The steelman challenge

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



ilikecomics

jaden_2.0
1. Please elaborate on the empathy argument.

2. I agree

3. I think our understanding of how gene expression works is at an equivalent stage of when we first postulated the atom. I.e there will be a deeper level to it that we will discover down the line in much the same way that we subsequently learned about protons, neutrons and electrons then onto quarks, gluons, leptons, bosons.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
1. Please elaborate on the empathy argument.

2. I agree

3. I think our understanding of how gene expression works is at an equivalent stage of when we first postulated the atom. I.e there will be a deeper level to it that we will discover down the line in much the same way that we subsequently learned about protons, neutrons and electrons then onto quarks, gluons, leptons, bosons.

Empathy is sympathy + ego centrism/narcissism.
Paul bloom wrote a book on it called against emapthy and I follow his line of thinking.

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-compassion-paul-bloom

I agree with what you say on genes, more nuanced than the cultural marxist b.s. and the more traditional based view. Both are dogmatic and don't allow the scientific method to do it's work aka updating bad info with better info.

Blakemore
Empathy is not sympathy+ego. It's trying to understand another person's predicament.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Empathy is sympathy + ego centrism/narcissism.

that's some psychopathic algebra

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Blakemore
Empathy is not sympathy+ego. It's trying to understand another person's predicament.

Did you read the article I posted ? I could post a video of Paul bloom if video is more digestable

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Empathy is sympathy + ego centrism/narcissism.
Paul bloom wrote a book on it called against emapthy and I follow his line of thinking.

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-compassion-paul-bloom

I agree with what you say on genes, more nuanced than the cultural marxist b.s. and the more traditional based view. Both are dogmatic and don't allow the scientific method to do it's work aka updating bad info with better info.

I've only read some of the interview so far and some of it certainly is factually noticeable. It also feeds in to what I mean about consumers disconnect from the actions of corporations in places where they don't live.

He seems to see empathy as something entirely reactive though. Rather than something that can be proactively engaged. So rather than "feeling" someone else's pain you can help to prevent it in the first place.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I've only read some of the interview so far and some of it certainly is factually noticeable. It also feeds in to what I mean about consumers disconnect from the actions of corporations in places where they don't live.

He seems to see empathy as something entirely reactive though. Rather than something that can be proactively engaged. So rather than "feeling" someone else's pain you can help to prevent it in the first place.

You're right on that bit, which is why I like local business.

You're right on that bit too, but you'd want to use compassion, not empathy.

Blakemore
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Did you read the article I posted ? I could post a video of Paul bloom if video is more digestable I skimmed over the article you posted and I got the impression he's trying to redefine empathy. I'm sorry, but I feel I may have to address this later

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Blakemore
I skimmed over the article you posted and I got the impression he's trying to redefine empathy. I'm sorry, but I feel I may have to address this later

Looking forward to chatting with you about it !

Blakemore
Sorry to be a burden 😸

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Blakemore
Sorry to be a burden 😸


Don't be, you slap. I think you're a good faith actor.

Blakemore
Thaaaaaaaaanks!

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Blakemore
Thaaaaaaaaanks!

donatello

Blakemore
I'd respond with michelangelo

Artol
I'll try to come up with some good arguments for the points you made, regardless of whether I agree with them.


"Empathy is largely misunderstood and most often not a good thing."

Empathy is the ability to understand or mirror what another person feels, that by itself is not necessarily a good thing, if someone has ill intentions they can use the understanding of the other persons feelings to their own advantage, while potentially hurting the person in the process. Similarly mirroring emotions might not be positive either, a lack of understanding of the emotions that are mirrored may lead to suffering and anger escalating to even worse situations than if the person had not felt empathy in the first place. So empathy by itself is not a good thing, and can lead to bad outcomes unless it is coupled with other emotions and tendencies like generosity, sympathy and solidarity

"There is no evidence for a creator deity, irreducible complexity is not an argument."

I completely agree with that one personally. Occam's razor and the lack of necessity of a creator god in explaining things are probably some of the best arguments, paired with the thorough lack of evidence for them. I think in terms of the opposite argument the perhaps best one is the world we live in is so perfectly adjusted to support human life that it is unfathomable that there isn't a creator having adjusted it that way, and it is not very convincing.

"Sex is determined by chromosomes, gender reflects this to a large degree."

