Why is teaching people to think like consequentialists a good idea again? Serious question.
If they’re (relatively successful) mathematicians and programmers I don’t see how it could go wrong but I’m awfully worried about some of the rest of the population. Specifically people not being able to sustain it without letting other things slip.
second edit: I should clarify. It’s teaching the habit that I’m thinking about. Everyone should be able to think like a consequentialist but is instilling these reflexes gonna be a net positive?
Why is teaching people to think like consequentialists a good idea again? Serious question.
Devil’s Advocating Here:
I do think we need to not forget that most people’s minds do NOT operate like the typical LWian!
I know this personally, in that I tend to make intuitive-based decisions (and by intuitive, I mean things like waking up one morning thinking “I should eat less meat”, and so becoming a vegetarian for the next 8 (so far) years.)
Decisions I have made intuitively like this include: atheism, vegetarianism, not drinking alcohol (that one only lasted 7 years), quitting grad school, not having children, polyamory, pretty much every career decision, liking rationality.
The social situations were different enough for each of these for me to think that social concerns were not the main trigger, but I somehow feel like I’ve ended up making rational-style choices by following my intuition (and I recognize that I probably just lost all credibility I might have had here by writing this post :P).
The upside of this, is that since I am always doing what I feel like, I rarely feel like I am having to fight myself. For example, giving up meat was amazingly easy for me, because it was like the decision had already been made.
From someone who really enjoys learning about rationality, I can still see how it wouldn’t mesh with many people’s methods of living, without a complete lifestyle overhaul (which is an unlikely result of a single class).
But I do not AT ALL think that this means that we shouldn’t teach people about consequentialism or other rationality topics (I am all about spreading rationality), I just think we need to make sure that we do so in a way that can encompass a wide range of people. First figure out what percentage of the overall population you want to be accessible to, (say the top 60% intellectually, MINUS the 20% most intuitive types) and make sure that your presentations and materials are able to reach whatever your target is.
Your intuition appears to like LW-approved things, and you are on LW. Don’t you think that learning about consequentialism might beneficially rewire one’s intuition?
If you are implying that learning about rationality on LW made my intuitions more rational, then you should know that I made all those decisions long before joining LW about 5 months ago.
However, I wouldn’t be surprised with the fact the LW conforms to most of my intuitions (except the whole anti-deathism and singularity stuff) as one of the reasons I joined the site. I remember thinking “OMGWTF there are people who are OPENLY POLY on here, outside of a poly-specific group!!!” I’m sure it doesn’t hurt that I find rationality and psychology to be amazingly interesting.
Umm, are you under the impression that (the non-mathematical-ish part of the population/anyone) is constantly operating near their sustainable cognitive maxima? So near that adding a nearly-automatic reflex would push them over?
Neither looking around nor introspection suggests that that is true.
Indeed. That would imply that our shared goal of raising the sanity waterline would cause most of the population to drown :)
Mind you, I like that the OP is asking what the consequences would be. However my guess is: more people making slightly better decisions some of the time, and with no obvious mechanism for “letting other things slip”, I don’t see a downside.
What if the problem isn’t that it’s too cognitively taxing, but that, applied in the sloppy way most people apply their heuristics, it could lead to irrational choices or selfish behavior?
People already make irrational choices. I don’t think teaching them one way to mitigate that could make things worse. What’s the opposite of status quo bias? I might have some of that, whatever it is :)
Well, when teaching non-perfect people about consequentialism you should teach them about ethical injunctions as well. I don’t think teaching both will be a net negative.
Why is teaching people to think like consequentialists a good idea again? Serious question.
If they’re (relatively successful) mathematicians and programmers I don’t see how it could go wrong but I’m awfully worried about some of the rest of the population. Specifically people not being able to sustain it without letting other things slip.
second edit: I should clarify. It’s teaching the habit that I’m thinking about. Everyone should be able to think like a consequentialist but is instilling these reflexes gonna be a net positive?
Devil’s Advocating Here:
I do think we need to not forget that most people’s minds do NOT operate like the typical LWian!
I know this personally, in that I tend to make intuitive-based decisions (and by intuitive, I mean things like waking up one morning thinking “I should eat less meat”, and so becoming a vegetarian for the next 8 (so far) years.)
Decisions I have made intuitively like this include: atheism, vegetarianism, not drinking alcohol (that one only lasted 7 years), quitting grad school, not having children, polyamory, pretty much every career decision, liking rationality.
The social situations were different enough for each of these for me to think that social concerns were not the main trigger, but I somehow feel like I’ve ended up making rational-style choices by following my intuition (and I recognize that I probably just lost all credibility I might have had here by writing this post :P).
The upside of this, is that since I am always doing what I feel like, I rarely feel like I am having to fight myself. For example, giving up meat was amazingly easy for me, because it was like the decision had already been made.
From someone who really enjoys learning about rationality, I can still see how it wouldn’t mesh with many people’s methods of living, without a complete lifestyle overhaul (which is an unlikely result of a single class).
But I do not AT ALL think that this means that we shouldn’t teach people about consequentialism or other rationality topics (I am all about spreading rationality), I just think we need to make sure that we do so in a way that can encompass a wide range of people. First figure out what percentage of the overall population you want to be accessible to, (say the top 60% intellectually, MINUS the 20% most intuitive types) and make sure that your presentations and materials are able to reach whatever your target is.
Your intuition appears to like LW-approved things, and you are on LW. Don’t you think that learning about consequentialism might beneficially rewire one’s intuition?
If you are implying that learning about rationality on LW made my intuitions more rational, then you should know that I made all those decisions long before joining LW about 5 months ago.
However, I wouldn’t be surprised with the fact the LW conforms to most of my intuitions (except the whole anti-deathism and singularity stuff) as one of the reasons I joined the site. I remember thinking “OMGWTF there are people who are OPENLY POLY on here, outside of a poly-specific group!!!” I’m sure it doesn’t hurt that I find rationality and psychology to be amazingly interesting.
Honestly, I’m not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that comment. I’m aware you joined rather recently...
Perhaps “intellectual beliefs and intuitions seem to be correlated, which suggests that one can rewire one by tinkering with the other.”
Umm, are you under the impression that (the non-mathematical-ish part of the population/anyone) is constantly operating near their sustainable cognitive maxima? So near that adding a nearly-automatic reflex would push them over?
Neither looking around nor introspection suggests that that is true.
Indeed. That would imply that our shared goal of raising the sanity waterline would cause most of the population to drown :)
Mind you, I like that the OP is asking what the consequences would be. However my guess is: more people making slightly better decisions some of the time, and with no obvious mechanism for “letting other things slip”, I don’t see a downside.
What if the problem isn’t that it’s too cognitively taxing, but that, applied in the sloppy way most people apply their heuristics, it could lead to irrational choices or selfish behavior?
People already make irrational choices. I don’t think teaching them one way to mitigate that could make things worse. What’s the opposite of status quo bias? I might have some of that, whatever it is :)
Upvoted because I rather like that phrasing :)
Well, when teaching non-perfect people about consequentialism you should teach them about ethical injunctions as well. I don’t think teaching both will be a net negative.