Step into the role of a savior out of plays, and people see you as a slave to whose services they are entitled and whom it is their enjoyment to criticize; for it is the privilege of masters to sit back and call forth helpful corrections while the slaves labor. Only in the tales of the ancient Greeks, from when men were less sophisticated in their delusions, may you see the hero who is also high. Hector, Aeneas, those were heroes who retained their right of vengeance upon those who insulted them, who could demand gold and jewels in payment for their services without sparking indignation. And if Lord Voldemort conquered Britain, he might then condescend to show himself noble in victory; and nobody would take his goodwill for granted, nor chirp corrections at him if his work was not to their liking.
Yudkowsky discusses it more, speaking of dominance contests and respect. I don't think those are all that important; the most useful part is displaying a rare and powerful behavior: nonconformity. After all, good deeds do not count if they're done out of obligation instead of free will. Just like doing good for monetary compensation doesn't count, and social conformity is too close to that. I think the following Bible quote, while being mostly about enforcing the social taboo of converting money to virtue points, also highlights the principle of doing good because you're a good person instead of external motivations, if we reverse the arrows of causality:
[2] “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. [3] But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, [4] so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
There are many different ways a Dark Lord can insulate themselves from attacks of social conformity. Usually it's a good practice to mix multiple methods, but they all have downsides too, and care must be taken. The most straightforward method is looking like you don't care about whatever problems there are. The downside being that any serious signaling requires actions and not only talk. If you do in fact care, then acting like you don't will make you feel bad and/or cause you to not care. At minimum you need plausible deniability, so that any good act can be explained from a purely selfish perspective.
An alternative way, possibly less personality-damaging but definitely harder to pull off, is the persona of a game (or decision) theorist. An aura of competence and ironclad clarity. "Shut up and multiply", they say. "I don't respond to decision theoretic threats, even when the whole society is making them". Doing this requires you to actually have some values, and since I'm still mostly working with the first option, I cannot seriously discuss these.
One might ask why such drastic measures are required? Isn't it ok to be kind and caring? Friendships based on mutual trust and generosity instead of careful game theoretic cooperation ought to be more fun, and even having to think about the incentives around everything makes it a game. Sure, you can enjoy the game but then you cannot enjoy the underlying friendship anymore, if you can even call it friendship anymore at that point.
Governments and other bandits look for wealth and take it. Sometimes those bandits are your friends, family and neighbors. A little giving back is a good thing, but in many cultures demands for help and redistribution rapidly approach 100% – life is tough, and your fellow tribe members, or at least family members, are endless pits of need, so any wealth that can be given away must be hidden if you want to remain in good standing. Savings, security and investment in anything but status are all but impossible. There is no hope for prosperity.
Lastly, plausible deniability is really important. If you give mixed-enough signals, you can let everyone think you're just putting up an act of evilness. After all, it's impossible to tell for sure if someone is a skilled manipulator or genuinely acting out their true desires. The best manipulator might not know it themselves. I recommend sprinkling in a bit of self-deprecating humor and meta-contrarianism.
After all, if your goal is to have purely selfish fun, you shouldn't mind if others have fun too.
I briefly mentioned the concept of the Aura of a Dark Lord while writing about publicly admitting your least-convenient motivations. At least one person mistook it for eighth-grader syndrome, which is not what it's about. Mostly. I think the following HPMoR quote explains it quite well:
-Yudkowsky, HPMoR, Chapter 108
Yudkowsky discusses it more, speaking of dominance contests and respect. I don't think those are all that important; the most useful part is displaying a rare and powerful behavior: nonconformity. After all, good deeds do not count if they're done out of obligation instead of free will. Just like doing good for monetary compensation doesn't count, and social conformity is too close to that. I think the following Bible quote, while being mostly about enforcing the social taboo of converting money to virtue points, also highlights the principle of doing good because you're a good person instead of external motivations, if we reverse the arrows of causality:
-Various authors, The Bible, Matthew 6:2-4
There are many different ways a Dark Lord can insulate themselves from attacks of social conformity. Usually it's a good practice to mix multiple methods, but they all have downsides too, and care must be taken. The most straightforward method is looking like you don't care about whatever problems there are. The downside being that any serious signaling requires actions and not only talk. If you do in fact care, then acting like you don't will make you feel bad and/or cause you to not care. At minimum you need plausible deniability, so that any good act can be explained from a purely selfish perspective.
An alternative way, possibly less personality-damaging but definitely harder to pull off, is the persona of a game (or decision) theorist. An aura of competence and ironclad clarity. "Shut up and multiply", they say. "I don't respond to decision theoretic threats, even when the whole society is making them". Doing this requires you to actually have some values, and since I'm still mostly working with the first option, I cannot seriously discuss these.
One might ask why such drastic measures are required? Isn't it ok to be kind and caring? Friendships based on mutual trust and generosity instead of careful game theoretic cooperation ought to be more fun, and even having to think about the incentives around everything makes it a game. Sure, you can enjoy the game but then you cannot enjoy the underlying friendship anymore, if you can even call it friendship anymore at that point.
I think the primary motivator is Slack Tax:
Lastly, plausible deniability is really important. If you give mixed-enough signals, you can let everyone think you're just putting up an act of evilness. After all, it's impossible to tell for sure if someone is a skilled manipulator or genuinely acting out their true desires. The best manipulator might not know it themselves. I recommend sprinkling in a bit of self-deprecating humor and meta-contrarianism.
After all, if your goal is to have purely selfish fun, you shouldn't mind if others have fun too.