I recently read on social media praise for someone I know, someone about whom I know some negative things. I realized that if I posted my negative comments, those would be held to much higher standards than are positive comments. I might be sued for defamation, and many would apply a social norm to me which demands that one defend negative comments with concrete supporting evidence. We don’t have such a norm regarding positive comments.
In the current system we can choose to communicate high probability factual disqualifications for someone as well as more fuzzy gestalt judgements based on low probability concerns. We simply moderate the amount of exaggerated praise we offer. If you start policing that exaggerated praise too sharply it becomes impossible for someone to convey the fact that a job applicant has always seemed to collect suspiciously lucky data sets (but maybe it's nothing) without outright accusing them of fabricating data.
I guess I'm suggesting that failing to offer exaggerated praise seems to much more effectively communicate to most humans that you have some relatively low probability worries about someone than by actually stating the probabilities. And you can't really make normal human psych work with probability judgements in context of libel law (what would people think if I went around asserting that with probability 1% you looked at child porn…even if that is just the population base rate).
While I like the idea of discouraging false praise I don't think this is a good or plausible solution for a couple reasons.
1. A positive libel bounty hunter would (unlike a libel victim under current law) would have every incentive to look for people engaged in speculative low confidence speech and try to squeeze them for money when they get something wrong. When only the victim of libel can sue and such lawsuits are usually money losing against private individuals the desire not to look like a dick encourages them to accept an apology when someone simply makes a mistake in an off the cuff conversation. I fear this would highly deter such speech.
2. The very tendency you mention about holding negative claims up to far higher scrutiny means that people can simply offer vague praise or praise in the form of an opinion which renders it (for good reason) immune from libel suits. Since people don't scrutinize positive remarks the way they do negative ones there won't be the same demand for specific hard details.
3. I think we are pretty good at distinguishing mere puffery or flattery from real information rich claims. What we really learn from random vague positive statements is just that the lauded individual is regarded (by some) as having high status and/or power (true or people wouldn't make them). When people are truly trying to evaluate someone they look for more specific claims which are pretty well deterred by the same reputational forces that deter most negative false claims (libel in the US today is really more about a recourse in the case of intentional harassment/campaign to harm).
From the narrative I have heard he bought praise and social status and invited people over to whore island to do archaic male bonding things. Exploited men's inability to think critically when put on the spot or when going with the flow about what they're seeing and doing and seducing them into dishonorable acts. He lavished people with donations, basked them in his charisma and dazzled them with luxury and got remarkably far with it. I'm not sure, how many consequences there will be or would be, if he wasn't dead.I think people called him a genius and one of the most brilliant minds and such flattery. From what I can tell he wasn't intelligent enough to justify that. He bought a lot of good press really cheaply and succesfully supressed a lot of bad press from ever appearing. That will erode trust in those little spineless institutions who couldn't stand up to the fucker. And I'm not sure he can be described as a good businessman or investement banker, but I don't know what great business deals he made. A succesful con artist definitely.I dunno. Not really keeping up with this.But I'd say he got a lot of false praise, and there'll be some punishment for it. (not following this, so it might be happening right now, or people are starting to audibly grind axes at least)
Without a pretty clear line, no one would know what they can and can't say. The fuzzier the line and/or the greater the potential penalties, the greater the chilling effects on speech.
In such a case the new employer or landlord might be considered an injured party that can receive damages (if the law accommodates that).
I think, however, that in many false praise cases there isn't an injured party that could (or one that would see it worthwhile) to sue, so this kind of "punishment" isn't possible unless the idea is to make false praise an actual crime.
(Strictly speaking the title of this blogpost isn't quite correct because slander/libel usually only incurs a civil liability to pay normal (compensatory) damages which aren't technically intended as a punishment, though they might in practice also function like that as well. Based on short googling criminal libel laws also exist in various US states but are rarely applied.)
Suppose I am a landlord or an employer who has a troublesome tenant or employee. The law may make it difficult for me to evict him or fire him. But I can give him a (false) good letter of recommendation that may allow him to find another place to live or work. He then becomes somebody else's problem. The employer or landlord who is fooled is the one who suffers the injury. I can rationalize my lying praise by hoping he will do better in a new situation.
Truth exists, but what we think internally to be fair criticism is heavily influenced by our own warped perspective.Most of what anyone would earnestly perceive to be impartial, fairminded criticism to make of someone else is probably fooling himself. About the fairmindedmess, because of most criticisms are done in a spirit of resentment.About impartiality I'll refer to what was was written already in 58 AD:"Who is there, by however large a troop of caressing courtiers he may be surrounded, who in spite of them is not his own greatest flatterer?"So we wisely have learnt to discount and disincenticize criticism in certain contexts.I disagree, us social animals are excellent. Thinking of our silly games makes me smile.
Aren't people who have praised Epstein in the past getting in some trouble? A lot of high-status people conferred high status on him. I'm pretty sure they will be, when people look for targets.....Just googled, Bill Gates already publicly apologized. Guess he's fucked. So there we go. So there we go, sometimes "false praise" will be punished in very extreme cases.Though not wanting to punish praise overly much might have something to do with wanting to avoid "guilt by association"-territorry.
