This was an interesting read!
I consolidated various terms for very-similar virtues together, and created a spreadsheet where I could note which virtue-clusters had been promoted in which systems or by which philosophers.
That sounds awesome. can you share the spreadsheet?
P.S—I suggest you create a sequence for these posts. It will make it easier for people to read through, will let you edit the order of the posts if you want, will make it discoverable through the library, and make it easy to link to.
I’m looking for beta readers for a post on Gossip. It explores harms and benefits from gossip for each party, as well as gossip and deception, meta-gossip and what would be a good gossip norm. Let me know if you’re interested, thanks!
Current status: No readers.
(I’ll update the status as i get replies)
I replied to a similar comment by SDM elsewhere at the time of posting, thought i should link it.
Nice one! Took me a moment :)
You can use the questions from the Cognitive Reflection Test
A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets?In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake?The intuitive answers to these questions that “system 1” gives typically are: 10 cents, 100 minutes, and 24 days; while the correct solutions are: 5 cents, 5 minutes, and 47 days.
A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets?
In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake?
The intuitive answers to these questions that “system 1” gives typically are: 10 cents, 100 minutes, and 24 days; while the correct solutions are: 5 cents, 5 minutes, and 47 days.
Five birds are sitting in a tree. A hunter takes a rifle and shoots one of them. How many birds are left? (If your answer is ‘four’ - try again!)
0 cause the other 4 all fly off? (my guess)
5 because even though the bird was shot it is still on the tree?
1 because both are true?
(I did immediately thought 4 and only thought about it more after you said it was the wrong answer)
First step can be an option to subscribe to sequences
And just to clarify what that means, from their website:
(The “abridged” in this site’s title doesn’t, by the way, mean that any of the posts have been shortened—only that the collection as a whole is a selected subset of Scott Alexander’s writing. Each individual post comes to you in its full and glorious length; not a word has been omitted from any of these essays.)
I think the main prediction/expectation error many rationalists (including me) made, was expecting countries to either do practically nothing and let the virus run through the population like a wildfire, or respond heavily in a way that stomp it out in a few months. in both cases life goes back to normal in a few weeks/months, and if you know that it will only be a few months then taking extreme measures in that time frame makes sense.
Alas, what actually happened was this weird middle ground where we never quite eradicate the virus nor let it run wild, which drew out the problem for a year+.
I wasn’t prepared for that, and my thinking was too short term, so i also ended up sacrificing too much.
The Lewis Black standup bit
I agree this is a common thread in Scott’s writing (though i bet I’ve read less than you did). As Tim Urban remarked recently, Scott is a master at conveying his confidence level in his writing. He knows both how to write with conviction when he’s very confident, and how to convey his uncertainty when he’s uncertain. It may come from confidence in his calibration about a claim instead of in the claim itself. It sounds much harder to write a post arguing that we should believe X with 80% confidence than just a post arguing that it’s true. And these are exactly the sort of posts Scott is exceptionally good at.
P.S: Cults are bad :)
I see two ways in which legal blackmail can actually reduce regular gossip.
First is the one discussed in the article, where people don’t gossip because they can’t get money for that instead.
The second is that blackmailers have an incentive to destroy all forms of sharing negative information that aren’t blackmail (As well as destroying other blackmailers to become a blackmailing monopoly.). Why? Because they want everything to be maximally embarrassing and harmful. Whenever a bad thing is revealed about someone, that person is harmed, but the thing also often becomes more normal and thus less harmful.
If someone comes out as homosexual, he hurts the blackmailer’s profits by normalizing homosexuality, and they will destroy him for that (completely unrelated to their views on homosexuality, professional blackmailers don’t have “views”).
Same for anyone who reveals embarrassing information about others for nothing. They’re straight up destroying their profits, and they’ll make sure to get them. Other blackmailers are similar, but in that case it’s competition. In the case of gossipers and people who self-reveal, blackmailers have a joint interest to get rid of them.
As i noted in this comment, social privacy becomes more important the more other people have it. So blackmailer’s have an incentive to increase social privacy to the extreme, such that everyone will keep everything to themselves—as long as they still have methods of obtaining information on people so they can blackmail them.
The blackmailed have an incentive to destroy all privacy (at least that of other people) so information on them won’t be as harmful.
Legal blackmail taken to the extreme creates a tension between a no-privacy dystopia to an atomized dystopia where all information is kept hidden except in the cases someone can’t pay for it.
This doesn’t seem like the sort of tension between two extremes that creates a good middle ground.
You can use both.
It doesn’t seem like it had wide publicity. Even though it’s an Israeli development and I’m Israeli i only heard of it from ejacob’s post.
Fascinating article! The distinction between social and institutional privacy is great.
I think there’s a problem with the introspective method of comparing the two. It seems that the sort of privacy you prefer is affected by the sort other people prefer. so, for example, if everyone read a hardcopy of Fifty Shades of Gray you might be more comfortable giving up the privacy of the e-reader. but if everyone reads it on the e-reader, and you’re reading a hardcopy, then it becomes far less socially acceptable and you become the only one admitting to reading it!
Similarly with asking a question. If everyone asks their friends, then everyone is revealing their ignorance. If everyone is looking up answers, you’re the only one revealing your ignorance.
So the amount of social privacy other people have affects the amount of social privacy you would want to have. I’m not sure if the same applies to institutional privacy, but if it’s a trade then the more people trade social for institutional privacy the more you’ll prefer to do so too.
The section on Secure Multi-Party Computation was also particularly interesting, and I’m off to learn more about it :)
I think there’s place for both of them. Someone can be rational and not have expertise in field X, and someone can have expertise in field X without having general rationality.
Also skill/expertise assessment feels more other-focused, while rationality verification is in large part about self assessment.
btw, i don’t see any revision history on that tag. maybe it was changed before the history feature was implemented? (Was there a time without the history feature?)
Huh. Well, thanks for pointing that out. I see that it is part of the collection they mentioned, but they didn’t count it as a two-sided map. Is it suitable for two-sided map? Was it used that way?
In any case, oops.
The idea is that it lets you compact a globe from 3D space to 2D space with minimal distortions. You can carry a 100 such maps in less space than one globe would take. (Of course, if your requirements are to be able to see everything at once, then this doesn’t fit)
So what you said in the first paragraph doesn’t seem true to me, but if someone did invent that already and was dismissed i would be interested to hear.