3, 11, and possibly 5: These are cases where the damage is caused by aspects of your hardware you can’t currently change, and so self-censorship is good. The usual points about “information shouldn’t have a negative value” don’t apply because the negative value is not due to your decision theory or how you consciously handle evidence.
2 and 4 should be avoided because they have instrumental harm that outweighs the epistemic gain (except remove the IP bit for the reason Dr_Manhattan gave).
1, 6, and 8 have in common that they provoke the dynamic inconsistency behind akrasia, and are good candidates for self-censorship on this basis.
7, 9, and 10 should definitely not be avoided, as doing so would knowingly leave open a “security hole” in your reasoning.
Also, where would PUA go? I’d say 5 or 7 for men, 9 or 11 for women
I was thinking of Roissy’s website for both 9 and 11, actually. I used to read it, in the interest of “exposure to different views.” Then I quit, reasoning that by now I understand his viewpoint pretty well, but the website continues to make me nauseous, and continues to prime me to emotionally believe things that I know are not true (e.g. “All men think I’m ugly!”) At some point, the amount I’m learning is too small to justify other harms.
At some point Roissy started having interns write a lot of the posts and they got more political and way less interesting while staying the same amount of offensive. That led me to stop reading altogether.
When I did read it it primed me to believe some troubling, false things too- though since I’m a straight male it was things like “I’m pathetic for not sleeping with more beautiful women”. I don’t regret reading enough to learn his perspective, though.
Interesting topic! Here’s my thinking:
3, 11, and possibly 5: These are cases where the damage is caused by aspects of your hardware you can’t currently change, and so self-censorship is good. The usual points about “information shouldn’t have a negative value” don’t apply because the negative value is not due to your decision theory or how you consciously handle evidence.
2 and 4 should be avoided because they have instrumental harm that outweighs the epistemic gain (except remove the IP bit for the reason Dr_Manhattan gave).
1, 6, and 8 have in common that they provoke the dynamic inconsistency behind akrasia, and are good candidates for self-censorship on this basis.
7, 9, and 10 should definitely not be avoided, as doing so would knowingly leave open a “security hole” in your reasoning.
Also, where would PUA go? I’d say 5 or 7 for men, 9 or 11 for women
I was thinking of Roissy’s website for both 9 and 11, actually. I used to read it, in the interest of “exposure to different views.” Then I quit, reasoning that by now I understand his viewpoint pretty well, but the website continues to make me nauseous, and continues to prime me to emotionally believe things that I know are not true (e.g. “All men think I’m ugly!”) At some point, the amount I’m learning is too small to justify other harms.
At some point Roissy started having interns write a lot of the posts and they got more political and way less interesting while staying the same amount of offensive. That led me to stop reading altogether.
When I did read it it primed me to believe some troubling, false things too- though since I’m a straight male it was things like “I’m pathetic for not sleeping with more beautiful women”. I don’t regret reading enough to learn his perspective, though.