The powerful or elite are: fast-planning abstract thinkers who take action (1) in order to pursue single/minimal objectives, are in favor of strict rules for their stereotyped out-group underlings (2) but are rationalizing (3) & hypocritical when it serves their interests (4), especially when they feel secure in their power. They break social norms (5, 6) or ignore context (1) which turns out to be worsened by disclosure of conflicts of interest (7), and lie fluently without mental or physiological stress (6).
What are powerful members good for? They can help in shifting among equilibria: solving coordination problems or inducing contributions towards public goods (8), and their abstracted Far perspective can be better than the concrete Near of the weak (9).
Galinsky et al 2003; Guinote, 2007; Lammers et al 2008; Smith & Bargh, 2008
All I have to say is that when Eliezer’s posts include a tenth as many citations or external links as my average post, then I’ll listen to his snark about preferred citation formats.
I did, at first; and rethought it before I posted. And I figured that the same response was also roughly correct if it was a “dig at Alicorn.” Doing useful drudgery despite bystander effects is remarkable and surprising, so arch comments about someone not doing so would be silly.
Given that everyone around here is usually pretty reasonable, if prone to fallacies of transparency, I therefore assume that Eliezer’s actually giving straightforward applause, rather than being ironic. (If I’m wrong … well, that’d be useful to learn.)
The powerful or elite are: fast-planning abstract thinkers who take action (1) in order to pursue single/minimal objectives, are in favor of strict rules for their stereotyped out-group underlings (2) but are rationalizing (3) & hypocritical when it serves their interests (4), especially when they feel secure in their power. They break social norms (5, 6) or ignore context (1) which turns out to be worsened by disclosure of conflicts of interest (7), and lie fluently without mental or physiological stress (6).
What are powerful members good for? They can help in shifting among equilibria: solving coordination problems or inducing contributions towards public goods (8), and their abstracted Far perspective can be better than the concrete Near of the weak (9).
Galinsky et al 2003; Guinote, 2007; Lammers et al 2008; Smith & Bargh, 2008
Eyal & Liberman
Rustichini & Villeval 2012
Lammers et al 2010
Kleef et al 2011
Carney et al 2010
Cain et al 2005; Cain et al 2011
Eckel et al 2010
Slabu et al; Smith & Trope 2006; Smith et al 2008
I applaud your voluntary performance of work that a less heroic mind might’ve been tempted to think was someone else’s responsibility!
For the love of the heavens! It’s gratitude to shokwave! I can’t do a hundredth of the good ideas I have, and I’ve no doubt that neither can gwern.
If only you lived on a planet where most other people wouldn’t intend that comment (or this one) as pure snark!
I can’t tell if that’s a dig or not.
All I have to say is that when Eliezer’s posts include a tenth as many citations or external links as my average post, then I’ll listen to his snark about preferred citation formats.
If it is a dig, it ought not be. Doing useful drudgery despite bystander effects is remarkable and surprising, and should be applauded!
I think you interpreted “dig” as meaning “dig at user:shokwave”, as did I initially. I think it instead meant “dig at user:Alicorn”.
I did, at first; and rethought it before I posted. And I figured that the same response was also roughly correct if it was a “dig at Alicorn.” Doing useful drudgery despite bystander effects is remarkable and surprising, so arch comments about someone not doing so would be silly.
Given that everyone around here is usually pretty reasonable, if prone to fallacies of transparency, I therefore assume that Eliezer’s actually giving straightforward applause, rather than being ironic. (If I’m wrong … well, that’d be useful to learn.)
At me or at gwern; definitely not shokwave.
Thanks. I’ve copied it in.
I prefer the original format. When pulling a few excerpts to email to a friend, it left enough info that he could conceivably locate the cited work.