5 ms·

It's a fascinating experiment, but I don't buy the author's explanation for anti-social punishment. He's talking about punishing "rats/narks" (which is also a b

by whack 8y ago

It's a fascinating experiment, but I don't buy the author's explanation for anti-social punishment. He's talking about punishing "rats/narks" (which is also a big social taboo here in USA), whereas all punishment in the experiment is completely anonymous. I think a more plausible explanation is status envy. Someone who is publicly altruistic, is likely to gain compliments and plaudits from others. This would then boost their status, and bring down the relative status of others. This is likely to engender status-envy on the part of others, and they act upon their status-envy by inflicting punishment on the do-gooder. It's worth mentioning that I've personally seen such behavior here in America as well, especially when wealthy individuals or corporations engage in altruistic acts.

jpfed 8y ago
>Someone who is publicly altruistic, is likely to gain compliments and plaudits from others. I suspect this is also the basis of the behavior of criticizing "virtue-signaling". In both cases, the punisher wants to be sure that the goodie-two-shoes doesn't get to benefit from others recognizing them.
- Presquare 8y ago
  I'd say that behavior is often called "virtue signaling" when it's mostly other people who have to pay the cost for someone's "virtuous" behavior. Example: Y Combinator notices how only 15% of their funded founders are women. Their fellow progressives call them out on this, and YC commits to fund more women. They will write posts about how they want more female founders. They will organize women only events. Perhaps, they will even actually favor female founders over more qualified male founders for funding. Very virtuous of them to care about gender equality. The problem is that the society doesn't consist of "men" and "women". It consists of individuals. When a man applies to YC, he isn't "men", he is a unique individual. An individual who has put enormous effort to build a product. An individual who has been long dreaming of founding a company, and finally built enough courage to take the leap. An individual who would be qualified by his merits. But... he gets rejected because YC consists of virtuous people who care about gender equality, and unfortunately they have already funded enough men. Now YC gets to post how they have funded more female founders, and their fellow progressives will praise them for caring about gender equality. And what happened to the aspiring male entrepreneur after that? No one knows. No one cares. ... In this example, it's YC who gets all the virtue points, while it's the aspiring male entrepreneur who has to carry most of the cost for their "virtuous" behavior. This doesn't mean that YC's behavior is wrong, but it does suggest that their behavior isn't as virtuous as it seems. Thus, "virtue signaling".
  - afthonos 8y ago
    I like this analysis. I’d say the root problem is that it feels like there should be no trade-offs in doing “good”, when in reality there are always trade-offs. In other words, there is no way to solve the undesirable gender disparity issue that will meet the standard of YC’s behavior being “as virtuous as it seems”.
  - rbg246 8y ago
    This is not an example of virtue signalling. YC invest their own money and so it is their cost. The applicants applied to a program where they knew the rules. Because it's their money they make the rules. And I reckon, they believe their rules get the best results. This is not virtue signalling, it's taking action.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
taurath 8y ago
> especially when wealthy individuals or corporations engage in altruistic acts I've found that rather than status envy, its cynicism towards the intentions of the person. If they believe the purpose of the altruism is to gain social standing rather than an actual belief in solving the problem they're likely to disparage them. For example - when a company spends $50k to send a sick child on a vacation and then puts down a $50 million marketing spend to show off what they did. It feels like 99% of politics in the US has the same problem. That sort of leads to the question - what is an effective way to communicate that you want to be an effective do-gooder, without triggering the cynicism? Is attention truly orthogonal to people believing that you have good intentions? I'd argue not, but its been lost. It seems like we don't have many cultural heroes anymore. Einstein comes to mind - Bill Gates perhaps (though certainly not in the 90s)..
- milkytron 8y ago
  > what is an effective way to communicate that you want to be an effective do-gooder, without triggering the cynicism? Communicating that you want to be one and being one is different. I'd like to think that the people who do great things will be eventually noticed whether they publicize it or not. Certainly if you communicate it then it may get noticed sooner, but having others notice shows a sense of being humble in addition to doing good things.
  - taurath 8y ago
    Certainly - actions must come before words. Consider a billionaire who has steadily been giving millions away per year anonymously to a good chartable cause, but realizes the end goal can only be completed with more people. If at any point, the billionaire says hello - I have been donating to this cause for a while, and need help to eradicate it for all time, what happens? I'd guess that people think the billionaire never intended to keep donating in secret and it was generally a ruse. The second you go public, you already need to have a very large amount of "well-thought-of" supporters who are will back you to combat natural cynicism. Another solution is to frame the problem as a common enemy one - thats what I think they tried with the "war on ___".
nine_k 8y ago
IIRC a number of ethical systems suggest to do good things clandestinely, or at least avoid bragging about them. Besides the internal benefits it provides, according to an ethical system, it may also help the system spread more easily because the status envy would not resist it.
arglebarnacle 8y ago
Its much more likely that the critical or cynical response to alturism by wealthy individuals and corporations is political than psychogical. What I see is ordinary people railing against a system where millions of people work multiple jobs for starvation wages and no benefits while other have amassed wealth on a scale never before seen in human history. When our supposed billionaire entrepreneur betters and even those same corporations make "alturistic" charitable donations, the response is skepticism and political anger, not envy. "Explaining" your political opponents arguments as an envious psychological response is a political smear, not a neutral analysis.
ioasnfignio 8y ago
I don't buy any of the speculation. It's not scientific in the least. Anyone can invent a post-hoc rationalization of what's going on, but until you propose a test it's not worth much. This is textbook LessWrong. It started off interesting, but then started using this experiment to justify a pet social theory.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > It's not scientific in the least. It's not purporting to be. > This is textbook LessWrong. It started off interesting, but then started using this experiment to justify a pet social theory. One other thing that's "textbook LessWrong" is the understanding that "anyone can invent a post-hoc rationalization of what's going on, but until you propose a test it's not worth much". It's like, half of what Eliezer wrote was about this. This post is not a scientific paper, it's just some commentary and a starting point of discussion in the community.
ankit219 8y ago
Of course, there can be more explanations 1/ Assuming the contributors can punish anyone, participants who contributed higher in 2-3 rounds would start punishing those who contribute less, given at some level, they are also free-riding though not to the extent of free riders. 2/ Free riders punishing the contributors hoping next time they do not get punished (cos punishment is a choice rather than an obligation, you may choose to enforce it.) 3/ A cynical way of playing this game is that when you know contributor is punishing someone, he loses a bit more, and free rider's profits are reduced(when overall pool < 20). Athens have a reverse effect when the rules are changed. A deduction is that I can risk to lose a bit of my gains, and can bully the contributors into not punishing me again and again.
dnomad 8y ago
> I think a more plausible explanation is status envy. Elon Musk could announce the cure for cancer tomorrow and many would decry it as a "PR Stunt." Philosophers deploy the term "ressentiment" [1] to describe this complex behavior. This isn't exactly because they fear their own particular status falling, though that might've been the initial origin, by the time it reaches this stage you're talking about a cultural phenomenon, a "morality." Real "anti-social punishment" must occur because these people feel confident that others will not blame them for their anti-social behavior, indeed they likely believe that others will actually praise them for their anti-social behavior. It's misguided then to think this is a personal/economic or "rational" behavior and not an ideological one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment

