First of all I must say that I do not know if there is in fact a problem on LW, and it is not my goal to definitely say so, I only ask for introspection. There are not enough women on this site to make a proper analysis of how the (obvious) male orientation of some language used generates negative sentiment. However, I think that the simple fact that one person thinks there is a problem is a big indicator of a problem. It takes a great deal of courage (or, I admit, contrariness) to go against an established group consensus, and as far as I can tell, alicorn is not prone to the second. Humans have a tendency to feel protective of in groups, which may account for alicorn’s feelings, but the same goes for the men who feel she is overreacting.
I have spent a great deal of time attempting to figure out whether or not I am sexist. All I can say for certain is that I am able to avoid certain very egregious examples of it. Eliezer recently asked what systemic biases prevent humans from ever seeing really obvious things. I must ask if the men in the audience can be certain that they aren’t making a similar mistake. Most people are unaware of many biases and will defend their misconceptions even when provoked.
To conclude my plea for introspection I will state a fact then ask a few questions. At least one woman is offended by examples of sexism on LW. Is it okay to offend anyone? If it is not your intent to offend, is it your responsibility to not offend or the responsibility of your audience to not be offended?
Again, from a rationalist perspective, Alicorn’s aversion to some oft-espoused views on this site about women and sex aren’t rational and objective in themselves, but subjective views on the rational consequences of the commentary; I.E. - Possibly repelling a desired demographic’s (rationalist women) inclusion and participation here.
So it seems that one of the most rational perspectives on the issue is the question of whether the membership of this site could come to a consensus as to whether they want to harbor some self-imposed restrictions and decidedly un-rational (but civil) biases in order to make that demographic feel more comfortable and welcome? [Also, whether doing so would be detrimental to the overall shared-mission of the site: To deconstruct and address irrationalities within our society and ourselves regardless of how much the process makes us uncomfortable?]
For the record, I am a large black American male, who as both a self-described rationalist and pragmatist fully realize that I have to disengage some aspects of my identity politics to participate more effectively in various groups. Be those politics gender, race, sexuality, political, economic, philosophical, etc. related; Or be those groups different varities of these same categories.
I suspect that one of the best ways we could settle this issue would be to pay equal attention to the irrationalities of the ‘typical’ American Male, American Female, Feminist and Pick-Up Artist communities and sub-cultures and to try to decide in some manner as to what degree the irrationalities in each can be tolerated here without being counter-productive to the mission at large.
From what you said, I assume that you have personally decided to not be offended when the other person did not mean to offend. You say you are “large” by which I assume you are overweight(1), well, welcome to the club. I too ignore things people say (even things which are deliberately offensive). But although my mother’s BMI is far higher than mine, I do not go around making statements analogous to those I put up with to her. I used to believe that the golden rule gave me license to do anything to other people which I was willing to put up with, and to a certain degree, that still makes sense. However, it is rarely my goal to annoy/offend people (it happens any way, but I try not to make the same mistake twice) and as far as I can tell, it is not your goal either. I do not believe that a consensus on how to act is necessary, but just as if someone was offended by my use of the word “retard” I would not use it in their presence unless I wanted to piss them off. You don’t swear in front of your grandmother after all.
I do not believe that we are desperately contrary to each other, but I prefer to think in terms of how I wish others to be affected than in terms of how they should interpret me.
(1)notice how I used a more or less clinical term when a more offensive term like fat was available
“From what you said, I assume that you have personally decided to not be offended when the other person did not mean to offend.”
Well, yes. My acting policy is that I should not react outwardly or overly emotionally to another person’s statements if the consequences of these statements have no perceived negative effect on those things I value [my reputation in my community, my life, my property, my loved ones]. It is a policy that has served me well in recent years. I just wish I had adhered to it in earlier stages of my life.
“You say you are “large” by which I assume you are overweight(1), well, welcome to the club.”
I am overweight, but what I meant to express in my original comments was the fact that my height [6′2″], body size and race tend to illicit a reaction in some people that are in my immediate vicinity that I jokingly call “negrophobia”. My point was that regardless of these socially awkward situations that I experience in events, organizations and situations that traditionally have little sustained presence of black people in them, I have learned to put them in context; To realize that, again, as long as these situations don’t lead to any ‘rationally’ perceived negative effect, I really should not take offense in them. They are a result of social and psychological phenomena beyond my absolute control, but in which I can influence by becoming a contributing asset in these organizations.
[Sorry for the ranting style of this last comment, but I really wanted to elaborate on my views here.]
“I used to believe that the golden rule gave me license to do anything to other people which I was willing to put up with, and to a certain degree, that still makes sense.”
I don’t express these views from the philosophical perspective of the “Golden Rule”. As a lifelong Southern Gentleman, I tend to favor the sociobiological view of “reciprocal utilitarianism” as my personal guide to ethics… I.E. - “Do unto others as what you feel they may be able to do for you in the near future [or so that they may stop doing against you as soon as possible].”
