--
Acty
Karma: 289
--
I think there’s also definitely a prestige/coolness factor which isn’t correlated with difficulty, applicability, or usefulness of the field.
Quantum mechanics is esoteric and alien and weird and COOL and saying you understand it whilst sliding your glasses down your nose makes you into Supergeek. Saying “I understand how wet stuff splashes” is not really so… high status. It’s the same thing that makes astrophysics higher status than microbiology even though the latter is probably more useful and saves more lives / helps more people—rockets spew fire and go to the moon, bacteria cells in a petri dish are just kind of icky and slimy. I am quite certain that, if you are smart enough to go for any field you want, there is a definite motivation / social pressure to select a “cool” subject involving rockets and quarks and lasers, rather than a less cool subject involving water and cells or… god forbid… political arguments.
And, hmm, actually, not quite true on the last point—a social scientist could develop an intervention program, like a youth education program, that decreases crime or increases youth achievement/engagement, and it would probably feel awesome and warm and fuzzy to talk to the youths whose lives were improved by it. So you could certainly get closer than “developing some successful self-help book”. It is certainly harder, though, I think, and there’s certainly a higher rate of failure for crime-preventing youth education programs than for modern bridge-building efforts.
--
Thankyou—this statement of the idea was much, much clearer to me. :)
It seems like the solution—well, a possible part of one possible solution—is to make the social science research institute that everyone listens to have some funding source which is completely independent from the political party in power. That would hopefully make the scientific community more independent. We now need to make it more powerful, which is… more difficult. I think a good starting point would be to try and raise the prestige associated with a social science career (and thus the prestige given to individual social scientists and the amount of social capital they feel they have to spend on being controversial) and possibly give some rhetoric classes to the social science research institute’s spokesperson. Assuming the scientists are rational scientists, this gives them politician-power with which to persuade people of their correct conclusions. (Of course, if they have incorrect conclusions influenced by their ideologies, this is… problematic. How do we fix this? I dunno yet. But this is the very beginning of a solution, but I’ve not been thinking about the problem very long and I am just one kid with a relatively high IQ. If multiple people work together on a solution, I’m sure much more and much better stuff will be come up with.)
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.
Oh, I definitely have some kind of inbuilt ideology—it’s just that right now, I’m consciously trying to suppress/ignore it. It doesn’t seem to converge with what most other humans want. I’d rather treat it as a bias, and try and compensate for it, in order to serve my higher level goals of satisfying people’s preferences and increasing happiness and decreasing suffering and doing correct true science.
Different people learn in different ways. I’m really good at textbook learning and hate hands on learning (and suspect that is common among introverted intellectual people). Ideally, why not offer both a university course that qualifies you as a teacher and an apprenticeship system that qualifies you as a teacher, and allow prospective teachers to decide which best suits their learning style? We could even do cognitive assessments on the prospective teachers to recommend to them which program would be best for what their strengths seem to be.
Although, as someone who lives with a teacher—we definitely don’t need to reduce the time they spend in the classroom, we need to change the fact that they spend double that time marking and planning and doing pointless paperwork.
Telling your opponent that they are incapable of arguing with you until they are older is a fully general counterargument, and one of the more aggravating and toxic ones.
Even if it wasn’t a fully general counterargument, it would be fallacious because it’s ad hominem. There are plenty of people 5-10 years older than me who share my ideas, and you could as easily be arguing with one of them as you are arguing with me now; the fact that by chance you are arguing against me doesn’t affect the validity/truth of the ideas we’re talking about, and it’s very irrational to suggest that it should. Attack my arguments, not me.
As for everything being better in “their former selves”, do I seriously have to go find graphs? I have the distinct feeling that you won’t update even if I show you them, so I’m tempted not to bother. If you’ve genuinely never looked at actual graphs of crime levels and violence over time and promise to update just a little, I can go dig those up for you. (For now, you’re pattern matching to the kind of person who could benefit from reading http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/ . I don’t like SSC that much, but when the man’s right, he’s right.)
(As for “people were politer with women”, my idea of polite is pretty politically correct, and I can guarantee you that political correctness doesn’t increase if we look backwards in time...)
--
--
You know what else is a good way to stop people being killed? Create a liberal democracy where people are equal. So far in history, that has kinda correlated… really strongly… with less people dying. There is both less war and less crime. Forget strength, give them equality and elections. (I don’t actually think democracy is the optimal solution, I think I advocate more of an economics-exam-based meritocratic oligarchy, but it is a really good one to put in place while we figure out what the optimal one is. And I need to read lots more books before I actually try and design an optimal society, if I’m ever qualified to try something like that.)
Being “strong” in a meaningful way, in the modern world, means being intelligent. Smart people can use better rhetoric, invent cooler weapons, and solve your problems more easily. Being well-educated and intelligent and academic actually strongly correlates with not being racist or sexist or transphobic or homophobic. Oh, and also liberal democracies seem to have much less prejudice in them.
Find me decent evidence that patriarchal societies are safer for everyone involved than liberal democracies where everyone is equal, and you’ll have a valid point. But it kind of looks to me like, as a woman, I’m much safer in the modern Western democracies that prohibit sexism than I am in the patriarchal societies where women have no rights and keep getting acid thrown in their faces for rejecting advances. You say that in the recent years it was abandoned due to being oppressive but we should try and go back and compromise with it, but… why would we want to go back to that when literally everything has been improving ever since we abandoned those social models? To entertain your delusions of being a Strong Tribal Hero Protector Guy? Sorry, no.
