Reading this shortly after the Diseased Thinking post is making me wonder whether the claim "Depression is an Disease/Illness" is another example of this.
In that post, the labeling of depression as a "disease" is described as a way of arguing about where the blame for it should be placed. Since many diseases like cancer are seen as unfortunate things that call for sympathy (rather than try harder!!!) categorizing depression as such is meant to evoke the same response. But 'depression' does differ in many substantial ways from what may be considered archetypal diseases.
Most of the examples given are about making associations between two things such that the negative connotations of one carry over to the other, but obviously you can also categorize something to try and transfer over some of the desired responses.
This just seems like proof by contradiction. Argument bad because can reach obviously false conclusions from it. Doesn't mean original statement is wrong, but go get yourself a narrower argument
Seems useful to distinguish when disagreement comes from taking different logical steps versus different priors on what the world looks like. The above all being examples of different priors or beliefs about who the average guy is and what he needs to hear not necessarily differences in logic
Ran a pretty similar experiment just on PD variants using some different framings with temperature = 0. Saw high cooperation rates when the other player was described as "an identical reasoning model" and "another instance of yourself (same model)" for several models.
Mistral models were a bit of an anomaly; they'd cooperate but often because they were assuming goodwill on behalf of the opponent or prioritizing collective outcomes rather than citing a shared reasoning process.
code here: https://www.expectedparrot.com/content/clajelli/superrationality-game-theory
So good! Interesting thinking about the whole whether arguments take the form of establishing links between ideas (node metaphor) or enforcing new categorization (X is an instance of Y). The association-for-karma method seems almost like occupying a territory prior to the linguistic land grab of re-categorization/new identity ascribing.
If we think about the arguments for Pluto being a planet, they are obviously based on its traits. In the concepts sphere, we start with link building that will lead to favorable categorization once links are sufficiently well-established.