As such, you have exerted that power and control over her
This is a weird use of “exert”, seeing as it is not based on any actions, choices or feelings on the man’s part, but is merely ascribed on the basis of him being “non-feminist” (by which standard?).
Any individual male may well be affected by a wide variety of biases that may impact his relationships with women in ways that he is not aware of, but you have not provided any detailed argument for this. Stereotyping and denying individual choice/agency do not an argument make.
The word control is being use idiosyncratically. In a certain sense, everyone exerts control over everyone in ways that are not examined self-reflexively. Consider the gym teacher’s expectations of the quality of your physical activity during gym class.
I assert that the idiosyncratic usage more accurately cuts the world at its joints. The current usage persists because certain segments of society benefit from the status quo and therefore ridicule suggestion to be more self-reflexive. Consider the standard mainstream responses to a post like “Buy your Utiles and Warm-Fuzzies Seperately.”
P.S. It doesn’t reflect well on advocates of social change when they don’t note their idiosyncratic definitions. I urge you to rise about it and Steel-Man your interlocutors.
The word control is being use idiosyncratically. In a certain sense, everyone exerts control over everyone in ways that are not examined self-reflexively.
The problem was not with the word “control”, but with the word “exert”. eridu claimed that, for example, I exert power and control over my wife, without any information other than that I am “non-feminist” (by eridu’s definition of “feminist”). This is strange, as I would not normally say that X exerts Y in the absence of any information about in what ways X might be exerting oneself.
It seems as though eridu is routinely overgeneralizing and denying differences between individuals. It’s effectively the same problem as gender discrimination, in a different context.
It seems as though eridu is routinely overgeneralizing and denying differences between individuals. It’s effectively the same problem as gender discrimination, in a different context.
Honestly, I can’t tell if eridu is poor at articulating a position I agree with or actually believes a position that I reject. He’s certainly treating arguments like soldiers (which is bad).
I think eridu’s suggested changes have low-hanging fruit that will obviate the need for more extreme changes. He is getting a lot more hostile feedback than his position deserves.
Honestly, I can’t tell if eridu is poor at articulating a position I agree with or actually believes a position that I reject. He’s certainly treating arguments like soldiers (which is bad).
Arguments are soldiers. Regardless of how ideal Bayesian AIs would treat arguments as non-soldiers, to humans, arguments are soldiers, and I care about humans.
But yes, if you don’t think that the day-to-day actions of men produce patriarchy in the same way four fingers, a thumb and a palm produce a hand, we disagree.
I agree that people act to reinforce social norms all the time, every day. But there are facts. If it turns out that men should not be primary care-givers of children because men, but not women, have a 5% chance of murderous rage when caring for children, society is morally justified in taking that fact into account.
But if a scientist reported that finding as an experimental result, they’re failed to be properly empirical (given all the other evidence that exists for this question).
You’re failing to be a good rationalist, because you’re putting some ideal form of “rationalism” over winning in your political struggle. If you have a goal you wish to accomplish, and you choose not to because that would “treat arguments as soldiers,” your self-image as the sort of Bayesian monk EY depicts has conflicted with your struggle, and you’ve become your own enemy.
Rationalism itself does not preclude “treating arguments as soldiers” within an adversarial debate (most political debates are adversarial). It just cautions aganst doing this within individual deliberation or public deliberative-like processes, where truth-seeking efficiency is an instrumental goal. Nevertheless, the social norms of LessWrong do discourage (1) political discussion, as well as (2) “treating argument as soldiers” in any discussion, be it political or otherwise.
One interpretation of TimS’ behavior is that he places a higher value on following LW’s established social norms than he does on promoting his political cause. Alternately, he may believe that flaunting the norms of LW would be mostly unhelpful to his political advocacy.
The following links represent the as-yet-best summary of the sources of my beliefs on this matter. I think they can make a better argument than I can in this comment.
To put it another way, men are conditioned (as in operant conditioning) to emit certain behavior patterns, and womyn are conditioned to respond to those behavior patterns in a certain way.
As such, the expression of learned behavior in men is the day-to-day perpetuation of patriarchy. The fact that no man wakes up thinking “Today I’m going to perpetuate the patriarchy” doesn’t change that.
Further, the fundamental concept of social psychology is that individual choice barely exists, and agency is a superpower.
Nice. It seems that we no longer have a wholly unfalsifiable and meaningless argument. You are now resorting to the old trope that “we” are fully rational and conscious individuals who use reason to actualize ourselves and achieve our moral values, whereas “they” are mindless sheeple whose individual potential is neutralized by force, coercion or pervasive social pressure. I suppose that this counts as progress, in a way.
