Glad you enjoyed!
Let me send a PM regarding a dialogue…
Lyrongolem
Karma: 173
But point 3 was already a counterfactual by your own formulation of it.
Well, no, it’s not. Because I am speaking about future events (ie: should we give aid or not), not past events.
I suppose that if you are convinced that Ukraine is going to win, then a marginal increase in aid is expected to shorten the war, but there is no reason to suspect that proponents of point 3 mean are referring to marginal adjustments in the amount of help
I’m not. Current battlefield conditions suggest that the war will be a protracted stalemate favoring Russia absent strategically meaningful aid. And by strategically meaningful I mean either providing capabilities that allow retaking of territory or negating a long term weakness (say, shell or manpower shortages). But I digress. In any case, I’m arguing from the perspective of military capability, not as an expert, but as someone who is familiar with expert arguments (I could cite, for instance, oryx, the Insititute for the study of war, Perun, etc). Basic understanding of battlefield dynamics and conditions at a strategic level.
From the standpoint of someone like Vivek — or for that matter from the standpoint of someone who understands how present resources can be converted into revenue streams and vice versa — additional donations to the war effort do constitute an intensification of aid, even if the rate of resource transfers remain the same.
And here again… this doesn’t really address my point, mainly that statements 2 and 3 are essentially statements about relative strategic capability between two state actors, and this is neither domain level expert knowledge nor exceedingly complicated. You cannot argue, for instance, that the US does not have transatlantic power projection (aircraft carriers say hello). In the same way, you cannot argue Russia has a capability to win a quick and decisive war over Ukraine without western aid, because we saw them fail. Empirically speaking they lack a capability, and everyone who follows the conflict is aware of this.
Supposing for the sake of argument that his analysis is conventionally unqualified, it does not imply that he has insufficient evidence to hold the position he does.
I feel like we’re going in circles now. It could be that I failed to make my points clearly, or you failed to understand them. But in any case my position is that matters of historical military capability (note historical: as in past tense, already occurred) is not up for debate. 2) and 3) fly in the face of it.
In any case I think this is a good place to discontinue, I don’t think we’re getting any benefit from further discussion.
I understand how you use the terms, but my point is that Vivek does not in fact demonstrate the information gap you impute to him. I am confident he would be easily able to address your objections.
Ok. Let me address this then.
The fact that the war has persisted for so long seems sufficient proof that, in the absence of the aid, Ukraine would have quickly surrendered or at worst suffered a quick defeat. In either case, the war would have been shorter. Point 3 is unambiguously correct, and even most people on your side of the issue would agree with that (ie. they believe that a large part of the reason Ukraine has been able to fight so long has been the aid)
I’ll contend this is either part of an information gap or a very strange interpretation of events.
Consider the following series of statements: As the Russian army has more mass and equipment than the Baltic states, the Russians can take the Baltics whenever they please. Therefore, it’s inevitable that Russia will emerge victorious, and defending the Baltics is pointless.
On paper, this would seem to be roughly accurate, except of course it completely ignores the NATO intervention which will likely happen, NATO troops forward positioned in the Baltics, as well as Russia’s existing commitments in Ukraine.
In much the same way, saying that ‘Ukraine would have quickly surrendered or suffered a quick defeat’ is only correct in counterfactual realities. You could of course argue that if the West did not help Ukraine structure it’s military prior to the invasion, no help of any kind was delivered (even from Eastern Europe) during the invasion, and magically granted Putin infinite domestic popularity, the war would’ve ended quickly. But at that point we are living in a different reality. A reality where Russia actually had the capability for a Desert Storm esque operation.
This is, to the best of my knowledge, not even something the realists argued after the initial invasion failed. While prior to the invasion this was the narrative, afterwards this was clearly shown to be false.
