(This is made worse when you can eavesdrop on conversations you weren’t invited to; so, eg, social media, print media, and agoras/public physical spaces as well as travel and diverse cities.)
-
Show this thread
-
So, if you see enough signals not aimed at you, you may come to believe that instantaneous obedience *without training* is possible, when what’s actually going on is that instantaneous obedience is possible *with training*.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
In this model, belief in instantaneous obedience doesn’t have to be overwhelmingly widespread in order to propagate itself; it can ride on the coattails of tons of “innocent” (=not based on falsehood) baton-signals.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
(These aren’t all the possibilities, to be clear; just generating a few plausible ideas.)
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
it's also possible, as
@selentelechia suggested, that people get trained on *clumsy* signals; e.g. if people get mad every time you don't instantaneously do something you don't know how to do, you might infer that this means "instantaneous obedience is obligatory"...1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
even though the people who got mad at you *didn't* believe that instantaneous obedience is obligatory. Maybe you need a *few* sources of authoritarian ideology to promote the hypothesis to your attention, but *mostly* you're being trained on people's unintentional signals.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
Anyhow. Instantaneous obedience is *impossible.* Not "evil" or "tyrannical"; it literally doesn't exist. You *can't* do what you're told directly. You *have* to map it to how you would do it *first*, and then your reward function has to be drawn to it.
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likesShow this thread -
Other people can't "make you do things." What other people can do is *make you suffer*. They can promote hypotheses to your attention, and the right stimuli in the right order *can* tie you in a knot of trying to believe two contradictory things at once.
1 reply 2 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
There's a (false, IMO) belief you might call "descriptive authoritarianism" -- the theory that people *can* make other people do things, that instantaneous obedience or direct manipulation is possible.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
As a meta-comment, this and many other similar threads that you post makes me realise that I never think of this sort of things; in retrospective it seems correct what you say, but for some reason those thoughts are often drawn to your attention and not to mine. Wonder why
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
-
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin
Of anything you have written in the thread(s). For example, it never occurred to me that a necessary condition for you to be successfully coerces you first need to do that reward mapping and planning of how to act
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ArtirKel
hm. I'd have thought you were interested in that frequent intersection of "how do minds work" (psych/cog-sci/AI/game theory/microfoundations/etc).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 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.