brazil84

Karma: 673

brazil84 Nov 27, 2015, 3:54 PM
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS

Tsipursky’s article. The article only provides one reason. There no reason to see it as arguing that the reason alone is sufficient.

:shrug: Then you should have made that clear when you responded to my point, i.e. that you would respond to a different version of the article than the one I was responding to.

And you should have also applied the same principle of charity to my point and made it clear that you were changing the subject.

brazil84 Nov 27, 2015, 3:47 PM
0 points
in reply to: VoiceOfRa’s comment on: [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS

As I mentioned below, the “What would ISIS not want us to do?” is not a good heuristic, because by asking it you implicitly accept their world view.

I think part of the problem here is that it is difficult to discern how rational ISIS is as an organization. It is some combination of militia group; millennialist cult; and breakaway state. (It’s interesting that it has changed its name a couple times.) As best I can tell, the overall game plan of ISIS is—generally speaking—to follow in the footsteps of the most fundamental religious doctrine it can, and have faith that this will result in their eventual success. Under such circumstances, I don’t think it’s very useful to “avoid playing into ISIS’s hands.”

This may be a more useful consideration if the enemy was some kind of James Bond super-villain who was carefully scheming at every stage. Even then, you never know if the other fellow really wants something or if he is only pretending to as some kind of ruse or feint.

brazil84 Nov 27, 2015, 3:19 PM
3 points
in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS
For what it may be worth, I have read thousands of books in my life and I have never encountered a book which is impossible to summarize in a few paragraphs or even less.

brazil84 Nov 27, 2015, 2:20 PM
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS

With charity the topic is whether resentment produced through bombing is a significant factor.

Charity as to whose statements? Mine or Sipursky’s?

Can you please quote or summarize the statement you are interpreting charitably.

TIA.

brazil84 Nov 27, 2015, 2:04 PM
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS

You don’t do things like bombing or not bombing for a single reason. At the same time it’s okay for an article in a mainstream venue to focus on a single reason because the medium doesn’t allow for a deep analysis of all factors that matter.

Again, assuming that is true, so what? If one of those reasons doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, and you want to change the subject and discuss a different reason, then please be open and honest about what you are doing.

brazil84 Nov 27, 2015, 12:28 PM
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS

It means that in practice doing one thing means that you can do the other less well.

Let’s assume that’s true. So what? The argument under discussion was not whether the West should avoid focusing on killing people because it will undermine the West’s ability to focus on cutting funding for ISIS. The issue under discussion is whether the West should avoid killing people because it will make other people angry.

Please don’t try to change the subject without openly acknowledging that’s what you are doing.

brazil84 Nov 27, 2015, 12:08 PM
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS

If you want to use certain NATO bases to do your bombing, then you will be less likely to criticize the policy of the countries that host the bases.

Umm, does that mean “yes” or “no”?

brazil84 Nov 27, 2015, 12:06 PM
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS

Why? You started to speak about Nazi Germany as an example of bombings haven’t lead to problems.

Are you joking? DId you actually read what I said? Here’s what I said:

During WWII, the United States slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Japanese and German civilians in various bombings. How much “rage” did this cause? Did it make it more difficult to de-Nazify Germany? I’m not sure but my gut feeling is that on balance, it was not counter-productive. My instinct is that creating fear and despair is more productive than avoiding anger. And that if it is perceived that Western powers are afraid of creating anger, it will only embolden the radicals and encourage them to use human shields.

Anyway, these are empirical questions and the rational thing to do is to see what worked and did not work in the past in similar situations.

By contrast, here’s what Tsipursky said:

Because any of these changes in government policy would radicalize more Muslims.

He also said this:

I can attest that archival evidence shows such slaughter did make it more difficulty to de-Nazify Germany.

Do you really not see why Sipursky has the burden of proof and I do not have the burden of proof?

Really?

brazil84 Nov 27, 2015, 10:35 AM
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS

It’s not really silly. Focusing on cutting funding sources might be better than focusing on killing ISIS operatives,

The two are not mutually exclusive, agreed?

brazil84 Nov 27, 2015, 10:34 AM
4 points
in reply to: VoiceOfRa’s comment on: [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS

There was a lot less general slaughter after WWI, so it should have caused Germany to be demilitarized a lot better then after WWII, oh wait.