This is a weird use of “exert”, seeing as it is not based on any actions, choices or feelings on the man’s part, but is merely ascribed on the basis of him being “non-feminist” (by which standard?).
Any individual male may well be affected by a wide variety of biases that may impact his relationships with women in ways that he is not aware of, but you have not provided any detailed argument for this. Stereotyping and denying individual choice/agency do not an argument make.
The word control is being use idiosyncratically. In a certain sense, everyone exerts control over everyone in ways that are not examined self-reflexively. Consider the gym teacher’s expectations of the quality of your physical activity during gym class.
I assert that the idiosyncratic usage more accurately cuts the world at its joints. The current usage persists because certain segments of society benefit from the status quo and therefore ridicule suggestion to be more self-reflexive. Consider the standard mainstream responses to a post like “Buy your Utiles and Warm-Fuzzies Seperately.”
P.S. It doesn’t reflect well on advocates of social change when they don’t note their idiosyncratic definitions. I urge you to rise about it and Steel-Man your interlocutors.
The problem was not with the word “control”, but with the word “exert”. eridu claimed that, for example, I exert power and control over my wife, without any information other than that I am “non-feminist” (by eridu’s definition of “feminist”). This is strange, as I would not normally say that X exerts Y in the absence of any information about in what ways X might be exerting oneself.
It seems as though eridu is routinely overgeneralizing and denying differences between individuals. It’s effectively the same problem as gender discrimination, in a different context.
Honestly, I can’t tell if eridu is poor at articulating a position I agree with or actually believes a position that I reject. He’s certainly treating arguments like soldiers (which is bad).
I think eridu’s suggested changes have low-hanging fruit that will obviate the need for more extreme changes. He is getting a lot more hostile feedback than his position deserves.
Arguments are soldiers. Regardless of how ideal Bayesian AIs would treat arguments as non-soldiers, to humans, arguments are soldiers, and I care about humans.
But yes, if you don’t think that the day-to-day actions of men produce patriarchy in the same way four fingers, a thumb and a palm produce a hand, we disagree.
Treat arguments as soldiers
Claim to be a good empiricist
Be internally consistent.
Pick two.
Edit: Ok, that was snarky.
I agree that people act to reinforce social norms all the time, every day. But there are facts. If it turns out that men should not be primary care-givers of children because men, but not women, have a 5% chance of murderous rage when caring for children, society is morally justified in taking that fact into account.
But if a scientist reported that finding as an experimental result, they’re failed to be properly empirical (given all the other evidence that exists for this question).
You’re failing to be a good rationalist, because you’re putting some ideal form of “rationalism” over winning in your political struggle. If you have a goal you wish to accomplish, and you choose not to because that would “treat arguments as soldiers,” your self-image as the sort of Bayesian monk EY depicts has conflicted with your struggle, and you’ve become your own enemy.
Rationalism itself does not preclude “treating arguments as soldiers” within an adversarial debate (most political debates are adversarial). It just cautions aganst doing this within individual deliberation or public deliberative-like processes, where truth-seeking efficiency is an instrumental goal. Nevertheless, the social norms of LessWrong do discourage (1) political discussion, as well as (2) “treating argument as soldiers” in any discussion, be it political or otherwise.
One interpretation of TimS’ behavior is that he places a higher value on following LW’s established social norms than he does on promoting his political cause. Alternately, he may believe that flaunting the norms of LW would be mostly unhelpful to his political advocacy.
The following links represent the as-yet-best summary of the sources of my beliefs on this matter. I think they can make a better argument than I can in this comment.
https://radtransfem.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/the-ethical-prude-imagining-an-authentic-sex-negative-feminism/ https://radtransfem.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/under-duress-agency-power-and-consent-part-one-no/ https://radtransfem.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/under-duress-agency-power-and-consent-part-two-yes/
To put it another way, men are conditioned (as in operant conditioning) to emit certain behavior patterns, and womyn are conditioned to respond to those behavior patterns in a certain way.
As such, the expression of learned behavior in men is the day-to-day perpetuation of patriarchy. The fact that no man wakes up thinking “Today I’m going to perpetuate the patriarchy” doesn’t change that.
Further, the fundamental concept of social psychology is that individual choice barely exists, and agency is a superpower.
Nice. It seems that we no longer have a wholly unfalsifiable and meaningless argument. You are now resorting to the old trope that “we” are fully rational and conscious individuals who use reason to actualize ourselves and achieve our moral values, whereas “they” are mindless sheeple whose individual potential is neutralized by force, coercion or pervasive social pressure. I suppose that this counts as progress, in a way.