I’m not entirely certain what your “reciprocal utilitarianism” means. Do you value how people actually respond to your acts or just that you are giving them “good” consequences?
Utilitarian theory is the sociological and philosophical theory that all people desire and strive for whatever they perceive to lead to their happiness.
Reciprocal utilitarianism is a theory of social interaction in which you assist others in achieving what they perceive to lead to happiness in the hopes that they may assist you in the same in the near future.
My main focus when interacting with anyone is to ascertain whether they are generally counter-reciprocal or preemptively-reciprocal, honest, trustworthy, reliable and congenial.
In most situations, if these people don’t meet these qualities to my satisfaction, I still try to maintain a higher but minimum level in parallel to them to maintain good standing “just in case”.
If a person does reciprocate and meet these desirable qualities to my satisfaction, I try to meet or exceed their level of positive return in praise, loyalty or material wealth.
So in answer to your question: Yes, I value how people respond to my actions. In fact, the continuous building of good relations and reciprocity [or the disassociation of myself with undesirable and unreliable people] is the cornerstone of my social life; Not because I believe it is unselfish, but because living in a selfish but ‘ethical’ manner has worked for me.
[Note: Again, I apologize for the ranting style of this post. I believe that we may have misinterpreted the contents of each other’s original posts, but I am enjoying this tangent.]
Not to worry. When I started around these folks, I was mistaking their use of “altruism” for what we call “altruism” in ethics, which is a different animal entirely. That’s one reason we try not to argue too hard about mere definitions.
Utilitarian theory is the sociological and philosophical theory that all people desire and strive for whatever they perceive to lead to their happiness.
Who defines it this way? It sounds like you’re talking about psychological hedonism, or something like it.
My personal view on utilitarianism is that most people in our culture view it as valid in their broader context of beliefs and pursue it accordingly. Unfortunately, what people often perceive as utilitarian may not actually lead to their satisfaction.
Hence my writing that through the act of assisting people in achieving what they perceive as most likely leading to their happiness, I can usually extract some level of reciprocity in the future for my good intentions and efforts.
I don’t see any of this as being hedonistic and neither do I endorse hedonism. My personal suspicion is that the exercise and understanding of rationality in all personal undertakings can assist a person in obtaining sustained satisfaction; As well as the further understanding that sustained satisfaction as one desires it may never come, but one can maintain some level of contentment knowing that they have struggled towards some greater goal in the course of their life. Rationality, from what I have observed and experience, tends to foster a level of self-control in a person that runs counter to hedonism.
I suppose at this point, I should let it be known that my new interest in rationalism comes from my background in psychology and philosophy—if it isn’t already obvious from my writing.
The sources you cited don’t seem to support your definition, but rather use the sort more well known to ethicists. The one on Wikipedia does a good enough job:
Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people
That is, it doesn’t suggest what people actually do strive for, nor does it suggest that people are after their own happiness. Rather, it’s an ethical theory for which the following are true:
An action is right if it leads to a good outcome
An outcome is good if it maximizes overall net utility
Of course, there are variations on Utilitarianism and different ideas of what ‘utility’ means (Jeremy Bentham believed more pleasure / less pain summed it up). But they’re all variants on this theory.
The theory that each person only ever pursues what leads to their own happiness is commonly called ‘psychological hedonism’, and is of questionable worth since it’s usually presented in a nonfalsifiable fashion.
I did not mean to imply that people generally seek their own happiness over the greater good for all. Nor did I mean to imply that there was a dichotomy between the two at all.
I keep alluding to people pursuing what they “perceive” as “most likely” bringing happiness. I tend to see people’s perceptions as to what can make them happy as being inspired by their social and cultural influences—Family, friends, lovers, associates, religion, economic and political views, social upbringing, etc.
But I do see what you’re saying—and I apologize. I should have elaborated further that my personal views on the role of utilitarianism in society partially deviate from traditional views of the abstract definition of utilitarianism. My primary usage is derived from Nietzsche’s criticisms of utilitarianism and championing of the concept of the “Will to Power” as well as my views on the individual being influenced by their participation in a socio-cultural system and the cycle of interaction therein.
I will just call my methods of interaction with others, “reciprocal mutualism” from now on.
EDIT: I was mistaken in my use of “utilitarianism”. I really meant to convey the sociobological concept of “reciprocal altruism”. I’d like to extend further apologies for this mistake.
First of all I must say that I do not know if there is in fact a problem on LW, and it is not my goal to definitely say so, I only ask for introspection. There are not enough women on this site to make a proper analysis of how the (obvious) male orientation of some language used generates negative sentiment. However, I think that the simple fact that one person thinks there is a problem is a big indicator of a problem. It takes a great deal of courage (or, I admit, contrariness) to go against an established group consensus, and as far as I can tell, alicorn is not prone to the second. Humans have a tendency to feel protective of in groups, which may account for alicorn’s feelings, but the same goes for the men who feel she is overreacting.