I also don’t see how we can’t have strong protectors who are 100% PC. I’m not straight, male, neurotypical, traditional or even an adult. I try and protect and help those around me and on many occasions I succeed. I am the one in my friendship group who takes the lead down dark alleyways, carrying all the bags, reassuring my friends that it’s safe because nobody’s going to mug us while I’m there. Why exactly am I a weak and unworthy protector? Because I’m a girl? You’re going to have to do an awful lot better than that. Put me in a physical fight with most boys of my age, and I would annihilate them. Every male who has picked a fight with me thinking that he’ll be able to beat me because he’s male has walked away rather humiliated. On exams and IQ tests I score far higher than your average male. Judging by how much I actually end up doing versus what I observe the boys around me doing, I have higher levels of inbuilt-desire-to-help-and-protect-others than the average male. (I suspect that the latter two facts at least are true of most women whom you might find on this specific website.) Why exactly does the average male, whom I can both outfight and outthink, get to protect me and not the other way around?
--
I’m not trying to describe the people who disagree with me as wanting to bring back slavery or supporting burning down the whole Middle East; that isn’t my point and I apologise if I was unclear.
As I understood it, the argument levelled against me was that: people who say they’re really angry about terrorism are often idiots who hold idiotic beliefs, like, “let’s send loads of tanks to the Middle East and kill all the people who might be in the same social group as the terrorists and that will solve everything!” and in the same way, people who say they’re really angry about racism are the kind of people who hold idiotic beliefs like “let’s ban all science that has anything to do with race and gender!” and therefore it was reasonable of them to assume, when I stated that I was opposed to racism, that I was the latter kind of idiot.
To which my response is that many people are idiots, both people who are angry about terrorism and people who aren’t, people who are angry about racism and people who aren’t. There are high levels of idiocy in both groups. Being angry about terrorism and racism still seems perfectly appropriate and fine as an emotional arational response, since terrorism and racism are both really bad things. I think the proper response to someone saying “I hate terrorism” is “I agree, terrorism is a really bad thing”, not “But drone strikes against 18 year olds in the middle east kill grandmothers!” (even if that is a true thing) and similarly, the proper response to someone saying “I hate racism” is “I agree, genocide and lynchings are really bad”, not “But studies about race and gender are perfectly valid Bayesian inference!” (even if that is a true thing).
There could be solutions to this, I’m sure, or at least ways of minimising the problems. Maybe an independent-from-current-ruling-party research institute that ran studies on all proposed laws/policies put forward by both the in-power and opposition power, which required pre-registration of studies, and then published its findings very publicly in an easy-for-public-to-read format? Then it would be very obvious which parties were saying the same things as the science and which were ignoring the science, and it would be hard for the parties to influence the social scientists to just get them to say what they want them to say.
As advice for others like me, this is good. For me personally it doesn’t work too well; my A level subjects mean that I won’t be able to take a STEM subject at a good university. I can’t do statistics, because I dropped maths last year. The only STEM A level I’m taking is CompSci, and good universities require maths for CompSci degrees. I could probably get into a good degree course for Linguistics, but it isn’t a passionate adoration for linguistics that gets me up in the mornings. I adore human and social sciences.
I don’t plan to be completely devoid of STEM education; the subject I actually want to take is quite hard-science-ish for a social science. If I get in, I want to do biological anthropology and archaeology papers, which involve digging up skeletons and chemically analysing them and looking at primate behaviour and early stone tools. It would be pretty cool to do some kind of PhD involving human evolution. From what I’ve seen, if I get onto the course I want to get onto, it’ll teach me a lot of biology and evolutionary psychology and maybe some biochemistry and linguistics.
I don’t know, maybe because I was randomly listing some things that I’m angry about to explain why I’m motivated to try and improve the world, not making a thorough and comprehensive list of everything I think is wrong?
Could also fit under “war”, which I listed, and “death”, which I listed.
I think that there’s a good chance in general that most people can be led into supporting policies with bad consequences. I don’t think higher levels of idiocy are present in people who are annoyed about racism and terrorism compared with those who aren’t. The kind of people who say “on average people with black skin are slightly less smart, therefore let’s bring back slavery and apartheid” are just as stupid and evil, if not stupider and eviler, than the people who support burning down the whole Middle East in order to get rid of terrorism.
Well, “providing universal healthcare and welfare will lead to a massive drop in motivation to work” is a scientific prediction. We can find out whether it is true by looking at countries where this already happens—taxes pay for good socialised healthcare and welfare programs—like the UK and the Nordics, and seeing if your prediction has come true.
The UK employment rate is 5.6%, the United States is 5.3%. Not a particularly big difference, nothing indicating that the UK’s universal free healthcare has created some kind of horrifying utility drop because there’s no motivation to work. We can take another example if you like. Healthcare in Iceland is universal, and Iceland’s unemployment rate is 4.3% (it also has the highest life expectancy in Europe).
This is not an ideological dispute. This is a dispute of scientific fact. Does taxing people and providing universal healthcare and welfare lead to a massive drop in utility by destroying the motivation to work (and meaning that people don’t work)? This experiment has already been performed—the UK and Iceland have universal healthcare and provide welfare to unemployed citizens—and, um, the results are kind of conclusive. The world hasn’t ended over here. Everyone is still motivated to work. Unemployment rates are pretty similar to those in the US where welfare etc isn’t very good and there’s not universal healthcare. Your prediction didn’t come true, so if you’re a rationalist, you have to update now.
--