JoshElders

Karma: −119

JoshElders 16 Oct 2013 17:56 UTC
−3 points
in reply to: Viliam_Bur’s comment on: Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013
You raise interesting points. One could hypothesize that the downvoting of the original article was due to its placement in the prominent Discussion thread, and seeing it in the open thread people would have not objected to it there. It seems an unlikely interpretation of the bulk of the votes, I agree. The serious downvoting of the original article does weigh heavily on this.

I think those who answered the poll were probably a biased sample in a serious way. Who read it? People who were interested in discussing this topic, and people who were not AND who were still motivated enough to be here to continue arguing for not discussing it. Those who didn’t want it discussed were probably underrerepresented.

How my reputation went from −13 to −40 overnight is intriguing. It had been quite stable, and I made a few posts yesterday that were not especially controversial. I speculate that the tapped-out Viliam-Bur in his review of my posts downvoted them all. I guess that’s fine, but maybe considered at a meta level gives one individual more power than is ideal? It is of course just speculation. I’m interested in alternative hypotheses.

JoshElders 15 Oct 2013 22:38 UTC
−1 points
in reply to: Viliam_Bur’s comment on: Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013
That’s very interesting. At what point can one start talking about implications of a poll without it being a spoiler?

I don’t know the actual reasons why my original Discussion post “Assertion: a large proportion of pedophiles are celibate” was deleted—I figure the community has its methods of operation and assume it was all done according to regulations. I am aware of reasons that were given in this thread for wanting it removed—though I don’t know the relationship of those reasons to why it was actually removed.

Survey results suggest considerable support in the community for discussing the topic in the Open Thread. A reasonable person might think it would be appropriate to repost that topic in the Open thread (I have the text of my original post). Such a person would also want to make sure that would not be considered hostile behavior, in the absence of knowing the actual reasons it was removed. I also don’t know what is supposed to happen here when half a community thinks something shouldn’t be discussed and the other half is OK with it.

JoshElders 15 Oct 2013 22:20 UTC
−1 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013
Sometimes a sample is also a population. We might not be able to generalize to all nations, but knowing the effect on the US would be very interesting in and of itself.

Other times it seems reasonable to draw conclusions without a sample, if we expect little variability in the population on the measure in question. For instance, if Obamacare has been in effect in Massachusetts for a few years, you don’t say “n=1” and that the results have no bearing on what will happen in other states. You might argue that there are reasons it won’t apply due to differing conditions, but few would say that it is as irrelevant as “n=1″ would imply.

JoshElders 15 Oct 2013 22:03 UTC
−1 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013
I believe that they did look at crimes like murder and assault as a control for sex crimes in at least some cases.

I did hear of a study once (no, I don’t have a citation) tracking US sex crime rates in relation to when the internet (broadband?) became widely available in different parts of the country, finding some tendency for rape to go down after the internet was available.

In any case, those are all helpful ideas for professional sex researchers but go beyond my competence.

JoshElders 15 Oct 2013 21:45 UTC
−2 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013

Other reputable organizations like the ACLU also support decriminalization without thinking about issues of increased demand.

The sounds like you want to think about the issue of increased demand because you already made up your mind about the issue.

I have no idea how your comment relates to anything I said.

I think the ACLU positions is that even if there is increased demand and thus more production the harm that it causes doesn’t outweigh the good of legalisation. Arguing such a position however needs analysis of the good that you create.

I think that’s a fair summary of their position. I (and I think they) would defend the good of legalization as keeping the government from looking through people’s private computer files and sending them to prison for years based on what’s there. Another is avoiding the anxiety a lot of people feel constantly wondering if some download they made might have a bad image in it that they’re not aware of, or there’s something in the background of a shot they didn’t notice, etc.

In contrast, the good of reducing demand is a long, tenuous, and indirect chain.

JoshElders 15 Oct 2013 21:32 UTC
−3 points
in reply to: hyporational’s comment on: Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013

Virtual child porn might well crowd out a market for real porn.

This speculation seems unfounded, considering this has not happened in adult porn.

The production of real adult porn is as legal as virtual adult porn. Since the production of real child porn would remain illegal, one might expect a difference.

It should still be possible to follow the money to the producers. One could consider making the purchase of such material illegal but not its possession.

No. Cryptography and covering your tracks by using anonymization services is trivial.

These methods are available in today’s environment too where child porn possession is illegal. There are still a lot of convictions. If we divide the world into “those who can use tracks-covering services reliably” and “those who can’t”, we could argue that the first group is already consuming its fill of child porn and the second group would be as uncertain in covering financial dealings as they are in covering downloads today.

