclusions as opposed to any of the other potential options one could draw? A common problem with such generalizations is that they fail to adequately apply to everything they’re attempting to describe.
The answers to those questions would require a post of their own. It would be a waste to write such an in-depth explanation in a comment thread. If you do decide to take the time to go through and explain your reasoning from the ground up then let me know, I’d be happy to read it.
> If your experiences with, say, mormons is postive or negative, then your stance is completely justified.
Opinions based on anecdotal evidence are not intrinsically good justification for forming a generalized opinion about an entire group, even if first hand experiences are more reliable than hearsay. I don’t see any distinction between that and “The rich people I’ve seen/heard of are greedy and selfish, therefore all rich people are evil.”
> Any other like or dislike, being based on reality
That’s not necessarily the case. Individuals frequently draw factually incorrect conclusions from their own experiences, which then influence their opinions. While opinions are themselves subjective and therefore neither “true” nor “untrue”, if a belief one holds about the world turns out to be false, every opinion based on it is more or less invalidated, depending on if there are other supporting factors involved in the formation of the opinion.
>What the world is currently doing, is attacking the very best things we’ve come up with, demanding that they change. Why? Japan has some of the lowest crime rates, so if anything, we should be more like Japan. Instead, we’re demanding that Japan be more like the America, which has much more crime. We say it’s “immoral” because immigration is difficult, but what if this is the reason Japan is doing well?
I’m not sure who “we” is referring to in this case or what specific policies you’re talking about here.
I should clarify, human instincts are what keeps us alive, and modern values, which we assume are based on logic but which are actually just rationalizations urged by poor mental health, are ruining everything.
> so many broad conclusions that have no clear explanation of reasoning given
This comment got quite broad, I’m usually much more specific. But my observations aren’t much more complex than say, The Fun Theory Sequence.
Aiming at things directly doesn’t work, happiness is a great example here. And I assume that most intelligent people have spottet this pattern by now: The proper solution is often the exact opposite of what’s intuitive. If I want a proper sleep, I shouldn’t aim at rest but at hard work. If I want people to compliment me then I should be modest, if I want to run away from my fears then I should face them instead, if I want to receive love then I should give it. If you want X, then you should go for whatever results in X.
I also assume that most people know of an online game, a website, a club, or some other community which thrived until somebody decided to improve it by imposing rules on it. Sadly, most of them will attribute this to nostalgia. But they probably know that, whatever magic they experienced, is unlikely to ever appear in this world again. They required something which won’t ever happen again. Do people not reflect on what such things are?
If I take a thing at a time, I’d probably have to write 5-10 posts with 10-20 pages of material each, even if I’m being somewhat concise. I will consider doing this in the future.
Your own experiences are only a sample, but they will quickly converge towards reality. Whatever you hear will be whatever people can profit from telling you, and it’s very likely that you will hear things which conflict with your experienced reality. You might notice that food costs 2x more than it did just a few years ago, and then read a media article about food is getting cheaper. In either case, I don’t believe it’s proper to attack people for voicing their experienced reality, and people changing their behaviour based on positive/negative reinforcement is exactly how small changes happen organically. For instance, communities tend to dislike it when many new people appear, in case these people don’t follow the communities conventions. This behaviour (gatekeeping and elitism) is now disappearing due to political (and ‘moral’?) pressure, but I consider this the unfortunate overwriting of the instinct of self-preservation. Notice how the things which are being demonized (nationalism, borders, discrimination, gatekeeping, egoism) have one thing in common, they’re self-preferring.
That does happen, but I don’t consider truth and falsehood very important here. It’s preferences, values, and ways of viewing the world. God likely doesn’t exist, neither does things like honor and “face”, but if a group of people are happy to make one of these sacred, then why not let them? There’s not a lot of actual objective truth to draw from, most sentences that we deem true are actually interpretations of facts rather than facts themselves.
The majority. It’s the leading way of thinking. Progressives, the UN, the WEF? Whoever reversed the public opinion on immigration in all English-speaking countries (including most of Europe) in just 15 years. Everything is so connected by now that it doesn’t matter. I have friends in more than 20 different countries, and the things they talk about, their opinions, their way of talking, their jokes, it’s all converging towards the same few things. Am I the only one seeing these things?
I’m puzzled by your use of the word “intelligence.” Intelligence refers to a capacity to understand facts, acquire knowledge and process information. Humans are presently the only members of the set of intelligent self-regulating systems.
Yeah I should explain that. I’d argue that instinct is a form of intelligence. People also differ a bit in how they think. Autistic people tend to be quite logical, analytical and systematic, but this also seems to be precisely why they have difficulties with socializing (not judging, I’m autistic myself). They don’t let it occur naturally, they try to control it, getting in the way of system 1 thinking.
But this is a great metaphor for what we’re doing to society, we’re messing up in a very similar way.
Also, organic/natural change is bottom-up, local changes causing global ones, but powerful entities control society top-down, with global changes causing local ones.