Western aid did not intensify to a meaningfully significant degree prior to the battle of Kyiv, which was Russia’s only hope of a ‘quick victory’. While stingers, NLAWs, and other anti tank equipment was useful, the West primarily aimed to supply Ukraine for the purposes of a protracted insurgency, not a conventional war. We did not see deliveries of heavy equipment, and even now we’re still waiting on F-16s.
The results of Western aid have also been mixed. While humanitarian and financial support has allowed the Ukranian state and economy to continue on life support, we see that much of NATO’s doctrine does not apply in Ukraine, as Ukraine doesn’t have the air superiority necessary for combined arms operations. Some systems, like air defense, HIGHMARS, and long range strike missiles (Storm Shadow, ATACAMS) have played a key role, but they neither provided a decisive strategic advantage nor negated one on the part of the Russians. (partly because they were delivered in insufficient quantities) You can argue that Ukraine would suffer greatly if they lacked these options, but arguing they would’ve suffered quick, decisive defeat runs completely contradictory to reality, as they lacked these capabilities prior to the push on Kyiv and survived anyhow. (if you want to argue Russia ‘wins’ a quick and decisive victory without taking Kyiv or holding most of Ukraine’s territory, be my guest, but I think we can both agree that would be ridiculous)
Overall, if Russia had shown a capability to win (the VKS secures air dominance, Russian logistics could secure a sustained push deep into the Ukranian heartland, Russian deployments significantly exceeded Ukraine’s mobilization pool) you may have a case Ukraine would’ve lost quickly. But anybody who has observed the retreat from Kyiv can understand that Russia simply doesn’t have that capability. They are not the U.S military, and the VKS is not the USAF. They do not have the air superiority necessary for blitzkrieg. This war is primarily an attritional battle, and if Ukraine’s effort did not collapse prior to delivery of NATO aid it’s rather contradictory to argue they would collapse immediately after. (indeed, they performed well on the Kharkiv counteroffensive while aid was still ramping up)
I believe this to be a part of an information gap. Not understanding Russia and Ukraine’s true military capabilities. (understanding them is, of course, a key part of any geopolitical judgement, since otherwise you cannot tell whether a side is on the brink of defeat or victory). If Vivek was not aware of this gap, then he made an unqualified analysis, and if he was then his analysis is clearly wrong.
The realists argue that regardless of Ukraine’s military potential Ukranian statehood is not a relevant concern, and should be handed over to Russia (likely along with Eastern Europe to broker an alliance against China). Even this aside, they do not believe Russia has a decisive capability advantage. Only an attritional advantage. Thus they can believe 2) and 3), but only assuming the absence of aid. I thus don’t believe Vivek is actually arguing for the realist position, but if you believe he is feel free to find sources. I have not seen any indication of this being the case.
Yes. This analysis primarily applies to low information environments (like the lay circuits I participated in). I would not use this on for example, the national circuit.
Sort of, but you’re missing my main point, which is simply that what Vivek did is not actually dark arts, and that what you are doing is. His arguments, as you summarised them into bullet points, are topical and in good faith. They are at worst erroneous and not an example of bullshitting.
Ah, ok. Allow me a clarification then.
In typical terms, ultra-BS is lying. (as in, you know you are wrong and speak as if you’re right anyways). In my view, however, there’s also an extension to that. If you are aware that you don’t have knowledge on a topic and make wild assertions anyhow to support a narrative (say, if I declared that Kremlin whisperers are considering a coup against Putin) I would also be ‘BS-ing’. I’m not lying in the traditional sense, as it’s certainly possible I’m correct (however unlikely). But if I clearly don’t have information then I can’t act as if I do. Thus I’d consider some ‘erroneous’ arguments by Vivek to be bullshit, because it displays an information gap I have trouble believing he wasn’t aware of.
So, in the interest of clarity. Consider again the points Vivek made:
Aid doesn’t serve American interests
The war effort is doomed
Aid prolongs the war (a peace deal is better)
My assessment of 1) is still the same, although you’re right. It’s possible Vivek has different politics. So I’m comfortable believing this is merely erroneous rather than bullshit. The same cannot be said for 2) and 3), however.
