IndraG

• IndraG 23 Sep 2024 8:31 UTC

  3 points

  0

  on: Did Christo­pher Hitchens change his mind about wa­ter­board­ing?

  I think something that is missing in the perspective is that, rather than pro or contra, permissible or non-permissible torture, the war on terror might have overridden this in his mind; a greater evil to possibly justify a smaller one. In my memory, from multiple debate appearances, Hitchens was a bit or reasonably supportive of Guantanamo Bay (and thus of a smaller evil to avert a larger one) but also tried to arrive at some reasonable middle position, while the topic was (understandably) very polarizing. It is possible to be against torture, but still be open to considering exceptions.

• IndraG 9 Jul 2023 17:32 UTC

  1 point

  on: Group se­lec­tion update

  Regarding the terminology, if group selection translates to selection of a set of individuals, then how is group selection really valuably distinct from individual selection?

  And, regarding the terminology, around “If group-level selection occurs at all, then traits of the group that are not genetic traits, including cultural knowledge, must be considered.” you seem to miss accounting for the possibility of individual selection for cultural units. And regarding those, analogously the first question again: is group selection of group of cultural units really meaningfully distinct from individual selection on a set of cultural units, as happens since time immemorial due to e.g. a weather event?

  My suspicion is it isn’t, and—as you allude to—the false distinction is used to shoehorn wishes for altruism into evolutionary theory.

  I would also go so far as to argue that the very concept of “group”, which supports this theory as well as the practice it refers to, is itself an individual cultural unit.

  Thanks for raising this issue! I think resolving it could yield great benefits, and I’ll contribute to it when I can post on this forum.

• IndraG 14 Jun 2023 17:43 UTC

  1 point

  on: Epistemic Progress

  Great! I’m in.

• IndraG 30 Jan 2023 12:05 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: IndraG’s comment on: Sec­tions 1 & 2: In­tro­duc­tion, Strat­egy and Governance

  Moreover, when one identifies two pure strategy equilibria in a 2x2 game a third, mixed strategy, equilibrium almost always exists.

• IndraG 29 Jan 2023 20:17 UTC

  1 point

  AF

  on: Sec­tions 1 & 2: In­tro­duc­tion, Strat­egy and Governance

  threats being harmful to their target, the execution of threats seems to constitute an inefficiency:

  also when the threats are targeted at (Pareto-dominated) inefficiency, i.e. at (conditional on) any actions other than (coordinating on) the most efficient?

  As a concrete counter-example, there are productivity/​self-control tools, wherewith people elect to target and/​or execute threats on themselves to help elicit better behavior. The legal system is basically also collective threats that help us behave better, but is it inefficient such that we should do better without? I think the opposite, such that any one threat can not only be harmful, but also neutral or beneficial.

• IndraG 29 Jan 2023 19:49 UTC

  1 point

  AF

  on: Sec­tions 1 & 2: In­tro­duc­tion, Strat­egy and Governance

  and a defecting equilibrium which does not.

  Why doesn’t this also require coordination? Also, there also seems to be a mixed equilibrium where both players randomize their strategies ⁵⁰⁄₅₀.

  For the Chicken game, the mixed strategy equilibrium is not ⁵⁰⁄₅₀ but more specifically ⁹⁰⁄₁₀. And a mutual defection can also not constitute crash, but instead allow for further and stable repeated play, particularly if a mixed strategy equilibrium is coordinated and acted upon.