This seems more like “imagining being nice to Hitler, as one could be nice to anyone” than “imagining what Hitler was in fact like and why his decisions seemed to him like the thing to do”. Computing the game theoretically right strategy involves understanding different agents’ situations, the kind of empathy that couldn’t be confused with being a doormat, sometimes called “cognitive empathy”.
Computing the game theoretically right strategy involves understanding different agents’ situations, the kind of empathy that couldn’t be confused with being a doormat, sometimes called “cognitive empathy”.
I feel like I… “agree” with the second half of this, except it’s phrased in relation to the first half, and I’m not 100% sure what you mean by “game theoretically right strategy.”
You mentioned wanting to get the game theory of love correct. Understanding a game involves understanding the situations and motives of the involved agents. So getting the game theory of love correct with respect to some agent implies understanding that agent’s situation.
Nod. (I had meant to imply at least “something like this” more clearly in the post, but shipped it kinda in a rush. Updated the ending section to include at least a pointer to it. I suspect there are some differences between what you have in mind here and what I have in mind here but I didn’t mean to imply you didn’t need to actually model people)
(I do think my overall response here was some flavor of defensive, which I’ve learned to be suspicious of. Like it was most important to me to confirm I hadn’t missed the most obvious version of your point, rather than being open to learning some new perspectives or flavors you might have had to offer. I’m not sure if there’s a particular other direction to go but seemed good to notice that)
Yeah, I definitely did not do a step here of “actually seriously empathize with Hitler” (because, in fact, I have limited bandwidth, and the fact that Hitler seems, uh, pretty bad, means that I don’t especially want to prioritize* making a serious-effort-to-empathize with him over all the other people across history who I’d like to empathize with)
The thing at the end is sort of my sketch of “well, here’s the sort of thing it might look like”, but yes in the eventual future where “actually follow through on actually doing the work to love Hitler-in-particular” rose to the top of my priorities, it’d be a necessary step to actually really empathize him, and make an honest effort to learn as much about him as I can so I’m engaging with the real him and not a cartoon I made up.
(* though, note there are other reasons I might want to empathize with Hitler sooner, that aren’t about love)
((That all said, I think I had read the Sarah Constantin post before, and may have had it, or things similar to it, vaguely in the back of my mind when I wrote the text at the end))
This seems more like “imagining being nice to Hitler, as one could be nice to anyone” than “imagining what Hitler was in fact like and why his decisions seemed to him like the thing to do”. Computing the game theoretically right strategy involves understanding different agents’ situations, the kind of empathy that couldn’t be confused with being a doormat, sometimes called “cognitive empathy”.
I respect Sarah Constantin’s attempt to understand Hitler’s psychological situation.
I feel like I… “agree” with the second half of this, except it’s phrased in relation to the first half, and I’m not 100% sure what you mean by “game theoretically right strategy.”
You mentioned wanting to get the game theory of love correct. Understanding a game involves understanding the situations and motives of the involved agents. So getting the game theory of love correct with respect to some agent implies understanding that agent’s situation.
Nod. (I had meant to imply at least “something like this” more clearly in the post, but shipped it kinda in a rush. Updated the ending section to include at least a pointer to it. I suspect there are some differences between what you have in mind here and what I have in mind here but I didn’t mean to imply you didn’t need to actually model people)
(I do think my overall response here was some flavor of defensive, which I’ve learned to be suspicious of. Like it was most important to me to confirm I hadn’t missed the most obvious version of your point, rather than being open to learning some new perspectives or flavors you might have had to offer. I’m not sure if there’s a particular other direction to go but seemed good to notice that)
Yeah, I definitely did not do a step here of “actually seriously empathize with Hitler” (because, in fact, I have limited bandwidth, and the fact that Hitler seems, uh, pretty bad, means that I don’t especially want to prioritize* making a serious-effort-to-empathize with him over all the other people across history who I’d like to empathize with)
The thing at the end is sort of my sketch of “well, here’s the sort of thing it might look like”, but yes in the eventual future where “actually follow through on actually doing the work to love Hitler-in-particular” rose to the top of my priorities, it’d be a necessary step to actually really empathize him, and make an honest effort to learn as much about him as I can so I’m engaging with the real him and not a cartoon I made up.
(* though, note there are other reasons I might want to empathize with Hitler sooner, that aren’t about love)
((That all said, I think I had read the Sarah Constantin post before, and may have had it, or things similar to it, vaguely in the back of my mind when I wrote the text at the end))