2/ Outrage generally focuses on highly-disputed topics of great political symbolism, and comes from only one party or with opposite outrages for each side. That suggests it's signaling (a la @robinhanson & @KevinSimler).
Show this thread
1/ If outrage was for efficient enforcement of norms (a la @slatestarcodex), topics & positions would not vary so much based on political affiliation. Outrage would be focused on old, largely-eradicated behaviors commonly agreed to be bad. Instead...https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/06/19/contra-caplan-on-arbitrary-deploring/ …
-
-
-
3/ Signaling both fits and adds nuance to
@bryan_caplan's original "vividness + herding" criticism of outrage. Vivid = highly symbolic, an effective signal of values. Herding = how groups use signals to show shared values. https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/12/the_unbearable.html …Show this thread -
4/ While
@bryan_caplan makes good counterpoints on the specific cases of chemical weapons and sexual harassment (https://www.econlib.org/the-illusory-arbitrariness-of-deploring/ …), I think this more general, case-independent critique of the proposed "rational outrage" is much stronger.Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Outrage can be partisan and still somewhat fit the
@slatestarcodex model. If we are outraged over clearly settled and punishable norm offences, being outraged on a political issue frames your side as having already won -
But what proportion of outrage that we see is the clearly settled type vs. ongoing dispute? I do see some of the former, but national-level seems to be almost entirely the latter. Where, as you say, it is a framing trick. "Everyone join me in punishing this clearly bad behavior"
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I ask out of honest difficulty or confusion about one's ability to share 'truths' - when are we in arms with herding? when can we identify it in others? idk
-
Herding is a deeply ingrained human behavior, we all do it often. In a society that needs common norms and laws, it is a problem to have herds with intense & contradictory values. Esp bc those aren't inherent values, they are amplified & differentiated versions of base values.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
you say vividness + *hearding*, but i don't see hearding mentioned in his articles. how are we identifying it, or defining it, in this conversation?
-
i seem to be looking for more on "intensely social" negative emotions. in the cases i'm imagining, negative emotions are tearing new social groups. "IRL" groups are battling "virtual" groups - but the latter is often a 1 way info street and self-talk, a lot of which is guided.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Love this kind of argument — "the dog that didn't bark." Very Hansonian
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.