Person #2 effectively doesn’t exist. That’s what it feels like to be person #3;
That’s a non sequitur. The fact that many #3 feel like #2 doesn’t imply that #2 effectively do not exist.
for 95% of people, you’re wrong.
I don’t think this is true and you didn’t provide any evidence in favor of this statement. But lets for the sake of the argument assume that it’s true. So what? How does it changes anything? Even if #2 is extremely rare it’s still the best of both worlds and something that we all should aspire too, isn’t it?
I’m skeptical of #4, too
If you apply your cynicism in a less motivated manner, the same reasoning that makes you think that absolute majority of people who think they are #2 are in fact #3, would make you think the same for #1 and #4. Being an actual truthseeker is hard, it requires constant vigilance, constant fight against enthropy. Naturally most people who think themselves to be truthseekers are not them, regardless how nice they are.
that’s not what that kind of social-move-maker typically feels like internally either.
The fact that there are a lot of not nice people who are not event trying to be truth-seekers doesn’t really matter to the point I’m making here. Or are you talking about something else?
It’s not broad cynicism, it’s a particular view of how corrupted hardware works, borne out by small-group politics everywhere. This says that it is strongly favored to believe yourself to be type 2 while actually being type 3, sufficiently so that to a first approximation anyone who believes themselves to be type 2 is incorrect, and that no one can ever verify that they, let alone anyone else, are genuinely type 2, and so must assume that if they appear to be, they are actually type 3.
It does not say that about type 4. The strong incentives/forces there don’t apply, because it’s a more complicated move much harder to do implicitly. It is very difficult to be making a move specifically to grab status by pretending to be something else and not notice you’re doing it, which type 4 requires and type 2 does not. Type 4 is possible in a way type 3 is not; there is no strong force pushing away from it. But there is a moderate force pushing away from that to ‘type 5’: people able to disentangle their reasoning from status concerns and favoring status concerns anyway.
Even if #2 is extremely rare it’s still the best of both worlds and something that we all should aspire too, isn’t it?
No, I don’t think it is. Even if everyone could do #2 reliably, that would be a local optimum but globally wasteful.
What if we rewrite #4 to not require conscious intent? (“A person unable to disentangle their reasoning from status concerns just being rude about X”.) Does that restore symmetry between #3 and #4?
That’s a non sequitur. The fact that many #3 feel like #2 doesn’t imply that #2 effectively do not exist.
I don’t think this is true and you didn’t provide any evidence in favor of this statement. But lets for the sake of the argument assume that it’s true. So what? How does it changes anything? Even if #2 is extremely rare it’s still the best of both worlds and something that we all should aspire too, isn’t it?
If you apply your cynicism in a less motivated manner, the same reasoning that makes you think that absolute majority of people who think they are #2 are in fact #3, would make you think the same for #1 and #4. Being an actual truthseeker is hard, it requires constant vigilance, constant fight against enthropy. Naturally most people who think themselves to be truthseekers are not them, regardless how nice they are.
The fact that there are a lot of not nice people who are not event trying to be truth-seekers doesn’t really matter to the point I’m making here. Or are you talking about something else?
It’s not broad cynicism, it’s a particular view of how corrupted hardware works, borne out by small-group politics everywhere. This says that it is strongly favored to believe yourself to be type 2 while actually being type 3, sufficiently so that to a first approximation anyone who believes themselves to be type 2 is incorrect, and that no one can ever verify that they, let alone anyone else, are genuinely type 2, and so must assume that if they appear to be, they are actually type 3.
It does not say that about type 4. The strong incentives/forces there don’t apply, because it’s a more complicated move much harder to do implicitly. It is very difficult to be making a move specifically to grab status by pretending to be something else and not notice you’re doing it, which type 4 requires and type 2 does not. Type 4 is possible in a way type 3 is not; there is no strong force pushing away from it. But there is a moderate force pushing away from that to ‘type 5’: people able to disentangle their reasoning from status concerns and favoring status concerns anyway.
No, I don’t think it is. Even if everyone could do #2 reliably, that would be a local optimum but globally wasteful.
What if we rewrite #4 to not require conscious intent? (“A person unable to disentangle their reasoning from status concerns just being rude about X”.) Does that restore symmetry between #3 and #4?
I don’t think so but it might, and it does push toward symmetry.