4 ms·

this is the best explanation I've even seen for a positive aspect to secrecy. yet I still distrust secretive practices on principle, because evil deeds require

by bsedlm 5y ago

this is the best explanation I've even seen for a positive aspect to secrecy. yet I still distrust secretive practices on principle, because evil deeds require secrecy 99% of the time

vmception 5y ago
transparency is a deflection and most of the implementation is based on lies many forms of good deeds also rely on secrecy
- bsedlm 5y ago
  > transparency is a deflection and most of the implementation is based on lies transparency(openness)-opacity(secrecy) are not the same as honesty-deceit. all language-based 'explanations' can be argued to be lies by nitpicking with increasing precision. For example, consider whether the circle constant PI is equal to 3? well yes it is but in fact it's 3.1 well yes but it's actually 3.14159... and so on in any case, this article is playing around the distinction between transparent and honest and opaque or secret and deceitful. the difference can be very blurry
reactspa 5y ago
> You consider telling everyone “OK, here are some promises that we’ve designed to maximize how embarrassing it would be for us to break up”, but decide it’s better not to make that explicit. I didn't understand this sentence. Anyone care to clarify please? (E.g., what would be an example of a promise that would be embarrassing?) Thanks.
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  It's talking about wedding vows during a marriage ceremony where the couple says in front of many people about how much they will do for the other person "for better or worse, in sickness and health", "til death do us part." If you divorce, it's embarrassing because you betrayed all those public exclamations.
  - reactspa 5y ago
    But such vows ("till death do us part", etc.) are commonly said explicitly. The article says: "You consider telling everyone... but decide it’s better not to make that explicit." I'm asking for examples of something people "consider telling everyone" but decide it's "better not to make that explicit."
    - reducesuffering 5y ago
      It's not explicitly said that the reasons for the public devotional is to dissuade the couple from an embarrassing betrayal of those public vows. To the author, being explicit would mean saying "and we say all this so we'd be more wary of breaking up, given we just told all of you how much we're going to stick by each other."
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
tomcatfish 5y ago
I'm on the side of honesty here despite the argument for secrecy, but I want to note your argument can be firmed up interestingly. You say "evil deeds require secrecy 99% of the time" which means that P(need_secrecy | evil) = 0.99 However, you are saying you don't like secrecy because of this, which means you are accessing a different fact, P(evil | needs_secrecy) This is one of my favorite examples of flawed reasoning of all time because it is almost entirely hidden until you formalize things in one of a few ways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor's_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor's_fallacy Comment note: P(A|B) = P(A&B)/P(B) is the "conditional probability" and is read "Probability of A given B".

by bsedlm 5y ago

this is the best explanation I've even seen for a positive aspect to secrecy. yet I still distrust secretive practices on principle, because evil deeds require secrecy 99% of the time

vmception 5y ago

transparency is a deflection and most of the implementation is based on lies many forms of good deeds also rely on secrecy

bsedlm 5y ago
> transparency is a deflection and most of the implementation is based on lies transparency(openness)-opacity(secrecy) are not the same as honesty-deceit. all language-based 'explanations' can be argued to be lies by nitpicking with increasing precision. For example, consider whether the circle constant PI is equal to 3? well yes it is but in fact it's 3.1 well yes but it's actually 3.14159... and so on in any case, this article is playing around the distinction between transparent and honest and opaque or secret and deceitful. the difference can be very blurry

reactspa 5y ago

> You consider telling everyone “OK, here are some promises that we’ve designed to maximize how embarrassing it would be for us to break up”, but decide it’s better not to make that explicit. I didn't understand this sentence. Anyone care to clarify please? (E.g., what would be an example of a promise that would be embarrassing?) Thanks.

reducesuffering 5y ago
It's talking about wedding vows during a marriage ceremony where the couple says in front of many people about how much they will do for the other person "for better or worse, in sickness and health", "til death do us part." If you divorce, it's embarrassing because you betrayed all those public exclamations.
- reactspa 5y ago
  But such vows ("till death do us part", etc.) are commonly said explicitly. The article says: "You consider telling everyone... but decide it’s better not to make that explicit." I'm asking for examples of something people "consider telling everyone" but decide it's "better not to make that explicit."
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    It's not explicitly said that the reasons for the public devotional is to dissuade the couple from an embarrassing betrayal of those public vows. To the author, being explicit would mean saying "and we say all this so we'd be more wary of breaking up, given we just told all of you how much we're going to stick by each other."
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

tomcatfish 5y ago

I'm on the side of honesty here despite the argument for secrecy, but I want to note your argument can be firmed up interestingly. You say "evil deeds require secrecy 99% of the time" which means that P(need_secrecy | evil) = 0.99 However, you are saying you don't like secrecy because of this, which means you are accessing a different fact, P(evil | needs_secrecy) This is one of my favorite examples of flawed reasoning of all time because it is almost entirely hidden until you formalize things in one of a few ways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor's_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor's_fallacy Comment note: P(A|B) = P(A&B)/P(B) is the "conditional probability" and is read "Probability of A given B".