Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That doesn't mean that it was good for the state of the community.
It's not clear how not banning him would be good for the community either. I'm not sure "good for the community" is on the table.
I miss him badly, and it's absurd to me that he's gone and I'm a mod. I originally wrote the above when I was expecting to be banned myself in relatively short order, and conversations with Hlynka fundamentally changed my perspective for the better.
It's usually pretty clear which users are heading for a ban, and I've been trying for a while now to find ways to engage with them constructively to try to stop that from happening, on the theory that the right conversation might be able to turn things around for them the way it did for me. Sometimes it sorta-kinda works. Sometimes it doesn't; I'm still frustrated that I never got to finish my arguments with fuckduck9000. In any case, the universal constant is that no one is happy with the results.
Indeed -- and if nobody on the mod team is prepared to consider the reason that long-time users are ending up in this downward spiral, it will pick up steam until the place is of no interest to anyone.
I think it's a separate issue at work, but on the other side of the aisle it might be worth considering that the new scene seems to have driven off darwin -- so attracting new posters of diverse viewpoints is probably a non-starter without some serious changes made.
So what do you think we should have done about Hylnka? Honest question, because we warned (and warned and warned and warned and warned and warned and warned and warned and warned and warned ....) him, going back to the old subreddit, giving him far more chances after multiple bans than almost anyone else in the history of the Motte has ever been given. And we took a lot of flack for that (because as much as you may like and miss him, and like @FCfromSSC, I really liked him and really, really wanted him to stop doing things requiring us to ban him also), he was equally hated by many, and a lot of people thought (with some justification) that he was getting away with way too much that no one else would get away with. So should we have just let him keep going forever after telling him, explicitly, multiple times, "If you keep doing this, we are going to have to ban you, we don't want to do that, stop doing this pretty please?"
Yes, banning Hylnka was (IMO) a loss for the community. I also don't see what other choice we had.
More options
Context Copy link
I just linked my best assessment of the reason. What's yours? What's wrong and what should we do about it?
I'm on record arguing at length that Darwin was one of the worst bad actors this community has ever had, and one of the conditions I gave for joining the mod team was that I'd never be asked to mod him or to be involved in mod decisions about him in any way. Why do you think he left? More generally, what are the serious changes you think should be made?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How has your perspectrve changed for the better?
He forced me to confront the hate in my heart, and reminded me that it is my own responsibility to reject it rather than embracing it. He did this in a way that probably no one else, here or in real life, could have done. That's about the best, shortest description I can provide across the inferential gap.
I crave insights. What should I know, or how should I look at things, to have the same effect?
@Primaprimaprima, you asked for it, here it is.
how do you have the same impact on others?
A person is wrong. Why are they wrong? Could be a lot of things. Maybe its their values, maybe they've got bad information, maybe their reasoning is off, maybe they're just malicious. Hard to say. And from the other side, someone is telling you you're wrong, maybe any or all of these are true about that person. Meaningful dialog requires common ground and credibility. Without that, there isn't really much point.
I was a Blue for a number of years, and the Blue habits of thought die hard. I once had a discussion with a family member, who is probably best described in tribal terms as a Christian, about torture and the classic "terrorist with a ticking time bomb" scenario. I argued that obviously you should torture the terrorist, because it's worth it to save the lives of everyone else on the plane. He pointed out that you can't actually "save" a life; all humans die sooner or later. I'd been arguing about these sorts of Utilitarian scenarios for years, and I had honestly never thought about it that way.
And this is where the inferential gap starts becoming visible. Both Blues and Reds can recognize that you can't "save" a life, but the understanding of what that actually means is fundamentally incompatible. The Blue understanding, in my own experience, would be something along the lines of "of course, you dummy, this is why we have QALYs, you totally need to account for the differential age and health circumstances, etc, etc, of the various passengers." The Red understanding would be closer to:
...And I have zero confidence that the above communicates anything across the gap, any more than it did last time I tried. I could say that the Blue understanding is of a variable in a system, ultimately under our control, and that the Red understanding is an encounter with something vast and utterly beyond us, something that demonstrates that our aspirations to control are a childish pretense. I could say that for Blues, the problem is that your math might be wrong, and that for Reds, the problem is that you think you're in control, that your accounting of the variables actually correspond to reality in some meaningful way such that you can do math with them. I could say that Reds have a fundamental belief that death is deeply natural and that Good Deaths exist, and Blues, to a first approximation, view death itself as a pure negative and see death, at best, as a lesser evil in exigent circumstances.
