I think that by the time you get to asking “is coercion near or far”, you have already gone astray; it seems like a type error. There is no particular reason for coercion, which is a broad category of actions, to be connected to the near/far distinction, which is a fuzzy classification of modes of thought. It’s also a very particular, familiar type error—it’s Robin Hanson’s trademark confusion. I can’t downvote when he does it, since Overcoming Bias doesn’t have that feature, but I would.
it’s not so fuzzy if the dividing line has to do with which of the two main reward chemicals used by your brain is administered for different types of actions.
I think that by the time you get to asking “is coercion near or far”, you have already gone astray; it seems like a type error. There is no particular reason for coercion, which is a broad category of actions, to be connected to the near/far distinction, which is a fuzzy classification of modes of thought. It’s also a very particular, familiar type error—it’s Robin Hanson’s trademark confusion. I can’t downvote when he does it, since Overcoming Bias doesn’t have that feature, but I would.
it’s not so fuzzy if the dividing line has to do with which of the two main reward chemicals used by your brain is administered for different types of actions.
Are you suggesting such a thing is the case?
And, if so, what evidence do you know of for and against it?
Can you give me an example of short term coercion being of benefit at the group level?