Voluntary self-modification also requires a pre-existing desire to self-modify.
People have motives to increase their status, so we can check this box. Of course, this depends on phenotype, and some people do this much more than others.
I wouldn’t take a pill that made me want to initiate suicide attacks on people who insulted the prophet Mohammed, because I don’t really care if people insult the prophet Mohammed enough to want to die in a suicide attack defending him.
You can’t self-modify to an arbitrary belief, but you can self-modify towards other beliefs that are close to yours in belief space. See my comment about political writers. You can seek out political leaders, political groups, or even just friends, with beliefs slightly more radical than yours along a certain dimension (and you might be inspired to do so with just small exposure to them). Over time, your beliefs may shift.
If X doesn’t offend you, why would self-modify to make X offend you to stop people from doing X, since X doesn’t offend you?
To protect/raise the status of you yourself, or of a group you identify with. I proposed in that comment that people might enjoy feeling righteous while watching out for the interests of themselves and their in-group. When you get mad about stuff and complain about it, you feel like you are accomplishing something.
Thus, someone who responded with a cost/benefit calculation to all respectful and reasonable demands to stop offending, but continued getting touchy about disrespectful blame-based demands to stop offending, would be pretty hard to game.
The problem is that other people only care if you are with them or against them; they don’t care about your calculation.
The second problem is that it can be hard to distinguish these two things. People who have a sufficiently valid beef might be justified in making blame-based demands to stop offending, and your demand that they sound “respectful” and “reasonable” is itself unreasonable. Of course, people without a valid beef will use this exact same reasoning about why you can’t make a “tone argument” against them asking for them to sound more respectful and reasonable.
There might be a correlation between offense and the “validity” of the underlying issue, but this correlation is low enough that it can be hard to predict the validity of the underlying issue from how the offense reaction is expressed, which weakens the utility of the strategy you propose for identifying beefs.
However, your strategy might be useful as a Schelling Point for what sort of demands you’ll accept from others.
One difference between this post and the original essay I wrote which more people liked was that the original made it clearer that this was more advice for how people who were offended should communicate their displeasure, and less advice for whether people accused of offense should stop.
It may have been tough to get the message, because the British salmon example is hypothetical. A real-world example of some group succeeding in claims of offensive might be useful.
Okay. I formally admit I’m wrong about the “should usually stop offensive behavior” thing (or, rather, I don’t know if I’m wrong but I formally admit my previous arguments for thinking I was right no longer move me and I now recognize I am confused.)
I still believe that if you find something offensive, a request to change phrased in the language of harm-minimization is better than a demand to change phrased in the language of offense, but I don’t know if anyone is challenging that.
I still believe that if you find something offensive, a request to change phrased in the language of harm-minimization is better than a demand to change phrased in the language of offense, but I don’t know if anyone is challenging that.
“Request to change” is low status, while “demand to change” is high status. The whole point of taking offense is that some part of your brain detects a threat to your status or an opportunity to increase status, so how can it be “better” to act low status when you feel offended? Well, it may be better if you think you should dis-identify with that part of your brain, and believe that even if some part of your brain cares a lot about status, the real you don’t. But you have to make that case, or state that as an assumption, which you haven’t, as far as I can tell (although I haven’t carefully read this whole discussion).
Here’s an example in case the above isn’t clear. Suppose I’m the king of some medieval country, and one of my subjects publicly addresses me without kneeling or call me “your majesty”. Is it better for me to request him to do so in the language of harm-minimization (“I’m hurt that you don’t consider me majestic”?), or to make a demand phrased in the language of offense?
It would be much better for you to make a request in the language of harm-minimization. If you do that sort of thing often, then it may so damage the aura of divine right (or whatever superstition your monarchy rests on) in that country that your descendants will never again be able to perpetrate the sort of crimes that your ancestors committed with impunity.
I still believe that if you find something offensive, a request to change phrased in the language of harm-minimization is better than a demand to change phrased in the language of offense, but I don’t know if anyone is challenging that.
I see at least two huge problems with the harm-minimization approach.
First, it requires interpersonal comparison of harm, which can make sense in very drastic cases (e.g. one person getting killed versus another getting slightly inconvenienced), but it usually makes no sense in controversial disputes such as these.
Second, even if we can agree on the way to compare harm interpersonally, the game-theoretic concerns discussed in this thread clearly show that naive case-by-case harm minimization is unsound, since any case-by-case consequences of decisions can be overshadowed by the implications of the wider incentives and signals they provide. This can lead to incredibly complicated and non-obvious issues, where the law of unintended consequences lurks behind every corner. I have yet to see any consequentialists even begin to grapple with this problem convincingly, on this issue or any other.
We may be talking at cross-purposes. Are you arguing that if someone says something I find offensive, it is more productive for me to respond in the form of “You are a bad person for saying that and I demand an apology?” than “I’m sorry, but I was really hurt by your statement and I request you not make it again”?
It depends; there is no universal rule. Either response could be more appropriate in different cases. There are situations where if someone’s statements overstep certain lines, the rational response is to deem this a hostile act and demand an apology with the threat of escalation. There are also situations where it makes sense to ask people to refrain from hurtful statements, since the hurt is non-strategic.
Also, what exactly do you mean by “productive”? People’s interests may be fundamentally opposed, and it may be that the response that better serves the strategic interest of one party can do this only at the other’s expense, with neither of them being in the right in any objective sense.
Maybe the most productive variant is just to ignore the offender/offence?
On a slightly unrelated note, one psychologist I know has demonstrated me that sometimes it’s more useful to agree with offence on the spot, whatever it is, and just continue with conversation. So I think in some situations this too may be a viable option.
To protect/raise the status of you yourself, or of a group you identify with. I proposed in that comment that people might enjoy feeling righteous while watching out for the interests of themselves and their in-group.
So I can raise the status of my group by becoming a frequent complainer and encouraging my fellows to do likewise?
I won’t say that it never happens. I will say that the success prospects of that sort of strategy have been exaggerated of late.
People have motives to increase their status, so we can check this box. Of course, this depends on phenotype, and some people do this much more than others.
You can’t self-modify to an arbitrary belief, but you can self-modify towards other beliefs that are close to yours in belief space. See my comment about political writers. You can seek out political leaders, political groups, or even just friends, with beliefs slightly more radical than yours along a certain dimension (and you might be inspired to do so with just small exposure to them). Over time, your beliefs may shift.
To protect/raise the status of you yourself, or of a group you identify with. I proposed in that comment that people might enjoy feeling righteous while watching out for the interests of themselves and their in-group. When you get mad about stuff and complain about it, you feel like you are accomplishing something.
The problem is that other people only care if you are with them or against them; they don’t care about your calculation.
The second problem is that it can be hard to distinguish these two things. People who have a sufficiently valid beef might be justified in making blame-based demands to stop offending, and your demand that they sound “respectful” and “reasonable” is itself unreasonable. Of course, people without a valid beef will use this exact same reasoning about why you can’t make a “tone argument” against them asking for them to sound more respectful and reasonable.
There might be a correlation between offense and the “validity” of the underlying issue, but this correlation is low enough that it can be hard to predict the validity of the underlying issue from how the offense reaction is expressed, which weakens the utility of the strategy you propose for identifying beefs.
However, your strategy might be useful as a Schelling Point for what sort of demands you’ll accept from others.
It may have been tough to get the message, because the British salmon example is hypothetical. A real-world example of some group succeeding in claims of offensive might be useful.
Okay. I formally admit I’m wrong about the “should usually stop offensive behavior” thing (or, rather, I don’t know if I’m wrong but I formally admit my previous arguments for thinking I was right no longer move me and I now recognize I am confused.)
I still believe that if you find something offensive, a request to change phrased in the language of harm-minimization is better than a demand to change phrased in the language of offense, but I don’t know if anyone is challenging that.
“Request to change” is low status, while “demand to change” is high status. The whole point of taking offense is that some part of your brain detects a threat to your status or an opportunity to increase status, so how can it be “better” to act low status when you feel offended? Well, it may be better if you think you should dis-identify with that part of your brain, and believe that even if some part of your brain cares a lot about status, the real you don’t. But you have to make that case, or state that as an assumption, which you haven’t, as far as I can tell (although I haven’t carefully read this whole discussion).
Here’s an example in case the above isn’t clear. Suppose I’m the king of some medieval country, and one of my subjects publicly addresses me without kneeling or call me “your majesty”. Is it better for me to request him to do so in the language of harm-minimization (“I’m hurt that you don’t consider me majestic”?), or to make a demand phrased in the language of offense?
It would be much better for you to make a request in the language of harm-minimization. If you do that sort of thing often, then it may so damage the aura of divine right (or whatever superstition your monarchy rests on) in that country that your descendants will never again be able to perpetrate the sort of crimes that your ancestors committed with impunity.
I see at least two huge problems with the harm-minimization approach.
First, it requires interpersonal comparison of harm, which can make sense in very drastic cases (e.g. one person getting killed versus another getting slightly inconvenienced), but it usually makes no sense in controversial disputes such as these.
Second, even if we can agree on the way to compare harm interpersonally, the game-theoretic concerns discussed in this thread clearly show that naive case-by-case harm minimization is unsound, since any case-by-case consequences of decisions can be overshadowed by the implications of the wider incentives and signals they provide. This can lead to incredibly complicated and non-obvious issues, where the law of unintended consequences lurks behind every corner. I have yet to see any consequentialists even begin to grapple with this problem convincingly, on this issue or any other.
We may be talking at cross-purposes. Are you arguing that if someone says something I find offensive, it is more productive for me to respond in the form of “You are a bad person for saying that and I demand an apology?” than “I’m sorry, but I was really hurt by your statement and I request you not make it again”?
It depends; there is no universal rule. Either response could be more appropriate in different cases. There are situations where if someone’s statements overstep certain lines, the rational response is to deem this a hostile act and demand an apology with the threat of escalation. There are also situations where it makes sense to ask people to refrain from hurtful statements, since the hurt is non-strategic.
Also, what exactly do you mean by “productive”? People’s interests may be fundamentally opposed, and it may be that the response that better serves the strategic interest of one party can do this only at the other’s expense, with neither of them being in the right in any objective sense.
Maybe the most productive variant is just to ignore the offender/offence?
On a slightly unrelated note, one psychologist I know has demonstrated me that sometimes it’s more useful to agree with offence on the spot, whatever it is, and just continue with conversation. So I think in some situations this too may be a viable option.
So I can raise the status of my group by becoming a frequent complainer and encouraging my fellows to do likewise?
I won’t say that it never happens. I will say that the success prospects of that sort of strategy have been exaggerated of late.
Sure. See, for example, the rise in prominence of the Gnu Atheists (of which I am one).