And saying any of those things, I would expect Blues to disagree vociferously on all counts and throw out all sorts of reasons why I was wrong and uncharitable. And maybe they're right; all I can say is that I was deep, deep blue for many years, and the above is my best analysis of how I used to think and how I perceived other Blues thinking, even back when I agreed with them. I maintain that Blue thinking is founded on the assumption that systemic control is possible, and Red thinking is founded on the assumption that it is not.
All this to say, after spending years talking to Blue Tribe Rationalists, I was thinking like a Blue Tribe rationalist. I was thinking in terms of systemic control, doing my utilitarian calculations, shutting up and multiplying, mapping out the structure of "social conditions". For a given utility function, how do we maximize utility in the face of hostile actors? If they do this, then game theory implies we should do that, then they do such and we do so-and-so, and at every step what matters is the result. I argued with a lot of people, and all of them argued from within a similar frame, but argued that my variables were wrong or my math was wrong, and I found their arguments profoundly unpersuasive, and often increasingly radicalizing.
Hlynka rejected the whole frame. Unlike any of my other opposites, he made a solid argument that he shared my core values and my understanding of the facts, but that the calculations I'd built atop these were bullshit. He communicated, effectively, that all my appeals to game- and systems-theory were just obfuscation of the reality of my own individual choices. No one makes anyone else do anything, ever. All our actions are chosen, and we are each personally accountable for those choices. The point isn't the end result, because nothing ever ends: our choices are the only result that matters. In my case, I was choosing to embrace and nurture hatred, and I needed to stop doing that. I had forgotten all this, and he reminded me.
The funny thing is, he didn't even make this argument explicitly. I asked him what he thought we should do, given the situation. I was expecting another unpersuasive argument about how moderation would maximize the utility function better than my preferred strategy of extremism, and I was prepared to poke holes in that argument as I had dozens of times before. But his brief answer ignored such calculation entirely, and simply focused on what was the right thing to do, regardless of the results. His answer drew on many things I valued but had been ignoring for a long time, and by modelling what a better answer looked like according to my own values, he changed my mind. That changed my behavior in my conversations here and in a number of other ways not immediately visible through my interactions here.
That's the best description I can provide.
Well written.
I have pretty blue tendencies, and this seems like a pretty good and fair summary of my views, rather than something I would vociferously disagree with.
Definitely some wisdom in the "yeah but all those calculations are actually bullshit" reminder though. All models are wrong, some are useful, many are harmful if you forget the ways in which they are wrong.
Hmm. Here's a question, then: do you believe that Progress is possible? Do you believe that technological developments (either hard tech or social tech) have rendered our lives and our experience is fundamentally different in some deep sense from that of, say, bronze-age Chaldeans? Do you believe that future developments could deliver this sort of progress, such that moral or ethical considerations fundamentally change between populations on two different levels of progression?
Yes.
I'll give an example. A few months ago, my wife and I welcomed our first born child. The birth did not go smoothly, and without medical intervention I would likely have lost my wife, my daughter, or both. Fortunately, we live in a time and place with access to modern medicine, and both my wife and my daughter are recovered and healthy. I expect them to remain healthy for the next several decades.
By my best estimate, the childhood mortality Bronze Age Chaldeans was 30-50%, largely during infancy. A significant fraction of parents would bury their own children.
That's not to say our modern world is perfect. Obesity is high. Attention spans are low. Children grow up hearing that they can be anything they want to be, anything at all, and then run head-first into reality at some point. People believe that they can have all the things they want in life, and, by trying to pursue too many different goals, frequently end up achieving none of them.
And yet.
We do not, as a rule, bury our children.
Yes. If you look at the list of problems about the modern world, you'll notice that they are problems stemming from abundance and choice. Sometimes, when people have lots of resources, they spend them destructively. Sometimes, when people have many choices, they choose poorly.
And so developments which led to more abundance, and to more choice, would deliver more progress. Enough progress and the differences start to look pretty fundamental. At the extreme end something like "a cure for senescence" would qualify, although I expect something much more modest like "cheap batteries with 10x the energy density of the modern state of the art" would also do the trick.
If you were hoping for a more philosophical take on Progress, I expect you'll be disappointed. But that's because I don't think progressive culture is downstream of progressive ideology so much as it's downstream of material abundance. To the extent that I have an ideological position here it's "abundance is good, choice is good, there are downsides to both but I don’t think we're anywhere near the point that having more abundance and choice is net harmful rather than net helpful".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Among the books he wrote, Thomas Sowell said that his favorite is A Conflict of Visions. I believe the theory put forward in that book best explains this observation.