Well, I disagree with the second part a lot, the first one on the other hand is just more or less the definition of sex. I guess for the second one the "best" arguments are the one that gender identities that don't align with the sex of a person are mental illnesses and should be disregarded, you could say that it is a small number of people (depends on your definition of small, and of course if you can make it seem smaller it's more effective) and you can make a historical argument that there were much fewer known cases in the past, so there must be something wrong with it being more prevalent now. All of those have relatively easy and, imo, correct rebuttals though.


"The state is a predatory entity."

States use their power to force people to do their bidding, like for example pay taxes. Many states have no legitimization by the people that live under them, but even in Democracies the actual influence of voters is limited, and powerful and wealthy interest can take control the state to give themselves many unfair advantages.


"Spanking is disgusting and child abuse."

Spanking negatively affects the development of children and teaches them to be distrustful of people stunting their emotional growth, they can lack a feeling of safety that is very important for children in particular. It perpetuates a cycle of abuse, creating children that later as adults view violence as acceptable options. Adults should not have the arbitrary power to physically harm children as they can not be trusted to not abuse said power.

Newjak
I like the idea of this thread. Sometimes playing devil's advocate helps strengthen your understanding of the other side and can lead to more nuanced discussion.

My problem is when I see these types of things in reality they are more often used by one side to lend credence to their flawed arguments or understanding of things.

Playing true devil's advocate only works when you present well thought out logical instances of arguments but some stances don't have that foundation or are so crude. After all the "better" argument for a stance will only look better by comparison but will still have the same illogical foundations.

For instance people who advocate against LGBTQ rights. Their foundation has always been illogical but they continuously try to update their arguments with "better" versions. For instance they went from it's a sin to LGBTQ people shouldn't be allowed to use the word marriage because that's a religious thing. Or they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because children of LGBTQ people are "more" likely to get into trouble or are more open to experimentation with homosexual activities.

Ultimately these arguments only exist to move goal posts but are still embedded in the foundation of bigotry.

Now a good example would be conservative issues with Obama's economy and recovery.

The truth is rural Americans did often see much slower recovery from the recession compared to more urban areas. There is a foundation there of truth for people to play devil's advocacy with. Something that can lead to a more nuanced discussion about how to take care of rural America so it doesn't lag behind.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
I'll try to come up with some good arguments for the points you made, regardless of whether I agree with them.


"Empathy is largely misunderstood and most often not a good thing."

Empathy is the ability to understand or mirror what another person feels, that by itself is not necessarily a good thing, if someone has ill intentions they can use the understanding of the other persons feelings to their own advantage, while potentially hurting the person in the process. Similarly mirroring emotions might not be positive either, a lack of understanding of the emotions that are mirrored may lead to suffering and anger escalating to even worse situations than if the person had not felt empathy in the first place. So empathy by itself is not a good thing, and can lead to bad outcomes unless it is coupled with other emotions and tendencies like generosity, sympathy and solidarity

"There is no evidence for a creator deity, irreducible complexity is not an argument."

I completely agree with that one personally. Occam's razor and the lack of necessity of a creator god in explaining things are probably some of the best arguments, paired with the thorough lack of evidence for them. I think in terms of the opposite argument the perhaps best one is the world we live in is so perfectly adjusted to support human life that it is unfathomable that there isn't a creator having adjusted it that way, and it is not very convincing.

"Sex is determined by chromosomes, gender reflects this to a large degree."

Well, I disagree with the second part a lot, the first one on the other hand is just more or less the definition of sex. I guess for the second one the "best" arguments are the one that gender identities that don't align with the sex of a person are mental illnesses and should be disregarded, you could say that it is a small number of people (depends on your definition of small, and of course if you can make it seem smaller it's more effective) and you can make a historical argument that there were much fewer known cases in the past, so there must be something wrong with it being more prevalent now. All of those have relatively easy and, imo, correct rebuttals though.


"The state is a predatory entity."

States use their power to force people to do their bidding, like for example pay taxes. Many states have no legitimization by the people that live under them, but even in Democracies the actual influence of voters is limited, and powerful and wealthy interest can take control the state to give themselves many unfair advantages.


"Spanking is disgusting and child abuse."

Spanking negatively affects the development of children and teaches them to be distrustful of people stunting their emotional growth, they can lack a feeling of safety that is very important for children in particular. It perpetuates a cycle of abuse, creating children that later as adults view violence as acceptable options. Adults should not have the arbitrary power to physically harm children as they can not be trusted to not abuse said power.


Wow, this is very impressive impressive steel Manning.

You list some disagreeable points you have and I'll try yours.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Newjak
I like the idea of this thread. Sometimes playing devil's advocate helps strengthen your understanding of the other side and can lead to more nuanced discussion.