To say that aid doesn’t serve American interests legitimately is a qualified assessment. You must have an understanding of American interests, and the specific geopolitical situation at hand. That by proxy means an understanding of Ukraine, it’s geopolitical significance, it’s battlefield dynamics and how an outcome of the war may effect the U.S. If you do not understand geopolitics, and simply cherrypick arguments, I’d contend that you’re still using ultra-BS, because even though yourover all point is legitimate the process you used to defend it is not.
With knowledge about the specific situation in Ukraine, you cannot reasonably believe 2) and 3). In effect, it ignores defense economics, long run battlefield outcomes, historical precedent, and a variety of other things which is a prerequisite for making a proper geopolitical argument.
Imagine for example of an anti war protestor arguing that the U.S should withdraw from Vietnam because
It doesn’t serve American interests
The U.S, in pure military terms, is losing the war
Ho Chi Minh was legitimately democratic
I would believe this argument is ‘BS’, as said protestor clearly doesn’t understand the Vietnam war, regardless of whether his geopolitics are correct. He is applying (or more likely, borrowing) analysis he didn’t critically think about to a situation he doesn’t understand. The U.S was clearly not losing the war in military terms, as we can observe with casualty figures. Ho Chi Minh’s multiple antidemocratic practices (intimidating voters, purging opposition) are likewise also ignored.
Much the same with Vivek. Either he had the necessary information to make a qualified analysis, or he did not. I find it implausible he studied the issue and still had an information gap. On the contrary, if he analyzed the situation without first studying it (which I find more likely) it would also be ‘BS’.
Is my position more clear now?
Have you given even a moment’s thought to what Vivek might say in response to your objections? I get the impression that you haven’t, and that you know essentially nothing about the views of the opposing side on this issue.
Well… yes. It’s essentially covered by what I went over. In my view at least, me and Vivek have a narrative disagreement, as opposed to a dispute over a single set or series of facts. In any case, I imagine the points of contest would be
The benefit of Ukraine aid for US foreign policy
The costs imposed on the US
Moral concerns with more vague ideas like ‘supporting democracy’
There’s many rebuttals I could foresee him giving, such as poor battlefield outcomes in Ukraine, relatively more pressing domestic concerns at home, or some variation of realist foreign policy values. In any case I find those arguments unconvincing, which I’ve tried to articulate.
I could respond to your arguments, but then I doubt it’s much use to explain my position on books I haven’t read and thinkers I’m not familiar with. I’m still not entirely sure what exactly you’re arguing for, only that you believe my argument is wrong. Can you present a coherent narrative independently rather than simply citing people?
In the interests of moving forward the discussion, let me try to summarize what I feel you’ve attempted to communicate.
Continued efforts by the Ukranian military and state are likely doomed to fail
Aiding Ukraine does not meaningfully diminish the threat to eastern europe or europe in general
Finland’s Accession to NATO was not a meaningful security dilemma for Russia, but Ukraine is
Historically speaking, it would have been better for Great Britain to make peace with Hitler. Appeasement is a viable strategy.
Is this correct? I am comfortable having a longer discussion if you like, but then it’s not a focus of this post, only a subpoint. If you’d like to have a debate in private messages I’m open, but otherwise I think I’ve answered your main question. Yes, I did consider counterarguments and competing narratives. I commonly do so in regular debate. I did not find them convincing.
Mhm, yes! Of course.
So, this may seem surprising, but I’d consider Dark Arts to be a negligible part of me being undefeated. At least, in the sense that I could’ve easily used legitimate arguments and rebuttals instead to the same effect.
As you might already know, lay judges tend to judge far more based off speaking skill, confidence, body language, and factors other than the actual content of the argument. In that sense being the better debater usually gets you a win, regardless of the content of your argument, since the judge can’t follow anything except for the most apparent ‘wins’ and ‘losses’ on either side. All else being equal (and in debate, it usually is, since debaters usually steal good arguments until everyone is running similar cases) we should expect the better debater to win.
