From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Sun Jun 15 2003 - 22:58:07 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> I agree. The mechanism looks simple to me (not that I'm defending it),
> and I am sure you understand it too: A attacks X. B attacks A. The
> conjecture arises naturally that B supports X. You couldn't be more
> correct when you point out that this is not a logical conclusion. But
> as Eliezer was saying, it must weigh what one thinks (or suspects) is
> going on.
No, I said it was not noticeably strong evidence in favor of that
conclusion, and objected only to Harvey saying that it was not evidence at
all. There are a thousand reasons I might dislike Bush, aside from liking
the old regime in Iraq. If it comes down to that, I disliked Bush I,
Clinton, and would have disliked Reagan if I'd been old enough at the
time. I would have disliked Carter. It seems to me that we've been going
steadily from bad to worse, perhaps with one blip for Bush I, who may have
been slightly better than Reagan.
> In this case C, who conjectures that B supports X, should *ask*
> "why shouldn't an attack on A in these circumstances be regarded
> as support of X?"
Why not? Because life is not a two-sided zero-sum game, that's why not.
It is *ridiculous* to suppose that *anyone* on the Extropians mailing
list, regardless of their other politics, supports Hussein. The prior
probability is so low that making such a comment is either an ad hominem
debating tactic, or human tribal thinking resulting in the sheer STUPIDITY
and WARPING of intellect necessary to distort one's probabilities THAT FAR
away from the simple COMMON SENSE that NOBODY on the Extropians mailing
list is likely to support Hussein! What is going on here cannot possibly
be Bayesian reasoning.
> You did not respond to my "lip-service" remark.
> I think that perhaps if B every so often paid lip-service by
> denouncing X, the problems would be less severe. (Perhaps you
> have done this sufficiently enough in your eyes.)
That's not what's going on. Foaming tribalist fanatics such as are now
appearing on this mailing list - there is no point in mincing words - are
not attempting to use "Bayesian reasoning" or even "rationality"; they are
acting on blind instinct and pure emotion. They are thinking in terms of
the two-sided zero-sum game; anyone who does not support Bush must support
Hussein, even when this conclusion runs in total defiance of simple common
sense about the prior odds. That is how human tribalist thinking works.
One need only pick up a history book to see this. I do not need to invent
more elaborate explanations for this behavior. Tribal polarization is a
human universal and it is quite, quite stupid. I will *not* pay
lip-service to it. That ugly part of human nature is *my* enemy.
-- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 23:08:14 MDT