Hacker News Reader

> Implicit in this statement is that "figur[ing] out what the world looks like" -- and then accepting that status quo -- is, or ought to be, the goal of all people.

The article is from lesswrong.com, where everyone focuses very much on figuring out facts, and less so on most of the other things that matter in life. In addition, by "facts" or "what the world looks like" they mean scientifically verifiable facts first and foremost. I don't think a lot of people would have a problem with the "status quo" if by that phrase you meant F=ma or E=mc^2.

In fact, I would say that the article (and the lesswrong.com community as a whole) subscribes to a radically progressive point of view, where any and every social institution (and our emotional attachments to them) should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny based on facts. The author will probably take issue with your assumption -- "assuming one has an understanding of the status quo" -- since, in his/her opinion, whether or not you actually have an understanding of facts is exactly what we're trying to figure out in the first place.

I'm not sure whether having such a hyper-critical point of view is actually better than having a conservative bias -- after all, there are other things that matter in life -- but in any case I think you missed the context.

"And then accepting that status quo"

Less Wrong is a place where folks try to discuss things with a high degree of technical accuracy. For example, if a respondent were to disagree with the linked article, they would try to avoid making an outrageously stupid claim such as "Implicit in this statement...[is] accepting the status quo"--which is in NO WAY implied by the article--and then smugly toppling the argument that no one made. Derailing conversations like that is a waste of everyone's time.

I imagine a world, the world I would like to live in, where people didn't attempt to manipulate disagreements or indeed policy discussions by appeals to emotion. I want to live in a world where it's taken for granted that you can advocate for a position through a calm meeting of minds. I'm an extremely emotional person and can reconcile the search for unbiased truth--which includes my actions and the polices of my communities coming to reflect that truth--with living an emotional life just fine, since emotion is not the opposite of reason that many people try to claim it is. Mainly the people I see making this claim are those who would like to substitute emotional manipulation for making a rational case.

"figur[ing] out what the world looks like" -- and then accepting that status quo -- is, or ought to be, the goal of all people

I don't see where the article says that you have to accept what the world looks like once you figure it out. Figuring out that the world is f--ked up and deciding to try and change it based on that knowledge is, it seems to me, perfectly consistent with what the article is saying.

such responses can serve to educate other people about behaviors which perpetuate the aspects of the status quo which the expresser desires to change

The article talks about this, under the heading of using "getting offended" to manipulate people. It's different because you are choosing to act offended to accomplish a goal, rather than involuntarily responding to something by being offended, even if it hinders you from accomplishing a goal.

It is somewhat difficult to divine the precise intent of the author of the article, or of the submitter of the article to HN; but I think it's important to acknowledge that some people are going to use this article to criticize and dismiss anyone who "gets offended" as someone who hasn't reached a certain ideal of detachment. Your very statement that you think it's okay to "act offended", as opposed to "getting offended", gets to my point of the subjective nature of the issue.

That's an important point to raise. There's another post (came across it reading the lesswrong.com comments to the submitted article) on how teaching about biases in the wrong order can lead to negative effects. http://lesswrong.com/lw/he/knowing_about_biases_can_hurt_peo....

As I let the words roll of my tongue, "acting offended" sounds just awful doesn't it? Only a Machiavelli would admit to acting offended to achieve their aims! "Getting offended" needs to be seen to be from the heart - as if you really had been torn kicking and screaming from the womb of rational detachment. Effecting this obviously requires extremely good acting.

Being offended is a good tool. It is much better tool when used logically and by choice. Don't think of it as acting in a performer sense, think of it as acting in a sense of taking actions.

There doesn't need to be any disingenuity there, it can be an honest response even though it is a logical choice to display that response.

Don't think of it as acting in a performer sense, think of it as acting in a sense of taking actions.

Exactly.

Agreed. 'Accepting' doesn't even mean you have to like it. It's aligning your perceptions with reality. To get more mileage out of this horse, if you accept (especially if you are initially offended at the notion) that the world is unjust in its treatment of women, minorities, the poor, the rich, etc., then you can rationally determine if or how you can work to correct it.

"This post is talking about the best way to acquire correct beliefs, not the best way to manipulate people."

Bullshit. You have to understand things, and particularly understand how things work, if you want to change them without making a hash of everything. Any programmer should know that by now.

There's a very important distinction between "ought" statements and "is" statements. Getting offended is a fallacy if it causes you to miss that distinction.

In practice, if you're blinded by outrage, you won't even be able to judge what to be outraged at, and then you'll be played for a fool.

There's very little advantage to responding to something with true emotional offence. Displaying offence to others can be a useful tool in pushing for change, but discussing something rationally is almost always a better choice.

If someone appears to be irrationally offended by something you said or did, you make a mental note not to say or do that to them again. If the offense appears to me to be irrational and no discussion of why it's offensive takes place, it doesn't change my overall behaviour. It doesn't change my belief that my action wasn't offensive. It makes me think that person is irrational.

To change someone's attitude to something you need to discuss it with them. You need to demonstrate to them why the attitude they hold might be harmful. Taking offence doesn't do that.

To change the status quo, you must find out what it is first. The idea that is deeply conservative is the opposite: that people are better off in ignorance of what the world looks like.

Implicit in this statement is that "figur[ing] out what the world looks like" -- and then accepting that status quo -- is, or ought to be, the goal of all people.

At least the first part seems like a perfectly fine goal. You can't know what needs fixing if you don't know what's broken. Even if you know what you want something to look like, you can't know how to get there if you don't know where we are.

> "getting offended" can be a useful, and rational, response.

LessWrong has another great post on this topic, which makes a point similar to yours and explains exactly why getting offended is useful: http://lesswrong.com/lw/13s/the_nature_of_offense/ .