The factors that determine which side of a political fence we are on are not based on dialectic; they adhere mainly at the level of one's vision of the world -- the way one sees things -- which consists of categories and concepts and their semantics, along with values and biases (aka, in Bayesian terms, priors). If we do not start from the same set of categories, concepts, and semantics, it doesn't even make sense to talk in terms of starting from the same set of facts, let alone the same values and biases. A vision acts a stage upon which the play of dialectic is put on. If two people share a vision they can participate in profitable dialectic with each other; and if they do not, they cannot.
But this doesn't mean it the situation is hopeless. Most persuasive dialogue outside of academia is, in fact, not dialectic but proselytization, aimed at massaging the listener's vision: their categories, concepts, semantics, priors, and values -- things that have no truth conditions and thus admit no logical or empirical arguments. This sort of dialog is the only kind that can promulgate or harmonize the visions of a community. Unfortunately, Enlightenment thinkers generally scoff at it. Frankly, in large part so do the Motte and other "rationality" communities on both the left and right -- labeling it as "fuzzy thinking", "superstition", "indoctrination", etc. Thus, as C.S. Lewis wrote, "We remove the organ and demand the function... we castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful." Good luck with that.
More options
Context Copy link
This is excellent, thank you.
I'll second what @Primaprimaprima said, about this not being a very good marker of a political divide.
But I'll definitely have to think more about that overall.
I'd argue, though, that men die because of the fall, rather than it being deeply natural.
The old habits of thought linger, and one of them is speaking as though the truth of God were indeterminate. Some of that is my own thinking, which centers on my lack of knowledge and frames belief in God as something like a bet I'm choosing to make.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What do you think you failed to communicate in that thread?
Let me try to give my own gloss on what I think you were getting at. I often find myself on the side of defending... - subjectivity? I'm not sure what the best word for it is - against those who would argue for a purely rationalist technocratic worldview. I think consciousness is a real phenomenon that can't be explained away as an illusion, I think the arts and humanities are important and STEM supremacists get on my nerves, I think that individual choices matter and people aren't just reducible to their structural roles in the social system.
If you have an affinity for those positions, then perhaps we're not as far apart as you might think. Even if I might disagree with some specific formulations you put forth.
Well, I'm certainly no utilitarian and never have been.
I'm in complete agreement.
I think I understand the difference in perspective you're trying to articulate here. But, as usual, I simply disagree that it divides the space of political ideologies cleanly in two.
The nature of "we know how to solve all our problems", mainly. I am in fact convinced that it is a uniquely Enlightenment concept, but if your first counter-example is traditional Christianity advocating unity with God as the end purpose of human existence, I've clearly failed to communicate the insight, and need to reconsider my approach. I have pretty limited time to do that these days, sadly; I think I started writing replies two or three times, but never got them finished.
We could take your example:
and compare it to, say, a passage from Walt Bismark's description of why he is no longer a white nationalist:
...and then compare them to the A and B passages, and ask which matches to which. To me, it's obvious that the passage you linked is much more like the style of A, making a precise, well-bounded claim with clear foundations and clear limits, and the passage above is much more like B, claiming systematized knowledge of uninterrogated validity. The former is inside looking out, the latter is pretending to be outside looking in. Unfortunately, that distinction didn't seem to communicate either, so who knows.
The same for the discussion of Freud a while back. I have zero doubt that you've read much more Freud than I have, and if you believe that Freud's thought can be described as "conservative" in some sense, I'll buy that there's an insight there. On the other hand, I don't think I'm wrong about Freud's impact on the culture as a whole, and regardless of how much his views could be described as "conservative", his impact on society was pretty clearly revolutionary, and also pretty clearly based entirely on lies. He said things that were false, people believed these false things, and as a direct result of believing these false things embraced radical, untested social changes from top to bottom; his disciples and their disciples in turn repeated this process, and we are just now beginning to crawl out from under the resulting rubble. My argument isn't about what Freud believed, but about what he did; and the same for the rest of the Enlightenment's giants.
Likely not, but again, time and effort cost a lot more than they used to, which is why my posting frequency has dropped so precipitously. Putting together cogent arguments gets much harder when a little one decides their new favorite game is shutting daddy's laptop on his fingers. Increasingly often, I'm forced to let my opposite have the last word, and hope to address it next time the topic comes around.
It'll come around again.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link