I have spent a great deal of time attempting to figure out whether or not I am sexist. All I can say for certain is that I am able to avoid certain very egregious examples of it. Eliezer recently asked what systemic biases prevent humans from ever seeing really obvious things. I must ask if the men in the audience can be certain that they aren’t making a similar mistake. Most people are unaware of many biases and will defend their misconceptions even when provoked.
To conclude my plea for introspection I will state a fact then ask a few questions. At least one woman is offended by examples of sexism on LW. Is it okay to offend anyone? If it is not your intent to offend, is it your responsibility to not offend or the responsibility of your audience to not be offended?
Hello,
Again, from a rationalist perspective, Alicorn’s aversion to some oft-espoused views on this site about women and sex aren’t rational and objective in themselves, but subjective views on the rational consequences of the commentary; I.E. - Possibly repelling a desired demographic’s (rationalist women) inclusion and participation here.
So it seems that one of the most rational perspectives on the issue is the question of whether the membership of this site could come to a consensus as to whether they want to harbor some self-imposed restrictions and decidedly un-rational (but civil) biases in order to make that demographic feel more comfortable and welcome? [Also, whether doing so would be detrimental to the overall shared-mission of the site: To deconstruct and address irrationalities within our society and ourselves regardless of how much the process makes us uncomfortable?]
For the record, I am a large black American male, who as both a self-described rationalist and pragmatist fully realize that I have to disengage some aspects of my identity politics to participate more effectively in various groups. Be those politics gender, race, sexuality, political, economic, philosophical, etc. related; Or be those groups different varities of these same categories.
I suspect that one of the best ways we could settle this issue would be to pay equal attention to the irrationalities of the ‘typical’ American Male, American Female, Feminist and Pick-Up Artist communities and sub-cultures and to try to decide in some manner as to what degree the irrationalities in each can be tolerated here without being counter-productive to the mission at large.
From what you said, I assume that you have personally decided to not be offended when the other person did not mean to offend. You say you are “large” by which I assume you are overweight(1), well, welcome to the club. I too ignore things people say (even things which are deliberately offensive). But although my mother’s BMI is far higher than mine, I do not go around making statements analogous to those I put up with to her. I used to believe that the golden rule gave me license to do anything to other people which I was willing to put up with, and to a certain degree, that still makes sense. However, it is rarely my goal to annoy/offend people (it happens any way, but I try not to make the same mistake twice) and as far as I can tell, it is not your goal either. I do not believe that a consensus on how to act is necessary, but just as if someone was offended by my use of the word “retard” I would not use it in their presence unless I wanted to piss them off. You don’t swear in front of your grandmother after all.
I do not believe that we are desperately contrary to each other, but I prefer to think in terms of how I wish others to be affected than in terms of how they should interpret me.
(1)notice how I used a more or less clinical term when a more offensive term like fat was available
Hello,
“From what you said, I assume that you have personally decided to not be offended when the other person did not mean to offend.”
Well, yes. My acting policy is that I should not react outwardly or overly emotionally to another person’s statements if the consequences of these statements have no perceived negative effect on those things I value [my reputation in my community, my life, my property, my loved ones]. It is a policy that has served me well in recent years. I just wish I had adhered to it in earlier stages of my life.
“You say you are “large” by which I assume you are overweight(1), well, welcome to the club.”
I am overweight, but what I meant to express in my original comments was the fact that my height [6′2″], body size and race tend to illicit a reaction in some people that are in my immediate vicinity that I jokingly call “negrophobia”. My point was that regardless of these socially awkward situations that I experience in events, organizations and situations that traditionally have little sustained presence of black people in them, I have learned to put them in context; To realize that, again, as long as these situations don’t lead to any ‘rationally’ perceived negative effect, I really should not take offense in them. They are a result of social and psychological phenomena beyond my absolute control, but in which I can influence by becoming a contributing asset in these organizations.
[Sorry for the ranting style of this last comment, but I really wanted to elaborate on my views here.]
“I used to believe that the golden rule gave me license to do anything to other people which I was willing to put up with, and to a certain degree, that still makes sense.”
I don’t express these views from the philosophical perspective of the “Golden Rule”. As a lifelong Southern Gentleman, I tend to favor the sociobiological view of “reciprocal utilitarianism” as my personal guide to ethics… I.E. - “Do unto others as what you feel they may be able to do for you in the near future [or so that they may stop doing against you as soon as possible].”
I’m not entirely certain what your “reciprocal utilitarianism” means. Do you value how people actually respond to your acts or just that you are giving them “good” consequences?