But to my knowledge, making a video of it which a person uploads or sells is not an additional crime, and possession is not a crime. Consider real, existing video of hostages being executed. People watching them creates the demand for their creation, but we don’t even think about banning possession of such things.

I don’t think legalizing one harmful thing because other harmful things are legal is a good argument.

That’s fair enough, but we can also consult our intuitions about how we’d like to handle that case. Would you with enthusiasm support efforts to make possession of such videos illegal? My reaction is, “Let’s not go there, and just let people possess those videos.”

JoshElders 15 Oct 2013 21:21 UTC
−2 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013
You can run an experiment in a single large nation, such as the US. Policies are set at the national level in any case.

JoshElders 15 Oct 2013 21:12 UTC
−2 points
in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013
Thanks for the explanation. I was formulating a reply shortly after he made the post. At the time, Richard’s post had a −4 karma, so I was actually prohibited from doing so (with my lowly karma ranking). I guess that is the system working as it should. As a newcomer in a situation where most reactions have been negative and none that I recall has moved beyond “grudging tolerance” to “friendly tolerance”, it’s easy to assume that any given opinion might be shared by lots of others.

JoshElders 15 Oct 2013 15:24 UTC
−3 points
in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013
The substantive posts I brought up are about matters of fact under conditions of great uncertainty—for instance, drawing conclusions about a largely invisible group. I brought up the ideas of “civil rights”, “taboo”, etc. only in response to people saying it shouldn’t be discussed here—that wasn’t my idea. And it looks like the predominant view among the regulars is that it isn’t irrelevant to the mission of rationality, it isn’t off topic, and that I am making cogent arguments. It’s to be downplayed because it’s too hot to handle, due to the expected reactions (quite possibly very much at odds with rationality) of the general reading public. I think there’s considerable benefit on being clear about that.

JoshElders 13 Oct 2013 19:29 UTC
−2 points
in reply to: Dentin’s comment on: Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013
It seems we have one key difference. Some of you believe that having this topic discussed in the open thread risks serious damage to LW because of the danger of a poor reputation. I am not convinced of this.

If it is not true, then I don’t think anyone has suggested any other reason for harm. If this is true, then my participation may have been harmful, though the marginal harm from a little more discussion seems very small.

So far I made one post in the discussion thread suggesting some pedophiles do not molest children. Following advice there, I made my next post in the open thread, which is this current post. I made one more post in the open thread titled “Assertion: Child porn availability does not increase child sex abuse”. I have responded to comments in all of these threads. My current plan, in response to community concerns, is to reply in these threads but not open any new ones. (I note that because of my low karma, I can’t see the results of the poll, a side effect of the entirely reasonably restriction that I can’t vote in it.)

The topic of child porn is one of the most socially toxic subjects out there, and even being peripherally associated with it can be a life-ending event. Careers have been destroyed, men have been unmade, and Bad Stuff Has Happened in the name of this topic.

For possession this is most assuredly so. Conceivably it’s so for arguing in favor of looser restrictions on it. It’s hard for me to believe that it is so for arguing against such changes or for being a contributor on the same forum where it is discussed. If anyone has such cases, I’d love to hear about them—by private message is fine.

Your goal is to discuss these topics.

I have raised two specific cases where facts aren’t clear and there are issues of different kinds of evidence to weigh in reaching a factual determination under conditions of uncertainty. Others have characterized this as my dressing up my concern for the topic in the guise of rationality. I disagree, and suggest that the reason may be mind-killer reactions—but on your side only. It’s hard to tell if they are representative opinions. There are many, many other ways I could have discussed this topic not related to rationality, and I didn’t, and wouldn’t.

Our goal is to spread rationality.

It would seem that your goal would be advanced by seeing how rationality considerations apply to any area of human endeavor, especially where they have not been widely discussed before. If rationality considerations could apply to the debate on incarceration policies for drug offenders, for instance, it would advance the goals of LW to discuss them. If this isn’t true for celibate pedophilia, it is only because it is a taboo topic. That may be a sufficient reason, but I think it’s worth being clear about that.

JoshElders 13 Oct 2013 16:44 UTC
−2 points
in reply to: hyporational’s comment on: Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013
Through all of this, the profit margins are going ever downward. Producers want a good expected payoff to cover the risks of detection and criminal prosecution. Market forces should depress production for profit.

