HlynkaCG
old man yelling at clouds
1yr ago·Edited 1yr ago
One of the thoughts that I've been kicking around in my head in relation to my long delayed (see procrastinated) effort-post is how a lot of blue tribe progressive types seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of the permissive vs contested vs hostile environment. I see people complaining about getting banned from an internet forum or reported to the FBI and my first reaction is the James Franco from Buster Scruggs meme, is this your first time? Similarly back in the Clinton days (that is the early 90s) I recall a lot of talk about "why are otherwise intelligent people buying this shit?" Nobody actually believes that the president didn't inhale or fuck Paula Jones do they?
My working theory is that wealthy Yale and Stanford types don't really get a lot of exposure to predators and con-men at a young age and thus they don't really develop the mental antibodies against them before entering the buisiness world. Meanwhile the kid who grew up around used car salesmen probably understands "the nudge" better than those with a 4-year degree in marketing.
That's right. Rationalists claim it was rational to trust Sam Bankman-Fried, because if his pitch was part of an academic exam to see if this person was credible, trust would be the right answer.
But that's the thing: we are not in an academic exam, this is the real world, and people are going to try to exploit your blind spots.
I often wonder if these people play poker, video games, or any kind of board game were deception is part of the game.
I'm not sure this hypothesis is correct. IME propensity to be conned doesn't really have much to do with community values but does have a lot to do with education, time preference, and intelligence (though they're certainly not proof against it).
Nobody actually believes that the president didn't inhale or fuck Paula Jones do they?
Nobody believes it. The important thing there is that the president kowtowed to prevailing norms by disavowing his behavior, even if his excuses are obviously bullshit.
IME, propensity to be conned is correlated with exposure to cons, and has no relation to education, time preference, or intelligence. It's just about having the mental habit of double checking "Could this person be conning me?" and a willingness to accept when the indicators are yes.
I agree, but I think the word is skepticism. You don't need to be intelligent or educated to be skeptic. It's just a mental muscle: the more you doubt claims, the easier it becomes to doubt claims.
I don't follow. Not growing up around con men could result in the kind of naivete that would make you believe Bill Clinton did not inhale, but like you said, I don't think anyone actually believed that.
George Orwell was probably more on target with the concept of doublethink.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
One of the thoughts that I've been kicking around in my head in relation to my long delayed (see procrastinated) effort-post is how a lot of blue tribe progressive types seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of the permissive vs contested vs hostile environment. I see people complaining about getting banned from an internet forum or reported to the FBI and my first reaction is the James Franco from Buster Scruggs meme, is this your first time? Similarly back in the Clinton days (that is the early 90s) I recall a lot of talk about "why are otherwise intelligent people buying this shit?" Nobody actually believes that the president didn't inhale or fuck Paula Jones do they?
My working theory is that wealthy Yale and Stanford types don't really get a lot of exposure to predators and con-men at a young age and thus they don't really develop the mental antibodies against them before entering the buisiness world. Meanwhile the kid who grew up around used car salesmen probably understands "the nudge" better than those with a 4-year degree in marketing.
That's right. Rationalists claim it was rational to trust Sam Bankman-Fried, because if his pitch was part of an academic exam to see if this person was credible, trust would be the right answer.
But that's the thing: we are not in an academic exam, this is the real world, and people are going to try to exploit your blind spots.
I often wonder if these people play poker, video games, or any kind of board game were deception is part of the game.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not sure this hypothesis is correct. IME propensity to be conned doesn't really have much to do with community values but does have a lot to do with education, time preference, and intelligence (though they're certainly not proof against it).
Nobody believes it. The important thing there is that the president kowtowed to prevailing norms by disavowing his behavior, even if his excuses are obviously bullshit.
IME, propensity to be conned is correlated with exposure to cons, and has no relation to education, time preference, or intelligence. It's just about having the mental habit of double checking "Could this person be conning me?" and a willingness to accept when the indicators are yes.
I agree, but I think the word is skepticism. You don't need to be intelligent or educated to be skeptic. It's just a mental muscle: the more you doubt claims, the easier it becomes to doubt claims.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't follow. Not growing up around con men could result in the kind of naivete that would make you believe Bill Clinton did not inhale, but like you said, I don't think anyone actually believed that.
George Orwell was probably more on target with the concept of doublethink.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link