Your analysis of why a social norm is suboptimal is probably correct. Your implicit model of what happens when you unilaterally defect from it is probably wrong. These two facts are not in tension.
the next section of the essay describes Chesterton’s fence. doesn’t that notion directly contradict “Your analysis of why a social norm is suboptimal is probably correct.”?
while it is true that social pressure is used to enforce norms, and a radical may run into this pressure as the first setback, i would caution against the implication that the consensus is the only obstacle to change. social pressure is used to enforce the norm, yes, because cultural evolution has seen what happens when that norm is not enforced!
Radical honesty. Explicit negotiation of social obligations. Treating every interaction as an opportunity for Bayesian updating. Refusing to engage in polite fictions. Pointing out logical errors in emotionally charged conversations. All of these are, in some sense, correct
as an alternative: all of these are making tradeoffs without realizing it. each may work wonderfully in small, high-trust groups, but lead rapidly to instability in any context with a shred of doubt. the norms of polite society (including and especially the meta-norm of having different norms in different places) are heavily selected for long-term stability: disregard this at your clubhouse’s peril!
in general, when someone proposes a new rule, i am very suspicious. it seems that often the rule is a way of enforcing global norms to avoid a local grievance. “if only everyone acted accordingly, then i would not have suffered.” fair enough! and i am sorry this happened! but it is not by itself a compelling reason to change the rules of the game.
the next section of the essay describes Chesterton’s fence. doesn’t that notion directly contradict “Your analysis of why a social norm is suboptimal is probably correct.”?
while it is true that social pressure is used to enforce norms, and a radical may run into this pressure as the first setback, i would caution against the implication that the consensus is the only obstacle to change. social pressure is used to enforce the norm, yes, because cultural evolution has seen what happens when that norm is not enforced!
as an alternative: all of these are making tradeoffs without realizing it. each may work wonderfully in small, high-trust groups, but lead rapidly to instability in any context with a shred of doubt. the norms of polite society (including and especially the meta-norm of having different norms in different places) are heavily selected for long-term stability: disregard this at your clubhouse’s peril!
in general, when someone proposes a new rule, i am very suspicious. it seems that often the rule is a way of enforcing global norms to avoid a local grievance. “if only everyone acted accordingly, then i would not have suffered.” fair enough! and i am sorry this happened! but it is not by itself a compelling reason to change the rules of the game.