post by [deleted] · · ? · GW · 0 comments

This is a link post for

0 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by SarahNibs (GuySrinivasan) · 2021-08-17T17:30:43.093Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Did you ever spell out the meta and ask them? "It seems to me like you believe false things too easily. Obviously it doesn't seem like that to you. Is there a test we could do that would convince me you're right or convince you I'm right depending on how the test turned out? Like, maybe you could pick 20 beliefs that aren't mainstream and guess how many will hold up if we investigate closely, together, and I could also guess, and if you guess something like 18 and I guess something like 4 and we investigate and jointly decide the right answer was 15 then I admit I have a problem or if we jointly decide the right answer was 5 then you admit you have a problem?"

In practice I could see this working quite well with many of my friends who ... don't believe false things too easily. And it would be a "look at you weirdly and walk away non-starter" for the folks I know who I think do believe false things too easily. So ??? but I'm still curious whether you did try direct communication about the meta rather than a grab bag of concretes.

Replies from: MakoYass
comment by mako yass (MakoYass) · 2021-08-18T01:43:36.720Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Is there a test we could do that would convince me you're right or convince you I'm right depending on how the test turned out?

We did get to a point where we wanted them to take literally any formal bet to demonstrate that they even believe the things they are saying and that there is a real object-level disagreement, and they wouldn't, anticipating malicious fuckerry no matter the terms. That was where I broke off. I suppose, maybe that was one important piece of rationalist culture they did not have. Uncooperative in engaging the disagreement in a respectful, grounded way.

I suppose it would be more suitable if instead of wagering money we wagered duties, as wagering money isn't really appropriate between friends, and probably makes them feel insecure.
Something like "If your surface reading of this claim turns out to be wrong after it has been more deeply investigated, then you must investigate three more claims. And if two of those are wrong, you must investigate 5 more" or something like that. "If you are right, then we must listen to more of your shit (if you refuse to bet, then some of us definitely aren't listening to more of your shit)"

Replies from: moridinamael
comment by moridinamael · 2021-08-18T14:21:23.152Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Between friends I usually wager a sandwich or a cup of coffee. Enough to make it clear that a specific bet is being articulated and agreed upon, but not enough to really hurt anyone's feelings if they lose.

comment by gjm · 2021-08-17T18:28:50.111Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

"NT goblins"?

Maybe NT means "neurotypical"? or NT as in xNTx Myers-Briggs horoscope personality types? "Goblins" really puzzles me, though.

Replies from: MakoYass
comment by mako yass (MakoYass) · 2021-08-18T00:52:59.422Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Neither of these things, I must ask for your forbearance, it isn't time to spell out the acronym yet, we are working hard every day to deliver the announcement to you soon 🙇🙇

"goblins" is a term of endearment that captures the spirit of unrefined, occasionally ugly anarchic creativity of the room.

comment by ChristianKl · 2021-08-18T11:05:14.451Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

It seems like the individual beliefs weren't cruxes. If you want to convince a person and find that the argument you are making doesn't hit cruxes, it's important to talk to them to understand what their cruxes are. 

comment by mako yass (MakoYass) · 2021-08-18T01:16:51.638Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Update: The goblin sack weighs in:

█████ has safety and socio██████ needs that aren't being fully met

needs to feel safe and so on and no rhetoric will change those emotions before or without situations changing

the more times you run a convincing proof against someone who can't emotionally accept it, the more you blunt the convincing proof on them

If I were snarky, I would respond that they find themselves in a state of psychological unsafety because they keep taking hubristic bets and pushing their friends away, regardless, it is still ultimately our problem to solve.

Another adds

so [mako's] post is implying that [rationalists] should be able to maslow people lmao

I do totally buy this. "Maslowing" is a term that arose at some point to mean: ensuring that enough of a person's basic selfish needs are met, that they can begin to think of other people, the rest of the world, or of loftier needs like self-actualization.

I resolve, this task of providing enough psychological safety to allow a person to admit when they were deeply, haplessly wrong (dependent on others for guidance and correction! How horrifying!), is a rationality technique, perhaps the most important rationality technique.

I find that narcissism is our most common adversary, especially in hyperpublic contexts like the global online discourse where narcissism is hard as fuck to resist, and runs in the water.

Narcissism is exactly a felt need to defend a delusional narrative of perfection.

It is a product of social incentives.

We will improve the incentives.

Replies from: rosyatrandom
comment by rosyatrandom · 2021-08-18T09:33:33.970Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I was already going to respond simply that your friend believes these things because they want to believe them. They have to want to be rational.

As for me, I don't put rationality above all things, because I think it can be something you delude yourself into both idolising and thinking you're attaining; you can become something like a paperclip maximiser because you've convinced yourself it's logical. After having been something of a virulent atheist rationalist many years back, I realised that many of the people on my 'side' were in fact narrow-minded and often heartless gits, and some of the religious folk were warm, funny, and very open-minded; faith for them was more of a matter of how they wanted the world to be, a matter of aesthetics and drive.

So, basically, if your heart's not in the right place, who cares how rational/right you think you are? That certainly applies to your friend.

comment by Dagon · 2021-08-18T03:16:49.327Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Possibly relevant and interesting.  Downvoted due to the feeling that information is intentionally being withheld in order to manipulate my reaction.

Replies from: MakoYass
comment by mako yass (MakoYass) · 2021-08-18T04:17:22.227Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

The feeling is misplaced. Information is intentionally being withheld to protect the privacy of our friend. The story only represents my perspective, after having paid only a limited amount of attention to things, and I would discourage anyone close to the situation from taking my characterization of it as conclusive.