[ExI] heeeeeeehehehehehehheheeeee

[William Flynn Wallace]

>
> Anders wrote:
> I think the key problem is that we quickly get into tribalist group
> affirmation signaling when talking about classifications like this.
>

I'd like to hear of any way to avoid this.  To my mind, there is nothing
more natural to the human mind than racism, sexism, conflicts between
religions, ball clubs, and all the rest.  The easiest thing for a person to
believe is that they are better than some other person or group.

When this doesn't happen, one suspects the person is depressed, too full of
humility, short on self-respect, hates his own group, and so on - that is,
not the usual attitude.

In intellectual arguments, it goes "Yes, you are right, but ......." and
adds his own take.  If he doesn't, then he is a follower, not a leader, and
few want that.

So, if I were able to genetically modify people, one of the first things
I'd modify is the Openness dimension in personality.

bill w

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-12-22 00:36, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Tara Maya <tara at taramayastales.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I’m a feminist. To paraphrase Mark Twain: “Women are human beings. Worse
>>> I can say of no person."
>>>
>>
>> ### There is a chance for industrial-grade misunderstandings when
>> discussing these subjects, so let's engage in some explication.
>>
>> Is it enough to believe that women are humans to be classified as a
>> feminist? Isn't there something more the word, especially in its third-wave
>> edition?
>>
>>
>> I think the key problem is that we quickly get into tribalist group
>> affirmation signaling when talking about classifications like this.
>>
>
> ### Indeed, "feminism" became over the last few decades a word of power,
> which in many circles asserts alliance with or belonging to the ruling
> clique (not to be mean to you, Tara, it's just the way a lot of people use
> this word). My muck-raking questions on this matter are nothing but
> counter-signaling, a way of averring underdog status and intellectual
> independence.
>
> ---------
>
>>
>> My approach to issues like this is to drill down to some particular issue
>> (e.g. affirmative action policies, voting rights), state my views and
>> ideally reasons why I hold them, and then go back up and explain how this
>> fits into wider systems of thought (e.g. my own Bayesian libertarianism).
>> Then one can compare that to other systems, groups, issues or whatnot. But
>> it avoids tribalism.
>>
>
> ### Well, I don't like it when nice people like Mr Dilbert get raked over
> the coals for meekly disagreeing with the preferred narrative. So,
> following Lenin, I prod with the bayonet of my wit, looking for resistance
> or weakness.
>
> BTW, Isn't Tetlock great? Have you read "Superforecasters"?
>
> Rafał
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20151225/52404b77/attachment.html>