In the counterfactual where lesswrong had the epistemic and moderation standards you desire, what would have been the result of the three posts in question, say three days after they were first posted? Can you explain why, using the standards you elucidated here?
(If you've answered this elsewhere, I apologize).
Full disclosure: I read all three of those posts, and downvoted the third post (and only that one), influenced in part by some of the comments to that post.
"However there’s definitely an additional problem, which is that the fees are going to the city."
Money which the city could presumably use to purchase scarce and vital longshoreman labor.
The city is getting a windfall because it owns a scarce resource. Would you consider this a problem if the port were privately owned?
What Ryan is calling punishment is just an ECON 101 cost increase.
I'm actually ok with the social pressures inherent in the activity. It's a subtle reminder of the real influence of this community. The fact that this community would enforce a certain norm makes me more likely to be a conscientious objector in contexts with the opposite norm. (This is true of historical C.O.s, who often come from religious communities).
I'd highly recommend 'The Bomber Mafia' by Malcolm Gladwell on this subject, which details the internal debates of the US Army Air Corps generals during WWII.
One of the key questions was whether to use the bombers to target strategic industries, or just for general attrition (i.e. firebombing of civilians). Obviously the first one would have been preferable from a humanitarian perspective (and likely would have ended the European War sooner), but it was very difficult to execute in practice.
I think the Bob example is very informative!
I think there's an intuitive and logical reason why we think Bob and Edward are worse off. Their happiness is contingent on the masquerade continuing, which has a probability less than one in any plausible setup.
(The only exception to this would be if we're analyzing their lives after they are dead)
Yes, I was completely turned off from 'debate' as a formal endeavor as a high schooler, despite my love for informal debate.
One of the main problems is that debate contests are usually formulated as zero sum, whereas the typical informal debate I engage in is not.
Do you know of any formats for nonzero sum debate competitions where the competitors argue points they actually believe in? e.g. both debaters get more points if they identify a double-crux, and you win by having more points in the tournament as a whole, not by beating your opponent.
I believe that determinism and free will are both good models of reality, albeit at different conceptual level.
Human brains are high dimensional chaotic systems. I believe that if you put a very smart human in a task that demands creativity and insight, it will be extremely difficult to predict what they'll do, even if you precisely knew their connectome and data inputs. Maybe that's not the same thing as a philosophical "free will", but I don't see how it would result in a different end experience.
This chapter would make a great movie.
Russia's' has an extra quote.
Alice's explanation of the Bayesian model sounds like technobabble. Unless that was the intent, it could use a bit more elaboration.
Depends on the environment. My assumption is that the venue is sufficiently crowded that the tamperer would never be alone with the drink, and the main protection is their risk of being spotted.
A tamper proof solution would likely be far more costly to implement.
Lids and straws. Presumably this would make slipping a drug in way more obvious.