by whack 8y ago

jpfed 8y ago

>Someone who is publicly altruistic, is likely to gain compliments and plaudits from others. I suspect this is also the basis of the behavior of criticizing "virtue-signaling". In both cases, the punisher wants to be sure that the goodie-two-shoes doesn't get to benefit from others recognizing them.

Presquare 8y ago
I'd say that behavior is often called "virtue signaling" when it's mostly other people who have to pay the cost for someone's "virtuous" behavior. Example: Y Combinator notices how only 15% of their funded founders are women. Their fellow progressives call them out on this, and YC commits to fund more women. They will write posts about how they want more female founders. They will organize women only events. Perhaps, they will even actually favor female founders over more qualified male founders for funding. Very virtuous of them to care about gender equality. The problem is that the society doesn't consist of "men" and "women". It consists of individuals. When a man applies to YC, he isn't "men", he is a unique individual. An individual who has put enormous effort to build a product. An individual who has been long dreaming of founding a company, and finally built enough courage to take the leap. An individual who would be qualified by his merits. But... he gets rejected because YC consists of virtuous people who care about gender equality, and unfortunately they have already funded enough men. Now YC gets to post how they have funded more female founders, and their fellow progressives will praise them for caring about gender equality. And what happened to the aspiring male entrepreneur after that? No one knows. No one cares. ... In this example, it's YC who gets all the virtue points, while it's the aspiring male entrepreneur who has to carry most of the cost for their "virtuous" behavior. This doesn't mean that YC's behavior is wrong, but it does suggest that their behavior isn't as virtuous as it seems. Thus, "virtue signaling".
- afthonos 8y ago
  I like this analysis. I’d say the root problem is that it feels like there should be no trade-offs in doing “good”, when in reality there are always trade-offs. In other words, there is no way to solve the undesirable gender disparity issue that will meet the standard of YC’s behavior being “as virtuous as it seems”.
- rbg246 8y ago
  This is not an example of virtue signalling. YC invest their own money and so it is their cost. The applicants applied to a program where they knew the rules. Because it's their money they make the rules. And I reckon, they believe their rules get the best results. This is not virtue signalling, it's taking action.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

