SisterY

Karma: 206

SisterY 19 Nov 2014 10:18 UTC
29 points
on: Neo-reactionaries, why are you neo-reactionary?
Years before I read any Moldbug, I became fascinated with the way that sacredness affects social life and cognition even in ostensibly non-religious groups. Since my work challenged the sacredness of life, I was able to notice how that particular sacredness was (non-rationally) socially supported against challenges, and this helped me to see the same patterns in other areas of thought. Human cognition and behavior only make sense when analyzed religiously, and the neoreactionary idea of “The Cathedral” is one of several fruitful analyses along those lines, along with, say, the ideas of Emile Durkheim, Jonathan Haidt, and Roy Baumeister. Human institutions and behavior must be analyzed religiously and folklorically. I’m more interested in human flourishing, ritual, and cultural evolution than regular politics, but the neoreactosphere has been extremely friendly to these kinds of discussions.

My family and most of my friends are extremely liberal and I was a good liberal for most of my life.

If you don’t mind my asking, when you ask “what led you to accept the basic premises of the movement,” what do you see as its basic premises, and what causes you to describe it as a “movement”?

SisterY 22 Oct 2014 9:27 UTC
9 points
in reply to: James_Miller’s comment on: Crossing the History-Lessons Threshold
From Gregory Clark’s A Farewell to Alms:

“The intervening factor that kept [Roman] Egyptian birth rates lower than we would expect was again social custom. In northwestern Europe younger widows commonly remarried, but not in Roman Egypt. Furthermore, divorce was possible in Egypt. But while divorced husbands commonly remarried younger women, divorced women typically did not remarry. Thus while in Egypt almost all the women got married, the proportion still married fell steadily from age 20. Consequently women surviving to age 50 typically gave birth to only 6 children rather than 8.”

SisterY 20 Aug 2014 1:11 UTC
11 points
on: A “Holy Grail” Humor Theory in One Page.
I highly recommend Daniel Dennett’s (and a couple other guys’) Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-engineer the Mind (MIT Press 2011).

Hurley, Dennett, & Adams argue that humor is not coterminous with laughter, and is very much post-verbal and inextricably connected with the human faculty for abstraction and imagination. In short, the authors propose that humor is a reward mechanism for catching errors in abstractions imagined and projected by the mind. We have become connoisseurs of this reward our brains give us for a necessary cognitive cleaning function. Hurley et al. are the ones to beat and if you haven’t read the book you definitely should.

SisterY 23 Oct 2013 13:08 UTC
17 points
in reply to: cousin_it’s comment on: Is it immoral to have children?
Actually, the first happiness studies that found that having children massively decreases happiness were using involuntarily infertile couples, not voluntarily childfree folks, as their comparison group; the authors were very surprised that involuntarily infertile childless couples were happier than their child-having peers!

A few of these early studies: Glenn, N.D., & McLanahan, S. (1982) Children and marital happiness: A further specification of the relationship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 63-72 (great quote: negative effect of offspring on both marital and global happiness of parents “is not absolutely conclusive, of course, but it is perhaps about as nearly conclusive as social scientific evidence on any topic ever is.”

Anderson, S.A., Russell, C.S., & Schumm, W.R. (1983). Perceived marital quality and family life-cycle categories: A further analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 127-139.

Bernard, J. (1982). The Future of Marriage. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., & Rodgers, W.L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage.

Campbell, A. (1981). The sense of well-being in America. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Elderly childfree are happy too: Rempel, J. (1985). Childless elderly: What are they missing? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 343-348.

SisterY 13 Jan 2013 1:42 UTC
13 points
in reply to: Desrtopa’s comment on: On private marriage contracts
Possibly more realistically, the person may realize—from observing the world—that the only way he or she will be able to maintain monogamy is through social (not just government) enforcement of the marriage contract—not that his or her life literally depends on it, but that his or her social death will result from violation of the contract. And people care a whole lot about social death. This aspect of social support of marriage is already gone from all but a few recent immigrant communities in the United States. Even if marriage were government-enforced for reals, collusion (pretending grounds for divorce existed) and stretched notions of “cruelty” were already common before no-fault swept the nation. The government maybe slowly changes its enforcement toward the enforcement of whatever limping modern non-tribal community happens to exist.

Anyway. People are sometimes harmed by getting extra choices. And people are sometimes harmed by losing choices.

SisterY 13 Jan 2013 1:28 UTC
8 points
in reply to: DanielLC’s comment on: On private marriage contracts
Re: “prenups”: did you happen to read Konkvistador’s links and the other comments explicitly discussing, with citations, the (lack of) enforceability of such premarital agreements? I.e., citation needed. ;)

SisterY 13 Jan 2013 1:16 UTC
17 points
in reply to: fubarobfusco’s comment on: On private marriage contracts
Traditionally, “divorce” was a cause of action with a plaintiff and a defendant—a winner and a loser, an aggressor and a victim—and alimony (in the form of cash payments) was the prize the victim/winner won for proving one of the limited grounds for divorce (generally desertion, adultery, or cruelty).

SisterY 7 Sep 2012 3:34 UTC
3 points
in reply to: gwern’s comment on: Link: Toward Non-Stupid, Non-Blank-Slatey Polyandry
Changed it to link to the Google Books result for “cuckold” within the Billion Wicked Thoughts book: http://books.google.com/books?id=jwU8_m8y5X0C&q=cuckold#v=snippet&q=cuckold&f=false

As far as I know, the book is the only place the data are reported, sadly. I agree, it’s juicy if true!

