3 ms·

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but the problem with that test (aside from the likelihood of self-deception) is that there are people on every side of every issue who

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but the problem with that test (aside from the likelihood of self-deception) is that there are people on every side of every issue who would fail it. edit: I actually think this is a serious point, because it speaks to the difficulty of short-cutting your way to a correct opinion by looking at the character and motives of people participating in the debate. For any political or moral position with a non-trivial number of supporters, I could find examples of proponents being cruel, irrational, intellectually inconsistent, plainly dishonest, and so on. Not necessarily an equal number of examples -- often one side of an issue really does attract worse/dumber people -- but always enough to give you a pretty dim view of that group, and by extension that side of the debate. And unfortunately I think this plays a big role in how we actually make up our minds. It's unsurprising, and probably necessary, that we cluster issues together and apply some social heuristics rather than independently investigating every topic in depth. 'Do the people who support this set of policies seem smart and benevolent?' is a reasonable heuristic when applied to a fair sample. But unfortunately it's also a really easy heuristic to hack, simply by cherry-picking the best/worst examples. This can be done deliberately by others, lazily by ourselves, randomly by circumstance, or blindly by social media algorithms, but in each case the effect is similar. (Of course, the extra complication is that this heuristic can easily fail even when applied perfectly. Maybe a position is attractive to many people for bad reasons, while also being attractive to open-minded experts because the facts ultimately back it up. The experts will usually be outnumbered, so a random sample will show the majority of people with the correct opinion holding it for bad reasons.)

WalterBright 7y ago
> I actually think this is a serious point, because it speaks to the difficulty of short-cutting your way to a correct opinion by looking at the character and motives of people participating in the debate. An awful lot of evil has been done by people who firmly believed they were doing the right thing. I'd even go further and suggest that most evil has been done by people who thought they were in the right. Consider also that the notions of what is right and wrong have changed considerably over time.
tunesmith 7y ago
I wouldn't fully judge a position based on other people's motivations. It's more the difference between, do I want politician X to be brought up on charges because I take glee in him suffering and going to jail? Or do I want him to be brought up on charges because I have identified the actual moral/legal/ethical standards that I believe all politicians should subscribe to, and do I believe that failure to meet those standards is justification for prosecution (in all cases) in order to protect society? Someone else might enjoy that politician's suffering if they are brought up on charges, but it's definitely not a necessary feeling if it's a just outcome. So I wouldn't argue that "enjoying someone else's suffering" is sufficient to guarantee you're on the wrong side, but I would say that it's not necessary - and therefore, if any just outcome can be found without feeling satisfaction in the person's suffering, then we should individually seek to be free of enjoying the suffering of others. And encourage other people of that as well. It's simply not necessary. And I would argue that if enjoying the suffering of others becomes a larger part of your motivation, you are definitely more susceptible to be in favor of actions that are otherwise unsupported or wrong. So, new heuristic - if the chief reason for visiting some justice on someone is because it would make them suffer, be suspicious and don't join in unless you can find an independent justification for that justice.

WalterBright 7y ago

> I actually think this is a serious point, because it speaks to the difficulty of short-cutting your way to a correct opinion by looking at the character and motives of people participating in the debate. An awful lot of evil has been done by people who firmly believed they were doing the right thing. I'd even go further and suggest that most evil has been done by people who thought they were in the right. Consider also that the notions of what is right and wrong have changed considerably over time.

tunesmith 7y ago

I wouldn't fully judge a position based on other people's motivations. It's more the difference between, do I want politician X to be brought up on charges because I take glee in him suffering and going to jail? Or do I want him to be brought up on charges because I have identified the actual moral/legal/ethical standards that I believe all politicians should subscribe to, and do I believe that failure to meet those standards is justification for prosecution (in all cases) in order to protect society? Someone else might enjoy that politician's suffering if they are brought up on charges, but it's definitely not a necessary feeling if it's a just outcome. So I wouldn't argue that "enjoying someone else's suffering" is sufficient to guarantee you're on the wrong side, but I would say that it's not necessary - and therefore, if any just outcome can be found without feeling satisfaction in the person's suffering, then we should individually seek to be free of enjoying the suffering of others. And encourage other people of that as well. It's simply not necessary. And I would argue that if enjoying the suffering of others becomes a larger part of your motivation, you are definitely more susceptible to be in favor of actions that are otherwise unsupported or wrong. So, new heuristic - if the chief reason for visiting some justice on someone is because it would make them suffer, be suspicious and don't join in unless you can find an independent justification for that justice.