So why use the Dark Arts? Well… it may sound a little disappointing, but really, it’s just laziness. Neither me nor my partner wanted to go through the trouble of researching a good case. I had college apps, among other things, and he had his own commitments. The ability to BS my way out of an impossible situation thus allows me to skimp out on prep time in favor of arguing on the fly. Did this make me a ‘better’ debater? Kind’ve, in the sense that I can do far more with far less strong of a case, but then at the same time I’d much rather run a bulletproof case (only, of course, if I didn’t have to research it myself). The Dark arts saved my ass in this situation, since my case was garbage, but if I knew ahead of time I couldn’t use them I’d have just made a good case instead.
I still think the concept is helpful, which is why I’ve posted it, but if your goal is to maximize your debate victories rather than time spent prepping, I’d recommend you just do more prep and speaking drills. It tends to pay off. The Dark Arts is not your first choice for consistent, high level victories.
Hm? Is it? Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but in my experience flow judges (who tend to be debaters) tend to grade more on the quality of the arguments as opposed to the quality of the evidence. If you raise a sound rebuttal to a good argument it doesn’t score, but if you fail to rebut a bad argument it’s still points in your favor.
Is it different in college?
Mhm, yes
I think society has a long way to go before we reach workable consensus on important issues again.
That said, while I don’t have an eye on solutions, I do believe I can elaborate a bit on what caused the problem, in ways I don’t usually see discussed in public discourse. But that’s a separate topic for a separate post, in my view. I’m completely open to continuing this conversation within private messages if you like though.
Thanks for reading!
After reading this and your dialogue with Isusr, it seems that Dark Arts arguments are logically consistent and that the most effective way to rebut them is not to challenge them directly in the issue.
Not quite. As I point out with my example of ‘ultra-BS’, much of the Dark Arts as we see in politics is easily rebuttable by specific evidence. It’s just simply not time efficient in most formats.
jimmy and madasario in the comments asked for a way to detect stupid arguments. My current answer to that is “take the argument to its logical conclusion, check whether the argument’s conclusion accurately predicts reality, and if it doesn’t, it’s probably wrong”
Mhm, yes. I think this is a helpful heuristic. I thought of it, but neglected to mention. Thank you for the addition! I think people will find it helpful.
(though, I must caution, many people have rather misinformed models of how the world works, so this may or may not be helpful depending on who specifically is using this heuristic)
Thanks for the update! I think this is probably something important to take into consideration when evaluating ASI arguments.
That said, I think we’re starting to stray from the original topic of the Dark Arts, as we’re focusing more on ASI specifically rather than the Dark Arts element of it. In the interest of maintaining discussion focus on this post, would you agree to continuing AGI discussion in private messages?
It’s funny, I’m pretty familiar with this level of analysis, but I still notice myself thinking a little differently about the bookstore guy in light of what you’ve said here. I know people do the unbalancing thing you’re talking about. (Heck, I used to quite a lot! And probably still do in ways I haven’t learned to notice. Charisma is a hell of a drug when you’re chronically nervous!) But I didn’t think to think of it in these terms. Now I’m reflecting on the incident and noticing “Oh, yeah, okay, I can pinpoint a bunch of tiny details when I think of it this way.”
Glad you appreciated my analysis!
The fact that I couldn’t tell whether any of these were “ultra-BS” is more the central point to me.
Hm… I think we may have miscommunicated somewhere. From what I understand at least, what you saw was distinctly not ‘ultra-BS’ as I envision it.
In persuasion, students of rhetoric generally classify two types of persuasive styles, ‘central’ and ‘peripheral’, route, specifically. Whereas central route persuasion focuses more on overt appeals to logic, peripheral route focuses more on other factors. Consider, for instance, the difference between an advertisement extolling the nutritional benefits of their drink, as opposed to an ad for the same company showing a half naked girl sampling it. Both aim to ‘convince’ the consumer to buy their product, except one employs a much different strategy than the other.
