Agreed that this is a benefit of what actually happened, but I want to note that if you’re banking on this ex ante, you’re deciding not to cooperate with a group X because you want to publicly signal allegiance to group Y with the expectation that you will then switch to group X and take along some people from group Y.
This is deceptive, and it harms our ability to cooperate. It seems pretty obvious to me that we should not do that under normal circumstances.
(I really do only want to talk about what should be done ex ante, that seems like the only decision-relevant thing here.)
I was coming up with reasons that a nearsighted consequentialist (aka not worried about being manipulative) might use. That said, getting lurkers to identify with you, then gathering evidence that will sway you, and them, one way or the other, is a force multiplier on an asymmetric weapon pointed towards truth. You need only see the possibility of switching sides to use this. He was open about being open to be convinced. It’s like preregistering a study.
You’re right, it’s too harsh to claim that this is deceptive. That does seem more reasonable. I still think it isn’t worth it given the harm to your ability to coordinate.
I was coming up with reasons that a nearsighted consequentialist (aka not worried about being manipulative) might use.
Sorry, I thought you were defending the decision. I’m currently only interested in decision-relevant aspects of this, which as far as I can tell means “how the decision should be made ex-ante”, so I’m not going to speculate on nearsighted-consequentialist-reasons.
If people choose whether to identify with you at your first public statement, switching tribes after that can carry along lurkers.
Agreed that this is a benefit of what actually happened, but I want to note that if you’re banking on this ex ante, you’re deciding not to cooperate with a group X because you want to publicly signal allegiance to group Y with the expectation that you will then switch to group X and take along some people from group Y.
This is deceptive, and it harms our ability to cooperate. It seems pretty obvious to me that we should not do that under normal circumstances.
(I really do only want to talk about what should be done ex ante, that seems like the only decision-relevant thing here.)
I was coming up with reasons that a nearsighted consequentialist (aka not worried about being manipulative) might use. That said, getting lurkers to identify with you, then gathering evidence that will sway you, and them, one way or the other, is a force multiplier on an asymmetric weapon pointed towards truth. You need only see the possibility of switching sides to use this. He was open about being open to be convinced. It’s like preregistering a study.
You’re right, it’s too harsh to claim that this is deceptive. That does seem more reasonable. I still think it isn’t worth it given the harm to your ability to coordinate.
Sorry, I thought you were defending the decision. I’m currently only interested in decision-relevant aspects of this, which as far as I can tell means “how the decision should be made ex-ante”, so I’m not going to speculate on nearsighted-consequentialist-reasons.