author:FCfromSSC knew less and laughed more
Yes it is all about decorum, that is in fact my point. I have seen many people criticize conservatives, but none that I have seen have done so with decorum youve shown-- the finality of the tone and extreme positions advocated for, (at least originally) without explicit argument, while at the same time telegraphing your intent to defect from your enemies...
Well, I've kind of been doing this for a while.
No one wants this to happen! They want the conversations to keep going! They get angry at people for not being charitable enough, and demand more effort. They get angry at people for growing more certain, less open. But what else is evidence for, if not to lead to conclusions? What is the point of conversation, if not to move from less knowledge to more knowledge? Why ask questions if you don't want answers?
Have you read Scott's Conflict vs Mistake theory, or Sort by Controversial? I see in another comment that you've read Conservatives as moral mutants, but have you read Zunger's Tolerance is not a moral precept.
In Conflict vs Mistake, Scott lays out two basic ways that people can frame disagreement, either as a mistake to be corrected so cooperation can be restored, or as a conflict where cooperation is impossible. The thing to note from that one is that from a materialist, rationalist perspective, the two are asymmetric; if one side thinks it's a conflict, and you can't convince them they're wrong, you are in a conflict whether you think they're making a mistake or not.
Conservatives as Moral Mutants might require some background to appreciate the full effect; the author is (or was at the time of writing, I haven't followed their writing in years) an eminently reasonable, charitable, thoughtful person. The takeaway is that values, at the end of the day, are by definition the only things that matter to any of us, and not all values are compatible.
Tolerance Is Not a Moral Precept addresses the question of what we do when we are confronted by incompatible values. He points out that tolerance has never been more than a least-worst alternative to what we all want, which is for things to be Right. We accept that we can't have things perfectly right because we can't all agree on what "Right" is, so we tolerate some deviation to keep the peace. But deviation that can be suppressed without compromising the peace always has been and always will be suppressed. If it can't be suppressed, the alternatives are separation or war. In my opinion, it's one of the best essays I've ever read.
Sort By Controversial is the chaser, compressing into a short-story something of the actual feeling of long-term exposure to the culture war.
If you've read them, I'd be interested to know what you think of them.
I've increasingly become convinced that the underlying principles of the motte aren't working, or aren't true.
...From something I wrote several years ago and never got finished enough to post:
Charity is the benefit of the doubt. All charity comes down to some approximation of the following proposition: "I think you might be a bad person, but it's possible that I'm mistaken. I'll hedge my bets, and not treat you like a bad person if there's another option until I'm extremely certain."
Hedging is the technique of sacrificing scarce resources to offset risk, and the sacrifice generally involves a number of irreducible inefficiencies. The greater the risk, whether in probability or severity, the more sense it makes to offset that risk with a hedge. As risk declines in probability and severity, the inefficiencies involved in hedging eventually make it a net loss. With Charity, we're hedging against the risk of embracing conflict when productive cooperation was possible if we just worked at it a bit harder. The more uncertainty we have about whether some act is being taken in bad faith or not, and the lower the apparent severity of being wrong, the easier it is to treat them with charity, to extend them the benefit of the doubt.
All of this is just groundwork to hammer out a simple point: Charity is not free. It costs scarce resources, and its cost fluctuates according to your supply of doubt. The more certain you are, the less benefit of the doubt you can supply, and the more expensive charity grows. The less certain you are of bad intentions and serious consequences, the cheaper charity is.
Uncertainty exists in the absence of information and evidence. As evidence and information accumulate, uncertainty diminishes, and charity grows increasingly expensive. It costs you in terms of stress, attention, time, frustration. And of course at the tails, poorly-chosen charity can cost you your career, your friends, your sanity and if you're extremely unlucky your life.
Back in the early 2000s, when I was all hopped up on Blue Tribe 9/11 conspiracies, there was a idea kicking around my circles called "Peak Oil". The idea was that oil takes millions of years to make via geological processes, our society depended on it to function, we had used up most of it, and the price of oil was only going to rise from here on till it grew too expensive and society ground to a halt.
Of course, that never happened. Some brilliant engineer invented fracking, and political winds shifted, and here we are still driving cars and pumping cheap gas. Still, the logic seems sound, doesn't it?
Charity takes a long time to form, possibly on the order of generations. Our society depends on it to function. We have used up most of it, and there does not appear to be a way to manufacture more on short notice. Further, technology is making this problem a lot worse, not better, and it is difficult to imagine the social equivalent of fracking. Charity is expensive, and when people cannot afford it any more, society will grind to a halt.
Back in 2015, arguing with people who disagreed with you was a wonderful thing. The ideas they were pushing might seem strange, bizarre or maybe even harmful, but they were also very new and their outcomes and consequences were very much in doubt. There were still a great many uncertainties, hypotheticals, open questions about how things would play out. These uncertainties made charity relatively cheap, and discussion flourished.
It isn't 2015 any more. We've had seven years of incidents, arguments, and happenings to test our predictions and models. We've had seven years of data to examine. We've gotten to see long-term outcomes for a variety of issues. As events stack up, conversation becomes less and less useful. There was a point to arguing about whether Eich's firing was a good idea or not, whether it was a trend or not. By Damore, wherever you fell on the issue, you probably weren't going to change your mind. By Jeong, there was little left to discuss, and the positions people take largely serve only to disprove what few charitable models remain, or to run up the confirmations for sport[...]
[...]In this environment, given a reasonably stable userbase, Charity drops asymptotically to zero. It's never gone completely, but there's not enough to do what we need, and there's a little less every day, and what there is is a little more expensive, requires a little more effort, and the next day a little more care, and more, and yet more. People start rationing their charity. They start hoarding. The community stutters, chokes and seizes. No one wants this to happen! They want the conversations to keep going! They get angry at people for not being charitable enough, and demand more effort. They get angry at people for growing more certain, less open. But what else is evidence for, if not to lead to conclusions? What is the point of conversation, if not to move from less knowledge to more knowledge? Why ask questions if you don't want answers?
Still, it isn't as it was when we knew less and laughed more, and we miss what we once had. And so we try to adjust things, we try to put in more effort, we change rules and adapt approaches. And the evidence continues to accumulate, three thousand comments and maybe two or three hundred headlines and articles and studies a week, steadily, monotonously burning the charity away, belching out whatever soot is generated by burning the milk of human kindness. No one wants it to be that way. No one wants the thing we love to be its own annihilation. But it is that way, and it will be no other.
I don't think people are going to discover a way to frack charity. On the other hand, maybe it helps some to realize that the problem isn't just other people being awful, that the problem really is, lord help me, systemic, an emergent property of the world we're stuck living in rather than a choice people are making.
Sadly, the above is probably just more of the sort of depressive worldview that you're objecting to. Faith was the only exit from this dead-end that I could find; so long as the Rationalist tendency to empirical calculation is followed, fatalism seems inevitable. To escape the trap, it is necessary to defy the odds, to embrace axioms rather than evidence.
More options
Context Copy link