My problem is when I see these types of things in reality they are more often used by one side to lend credence to their flawed arguments or understanding of things.

Playing true devil's advocate only works when you present well thought out logical instances of arguments but some stances don't have that foundation or are so crude. After all the "better" argument for a stance will only look better by comparison but will still have the same illogical foundations.

For instance people who advocate against LGBTQ rights. Their foundation has always been illogical but they continuously try to update their arguments with "better" versions. For instance they went from it's a sin to LGBTQ people shouldn't be allowed to use the word marriage because that's a religious thing. Or they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because children of LGBTQ people are "more" likely to get into trouble or are more open to experimentation with homosexual activities.

Ultimately these arguments only exist to move goal posts but are still embedded in the foundation of bigotry.

Now a good example would be conservative issues with Obama's economy and recovery.

The truth is rural Americans did often see much slower recovery from the recession compared to more urban areas. There is a foundation there of truth for people to play devil's advocacy with. Something that can lead to a more nuanced discussion about how to take care of rural America so it doesn't lag behind.


Are you saying that playing devil's advocate leads to bad faith actors sharpening their sophistry via modernizing bad arguments with updated terminology ?

My problem with gay marriage is the same problem I have with regular marriage, which is that it looks to a centralized authority to give a relationship merit or legitimacy. But I get it in terms of wanting tax breaks like het people.

Blakemore
I like spanking ermm

Newjak
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Are you saying that playing devil's advocate leads to bad faith actors sharpening their sophistry via modernizing bad arguments with updated terminology ?

My problem with gay marriage is the same problem I have with regular marriage, which is that it looks to a centralized authority to give a relationship merit or legitimacy. But I get it in terms of wanting tax breaks like het people. Well there's actually two outcomes I see. One the person playing devil's advocate doesn't do it in good faith and just does it mock the person or strawman them.

Or it's a trick by people trying to move the goal post and like you said modernizing bad arguments.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Newjak
Well there's actually two outcomes I see. One the person playing devil's advocate doesn't do it in good faith and just does it mock the person or strawman them.

Or it's a trick by people trying to move the goal post and like you said modernizing bad arguments.

My goal is self interested, but not ill intentioned. Alot of smart people post here and the quality of conversation, as a repercussion of that, is higher than anywhere else I visit online.

the evolution of bad ideas seems to increase when the general public doesn't have an interest in combating them. The dismissiveness or the public leads the people with bad ideas that they're on the trail of some forbidden knowledge.

The way this isn't self interested is it we can collectively cull ourselves of bad ideas, we all win.

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Alot of smart people post here and the quality of conversation, as a repercussion of that, is higher than anywhere else I visit online.

Well that's depressing.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Well that's depressing.

I don't have any social media and I'm a bit of a shut in.

You are one of the people whose opinion I value.

Artol
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Wow, this is very impressive impressive steel Manning.

You list some disagreeable points you have and I'll try yours.

Sure, I have a few, I think some of them might be hard for you to find agreement with, judging from our previous discussions, especially the last one, I do believe them though.

1. The form of capitalism that has developed over the last 40 years, based on work by Milton Friedman, and Friedrich von Hayek (under terms like Neo-Liberal Capitalism, Free Market Capitalism, etc.), has been deeply detrimental to the world and human life, both in developing countries but also in developed countries.

2. The fall of the Soviet Union has given the United States too much power to implement its own desires, the rise of opposing powers, mainly in China, but perhaps to some degree in the EU and Russia, is a good development in that regard.

3. The distribution of property as we have it now, is fundamentally unjust and severe redistribution of this property from the most fortunate to those who are not is moral, and beneficial or even necessary to society and the economy.

4. Women, ethnic and religious minorities, sexual and gender minorities, lower classes and some other groups are socially and economically disadvantaged in the west and we should implement social and government programs to specifically benefit these groups financially and to ensure their equal participation in society, culture and community.

5. In the conflict between the US/Israel and Iran, Iran is the more honest and respectable actor.

6. Small "socialist" countries like Cuba and Vietnam have shown that alternative forms of economics are just as good or even better than capitalist forms in comparable countries, and the majority of their shortcomings are not due to the economic system, but can be directly attributed to US hegemony and their willingness to use their economic and military might (for example in the form of sanctions, embargo, coups and wars) to attack and weaken states that do not comply with the United States economic order.

7. Fiat currency is just as legitimate as the Bretton Woods system, the gold standard and even gold itself as a currency of exchange, and has the potential to be far more beneficial to people as a whole than either of those systems.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
Sure, I have a few, I think some of them might be hard for you to find agreement with, judging from our previous discussions, especially the last one, I do believe them though.