Damn it! You're right. Looked at it five times before I could spot it. Must have been in some loop :(Now I know what the hell Hanson meant. Thought he was just being cryptic.Gonna edit that.
"The externalities you impose by attacking the group identity, cohesion and social trust pale in comparison to the externalities you impose by muddling the judgement of the group by false praise." - I have a feeling that you meant to write something opposite to what you actually wrote here.
But is the idea that false praise would be a crime? I think defamation isn't a crime so that kind of proposition wouldn't treat false praise the same as defamation.
Or is the idea that false praise would incur a civil liability? Civil liability requires that someone has suffered a loss or an injury to be awarded damages. It doesn't seem easy to find such party in the case of a false praise.
The article says that defamation is illegal because it stops people from best allocating resources. Since positive feedback does the same thing, it should also be illegal.
However, the reason that defamation is illegal is probably mostly because it harms someone ‘unfairly’. This is why (in a lot of countries) you can also sue for defamation if emotionally you have been harmed, or your social status decreased. You can do this even if you are unemployed/retired, and so clearly defamation does not always need to serve a broader economic goal.
Monetary loss could similarly be a way you have been unfairly harmed by the person who defamed you, and so deserve compensation.
Whether this should also be symmetrically treated is an interesting question. But I think that treating praise and defamation differently in the status quo is far from inconsistent, because the reason that defamation is illegal is that someone is treated ‘unfairly’ while no individual is personally harmed when it comes to praise.
In the same way, it is illegal for me to hit someone without a good reason (eg self defense). But it is not illegal for me to be very nice to someone for no good reason
Am I being too imprecise in what I said or are you not sure what you yourself believe?
I guess I sounded a bit normative, but I was trying to be descriptive. (accepting my first good guess and then moving on, cause there’s not that much dopamine in it or whatever causes my behavior)I’m not unhappy about the fact that we’re not all rushing to find solutions to optimize the predictive power of our status games, implementing bounties and acting with three degrees of metacognition at all time. I like people.So perhaps that’s where we disagree. Or rather you have a strong preference, where I don’t have one.Not being you, I’m afraid I can’t tell either, especially since you didn't state what you think the "why" is.Besides, it’s not like “false praise” is something that’s easily suffered in a combat culture, which are usually available to those who thrive in them:https://www.lesswrong.com/p...
In the current system we can choose to communicate high probability factual disqualifications for someone as well as more fuzzy gestalt judgements based on low probability concerns. We simply moderate the amount of exaggerated praise we offer. If you start policing that exaggerated praise too sharply it becomes impossible for someone to convey the fact that a job applicant has always seemed to collect suspiciously lucky data sets (but maybe it's nothing) without outright accusing them of fabricating data.
I guess I'm suggesting that failing to offer exaggerated praise seems to much more effectively communicate to most humans that you have some relatively low probability worries about someone than by actually stating the probabilities. And you can't really make normal human psych work with probability judgements in context of libel law (what would people think if I went around asserting that with probability 1% you looked at child porn…even if that is just the population base rate).
While I like the idea of discouraging false praise I don't think this is a good or plausible solution for a couple reasons.
1. A positive libel bounty hunter would (unlike a libel victim under current law) would have every incentive to look for people engaged in speculative low confidence speech and try to squeeze them for money when they get something wrong. When only the victim of libel can sue and such lawsuits are usually money losing against private individuals the desire not to look like a dick encourages them to accept an apology when someone simply makes a mistake in an off the cuff conversation. I fear this would highly deter such speech.
2. The very tendency you mention about holding negative claims up to far higher scrutiny means that people can simply offer vague praise or praise in the form of an opinion which renders it (for good reason) immune from libel suits. Since people don't scrutinize positive remarks the way they do negative ones there won't be the same demand for specific hard details.
3. I think we are pretty good at distinguishing mere puffery or flattery from real information rich claims. What we really learn from random vague positive statements is just that the lauded individual is regarded (by some) as having high status and/or power (true or people wouldn't make them). When people are truly trying to evaluate someone they look for more specific claims which are pretty well deterred by the same reputational forces that deter most negative false claims (libel in the US today is really more about a recourse in the case of intentional harassment/campaign to harm).
Why not make giving a false impression a crime? With appropriate enforcement it might clean up both the media and advertising.
