I think the notion of “winning” and “truth” being opposed has been addressed by Doublethink (Choosing To Be Biased). As Eliezer puts it so well:
There is no second-order rationality. There is only a blind leap into what may or may not be a flaming lava pit. Once you know, it will be too late for blindness.
To me that post is specifically about self-deception, not about deception of others. I fully agree that once you know a thing, it’s not worth trying to deceive yourself in order for increased winning. But it can still be worth trying to deceive others.
Yes, but you also have to take into account that by adopting this norm, others will attempt to decive you when they have private information. In an iterated game, you effectively end up deceiving yourself indirectly.
That seems both correct and desirable to me in certain scenarios? If somebody can help me win more effectively by deceiving me, I would prefer they do that. Especially when the consequences of “not winning” are severe, as in the case of a potentially deadly pandemic.
It’s a relief to know you aren’t advocating self-deception, and you may want to choose your phrasing in the post not to give that impression. “Epistemic rationality” means knowing the truth for yourself. Been honest with others is a different virtue.
That said, I think telling the truth almost always does more good than harm, and my policy is to only lie to defend myself or others from violence. In this particular case, I don’t see how the CDC post is going to hurt the average person, since the readers are not average people, but LW community.
I think the notion of “winning” and “truth” being opposed has been addressed by Doublethink (Choosing To Be Biased). As Eliezer puts it so well:
To me that post is specifically about self-deception, not about deception of others. I fully agree that once you know a thing, it’s not worth trying to deceive yourself in order for increased winning. But it can still be worth trying to deceive others.
Yes, but you also have to take into account that by adopting this norm, others will attempt to decive you when they have private information. In an iterated game, you effectively end up deceiving yourself indirectly.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xdwbX9pFEr7Pomaxv/meta-honesty-firming-up-honesty-around-its-edge-cases (also by Eliezer) is closer to what I was actually trying to express.
That seems both correct and desirable to me in certain scenarios? If somebody can help me win more effectively by deceiving me, I would prefer they do that. Especially when the consequences of “not winning” are severe, as in the case of a potentially deadly pandemic.
It’s a relief to know you aren’t advocating self-deception, and you may want to choose your phrasing in the
post not to give that impression. “Epistemic rationality” means knowing the truth for yourself. Been honest with others is a different virtue.
That said, I think telling the truth almost always does more good than harm, and my policy is to only lie to defend myself or others from violence. In this particular case, I don’t see how the CDC post is going to hurt the average person, since the readers are not average people, but LW community.