5 ms·

>To be a (good) software developer you need to be at least a little bit honest with yourself (can't learn from mistakes if you can't acknowledge you made a mist

by Hasu 5y ago

>To be a (good) software developer you need to be at least a little bit honest with yourself (can't learn from mistakes if you can't acknowledge you made a mistake, etc.), you need to be curious, you need to be willing to observe and learn and you need to be able to put effort including in things that may not necessarily have immediate payoff. >All of which, I think, correlate with being a good person. Does not mean you will be a good person, it just means there is higher chance. None of this correlates with being a good person at all! Let's imagine that I am pure evil and want to maximize harm. Being honest with myself, learning from my mistakes, being curious, being willing to learn and observe, and putting effort into things that may not have immediate payoff are all going to make me better at poisoning the water supply or what have you. These traits correlate with being effective, not good.

UnFleshedOne 5y ago
I think it is more of the opposite -- having those traits on its own doesn't make you a good person, but lacking those definitely makes you a bad person. :)
lmilcin 5y ago
I think you are making logical mistake. A trait can lead to a lot of different outcomes being more likely. Including outcomes that directly conflict with each other. Saying "having these traits makes you more likely to be a good person" does not contradict saying "having these traits makes you more likely to be effective evil dictator". You assume that if having certain traits makes you more likely to be effective evil mastermind it also means it must make it less likely that you are good person. Which is not true. Imagine following situation: you want to measure how a trait makes it more likely that any random person out of entire population is a surgeon. And then you want to measure if a trait makes it more likely that any random person out of entire population is a lawyer. We know that being lawyer conflicts with being surgeon -- both require significant investment of time and effort and you have to choose being one or the other. But, we can find that having wealthy parents makes it more likely that you are both surgeon and lawyer. And that is because being surgeon and being lawyer both requires a heavy investment of time or money or both -- which is more likely to be possible if you have wealthy parents that can support you. Which of course does not prove my point, but it does invalidate your argument.
- Hasu 5y ago
  No, I am not making a logical mistake, and your 'invalidation' of my argument is actually just restating it. > You assume that if having certain traits makes you more likely to be effective evil mastermind it also means it must make it less likely that you are good person. I do not, and I don't assume that the traits listed make you more likely to be an evil mastermind or a good person, I think they are completely unrelated to morality, and only related to effectiveness (this is what I mean when I say the traits don't correlate with being a good person at all). If you wanted to find the most effective neutral people, you would look for the same traits, because that's what they measure: effectiveness. Another way of putting your claim: effective people are more likely to be good people. I think that is a very bold claim and have seen no evidence of it in my life, competence and goodness are orthogonal.

by Hasu 5y ago

UnFleshedOne 5y ago

I think it is more of the opposite -- having those traits on its own doesn't make you a good person, but lacking those definitely makes you a bad person. :)

lmilcin 5y ago

I think you are making logical mistake. A trait can lead to a lot of different outcomes being more likely. Including outcomes that directly conflict with each other. Saying "having these traits makes you more likely to be a good person" does not contradict saying "having these traits makes you more likely to be effective evil dictator". You assume that if having certain traits makes you more likely to be effective evil mastermind it also means it must make it less likely that you are good person. Which is not true. Imagine following situation: you want to measure how a trait makes it more likely that any random person out of entire population is a surgeon. And then you want to measure if a trait makes it more likely that any random person out of entire population is a lawyer. We know that being lawyer conflicts with being surgeon -- both require significant investment of time and effort and you have to choose being one or the other. But, we can find that having wealthy parents makes it more likely that you are both surgeon and lawyer. And that is because being surgeon and being lawyer both requires a heavy investment of time or money or both -- which is more likely to be possible if you have wealthy parents that can support you. Which of course does not prove my point, but it does invalidate your argument.

Hasu 5y ago
No, I am not making a logical mistake, and your 'invalidation' of my argument is actually just restating it. > You assume that if having certain traits makes you more likely to be effective evil mastermind it also means it must make it less likely that you are good person. I do not, and I don't assume that the traits listed make you more likely to be an evil mastermind or a good person, I think they are completely unrelated to morality, and only related to effectiveness (this is what I mean when I say the traits don't correlate with being a good person at all). If you wanted to find the most effective neutral people, you would look for the same traits, because that's what they measure: effectiveness. Another way of putting your claim: effective people are more likely to be good people. I think that is a very bold claim and have seen no evidence of it in my life, competence and goodness are orthogonal.