Sure, I’ll weigh in, since you’re asking. History, including recent history, is full of people who tortured other people. I see no reason to believe that defining all of those people as “not normal” is in the least bit justified; that seems more likely to be a No True Scotsman fallacy in action. Adding a concrete incentive like money probably helps, if it’s a large enough sum, but honestly introducing money to the discussion seems to clutter the question unnecessarily. Normal people will torture one another for no money at all, under the right circumstances.
This is an astonishing thing to say. You’re so confident I’m wrong that if someone else stated a similar opinion you would insist they were wrong too? What if that person had a verifiable job history as a professional torturer for some third-world dictator? There comes a point where the replications outweigh your ability to judge others’ knowledge of their own minds.
But we’re talking about ‘normal’ people, not professional torturers. I am fairly confident the LW community is torturers-free, DUST SPECKS controversy notwithstanding :)
My hypothesis is that you are making a logical declarative statement, not actually imagining the process.
But I guess if you insist that you are, and if many people agree with you, I will have to update...
Do you think all professional torturers are evil mutants, or what?
I don’t know. I never saw one in my life.
I took this possibility seriously, so I just spent a minute imagining the process in as much detail as possible. I’m willing to come down to a hundred million.
Hmm. Ok, another hypothesis: do you use an argument like “I’ll use the money I’ll get to improve the conditions of lots of other people, stop many other tortures going all over the world”, or something similar? It didn’t work for me, but it may make sense for a stronger rationalist.
Okay! Let’s get a third opinion in here. For those just joining us, the claim (paraphrased) is
Anyone want to chime in on this?
I’m not sure how much money it would take, but I think most normal people would do it for free if it was socially expected.
Sure, I’ll weigh in, since you’re asking.
History, including recent history, is full of people who tortured other people.
I see no reason to believe that defining all of those people as “not normal” is in the least bit justified; that seems more likely to be a No True Scotsman fallacy in action.
Adding a concrete incentive like money probably helps, if it’s a large enough sum, but honestly introducing money to the discussion seems to clutter the question unnecessarily. Normal people will torture one another for no money at all, under the right circumstances.
In fact due to the way taboo tradeoffs work, I suspect offering people money will make them less inclined to torture.
Yeah, that thought had crossed my mind as well; it’s certainly true for small-to-medium amounts of money.
Additional opinions wouldn’t help. I think your belief that you would torture people for a billion dollars is wrong.
This is an astonishing thing to say. You’re so confident I’m wrong that if someone else stated a similar opinion you would insist they were wrong too? What if that person had a verifiable job history as a professional torturer for some third-world dictator? There comes a point where the replications outweigh your ability to judge others’ knowledge of their own minds.
But we’re talking about ‘normal’ people, not professional torturers. I am fairly confident the LW community is torturers-free, DUST SPECKS controversy notwithstanding :)
My hypothesis is that you are making a logical declarative statement, not actually imagining the process.
But I guess if you insist that you are, and if many people agree with you, I will have to update...
What’s the distinction you’re making here? Do you think all professional torturers are evil mutants, or what?
I took this possibility seriously, so I just spent a minute imagining the process in as much detail as possible.
I’m willing to come down to a hundred million.
I don’t know. I never saw one in my life.
Hmm. Ok, another hypothesis: do you use an argument like “I’ll use the money I’ll get to improve the conditions of lots of other people, stop many other tortures going all over the world”, or something similar?
It didn’t work for me, but it may make sense for a stronger rationalist.