From the narrative I have heard he bought praise and social status and invited people over to whore island to do archaic male bonding things. Exploited men's inability to think critically when put on the spot or when going with the flow about what they're seeing and doing and seducing them into dishonorable acts. He lavished people with donations, basked them in his charisma and dazzled them with luxury and got remarkably far with it. I'm not sure, how many consequences there will be or would be, if he wasn't dead.I think people called him a genius and one of the most brilliant minds and such flattery. From what I can tell he wasn't intelligent enough to justify that. He bought a lot of good press really cheaply and succesfully supressed a lot of bad press from ever appearing. That will erode trust in those little spineless institutions who couldn't stand up to the fucker. And I'm not sure he can be described as a good businessman or investement banker, but I don't know what great business deals he made. A succesful con artist definitely.I dunno. Not really keeping up with this.But I'd say he got a lot of false praise, and there'll be some punishment for it. (not following this, so it might be happening right now, or people are starting to audibly grind axes at least)
But few folks who praised Epstein praised his morals or sexual habits. So the praise that is being punished mostly wasn't false.
Without a pretty clear line, no one would know what they can and can't say. The fuzzier the line and/or the greater the potential penalties, the greater the chilling effects on speech.
In such a case the new employer or landlord might be considered an injured party that can receive damages (if the law accommodates that).
I think, however, that in many false praise cases there isn't an injured party that could (or one that would see it worthwhile) to sue, so this kind of "punishment" isn't possible unless the idea is to make false praise an actual crime.
(Strictly speaking the title of this blogpost isn't quite correct because slander/libel usually only incurs a civil liability to pay normal (compensatory) damages which aren't technically intended as a punishment, though they might in practice also function like that as well. Based on short googling criminal libel laws also exist in various US states but are rarely applied.)
Suppose I am a landlord or an employer who has a troublesome tenant or employee. The law may make it difficult for me to evict him or fire him. But I can give him a (false) good letter of recommendation that may allow him to find another place to live or work. He then becomes somebody else's problem. The employer or landlord who is fooled is the one who suffers the injury. I can rationalize my lying praise by hoping he will do better in a new situation.
Truth exists, but what we think internally to be fair criticism is heavily influenced by our own warped perspective.Most of what anyone would earnestly perceive to be impartial, fairminded criticism to make of someone else is probably fooling himself. About the fairmindedmess, because of most criticisms are done in a spirit of resentment.About impartiality I'll refer to what was was written already in 58 AD:"Who is there, by however large a troop of caressing courtiers he may be surrounded, who in spite of them is not his own greatest flatterer?"So we wisely have learnt to discount and disincenticize criticism in certain contexts.I disagree, us social animals are excellent. Thinking of our silly games makes me smile.
You are right and hence all social animals suck. Truth is always a victim for it is impartial and rocks all boats.
Aren't people who have praised Epstein in the past getting in some trouble? A lot of high-status people conferred high status on him. I'm pretty sure they will be, when people look for targets.....Just googled, Bill Gates already publicly apologized. Guess he's fucked. So there we go. So there we go, sometimes "false praise" will be punished in very extreme cases.Though not wanting to punish praise overly much might have something to do with wanting to avoid "guilt by association"-territorry.
Damn it! You're right. Looked at it five times before I could spot it. Must have been in some loop :(Now I know what the hell Hanson meant. Thought he was just being cryptic.Gonna edit that.
"The externalities you impose by attacking the group identity, cohesion and social trust pale in comparison to the externalities you impose by muddling the judgement of the group by false praise." - I have a feeling that you meant to write something opposite to what you actually wrote here.
But is the idea that false praise would be a crime? I think defamation isn't a crime so that kind of proposition wouldn't treat false praise the same as defamation.
Or is the idea that false praise would incur a civil liability? Civil liability requires that someone has suffered a loss or an injury to be awarded damages. It doesn't seem easy to find such party in the case of a false praise.
The article says that defamation is illegal because it stops people from best allocating resources. Since positive feedback does the same thing, it should also be illegal.
However, the reason that defamation is illegal is probably mostly because it harms someone ‘unfairly’. This is why (in a lot of countries) you can also sue for defamation if emotionally you have been harmed, or your social status decreased. You can do this even if you are unemployed/retired, and so clearly defamation does not always need to serve a broader economic goal.
Monetary loss could similarly be a way you have been unfairly harmed by the person who defamed you, and so deserve compensation.
Whether this should also be symmetrically treated is an interesting question. But I think that treating praise and defamation differently in the status quo is far from inconsistent, because the reason that defamation is illegal is that someone is treated ‘unfairly’ while no individual is personally harmed when it comes to praise.
In the same way, it is illegal for me to hit someone without a good reason (eg self defense). But it is not illegal for me to be very nice to someone for no good reason
Am I being too imprecise in what I said or are you not sure what you yourself believe?
I guess I sounded a bit normative, but I was trying to be descriptive. (accepting my first good guess and then moving on, cause there’s not that much dopamine in it or whatever causes my behavior)I’m not unhappy about the fact that we’re not all rushing to find solutions to optimize the predictive power of our status games, implementing bounties and acting with three degrees of metacognition at all time. I like people.So perhaps that’s where we disagree. Or rather you have a strong preference, where I don’t have one.Not being you, I’m afraid I can’t tell either, especially since you didn't state what you think the "why" is.Besides, it’s not like “false praise” is something that’s easily suffered in a combat culture, which are usually available to those who thrive in them:https://www.lesswrong.com/p...