1. The form of capitalism that has developed over the last 40 years, based on work by Milton Friedman, and Friedrich von Hayek (under terms like Neo-Liberal Capitalism, Free Market Capitalism, etc.), has been deeply detrimental to the world and human life, both in developing countries but also in developed countries.

2. The fall of the Soviet Union has given the United States too much power to implement its own desires, the rise of opposing powers, mainly in China, but perhaps to some degree in the EU and Russia, is a good development in that regard.

3. The distribution of property as we have it now, is fundamentally unjust and severe redistribution of this property from the most fortunate to those who are not is moral, and beneficial or even necessary to society and the economy.

4. Women, ethnic and religious minorities, sexual and gender minorities, lower classes and some other groups are socially and economically disadvantaged in the west and we should implement social and government programs to specifically benefit these groups financially and to ensure their equal participation in society, culture and community.

5. In the conflict between the US/Israel and Iran, Iran is the more honest and respectable actor.

6. Small "socialist" countries like Cuba and Vietnam have shown that alternative forms of economics are just as good or even better than capitalist forms in comparable countries, and the majority of their shortcomings are not due to the economic system, but can be directly attributed to US hegemony and their willingness to use their economic and military might (for example in the form of sanctions, embargo, coups and wars) to attack and weaken states that do not comply with the United States economic order.

7. Fiat currency is just as legitimate as the Bretton Woods system, the gold standard and even gold itself as a currency of exchange, and has the potential to be far more beneficial to people as a whole than either of those systems.


Yay, I'm allowed to quote this one. Just to be clear, I'm only addressing at length the entries I disagree with normally, but arguing as tho I'm a proponent. On the entries I genuinely agree, I may add a little comment


1.) The frame work of the free market as described by the Austrian school (or the similar Chicago school, which is sympathetic to MMT than the Austrian school) is a description of how economics work in a market with limited state intervention.
These thinkers rely on the idea that humans are rational actors, when we know they aren't. Humans are largely irrational and therefore can't make choices in their own best interest, hence they couldn't act sufficiently toward the wellbeing of others.

Austro economics are amoral and allow those with Machiavellian tendencies to excel beyond their neurotypical contemporaries, via the use of persuasive manipulations.
Over time this rewarding of the wicked aggregates, leaving a large amount of billionaires with psychotic predispositions. People with this predisposition would logically seek to act in a way that maximizes their own wellbeing, while diffusing the negative repercussions over a large amount of other people. E.g. a company dumping pollutants.

2.) Agree. A unipolar world is dangerous.

3.) Those who have accrued large amounts of land or capital continue building momentum with less and less work.
This has been phrased as: the more you get, the more you get.

This not only leads to tangible contempt in the masses, which would disrupt the standard running of society, but also ensures a lack of diversification in terms of what the land or capital could be transformed into. This is the argument for cost calculation turned inside out. If the choices of numerous sovereign individuals is necessary to create a pricing matrix, it would stand to reason that the more numerous land/ capital holders are the more we would see innovation and trends in land/capital usage, which could then be used to do economic calculation.

4.) If we had more accessible public transport we could ensure that cultural hubs would be visited more often e.g. art museums.
Cultural enrichment may lead to inspiration. This inspiration, typically impossible to experience, leads to the mastery of an artistic skill. The housing of artists could be subsidized, allowing them to make more art, which leads to more cultural hubs. A self feeding positive loop.

5.) Yup. I'm a non interventionist for foreign policy.

6.) A good example of bottom up Innovation in a top down system is in Cuba where a network of gamers set up their own internet. This was then 'co opted' by the state and now even more Cubans have pseudo internet access.

The sanctions/embargoes the u.s. puts on countries hurt the people of that country and America's simultaneously. It is a form of taxation that counts on an us vs. them mentality (I actually believe this part and I'm not steel Manning, anything but open trade is bad imo)
I know next to nothing about Viet nam.

7.) Detaching from the gold standard allows an economy to use social credulity to underscore their money's value. This means you can do what they did in that episode of South Park, where they steal the space cash from the aliens and everyone becomes super rich. In the case of the u.s. you can print 27 trillion dollars and still maintain the world standard of currency because your guns are the biggest.

This allows people only make 50k a year to get into a 300k house, or to get a zero interest car loan on a 2022 camaro, while living in public housing. Truly prosperity of this level would be impossible if wealth creation were based on actual value.



Holy sh*t this was way harder than I thought. I'm pretty rigid in my thinking and don't like that. Thank you for the post artol.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.