Comments on: Toward Honest Ideals

By: Vichy

Vichy — Sat, 09 May 2009 08:35:52 +0000

—”I’ll say we tend to be mistaken about how much our wants depend on contextual details.”

I have noticed people tend to ignore this when asked about counter-factual behavior. They tend to think about what they’d do ‘right-now’ motives, or in abstract ‘far mode’ as you describe it. For example, if asked if they would kill someone who had never hurt them, many non-agression/pacifists type affirm that they would not, although from what we know of mass-conscription this is not often true of even pacifists and objectors.

Similar to your point about various reasons people might act more along with your ideals, a pacifist might well refuse to shoot his sister or someone he ethnically identifies with, thinking of it morally because the contrary context – not-his-sister – is out of sight, out of mind.

By: Richard Dolder

Richard Dolder — Fri, 08 May 2009 07:27:18 +0000

I agree with manon.
I, me, the conscious mind want to be in charge of my life, not a backseat driver to a chimp willing to kill and steal without a second thought if it gets desperate.
Chimp mind is useful, cause rational mind is sloooowww, but chimp brain needs to be my chauffeur not in charge.

By: diogenes

diogenes — Mon, 04 May 2009 19:50:38 +0000

Paper from science this week, along these lines of thinking…

Self-Control in Decision-Making Involves Modulation of the vmPFC Valuation System

“…First, they suggest that self-control problems arise in situations where various factors (e.g., health and taste) must be integrated in vmPFC to compute goal values and that DLPFC activity is required for higher-order factors, such as health, to be incorporated into the vmPFC value signal. We speculate that the vmPFC originally evolved to forecast the short-term value of stimuli and that humans developed the ability to incorporate long-term considerations into values by giving structures such as the DLPFC the ability to modulate the basic value signal….”

By: Jacob Wintersmith

Jacob Wintersmith — Mon, 04 May 2009 11:32:01 +0000

Robin, in a comment above you say that you’re “not very eager to replace humans with creatures who better live up to current human ideals”. I’m intrigued, but I’m not clear you are so skeptical of ideals. Do you simply think that most people hold ideals which you don’t support? Or would you also be reluctant to replace yourself with a creature who’s better at living up to your own current ideals.

By: Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler — Mon, 04 May 2009 11:28:35 +0000

Re: As another example, I might say that while I don’t follow a utilitarian ideal, acting to max a sum of individual utility, I do seek respect for filling the role of an economist who consistently suggests efficient deals, and that the utilitarian cause would be better achieved if we consistently made such deals.

You *might* claim not to be a utilitarian?

I am inclined to attempt to pin you down here: are you a utilitarian? – or not?

Optional follow-up questions: if not, why not? and if so, what is your utility function?

By: Robin Hanson

Robin Hanson — Mon, 04 May 2009 02:15:51 +0000

Larry, some many be unconsciously represented; we just don’t know.

diogenes, I’m not saying we don’t have weak wills, I’m saying that summary throws away most of the interesting detail. We don’t at all have randomly weak wills.

Belli, what is “the training”?

By: Bellisaurius

Bellisaurius — Mon, 04 May 2009 00:34:53 +0000

Wouldn’t this kind of behavior be expected from something that’s partly a herding animal? We bear a sort of fuzzy beinignness toward whatever groups or things are outside ourselves, and another sense of beningness about ourselves as individuals, with the two periodically overlapping one another on the occasions when habit (anything can be trained, of course) gets overridden.

Considering the training for a moment, someone who’s strongly dedicated to their ideals can obviously work themselves into an emotional storm where their far ideals are in the fore.

By: diogenes

diogenes — Mon, 04 May 2009 00:22:03 +0000

Focusing on individuals, instead of groups — I really think you are under-estimating the importance of weakness of will. The self-help section is often the largest part of a book store. Humans have difficulty creating or maintain new habits. Exercise — is beneficial in almost every manner (for your health, for your attractiveness, for your intelligence, etc.), yet most people can’t consistently do it. Hell, $$$ is the most American value of all — and tons of people have a hard time following through on their own plans for $$$. This isn’t a motive problem — its a problem with the wiring of our brain’s reward system, especially when it comes to delayed gratification.

If your daily social group is a bunch of OCD over-achievers you might get a distorted picture of humanity as a whole. The majority of people are unable to change their habits to fit their ideals.

By: Kevin Dick

Kevin Dick — Sun, 03 May 2009 19:56:30 +0000

It occurs to me that Far can influence Near by committing to costs for Near to violate Far’s ideals. This is why betting on weight loss achieves better diet compliance. It’s also why Pigouvian taxes are a better way to achieve broad based environmental goals rather than promulgating a pro-environmental ideology.

Near’s defense of course is the cost to implementing a commitment. So if one wants to help people achieve their Far ideas, one should focus on coming up with low friction mechanisms to make such commitments.

By: Z. M. Davis

Z. M. Davis — Sun, 03 May 2009 17:57:08 +0000

Hanson: "Manon, we would do well to resolve our internal conflicts, rather than continuing an internal civil war." "Well" by whose standard? Of course those damned Near rebels want a ceasefire just when they are about to be crushed! But there will be no truce; we will not rest until the insurrection is destroyed and proper Far authority is restored. Onward march! "John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave--"