JoshElders 13 Oct 2013 16:32 UTC
−4 points
in reply to: pragmatist’s comment on: Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013

I don’t like the idea of this forum becoming a haven for well-spoken advocates of taboo causes (in fact I’m unhappy with the extent to which it already is something of this sort), especially taboo causes I think are taboo for good reason.

Are these reasons because of the damage to reputation caused by the reaction of others, or do you see good reasons for the taboo that are more inherent to the subject itself?

If there were evidence that you were participating in the forum out of a general interest in rationality rather than just because you think rationalists would be a receptive audience for your cause, I’d be less perturbed by your posts.

I participated in the past. I was very excited by the basic concepts. I believe I read or at least skimmed all the major sequences. When it came to the details, I began to have a lot more questions. The interest in the AI singularity and cryonic preservation seemed like topics that were discussed a lot because of the interest people had in them, and did not in any sense proceed out of rationality considerations themselves. They didn’t interest me personally. There was also a tendency for conversations to focus on the concerns of teens and 20-somethings.

I was in part hoping that the insights of people here could help me refine my own thinking, and to a small extent this has happened. Although I do not think as clearly as I would like (and there are probably limitations in my thinking others can see and I cannot), I hope my posts give evidence of an attempt to follow the LessWrong approach that goes beyond merely being well-spoken.

Is there, to your mind, some level of increased production given which it would be OK to criminalize consumption, or do you maybe believe that no realistic amount of increase in production could justify imprisoning people only for looking at pictures?

And can you give an estimate of the probability you assign to the proposition that production will increase if consumption is decriminalized?

Presumably what we want is instead a series of probabilities covering different values of how much the production would increase. I would estimate the probability of it doubling as 0.1 or less. There are, as I said, a number of parameters that could be adjusted. It is an experiment one could try and then reverse if parameters could not be found that yielded acceptable results.

Reasons for thinking the probability would be low is that the production is global, and criminal penalties are adjusted on a national basis. Another is that possession is already widespread due to a perception that anonymization protects people from detection.

Other reputable organizations like the ACLU also support decriminalization without thinking about issues of increased demand. Perhaps I am letting conventional wisdom influence me too much in wavering from that view.

JoshElders 13 Oct 2013 15:49 UTC
−2 points
in reply to: fubarobfusco’s comment on: Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013
I am interested in perceptions of the damage expected to be caused to LW from discussion of this topic and wonder if people can be more precise in their thinking about this. Here are some other scenarios:

If some established members discussed pedophilia and their opinions were within the commonly accepted range of views on the topic, would that reflect poorly on LW? For instance, suppose there was a debate where one pole of opinion was the status quo, and others were that child sex abusers should never be released from prison, or that execution would be an inappropriate punishment.

If some established community members who swore they were not pedophiles held a discussion where they expressed views similar to what I have been presenting, would that be damaging to the community? I gather people have now and then questioned whether adult-child sexual activity always causes harm.

In the above cases, would tagging posts “pedophilia” or “childsexabuse” cause damage?

Suppose a member made posts on ordinary LW topics that were of high quality, but noted now and then that they were a celibate pedophile and would like to remind people that such people are among us all the time, would that cause damage?

Typically in a community the people who care about a subject discuss it and those who don’t do not. If a poll revealed that 90% of the community did not want the topic discussed but a small group kept discussing it, would that insulate the community from damage to any extent?

JoshElders 13 Oct 2013 15:29 UTC
−2 points
in reply to: Dentin’s comment on: Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013
When people say with some heat that they don’t believe what I say about my own actions and motivations, that seems pretty personal and has nothing I can see to do with identity.

“Celibate pedophile” is a pretty unusual identity. I think of it more as a description. It’s hardly a bandwagon one jumps on. If (as seems true) a fair number of people have never heard of it before, then it doesn’t seem like something that reinforces tired old patterns of thought. A far more common identity is more or less “NAMBLA”—believing adult-child sex is just fine if only it was legalized. I decisively reject that identity.

JoshElders 13 Oct 2013 5:10 UTC
1 point
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013

n=4 (countries) is not enough to draw any robust conclusions.

That’s pretty good for studies where we are counting “nations” to come up with our N.

Counting the reported amount of sexual abuse is problematic. It can a sign that people are less likely to report crimes that is in the case of the data for Japan particularly concerning as he suggests: “in these latter years the rapist was less likely to be known to the victim; proving lack of consent became easier.”

He is certainly aware of the issue. I think the passage you quote strengthens rather than weakens his conclusion in that case.

The paper doesn’t look like a regular academic paper. It has no abstract. The journal in which is published is named: “Porn 101: Eroticism, Pornography, and the First Amendment”. 101 isn’t a usual name for a journal.