What’s interesting to me is that as an American, if you visit Japan, there does not seem to be a lot of Tsipursky Rage in evidence. Even though we bombed the hell out of them and nuked two of their cities. And you don’t see many Japanese people plotting to launch terrorist attacks in the United States. Of course Japanese culture is probably different from that of the Arabic-speaking peoples in the Middle East. But anger at perceived injustice is a pretty universal human emotion (based on my general observations).

brazil84 Nov 27, 2015, 9:54 AM
3 points
in reply to: Jiro’s comment on: [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS

Middle Eastern cultures are heavily based on clan/kinship relations and honor. I would expect that just accurately killing guilty people would lead to a rage effect as bad as killing innocent ones, because of the enormous number of people in the guilty person’s kinship group whose honor you have just besmirched.

I would guess you are probably right, but the bigger question here is how strong is any “rage effect” compared to other factors which might influence human decision-making. For example, lets suppose ISIS rolls into your town, throws a few gay dudes of off roofs, blows up the local church or mosque, and publicly tortures to death a few suspected informants. One can imagine that perhaps this will create a large Tsipursky Rage. At the same time, it will probably result in a lot of fear and despair; these emotions might actually discourage people from working against ISIS. Which is stronger in the short or long term? What other factors might be in play? These are not easy questions to answer.

For Tsipursky to claim that he knows the answer with reasonable certainty based on a few magazine articles in which a few captured terrorists cite “rage” as their motivation is the height of the worst kind of irrationality.

That said, your point does illustrate how silly Tsipursky’s position is if taken to its logical conclusion. i.e. that we should not even kill actual ISIS operatives in Syria or Iraq because that will make people angry and result in more attacks.

brazil84 Nov 27, 2015, 9:43 AM
2 points
in reply to: Gleb_Tsipursky’s comment on: [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS

I accept that you perceive that people’s account of their own motivations is unreliable,

You disagree with this?

Can you present evidence for the counter-claim?

I might be able to if I put some time into it, but you have the burden of proof and I do not want to spend time on it.

I can’t really summarize whole books

I’m not asking for you to summarize whole books. Let’s do this: What’s the strongest piece of evidence that the deaths of civilians as a result of Western military action against Germany during World War 2 caused a “rage” effect which made de-Nazification significantly more difficult?

brazil84 Nov 27, 2015, 9:38 AM
2 points
in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS

Are you looking for a double-blind experiment where in hundreds of randomly selected countries the civilians were slaughtered, in other hundreds they were not, and this was all conducted in a way that neither the people in the attacking countries nor the people in the attacked countries knew which was which?

No. I am looking for specific, reliable evidence which backs up Tsipursky’s claim. It is up to him what form that evidence might take. Is that a problem for you?

brazil84 Nov 26, 2015, 6:39 PM
5 points
in reply to: James_Miller’s comment on: [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS

“I would tell him he has a great shot, as he would then gain a great deal of attention if he actually had credible evidence and countered the previous evidence convincingly.” Yes, just like Larry Summers received when he suggested that genetics MIGHT play a role in why so few women are in sciences

The key weasel phrase is “credible evidence.” And yeah, it would be tantamount to career suicide for any humanities PhD student to argue in his dissertation that the internment of Japanese Americans was a good idea. (Maybe he could get away with it if he were Japanese.)

Many, perhaps most cultures and subcultures have taboos. In Thailand, you don’t insult the King. In Saudi Arabia, you don’t insult Islam. And in the American Academy, you don’t say anything which might be construed as racist.

brazil84 Nov 26, 2015, 4:25 PM
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS

Do you consider the account of a man who says: “I have to revenge a blood debt because they killed my cousin” to be a unreliable description of someone’s self-motivations?

Absolutely.

brazil84 Nov 26, 2015, 4:15 PM
2 points
in reply to: Gleb_Tsipursky’s comment on: [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS

There is a great deal of evidence about radicalization as a result of western actions, for example this account.

Would you care to summarize the evidence? Is it mainly anecdotal observations of peoples’ claims about their own motivations? Or is it something else?

I am looking for specific, reliable evidence that Western military activities which resulted in the deaths of civilians had a significant “rage” effect you described (and had recruitment effects significantly above the baseline). Please note that peoples’ accounts of their own motivations are generally unreliable.

As a historian of modern European history, I can attest that archival evidence shows such slaughter did make it more difficulty to de-Nazify Germany.

