3 ms·

Sorry but what does the video say in tl;dr? Anyone with background in this field?

by linhchi 11y ago

brudgers 11y ago
It differentiates between jerks and asshats [and indirectly Bartlebys]. It describes their subtle effects in terms of game theory and suggests ways understanding and directing their behavior. Because the concepts and issues are evocative in the manner Frankfurt's On Bullshit, the content tends to expand beyond the length of the video rather than condense down twoard a sound bite.
dub 11y ago
The main bullet point is that civility is when we agree it's essential to ensure that the "game" of discourse does not come to an end. Because we want to play the game, we must protect the game from being subverted. That includes protecting the game from subversion by ourselves in the pursuit of our own, individual goals. Civilization can tolerate cheats: people who agree that we're playing a game of discourse with a goal of cooperation (being truthful, adequately informative, relevant, and clear), although cheats try to break the rules without being caught. It cannot tolerate "asshats": people with no regard whatsoever for the values (rules?) of the game of discourse
- brashrat 11y ago
  You have restated the stated goal of the talk, but personally I didn't find him convincing. Behind his stated argument was a lot of snobbery directed against those he clearly dislikes. I prefer if the tone of a insult matches the content, I don't like politely worded sneers which he comes across as advocating in favor of. This whole business of "civilization can tolerate well educated cunning self interested liars better than it can rabble" is not a super familiar argument because it's not convincing or polite to make it.
- linhchi 11y ago
  I think civility is how we react to things that are different from us. In resolving conflict, we can bomb the shit out of each other, or we can greet our enemy with political statements. Both are painful but dead is an absorbing state, as long as you are alive, you can whine, rant or smile etc. Once you are dead, it's irrevokable. Hence bombing is less civil on that ground.

Sorry but what does the video say in tl;dr? Anyone with background in this field?

by linhchi 11y ago

Sorry but what does the video say in tl;dr? Anyone with background in this field?

It differentiates between jerks and asshats [and indirectly Bartlebys]. It describes their subtle effects in terms of game theory and suggests ways understanding and directing their behavior. Because the concepts and issues are evocative in the manner Frankfurt's On Bullshit, the content tends to expand beyond the length of the video rather than condense down twoard a sound bite.

dub 11y ago

The main bullet point is that civility is when we agree it's essential to ensure that the "game" of discourse does not come to an end. Because we want to play the game, we must protect the game from being subverted. That includes protecting the game from subversion by ourselves in the pursuit of our own, individual goals. Civilization can tolerate cheats: people who agree that we're playing a game of discourse with a goal of cooperation (being truthful, adequately informative, relevant, and clear), although cheats try to break the rules without being caught. It cannot tolerate "asshats": people with no regard whatsoever for the values (rules?) of the game of discourse

brashrat 11y ago
You have restated the stated goal of the talk, but personally I didn't find him convincing. Behind his stated argument was a lot of snobbery directed against those he clearly dislikes. I prefer if the tone of a insult matches the content, I don't like politely worded sneers which he comes across as advocating in favor of. This whole business of "civilization can tolerate well educated cunning self interested liars better than it can rabble" is not a super familiar argument because it's not convincing or polite to make it.
linhchi 11y ago
I think civility is how we react to things that are different from us. In resolving conflict, we can bomb the shit out of each other, or we can greet our enemy with political statements. Both are painful but dead is an absorbing state, as long as you are alive, you can whine, rant or smile etc. Once you are dead, it's irrevokable. Hence bombing is less civil on that ground.