SisterY 5 Sep 2012 18:25 UTC
12 points
in reply to: Daniel_Burfoot’s comment on: Rationality Quotes September 2012
“Possibly the best statistical graph ever drawn” http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/posters

SisterY 5 Sep 2012 18:10 UTC
7 points
in reply to: Scott Alexander’s comment on: The noncentral fallacy—the worst argument in the world?
In grade school we learn that “X is like Y” is a simile, and “X is Y” is a metaphor, and that there is some crucial difference between the two. Perhaps there is, but I haven’t seen an argument to that effect. Mainly, we call both of these “analogy” or “metaphor.”

So the argument for tabooing The Worst Argument in the World is that, since many analogies are unusually powerful and people may not recognize that they’re analogies rather than perhaps identities, every analogy is The Worst Argument in the World. Even though many analogies are admittedly productive, the class of argument is tabooed because many of its members are problematic.

Doesn’t that make the taboo on The Worst Argument in the World itself a species of The Worst Argument in the World?

SisterY 30 Aug 2012 18:28 UTC
9 points
in reply to: Scott Alexander’s comment on: The noncentral fallacy—the worst argument in the world?
Again, the objection seems to be more about the particular USE of the argument than the nature of the argument itself (what I call above “non-responsiveness”). I would genuinely like to understand why analogies of the kind you call the Worst Argument in the World are so harmful (and I appreciate your engaging on it). Is it your claim that people are particularly likely to take analogies seriously as arguments, more than other arguments? Is it their very power that makes them so bad?

Rhyming and other poetic tricks, like showing a picture, make statements feel more true to hearers; are those tricks less dangerous than analogy because we (think we) are immune to them? I can kind of intuitively understand what you mean by something being a real argument or not (“as an argument”), but I’m not sure why things taken seriously as arguments are more dangerous than sneaky, non-argument cues that make things seem true.

I wonder if what you really want to destroy are “things effectively masquerading as arguments that aren’t really arguments.” That class is not exhausted by inexact analogies (which is to say all analogies), nor are all inexact analogies members of that class.

I think metonymy (association, like eugenics --> Hitler) is a much more harmful cognitive sin than metaphor (which at least requires a theory of why things are similar).

SisterY 29 Aug 2012 4:28 UTC
9 points
in reply to: Scott Alexander’s comment on: The noncentral fallacy—the worst argument in the world?
From that example, it sounds like mindless repetition (non-responsiveness) is the worst argument in the world, whether or not it contains an analogy. What is the special harm of analogy that makes it worse than other kinds of mindless repetition? (Worse than, say, other kinds of seductive, poetic language like rhyming words, a la “if it doesn’t fit you must acquit.”) And is an analogy still “the worst argument in the world” if it’s NOT mindlessly repeated?

SisterY 27 Aug 2012 21:53 UTC
13 points
in reply to: TGM’s comment on: The noncentral fallacy—the worst argument in the world?
Great, clear statement of the position. Wouldn’t the “worst argument in the world” taboo apply just as strongly to any use of figurative language in the context of an argument? Instead of making an analogy, for instance (e.g., “X is the mindkiller”), why not just use literal language? No danger of connotative contamination, then. Instead of making a joke, why not just explain what you mean, rather than requiring your audience to grasp for the insight it contains? (Apparently hyperbole is allowed, as it’s incorporated into the NAME of the argument—why is hyperbole okay, but not metaphor?)

I understand the ideal here. But I think cutting off our own linguistic balls, so to speak, gives us only the illusion of cognitive cleanness—and much is lost. We are not motivated by pure logic to engage logically with an idea. We are motivated by “epistemic emotions” like curiosity and confusion. A title like “Should Trees Have Standing?” is emotional and poetic and could be literally replaced with “Should our legal system treat inanimate objects as ends in themselves for social reasons not entailed by property rights?” But I don’t think the former is cheating, and I don’t think the latter would have been as successful in motivating cognition on the topic.

I would even defend good old “Meat is Murder!” as a compact little ethical puzzle for beginners, rather than the Worst Argument in the World!

SisterY 27 Aug 2012 19:07 UTC
23 points
on: The noncentral fallacy—the worst argument in the world?
Since we think largely in words, pointing out similarities between Thing We Think Is Bad and Thing We Think Is Good requires us to examine the connotations of the words we use. We should be doing that all the time. Just as this alleged “worst argument in the world” can be used to sneak in connotations, it can also be used to force examination of connotations that have previously been sneaked in.

SisterY 6 Dec 2011 19:04 UTC
10 points
in reply to: Normal_Anomaly’s comment on: On “Friendly” Immortality
Feeding tubes are life extension technology and we force those on people all the time. It ends up being really hard to enforce battery causes of action against forced medical care when you’d die without the intervention.

SisterY 4 Nov 2011 19:47 UTC
5 points
in reply to: Jayson_Virissimo’s comment on: Rationality Quotes November 2011

Making a point to show that a point is not a point is not as good as making a nonpoint to show that a point is not a point.

-Chuang-tzu

SisterY 3 Nov 2011 23:21 UTC
11 points
in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Rationality Quotes November 2011
In “Self-poisoning of the mind” Jon Elster uses the Thales olive incident as an example of a perverse cognitive bias:

In his retelling of the [Thales olive] story, de Montaigne (1991, p. 153) explicitly asserts that when he condemned money-making, Thales ‘was accused of sour grapes like the fox’. Although Thales wanted to ‘show the world’ that the accusation was unfounded, one could also imagine that he had made a fortune in order to demonstrate to himself that his philosophy was not the product of sour grapes. Not content with thinking that he could have acquired riches had he wanted to, he might have decided to actually acquire them to deflect self-suspicion. [Emphasis in original.]

What Elster is pushing is that, since we are aware we edit reality to suit our self-images, we constantly suspect ourselves of doing so, and perversely believe the worst of ourselves on very flimsy evidence.