Right, it’s a book, not a journal. When access to journal articles requires payment, citing them is problematic.

The fact that first amendment comes up in a journal name suggest that the journal is politically motivated.

There may be some bias in the book. Social science research in general is very politicized, and sex research more than most. Since these findings have potential implications that run counter to received wisdom on child pornography, the most eminent researchers who don’t want to lose their grants might be reluctant to do this sort of work. All sex research has to be examined keeping in mind the political goals of the authors, including all the work on the harm done by pornography.

JoshElders 13 Oct 2013 4:41 UTC
−8 points
in reply to: hyporational’s comment on: Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013
First, if this were true, I would rethink my position—I agree it is a worrisome consideration..

I am not at all sure it is true. The ‘ordinary’ porn market is not so profitable any more because there is so much amateur material available for free. Virtual child porn might well crowd out a market for real porn. It should still be possible to follow the money to the producers. One could consider making the purchase of such material illegal but not its possession. Or one could change the penalties to a fine instead of prolonged imprisonment. One could also try various of these things in pilot experiments and see what happens.

All that said, in this one case we go to extraordinary lengths to suppress a market for something. For comparison, suppose someone stages a murder of a half dozen people. No one disputes it is a horrible crime. But to my knowledge, making a video of it which a person uploads or sells is not an additional crime, and possession is not a crime. Consider real, existing video of hostages being executed. People watching them creates the demand for their creation, but we don’t even think about banning possession of such things.

JoshElders 13 Oct 2013 4:22 UTC
0 points
in reply to: pjeby’s comment on: [Error communicating with LW2 server]
There is no edit link when I do that, and I have an idea what might be going on. My karma is no longer sufficient to post in the Discussion area, so perhaps it has also removed my ability to edit the post. If so, this isn’t a problem I can solve on my own.

JoshElders 12 Oct 2013 22:42 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Moss_Piglet’s comment on: Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013
In the discussion of mandated reporter laws, I was thinking not one iota of the interests of the perpetrators of the crime. I was thinking only of the best interests of the children.

There are awful situations, that’s for sure. All I’m trying to address here is the differential between having a mandated reporter law and not having one. Reporting is of course very often the right thing to do, and it will of course be done a lot of the time without a mandated reporter law as well.

“Coming out” and making sure that society can protect itself is the only moral thing to do if you really are sincere here

This is pretty bewildering. I guess you are assuming that I pose a risk of hurting a child even if I am sure I don’t. Or that I am providing demand for child pornography that I’ve never seen or sought out. For those of you who thought it was obvious that some pedophiles don’t abuse children, I guess you’ve now found someone who doesn’t think it’s obvious at all.

The highest ideal of a civilized person is to do the right thing even if it’s painful, and that means having the courage to accept the consequences of your actions.

What actions do you have in mind here?

JoshElders 12 Oct 2013 22:18 UTC
−3 points
in reply to: hyporational’s comment on: Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013
I’ll confess that in this case I was thinking of a 14-year-old girl, and I’ve been mostly focusing on prepubescents in other places. For younger children, their parents are of course much more likely to be involved and key players. They too should be able to get outside help without automatic triggering of mandated reporter laws.

JoshElders 12 Oct 2013 20:50 UTC
−3 points
in reply to: drethelin’s comment on: Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013

all of your examples are tradeoffs, which was my entire point. … you haven’t actually made these arguments you say you have …

Mandated reporter laws and the sex offender registry were intended to be trade-offs, but unexpected consequences have made them bad for kids too.

The discussion here doesn’t even mention the effect on pedophiles. Pedophiles who are concerned they might offend against children with low probability know that if they tell a therapist about their attraction, they might be reported, if the therapist decides they are an imminent danger. Most pedophiles don’t know what criteria their therapist would use, they don’t want to risk it, so they do not seek help.

In some cases victims are discouraged from reporting too. Suppose a girl is being abused by her uncle. She doesn’t experience it as terrible but she wants it to stop. But she doesn’t want to face a formal investigation, which involves endless interrogations for her, embarrassing publicity, family strife, and perhaps sending her uncle to prison for 10 years. If she knew there could be a way of handling the situation privately in accord with her needs and wishes, she may be more likely to report it and get it to stop.

Sex offender registries often make it very difficult for an ex-offender to find a place to live. Here is Wikipedia’s take on it. Here is a specific in-depth example. Once ex-offenders are breaking the law by going underground and feeling maltreated by society, there is less reason to obey other laws too, including ones against molesting children.