That is the context in as concrete a way as is possible—discussing what people would really be prepared to sacrifice, versus making signallingly-useful statements. I responded that I wasn’t even prepared to say that I would make {sacrifice=rape, being tortured, forgoing many years of good life, being humiliated etc}.
Okay, you can leave it abstract. Here’s what I was hoping to have explained: why were you discussing what people would really be prepared to sacrifice?
… and not just the surface level of “just for fun,” but also considering how these “just for fun” games get started, and what they do to enforce cohesion in a group.
… and not just the surface level of “just for fun,” but also considering how these “just for fun” games get started, and what they do to enforce cohesion in a group.
Big +1. Every cause wants to be a cult. Every individual (or, realistically, as many as possible) must know how to resist this for a group with big goals not to go off the rails.
Care to share a more concrete context?
That is the context in as concrete a way as is possible—discussing what people would really be prepared to sacrifice, versus making signallingly-useful statements. I responded that I wasn’t even prepared to say that I would make {sacrifice=rape, being tortured, forgoing many years of good life, being humiliated etc}.
Okay, you can leave it abstract. Here’s what I was hoping to have explained: why were you discussing what people would really be prepared to sacrifice?
… and not just the surface level of “just for fun,” but also considering how these “just for fun” games get started, and what they do to enforce cohesion in a group.
Big +1. Every cause wants to be a cult. Every individual (or, realistically, as many as possible) must know how to resist this for a group with big goals not to go off the rails.
The context was the distinction between signalling-related speech acts and real values.
Did you see Carl Shulman’s explanation?