Thinking more about this, I’m still pretty sure I’m staying in the “boo hypocrisy” camp. But I’d like to understand the alternative you’re proposing, and what effects you’re looking to promote by removing the bias against it.
Do you want to see more hypocrisy than you’re currently seeing? Are you not getting enough advice from people who aren’t speaking from experience?
Alternatively, do you feel that you’re being thwarted in giving advice, because it prevents you from advising on topics you haven’t experienced yourself?
Or some other change in behavior (yours or others) you’d like to see?
For any of these, there may be more direct changes that you or your group of friends could make than trying to change a societal norm which at least some (including me) believe is a good default position.
Do you want to see more hypocrisy than you’re currently seeing? Are you not getting enough advice from people who aren’t speaking from experience?
Ah, that, I wouldn’t know, due to the problem of silent evidence. Maybe there’s a lot of good advice going unsaid. Maybe not.
Alternatively, do you feel that you’re being thwarted in giving advice, because it prevents you from advising on topics you haven’t experienced yourself?
I somewhat feel that I’m illegitimately stopping myself from saying hypocritical things, in certain situations.
Or some other change in behavior (yours or others) you’d like to see?
Mainly, I’m talking about the epistemics here. I think there’s a quick response to hypocrisy, a visceral sense that it means a statement is less true, which is usually not well-founded. It systematically warps beliefs. So, I want to encourage people to notice that and adjust for it to the best of their ability.
Thinking more about this, I’m still pretty sure I’m staying in the “boo hypocrisy” camp.
.… doesn’t that sound a bit like a (reverse) applause light? A conversation halter? A semantic stopsign? That’s how I feel about the way people use the anti-hypocrisy norm—it’s just a “boo”, a tribal signal of who is outgroup. An automatic negative, putting horns on someone. Probably you have some more detailed view, and I shouldn’t criticize you for stating it simply like that, but it did correspond to how I see it.
it’s just a “boo”, a tribal signal of who is outgroup.
Hmm. It doesn’t feel that from the inside—I boo myself and close friends when I notice them doing something boo-worthy (like giving advice that seems to apply generally but which they don’t take themselves). Someone who I only ever boo and never yay is someone I don’t want to hang around much, but that’s different from “outgroup” as I understand it.
Some very specific examples would help a lot—it may be that you’re giving louder boos than I, and you’re just arguing to tone them down a bit. I’d fully agree with that position. It may be that you’re saying that hypocritical advice is precisely as trustworthy as experience-backed advice, and I’d disagree with that.
Thinking more about this, I’m still pretty sure I’m staying in the “boo hypocrisy” camp. But I’d like to understand the alternative you’re proposing, and what effects you’re looking to promote by removing the bias against it.
Do you want to see more hypocrisy than you’re currently seeing? Are you not getting enough advice from people who aren’t speaking from experience?
Alternatively, do you feel that you’re being thwarted in giving advice, because it prevents you from advising on topics you haven’t experienced yourself?
Or some other change in behavior (yours or others) you’d like to see?
For any of these, there may be more direct changes that you or your group of friends could make than trying to change a societal norm which at least some (including me) believe is a good default position.
Ah, that, I wouldn’t know, due to the problem of silent evidence. Maybe there’s a lot of good advice going unsaid. Maybe not.
I somewhat feel that I’m illegitimately stopping myself from saying hypocritical things, in certain situations.
Mainly, I’m talking about the epistemics here. I think there’s a quick response to hypocrisy, a visceral sense that it means a statement is less true, which is usually not well-founded. It systematically warps beliefs. So, I want to encourage people to notice that and adjust for it to the best of their ability.
.… doesn’t that sound a bit like a (reverse) applause light? A conversation halter? A semantic stopsign? That’s how I feel about the way people use the anti-hypocrisy norm—it’s just a “boo”, a tribal signal of who is outgroup. An automatic negative, putting horns on someone. Probably you have some more detailed view, and I shouldn’t criticize you for stating it simply like that, but it did correspond to how I see it.
Hmm. It doesn’t feel that from the inside—I boo myself and close friends when I notice them doing something boo-worthy (like giving advice that seems to apply generally but which they don’t take themselves). Someone who I only ever boo and never yay is someone I don’t want to hang around much, but that’s different from “outgroup” as I understand it.
Some very specific examples would help a lot—it may be that you’re giving louder boos than I, and you’re just arguing to tone them down a bit. I’d fully agree with that position. It may be that you’re saying that hypocritical advice is precisely as trustworthy as experience-backed advice, and I’d disagree with that.