If one person insults another, who knows more about how much the insult hurt: the person who delivered it or the person who received it?
“insults another” implies intention here which is a bit of a straw man no? What if they are just offended that I’ve eaten on Sunday? Or used the language like it is normally used. I don’t know maybe we shouldn’t be eating on a Sunday or using the language like it is used but this is then probably political value warfare not “refining rationality”.
Always assuming the “insulted” person is in the right is bad game theory. Even worse if you just assume that the person doing the “insulting” needs to always change when the insulted person is genuine in expressing their hurtness. On human brains such norms mean that exploiter utility monsters will develop rapidly to pump up all the status they can.
Right, but the only way I see to keep that preference and still deal with utility monsters is to encourage them to not be utility monsters. Which in practice comes off surprisingly callous.
In practice, the way I deal with it is to respect their preferences and expect them to respect mine, and to discontinue interaction with people who reject that exchange. I find that strategy has worked OK for me. Others’ mileage may, of course, vary.
On human brains such norms mean that exploiter utility monsters will develop rapidly to pump up all the status they can.
This is an empirical claim that I am skeptical of. Do you have empirical evidence to support it?
Edit: Grr, why am I getting voted down instead of having my question answered? I don’t see what human failure mode you’re referring to, although I might see it if you gave a few concrete examples.
“insults another” implies intention here which is a bit of a straw man no? What if they are just offended that I’ve eaten on Sunday? Or used the language like it is normally used. I don’t know maybe we shouldn’t be eating on a Sunday or using the language like it is used but this is then probably political value warfare not “refining rationality”.
Always assuming the “insulted” person is in the right is bad game theory. Even worse if you just assume that the person doing the “insulting” needs to always change when the insulted person is genuine in expressing their hurtness. On human brains such norms mean that exploiter utility monsters will develop rapidly to pump up all the status they can.
I can believe that you are wrong to be hurt by something, and still prefer that you not be hurt.
Right, but the only way I see to keep that preference and still deal with utility monsters is to encourage them to not be utility monsters. Which in practice comes off surprisingly callous.
In practice, the way I deal with it is to respect their preferences and expect them to respect mine, and to discontinue interaction with people who reject that exchange. I find that strategy has worked OK for me. Others’ mileage may, of course, vary.
This is an empirical claim that I am skeptical of. Do you have empirical evidence to support it?
Edit: Grr, why am I getting voted down instead of having my question answered? I don’t see what human failure mode you’re referring to, although I might see it if you gave a few concrete examples.