Again, would you care to summarize the evidence?

brazil84 Nov 26, 2015, 3:23 PM
8 points
on: [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS
One of the things that annoys me about lesswrong is the spectacle of rationalization in the clothing of rationality.

Because any of these changes in government policy would radicalize more Muslims.

Where is the evidence for this claim? It’s entirely possible that the opposite is true; that if the radicals are perceived to be accomplishing something without pushback, it will attract more support for their cause and more recruits.

For instance, consider what happens when Muslim media report an airstrike by Western forces that kills civilians. At any point, myriad Muslim youths are angry at the Western intervention into Syria. For a number of them — say, 100 — the report will be the thing that tips them over from anger to outrage, and they will decide to join ISIS.

During WWII, the United States slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Japanese and German civilians in various bombings. How much “rage” did this cause? Did it make it more difficult to de-Nazify Germany? I’m not sure but my gut feeling is that on balance, it was not counter-productive. My instinct is that creating fear and despair is more productive than avoiding anger. And that if it is perceived that Western powers are afraid of creating anger, it will only embolden the radicals and encourage them to use human shields.

Anyway, these are empirical questions and the rational thing to do is to see what worked and did not work in the past in similar situations.

brazil84 Sep 26, 2015, 10:22 PM
0 points
in reply to: Gunnar_Zarncke’s comment on: Notes on Actually Trying

It’s not exactly related to this post but I just wondered why procrastination seems to be so much a problem of our time

For me, I find that part of the problem is that when I have problem or goal, I sometimes fantasize about finding a good solution. So that the prospect of rolling up my sleeves and getting to work makes me worry that I will fail which would ruin the fantasy.

So for example, if I were an engineer (which I am not), I might have an idea for an invention one day, and then daydream about the millions I would make if I successfully developed the invention and brought it to market. Not to mention the acclaim for having come up with some great idea.

Of course one of the first steps in developing my invention would be to do searches to see if anything similar had been invented previously. The prospect of this would make me nervous, because if somebody already came up with the idea, it would ruin the fantasy. So it’s easy to procrastinate. Which makes the problem even worse, because I would have the additional worry that I would learn that during the time I was procrastinating, somebody else developed the idea, which would make me feel like a complete goofball.

brazil84 Sep 17, 2015, 7:29 PM
−5 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: [meta] New LW moderator: Viliam_Bur

Yes, even if.

Ok, enjoy your nitpicking then.

he admits only after

Of course, because I was not aware of my mistake until after you pointed it out. Again, I should have said “it seems you agree that.” So I hereby take back my statement (with my apologies for giving the impression that I was quoting you) and replace it with “it seems you agree that.”

My argument stands. But please feel free to continue your nitpicking.

Not much of a scrutiny. You just restated that you disagree and, well, we knew that already

Not at all, I explained why you were wrong. For example, I pointed out why “being argumentative” is not a very good proxy for “being concerned about karma.” To borrow an idea, I suggest you re-read and attempt to un-confuse yourself.

brazil84 Sep 17, 2015, 7:38 AM
−3 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: [meta] New LW moderator: Viliam_Bur

I don’t consider pointing out fake quotes “nitpicking”.

Even if (1) it turns out to actually reflect the person’s position; (2) the quoter admits that he was quoting his own language which he thought the person had agreed with; and (3) the quoter admits that he should have made this clear? (Which I do in fact admit.)

That’s OK, I’ll pass on that chance

Suit yourself. I will now scrutinize your argument:

First of all, your “weak” evidence (and yes, you actually used the word “weak”) can reasonably be described as non-evidence. Because arguing about something related to karma a few months after the initial exchange is at least as consistent with being “argumentative and not indifferent to one’s image” as it is with being focused on karma per se.

Second, your “strong priors” are extremely weak at best. Being argumentative is not particularly consistent with being focused on karma scores. Indeed, being argumentative frequently results in a loss of karma. Being “not indifferent” to one’s image is at least as consistent with “not caring about one’s karma score too much” as it is with caring about it to the point of caring about it more than the (possibly) political aspects of the situation.

So it seems that your beliefs do not stand up to scrutiny. You assert that you have “strong priors” but you offer no evidence or coherent argument as to why these “strong priors” are so strong. So as I alluded to above, it looks like you are the one whose beliefs need to be updated.