Under-acknowledged Value Differences

For example, when discussing gender-related problems, it seems inevitable that some proposed solutions will generally be better for men, and other solutions will generally be better for women.

Even this is too simplistic. Polygyny is better for high status men and most women, and bad for low status men and high status women. (And this is before you get to the evolutionary effects, which are both positive and negative and thus hard to judge!)

I think people overrate the prevalence of fundamental value difference as a way of protecting a bad map of human value.

I don't think we are anywhere near the point where fundamental value differences between men and women (or any other groups) are relevant.

Nobody wants to be oppressed, nobody wants to die, nobody wants to be hurt or sick, everybody wants more good friends, everybody wants more love, everybody wants to be more autonomous, etc etc.

To me, the point where fundamental value differences matter is when you've solved all of that and the biggest thing left to argue about is whose aesthetic sense the architecture should be optimized for.

Did you just succeed in using gender conflicts as the non political analogous example which allows rational discourse regarding a highly inflamed, trench war topic that would degenerate into something worse than a (subtle and cold version of a) flame war if discussed directly? (different estimates of ones type of reflective equilibrium results in different preferred extrapolation dynamic/initial group/etc (which of course results in cases where it can be instrumentally rational for a non perfect liar to believe in false things))

If you did this on purpose, you are my new personal hero!

In summary: No, seriously guys - politics is the mind-killer.

:)

For example, when discussing gender-related problems, it seems inevitable that some proposed solutions will generally be better for men, and other solutions will generally be better for women. If people are selfish, then they will each prefer the solution that's individually best for them, even if they can agree on all of the facts. (It's unclear whether people should be selfish, but it seems best to assume that most are, for practical purposes.)

But isn't it possible that in any given bargaining situation there may also be a win-win solution that makes the pie bigger and leaves everybody better off than the status quo? Discussion, debate, and further exchange of information could at least theoretically lead to a previously unrecognized win-win situation being found.

It's worth noting that the values folks are programmed to "bargain" with may be unendorsed leftovers from evolution. So maybe it's possible to make progress in this sort of discussion if both parties are trying to refactor their values?

A little breath of sanity in political discourse. How refreshing.

Value is subjective. What I value isn't exactly what you value. That's the start of a meaningful political discussion, instead of all this piffle about what "we" want.

And your point about potential benefits of self and thereby other deception in politics makes sense to me, though it's unclear that delusion as a policy will be, on balance, more effective. But that's an empirical and contextual matter, not one that's solved by sitting around thinking about it.

But if you want to talk politics of these differing subjective values, I'd recommend starting with the premise that delusion is at least unhelpful in modeling and understanding politics, whatever use it might have as a tool in politics itself.

I think this goes for "men versus women" less than it does for any other coalitional conflict. Men and women often have their interests aligned: for instance friendships between the sexes are common and family relationships between the sexes are universal. The suggestion that women should form a coalition and seek concessions from men is sometimes called "feminism," but according to this poll this idea is unpopular in the US. The suggestion that men should form a coalition and seek concessions from women is almost never made explicitly except by some crackpots. (I do understand that many people believe there is a very powerful but less explicit coalition, perhaps called "patriarchy"). For flemish versus french belgians, it's another story.

If these are indeed bargaining situations, one would do well to keep in mind the BATNA.

How should people bargain in an online and mostly anonymous forum? A sort of reality-disconnected sense of status is all there is to bargain with, and status manipulation is more unconscious and implicit than what might be had by bargaining. I think all we can hope for is to fight and destroy those with conflicting values in communal status warfare, and then bring back the destroyed as amusing contrarians.

And foregoing the effort because it's unproductive or lowers the "sanity level" is just so very boring.

For example, when discussing gender-related problems, [edit] one solution may be generally better for men, while another solution may be generally better for women

Love is war.

All is fair in love and war.

Individually optimal behavior by each male doing what is best for himself, and each female doing what is best for herself, is unlikely to be optimal as for males and females as a whole, or even particular male/female couples.

Such prisoners dilemma problems are normally solved by coercion - chastity imposed on females, shotgun marriages and continued material support imposed on males.

However, I am fairly sure that were I to discuss the usual solutions in detail, the response would be strikingly lacking in rationality.

Value differences are under-acknowledged because our society makes no real attempt to elicit individual values. There is very little for any individual to gain by speaking about his/her true values or beliefs. The result of such a confession of true personal beliefs is almost invariably that the person in question will be subjected to scathing socio-political attack. Consider the examples of John Mackey, Larry Summers, Dan Cathy, and Todd Aikin, to name a few that come easily to mind.