More generally, central route persuasion is explicit. We want you to convince you of ‘X’, here are the arguments for ‘X’. The drink is nutritious and good for your health, you should Buy the Drink. Peripheral route persuasion is more implicit, though at times it’s no less subtle. This pretty and sexually appealing girl loves this drink, why don’t you? Doesn’t evolution make you predisposed to trust pretty people? Wouldn’t you want to be more like them? Buy the drink
I consider ultra-BS a primarily ‘central route’ argument, as the practitioner uses explicit reasoning to support explicit narrative arguments. It’s often ill intentioned sure, and clearly motivated, intellectually dishonest reasoning, but that’s besides the point. It still falls under the category of ‘central route’ arguments.
Putting someone off balance, on the other hand, is more ‘peripheral route’ persuasion. There’s far more emphasis on the implicit messaging. You don’t know what you’re doing, do you? Trust me instead, come on.
In the case of your atheist friend, it’s not really possible to tell what persuasion technique they used, because it wasn’t really clear. But the indicators you received were accurate, because under those conditions he would be incentivized to use dishonest techniques like ultra-BS. That’s not to say, however, that they did use ultra-BS!
In that sense, I think I might conclude that your implicit primers and vibes are very good at detecting implicit persuasion, which typically but not always has a correlation with dark artsy techniques. Dark Arts often relies on implicit messaging, because if the message were explicit (see with sexual advertising techniques) it would be, well… ridiculous. (’So I should buy your product just because one pretty person drunk it? What kinda logic is that?)
However, ‘ultra-BS’ is an explicit technique, which is why I believe your typical indicators failed. You saw the indicators for what you’re used to associating with ‘honest discussion’, indicators like evidence, a coherent narrative, and good presentation skills. In a interpersonal setting, these indicators likely would’ve been sufficient. Not so in politics.
That said...
If I could trouble you to name it: Is there a more everyday kind of example of ultra-BS? Not in debate or politics?
This is a bit hard, since ‘ultra-BS’ is a technique designed for the environment of politics by a special kind of dishonest people. Regular people tend to be intellectually honest. You won’t see them support a policy one moment and oppose it the same evening. You also don’t see them wielding more sophisticated evidences and proofs in daily discussion, which is why we see ‘ultra-BS’ far less often in everyday life. If someone is pulling out evidence at all chances are they’ve already ‘won’ the argument. Regular people also tend to have far less stake/interest in their political positions, unlike say, debaters or politicians. The incentives and structure of the format is different.
The most similar example I can think of off the top of my head is a spat between domestic partners. Say, Alice and Bob.
Alice: You never take out the trash (evidence), look after the kids (evidence), or say you care about me (evidence). And now you’ve forgotten about our anniversary? (evidence) How dare you?? Do you really care about me? (narrative: Bob doesn’t care about Alice)
But then, this isn’t a perfect fit for ultra-BS, since 1) Alice isn’t necessarily aware she’s overgeneralizing 2) Alice doesn’t care about the specific examples she uses, she’s just as likely responding to a ‘vibe’ of laziness or lack of care from her partner. 3) The evidence is well… not very sophisticated.
But it general, I guess it’s similar in that Alice is supporting a dubious narrative with credible evidence (a pretty general summary of ‘ultra-BS’). Sure, Bob did do all these things, and probably cares for Alice in other ways which she isn’t acknowledging (or who knows, maybe he really doesn’t care about Alice).
Is this example satisfying?
Thanks for the response in any case, I really enjoy these discussions! Would you like to do a dialogue sometime?
So I think what you are saying is an ultra-BS argument is one that you know is obviously wrong.