taurath 8y ago

> especially when wealthy individuals or corporations engage in altruistic acts I've found that rather than status envy, its cynicism towards the intentions of the person. If they believe the purpose of the altruism is to gain social standing rather than an actual belief in solving the problem they're likely to disparage them. For example - when a company spends $50k to send a sick child on a vacation and then puts down a $50 million marketing spend to show off what they did. It feels like 99% of politics in the US has the same problem. That sort of leads to the question - what is an effective way to communicate that you want to be an effective do-gooder, without triggering the cynicism? Is attention truly orthogonal to people believing that you have good intentions? I'd argue not, but its been lost. It seems like we don't have many cultural heroes anymore. Einstein comes to mind - Bill Gates perhaps (though certainly not in the 90s)..

milkytron 8y ago
> what is an effective way to communicate that you want to be an effective do-gooder, without triggering the cynicism? Communicating that you want to be one and being one is different. I'd like to think that the people who do great things will be eventually noticed whether they publicize it or not. Certainly if you communicate it then it may get noticed sooner, but having others notice shows a sense of being humble in addition to doing good things.
- taurath 8y ago
  Certainly - actions must come before words. Consider a billionaire who has steadily been giving millions away per year anonymously to a good chartable cause, but realizes the end goal can only be completed with more people. If at any point, the billionaire says hello - I have been donating to this cause for a while, and need help to eradicate it for all time, what happens? I'd guess that people think the billionaire never intended to keep donating in secret and it was generally a ruse. The second you go public, you already need to have a very large amount of "well-thought-of" supporters who are will back you to combat natural cynicism. Another solution is to frame the problem as a common enemy one - thats what I think they tried with the "war on ___".

nine_k 8y ago

IIRC a number of ethical systems suggest to do good things clandestinely, or at least avoid bragging about them. Besides the internal benefits it provides, according to an ethical system, it may also help the system spread more easily because the status envy would not resist it.

arglebarnacle 8y ago

Its much more likely that the critical or cynical response to alturism by wealthy individuals and corporations is political than psychogical. What I see is ordinary people railing against a system where millions of people work multiple jobs for starvation wages and no benefits while other have amassed wealth on a scale never before seen in human history. When our supposed billionaire entrepreneur betters and even those same corporations make "alturistic" charitable donations, the response is skepticism and political anger, not envy. "Explaining" your political opponents arguments as an envious psychological response is a political smear, not a neutral analysis.

ioasnfignio 8y ago

I don't buy any of the speculation. It's not scientific in the least. Anyone can invent a post-hoc rationalization of what's going on, but until you propose a test it's not worth much. This is textbook LessWrong. It started off interesting, but then started using this experiment to justify a pet social theory.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
> It's not scientific in the least. It's not purporting to be. > This is textbook LessWrong. It started off interesting, but then started using this experiment to justify a pet social theory. One other thing that's "textbook LessWrong" is the understanding that "anyone can invent a post-hoc rationalization of what's going on, but until you propose a test it's not worth much". It's like, half of what Eliezer wrote was about this. This post is not a scientific paper, it's just some commentary and a starting point of discussion in the community.

ankit219 8y ago

Of course, there can be more explanations 1/ Assuming the contributors can punish anyone, participants who contributed higher in 2-3 rounds would start punishing those who contribute less, given at some level, they are also free-riding though not to the extent of free riders. 2/ Free riders punishing the contributors hoping next time they do not get punished (cos punishment is a choice rather than an obligation, you may choose to enforce it.) 3/ A cynical way of playing this game is that when you know contributor is punishing someone, he loses a bit more, and free rider's profits are reduced(when overall pool < 20). Athens have a reverse effect when the rules are changed. A deduction is that I can risk to lose a bit of my gains, and can bully the contributors into not punishing me again and again.

dnomad 8y ago

> I think a more plausible explanation is status envy. Elon Musk could announce the cure for cancer tomorrow and many would decry it as a "PR Stunt." Philosophers deploy the term "ressentiment" [1] to describe this complex behavior. This isn't exactly because they fear their own particular status falling, though that might've been the initial origin, by the time it reaches this stage you're talking about a cultural phenomenon, a "morality." Real "anti-social punishment" must occur because these people feel confident that others will not blame them for their anti-social behavior, indeed they likely believe that others will actually praise them for their anti-social behavior. It's misguided then to think this is a personal/economic or "rational" behavior and not an ideological one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment