The question is, when are you legitimately trapped, and when have you been psy-oped into perceiving a trap (that could actually be defied at acceptable cost with some amount of bravery)? 1/2
-
-
Replying to @zackmdavis @ESYudkowsky
The voting case is a particularly interesting one where 2008!Yudkowsky seems to disagree with 2020!Yudkowsky, and I'm curious what changed your mind? 2/2https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/k5qPoHFgjyxtvYsm7/stop-voting-for-nincompoops …
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @zackmdavis
Improved model of the social climate where revolutions are much less startable or controllable by good actors. Having spent more time chewing on Nash equilibria, and realizing that the trap is *real* and can't be defied away even if it's very unpleasant.
1 reply 0 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @zackmdavis
To a first approximation, you are always actually trapped. If you weren't actually trapped, you'd be seeing defiant teenagers being outside the trap *successfully* in a useful direction.
3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @zackmdavis
There really are people who don't vote for major party candidates (hi!). There are significantly fewer people, but they exist, who don't go to doctors, who emigrate from countries whose governments they disapprove of, or who evade taxes, though those are much more costly.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @zackmdavis
And your candidates don't get elected. Trump got elected, but he's not a good person's candidate. The equilibrium can't be *successfully* broken in a *useful* direction. So your *best* options are the lesser evil acts inside it. The trap is real and cannot be wished away.
3 replies 0 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @zackmdavis
It's true that not nearly enough people do the things I mentioned to break the Nash equilibrium. The question is, are people really "trapped" in that they *have* to do the more common thing or else the personal consequences for them are dire? Not always.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @zackmdavis
Demanding "personal" consequences is moving the goalposts; the question is whether a defiant action is *best*, not whether it has personal consequences. People who refused to vote for Hillary didn't pay the price, kids in cages did, but that still makes the action nonbest.
3 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @zackmdavis
Your original point was "it would be immoral to vote for Hillary/pay taxes/trade with doctors/etc. if you weren't trapped by a bad Nash equilibrium." The counterargument I made is "you're not trapped, you totally can do those things." You said "but there are worse consequences...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
huh?
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.