7 ms·
Ideas that Have Harmed Mankind (1946)
- throwanem 10y ago> In public, as in private life, the important thing is tolerance and kindliness, without the presumption of a superhuman ability to read the future. Wise advice in any age, and perhaps of particular value in ours.
- harveywi 10y agoIt is not always wise advice. ("Now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet) In an iterated prisoner's dilemma [1] where both players know the number of rounds that will be played, the optimal strategy is to always defect. When the number of rounds is unknown to both players, a good strategy was empirically shown to be "tit for tat" [2] - if your opponent is cooperating, then you cooperate too, otherwise you continue to defect as long as they do, and only resume cooperation after they resume playing nice. Obviously game theoretic models are just models, but they can be useful and illuminating. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoner.27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_itera... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
- throwanem 10y agoPerhaps Russell might have been wise to toss in something about not being overly literal, too.
- Retric 10y agoIterated 1v1 prisoner's dilemma with a known number of rounds is effectively just a single round of prisoner's dilemma. As to strategy's it really depends on what the penalties are and if you can see other peoples rounds. AKA if Algo 3 can see when Algo 1 and 2 have their rounds, before having a round with 1 and 2. Another interesting version is escalating prisoners dilemma, where round X is worth more than round X -1.
- shanusmagnus 10y agoIt's also useful to consider how often real life resembles the prisoner's dilemma, iterated or otherwise (in my experience, not often) and in the cases where it appears to, whether other factors (such as getting the reputation of being a dick) might swamp the advantage that is to be gained by betraying your partner. Of course you can always cook up a situation where any strategy is the best one; but in my real-life experience kindness tends to be a pretty good strategy, for a variety of realistic objective functions. (edit: grammar)
- PieterH 10y agoSadly kindness and tolerance only works with the 96% of people who are socially motivated (and not psychopaths). For the antisocial minority you must use force of one form or another, otherwise they create real damage.
- throwanem 10y agoI think it would be a real surprise if Russell meant this advice to be taken as an absolute rule for every possible case.
- Pica_soO 10y agoI possess the gift of linkokinessis, thus without reading the article, i deduce, that any idea, that strives towards finality applied to reality will absolutely fail. In memoria to all those jewish scientists, kolak farmers, chinese intellectuals and all those sweatshopped to death wherever the distributed ecocide of neo-capitalism hit.
- rcthompson 10y agoIt's a little depressing to read how many harmful ideas he considered "almost died out" or even "officially died out" that still plague our society to this day, 70 years later.
- Kenji 10y agoHey, look at the bright side. If you think in millenia, it wasn't too long ago that people had to fear that they were killed for outrageous ideas like that the planetary system could be heliocentric or that there are irrational numbers.
- Karunamon 10y agoGiordano Bruno was the person supposedly burned to death for heliocentrist views, in reality, that was more to do with his religious beliefs (pantheism, rejection of the Christian trinity, etc) than his views on how the stars are lined up. That one was easy to find on Google, but I'm unable to find an identity of any person who was burned at the stake for their views on mathematics. It's a common theme, but not one of the links on the first few pages were able to point to anything in specific (just lots of posts like this one that repeat the claim) Not that this absolves the early church of ideologically based murder or makes their actions less heinous, but in the interests of accuracy...
- Kenji 10y agoI applaud your intellectual rigour. You are right, it is not confirmed if someone really got murdered over irrational numbers (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippasus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippasus ). That is why I changed my comment right after I wrote it, to "fear that they were killed" instead of "have been killed". Let us not turn legends into facts.
- Floegipoky 10y agoI strongly suspect that the people burning other humans to death for witchcraft, based on red flags like literacy, may not have kept extensive records.
- swayvil 10y agoPlease, we aren't rational. The ideas just provide a narrative wrapper for our stew of inclinations. Fine philosophies will not improve things. My bet is on drugs, art and meditation.
- stcredzero 10y agoHow about the idea that one should be kind and treat all people with dignity?
- swayvil 10y agoI don't know, how about it? Give me more to work with here.
- stcredzero 10y agoI meant that as an addition to your list.
- swayvil 10y agoNo, I don't think that idea, holding it or conveying it, has commensurate ability to change perspectives or raise consciousness. Not comparable to drugs/art/meditation. Not at all.