Yep, pretty much. Part of the technique is knowing the ins and outs of our own argument. As I use ultra-BS prominently in debate, I need to be able to rebut the argument when I’m inevitably forced to argue the other side. I thus draw the distinction between ultra-BS along these lines. If it’s not obviously wrong (to me, anyways) it’s speculation. I can thus say that extended Chinese real economic stagnation for the next 10 years is educated speculation, while imminent Chinese economic collapse is ultra-BS.
If you don’t know, you cannot justify a policy of preemptive nuclear war over AI. That’s kinda my point. I’m not even trying to say, object level, whether or not ASI actually will be a threat humans need to be willing to go to nuclear war over. I am saying the evidence right now does not support that conclusion. (it doesn’t support the conclusion that ASI is safe either, but it doesn’t justify the most extreme policy action)
So, this is where I withdraw into acknowledging my limits. I don’t believe I have read sufficient ASI literature to fully understand this point, so I’m not too comfortable offering any object level predictions or narrative assessments. I can agree that many ASI arguments follow the same narrative format as ultra-BS, and there are likely many bad ASI arguments which can be revealed as wrong through careful (or even cursory) research. However, I’m not sufficiently educated on the subject to actually evaluate the narrative, thus the unsatisfactory response of ‘I’m not sure, sorry’.
However, if your understanding of ASI is correct, and there indeed is insufficient provable evidence, then yes, I can agree ASI policies cannot be argued for with provable evidence. Note again, however, that this would essentially be me taking your word for everything, which I’m not comfortable doing.
Currently, my priors on ASI ruin are limited, and I’ll likely need to do more specific research on the topic.
Finding reliable sources is 99% of the battle, and I have yet to find one which would for sure pass the “too good to check” situation: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/too-good-to-check-a-play-in-three
Completely fair. Maybe I should share a few then?
I find Money & Macro (economics youtuber with Ph.d in the field) to be a highly reliable source capable of informed and nuanced reporting. Here is, for instance, his take on the Argentine dollarization plan, which I found much more comprehensive than most media sources.
Argentina’s Radical Plan to End Inflation, Explained—YouTube
In terms of Ukraine reporting, I rely pretty heavily on Perun, who likewise provides very informative takes with high emphasis on research and prevalent defense theories.
All Bling, no Basics—Why Ukraine has embarrassed the Russian Military (youtube.com)
See here, for instance, on his initial reaction to the invasion, and predictions of many of the war’s original dynamics (acute manpower shortages on the part of Russia, effects of graft and corruption, a close match of capabilities and tendency to devolve towards a longer war).
I consider these sources highly reliable, based off their ability to make concrete, verifiable predictions, steer clear of political biases, and provide coherent worldview models. Would you like to check them out and provide your thoughts?
You explained that sunk cost fallacy pushed you for this example, but it’s still not too late to add a different example, put this one into Google doc and make it optional reading and note your edit. People may read this in the future, and no reason not to ease the concept for them!
Maybe a good idea. It depends on whether I can muster the energy for a separate edit, and if I can find a good relevant example. Do you have any suggestions in that regard? I know that unless I stumble across something very good I’m unlikely to make an edit.
Right, about this. So the overall point of the Ramaswamy example was to illustrate how subject specific knowledge is helpful in formulating a rebuttal and distinguishing between bullshit and non-bullshit claims.
See for example, this comment
This sure sounds like something a bullshit debater would say. Hundreds of thousands of people dying doesn’t really mean a country isn’t about to give up. Maybe it’s the reason they are about to give up; there’s always a line, and whos to say it isn’t in the hundreds of thousands? Zelensky having popular support does seem to support your point, and I could go check primary sources on that, but even if I did your point about “selecting the right facts and omitting others” still stands, and there’s no easy way to find out if you’re full of shit here or not.
Yes, that’s the whole point. I didn’t think it was a problem before, but now… well...