Hello,
Utilitarian theory is the sociological and philosophical theory that all people desire and strive for whatever they perceive to lead to their happiness.
Reciprocal utilitarianism is a theory of social interaction in which you assist others in achieving what they perceive to lead to happiness in the hopes that they may assist you in the same in the near future.
My main focus when interacting with anyone is to ascertain whether they are generally counter-reciprocal or preemptively-reciprocal, honest, trustworthy, reliable and congenial.
In most situations, if these people don’t meet these qualities to my satisfaction, I still try to maintain a higher but minimum level in parallel to them to maintain good standing “just in case”.
If a person does reciprocate and meet these desirable qualities to my satisfaction, I try to meet or exceed their level of positive return in praise, loyalty or material wealth.
So in answer to your question: Yes, I value how people respond to my actions. In fact, the continuous building of good relations and reciprocity [or the disassociation of myself with undesirable and unreliable people] is the cornerstone of my social life; Not because I believe it is unselfish, but because living in a selfish but ‘ethical’ manner has worked for me.
[Note: Again, I apologize for the ranting style of this post. I believe that we may have misinterpreted the contents of each other’s original posts, but I am enjoying this tangent.]
You mean reciprocal altruism. “Sociobiology” was a dead give-away.
Hello,
Yes! That’s the concept! Thank you!
If possible, I would like to apologize for misusing the concept of “utilitarianism” for what should have been “reciprocal altruism”.
For the sake of the discussion, please assume that my original comments have been amended to reflect this.
Not to worry. When I started around these folks, I was mistaking their use of “altruism” for what we call “altruism” in ethics, which is a different animal entirely. That’s one reason we try not to argue too hard about mere definitions.
Hello,
Aye, thank you.
It is a comfort to me to know I can have my misconceptions knocked out of me in a gentle and civil way here.
I think I’ll enjoy learning from this community.
Who defines it this way? It sounds like you’re talking about psychological hedonism, or something like it.
Hello,
As far as I know, the definition of utilitarianism that I typed is in wide acceptance by the philosophical and psychological community at large.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
http://www.utilitarianism.com/
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utilitarianism
My personal view on utilitarianism is that most people in our culture view it as valid in their broader context of beliefs and pursue it accordingly. Unfortunately, what people often perceive as utilitarian may not actually lead to their satisfaction.
Hence my writing that through the act of assisting people in achieving what they perceive as most likely leading to their happiness, I can usually extract some level of reciprocity in the future for my good intentions and efforts.
I don’t see any of this as being hedonistic and neither do I endorse hedonism. My personal suspicion is that the exercise and understanding of rationality in all personal undertakings can assist a person in obtaining sustained satisfaction; As well as the further understanding that sustained satisfaction as one desires it may never come, but one can maintain some level of contentment knowing that they have struggled towards some greater goal in the course of their life. Rationality, from what I have observed and experience, tends to foster a level of self-control in a person that runs counter to hedonism.
I suppose at this point, I should let it be known that my new interest in rationalism comes from my background in psychology and philosophy—if it isn’t already obvious from my writing.
The sources you cited don’t seem to support your definition, but rather use the sort more well known to ethicists. The one on Wikipedia does a good enough job:
That is, it doesn’t suggest what people actually do strive for, nor does it suggest that people are after their own happiness. Rather, it’s an ethical theory for which the following are true:
An action is right if it leads to a good outcome
An outcome is good if it maximizes overall net utility
Of course, there are variations on Utilitarianism and different ideas of what ‘utility’ means (Jeremy Bentham believed more pleasure / less pain summed it up). But they’re all variants on this theory.
The theory that each person only ever pursues what leads to their own happiness is commonly called ‘psychological hedonism’, and is of questionable worth since it’s usually presented in a nonfalsifiable fashion.
Hello,
I did not mean to imply that people generally seek their own happiness over the greater good for all. Nor did I mean to imply that there was a dichotomy between the two at all.
I keep alluding to people pursuing what they “perceive” as “most likely” bringing happiness. I tend to see people’s perceptions as to what can make them happy as being inspired by their social and cultural influences—Family, friends, lovers, associates, religion, economic and political views, social upbringing, etc.
But I do see what you’re saying—and I apologize. I should have elaborated further that my personal views on the role of utilitarianism in society partially deviate from traditional views of the abstract definition of utilitarianism. My primary usage is derived from Nietzsche’s criticisms of utilitarianism and championing of the concept of the “Will to Power” as well as my views on the individual being influenced by their participation in a socio-cultural system and the cycle of interaction therein.
I will just call my methods of interaction with others, “reciprocal mutualism” from now on.
EDIT: I was mistaken in my use of “utilitarianism”. I really meant to convey the sociobological concept of “reciprocal altruism”. I’d like to extend further apologies for this mistake.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/134/sayeth_the_girl/ynt