Some topics are especially important. You might think that on such topics we’d try extra hard to be more accurate, both individually and institutionally. Alas, we are also more likely to self-deceive on them, both individually and institutionally.
Is Slate the creepiest pseudo-highbrow news site? I opened their article about Robin in an incognito window (so nobody can blame cookies), and the click bait I was shown included:
* My Boyfriend’s Job Makes It Impossible for Him to Do My Favorite Sex Act * My Shy, Sexually Naïve Husband Has Become Great in Bed—but I Just Can’t Do What He Wants Now * I Thought I Had Lost My Desire for Sex—Until I Cheated on My Husband * I Figured Out an Incredible Sexual Trick—Then It Ruined My Life* I Don’t Know How to Tell Men About My Sexual “Surprise”* The 50 Most Beautiful Women Of All Time* Melissa Rauch Down Sized Her Bikini (Photos)* Cosplay Costumes That Went A Little Too Far. #37 Will Shock You
Slate's editorial preaching about what is the most important form of inequality just got curb-stomped by Slate's business practice about what is their readers' biggest motivator.
All of this is modulated by Trivers' observation that deceit is a fundamental part of animal communication, and thus there will be a separation between the information we use to make decisions (subconscious) and the information we present to others (conscious). We would expect the two to converge only when one's particular interests are not directly affected by the information presented, and rewards are gained only by presenting the most accurate model of the world. For example, within the culture and rituals of academic discourse, by professors who have a guaranteed income for life.
EA ideology isn't itself the problem. It's that it's becoming impossible to do anything without Leftists coming in and trying to kick everyone else out.
I wonder what revealed preference would look like if death was a convenient painless default. Imagine if we had a 0.1% chance every night to die peacefully in our sleep without awareness. Imagine there was a magic ritual that people can use to prevent the probability for the next night, but it is boring and takes 30 minutes. How many people would really do it every evening? How many people would skip the ritual altogether, with drastic consequences for life expectancy? I'd really love to sneak a peek into such a parallel universe and see how people react.
We did get a peek into Pandemic World this year, but Covid deaths are an ugly and unpleasant affair with tubes shoved down your throat. Also survivors often have a bad time going through Covid. I wonder though what revealed preference would look like if Covid either made you die peacefully in your sleep without awareness or else you're completely asymptomatic. Another interesting hypothetical that we can't test.
Yeah, it's total hogwash. They couldn't even formulate a coherent rationalization. Now they look like low-status people who've cancelled a high-status person for no reason. Their only true mistake, of course, was to fall for the EA ideology and waste their time volunteering for it.
Also, feminism was an actual mistake, but that's another discussion.
The truth about death? It is no big deal. Everybody dies. It is simply one of two bookends of life; birth being the other. Whatever we make important makes us important. We make death important to make ourselves important. I'm never going to another funeral. Too much drama. Too much lying. Who tells the truth about death?
Can you elaborate on why "we absolutely cannot be honest about the first four"? I don't follow your thinking.
I think we can be honest about all four in the abstract - we can write honest papers about how humans deal with these topics.
Being honest about status and politics (and maybe sex) with regard to ourselves specifically and those we interact with can be difficult because we often strategically employ deception - we claim our political opponents are motivated by X when we know that's not true, because X sounds bad.
But I don't see how that applies to death, and even where it's difficult to be honest, it's not impossible.
The only concrete complaint there is "might rekindle misogynistic sentiments". Yet I said nothing at all in support of hatred of women, beyond noting that sex/fertility may be important to many.
"Alas, we are also more likely to self-deceive on them, both individually and institutionally.
So on such topics you should less trust both your intuition..."
Yes. You are self-deceiving when you frame the reaction to your statements as "suggest that sex/fertility might be important to big groups of people". Please try and see your cognitive bias on this subject, painful as it may be for you to hold in your head the notion that those that are criticizing you may have a point. Live up to the principles that I know you hold important.
I thought that the EA Munich group summarized things very well:https://docs.google.com/doc...
That's what I meant; the appearance is important.
That last one (honesty) is an odd duck. We absolutely cannot be honest about the first four. This necessitates that the last is unimportant. Of course, it is important to appear honest, just not to be honest.