I think I’m starting to realize the dilemma I’m in. I aimed to explain something in full object level terms so I can properly explain why subject matter knowledge helps discern between a true and a false claim… but then actually discerning what’s true and what’s false requires subject matter knowledge I can’t properly distill in the span of a few thousand words. Catch-22, oops.
I could bring out the factual evidence and analyze it if you like, but I don’t think that was your intention. In any case, feedback appreciated! Yes, this was definitely an issue, I’ll take more care in future examples.
Very nice! Now… here’s the catch. Some of my arguments relied on dark arts techniques. Others very much don’t. I can support a generally valid claim with an invalid or weak argument. I can do the same with an obviously invalid claim. Can you tell me what specifically I did? No status points for partially correct answers!
Now, regarding learned helplessness. Yes, it’s similar, though I’d put in an important caveat. I consider discerning reliable sources and trusting them to be a rational decision, so I wouldn’t go as far as calling the whole ordeal of finding what is true a lost cause. But then in general I’m taking a similar position as Scott.
edit: oops, my bad, this was meant to be a response to above, I saw this pop up in the message feed without context
Understood.
Thanks for reading!
Understood. I think this is a consensus among many comments, so probably something I should work on. I’ve broadened things to be a bit too general, and the result was that I couldn’t bring out much in the way of specific insights, as on a bigger more general level much of this is obvious.
I should probably make follow up posts addressing nerd sniping and other aspects, it would likely be more helpful. Staying within the realm of learned experiences is probably also a good call.
In any case, thanks for the feedback! I’ll do my best to act on it in subsequent posts.
Thanks for your comment!
Hm… right. Yes, I focused a lot on combating the Dark Arts, but not as much on identification. Probably worthy of it’s own post. But my schedule is packed. We’ll see if I get to it.
Regarding defense tools, I’m a little mixed. I think traditional defenses like (relatively) trustworthy institutions, basic fact checks, and common sense are still quite viable, but at the end of the day even something as powerful as current day GPT is hardly a substitute for genuine research. A first line of defense and heuristics are good, but imo there has to be some focus on understanding the subject matter if we do want to send the Dark Artisan packing.
Excellent post! I found the starcraft fairly amusing. Though, I am curious. Doesn’t your analogy of starcraft solve the issue with trapped priors?
Like you said, players who played all three factions mostly agree that all factions tend to be roughly similar in difficulty. However, to play all 3 factions you must arbitrarily start off playing one faction. If such people had their priors completely trapped then they wouldn’t be able to change their mind after the first game, which clearly isn’t true.
I feel like even if two people disagree in theory they tend to agree in practice once you have experience with every viewpoint and point to concrete examples. (For instance, the EA and Effective Samaritan likely both agree that Denmark style social democracy is generally good while Maoist Communism is generally bad, even if they disagree on what socialism is or whether it’s good or not!).
Clearly the rationalist strategy then is not to immediately assume your right (which evidence doesn’t support) but to run an experiment and figure out who’s right. Notably, you shouldn’t be using underhanded tactics!
Like, this seems pretty clearly like a prisoner’s dilemma doesn’t it? You have concluded ‘the benefits will exceed the costs’ without being able to convince a reasonable opponent of the same using empirical evidence, and you went ahead and caused tangible harm anyways. Meanwhile the effective Samaritan used similar tactics to end your experiment before it bore fruit. Lose lose. You were both better off agreeing that ‘underhand tactics bad’ and proceeding accordingly.
Why not just decide not to fight eachother? He starts unions in one developing country and you do a charter city in another. If one strategy is clearly better (which you both seem to insist on) then clearly the winning choice is to stop. There’s no need for randomization or compromise, just moderation. You don’t need to try and actively undermine eachother’s efforts if we expect the results to speak for themselves. Somewhere in reality there is a truth somewhere between your worldviews. You just need to find out.
As long as you recognize potential biases and are willing to experiment wouldn’t you eventually arrive at the correct conclusions? Why bemoan the priors? They don’t actually effect reality.