- stcredzero 10y ago...because what other people might have to say isn't particularly important, so behaving in a way that best ensures others will be willing to share truthful opinions isn't of any particular value? You've never had your perspective changed or consciousness raised by something someone said unexpectedly? If your answer is "no" I'd posit that that is a particularly interesting piece of data.
- swayvil 10y ago
- louprado 10y agoWhile this was just an anecdote, it caught me off guard: > if you question any candid person who is no longer young, he is very likely to tell you that, having tasted life in this world, he has no wish to begin again as a 'new boy' in another. The tone suggests that old people have "had enough" of this disappointing world, but I'll suggest a different view. Assuming this candid survey was conducted amongst R.Bertrand's philosophical and possibly atheistic cohorts, they would give that answer because a philosophical person makes it their duty to learn how to live well and internalize their goals. Contrast this to someone who never bothered to learn how to live well, or believes God will decide whether or not they lived well. This may create a desire for another chance or more time to figure it out and get it right. Coincidentally I once asked this exact question to someone who had experienced profound hardship (e.g., civil war, mutilation, death of child, total loss, abuse, political persecution, etc). That elderly person made it clear that they would very much want to be young again. It is regretful that Bertrand would make such a broad and questionable generalization in such a depressing context.
- Kluny 10y ago>> if you question any candid person who is no longer young, he is very likely to tell you that, having tasted life in this world, he has no wish to begin again as a 'new boy' in another. > The tone suggests that old people have "had enough" of this disappointing world, but I'll suggest a different view. I read it differently - not that the older person has had enough, but rather that they count their experience so valuable that they don't want to start again without it. At the age of 27, I definitely don't want to relive the trauma I went through in my teens and early twenties as I learned to navigate relationships and look after my wellbeing. I'd love to have a young body forever, but that experience is worth a lot.
- vacri 10y agoI have a similar position re: youth traumas, plus another angle. I love being a sysadmin, but at 43 it took a long time to get here - I started out doing neuroscience, worked as a neuroscientist for a while, went to work support at a related equipment supplier, moved into testing, and eventually ended up as sysadmin a few jobs down the road. If I had started out my career in the tech world, I would have had a more enjoyable career path and a much bigger bank balance, but I also wouldn't have my well-rounded experiences. I like that I started out in biology, and I see a pragmatism about life in biologists that I don't see anywhere else (and particularly not in tech). In short, I don't know who I'd be if I started over afresh, and I genuinely don't know whether I'd be better or worse off (or even value the same things)
- hellameta 10y agothere are no bad ideas. even this one.
- B1FF_PSUVM 10y agoBertrand Russell is a particularly vicious specimen.
- methehack 10y agoReally? How so? And of what?
- B1FF_PSUVM 10y agoMalignant 'rationalism', the kind that murdered millions of people, starting with the French revolution and continuing with the Soviet one.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jhbadger 10y agoPeople (particularly religious zealots) like to claim that the French and Soviet revolutions were "rational" but they ignore: 1) The villain of the French Revolution, Robespierre, wasn't a rational atheist but in fact founded his own pseudo-Christian religion "The Cult of of the Supreme Being" and actually had actual French atheists executed. 2) Stalin, who was responsible for most of the Soviet deaths actually went to seminary and trained to be a priest.
- methehack 10y agoYer gonna have to slow waaaaay down there, pardner
- jkingsbery 10y agoRussell comes across, here as in most places, as ignorant about what religious people believe. Anyone looking for a more balanced take should read Chesterton's Orthodoxy.
- FreedomToCreate 10y agoMany of the ideas here, especially the ideas of moving past nationalism and that prosperity for all is better than prosperity for the few, are still controversial today. The tribe mentality, in regards to what the media portrays especially, has grown. Conservatives vs liberals, minorities vs the white patriarchy, Silicon Valley vs the rest of the world. We have just evolved and shifted the divisions, but the core mentality has not changed.
- whoByFire 10y agoI was expecting a discussion of harmful technologies. Instead, he essentially says "rationalization considered harmful". Which is not too controversial. But his model of humanity is interesting. He seems to think of humans as harboring dark passions that are just itching to be rationalized. Despite Russell's atheism, I can't help but wonder if the doctrine of total depravity [1] hasn't rubbed off on him. Or if we are seeing evidence of the typical mind fallacy [2]. But I also can't help but wonder that maybe he's just better at introspecting than I am. And that maybe my model of humanity should be a little more depraved. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity [2] https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Typical_mind_fallacy https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Typical_mind_fallacy