True enough... but nowhere near as important as toe-jam maintenance.
Since I'm a dedicated black-piller, I tend not to listen to anyone who caims to be uttering "stuff of societal importance". The best guess is always "they're bullshitting" - so the content doesn't matter.
The fact that they're NOT discussing something isn't a very good gu…
True enough... but nowhere near as important as toe-jam maintenance.
Since I'm a dedicated black-piller, I tend not to listen to anyone who caims to be uttering "stuff of societal importance". The best guess is always "they're bullshitting" - so the content doesn't matter.
The fact that they're NOT discussing something isn't a very good guide: the range of things they're usually *not* discussing is almost-infinite.
As an aside: the "many alternatives" problem is why in the "thought experiments" about lying, the experiment is binary ("left or right fork", "drink is Poisoned/Safe").
In that sort of setup the best thing is to ask "What would THE OTHER GUY tell me to do?".
This gives the impression that if people are smart enough they can get the right answer in an Empire of Lies... they can just "ask the right question".
The problem is that the whole 'setup' relies on the axiom that the people answering the question are restricted to answers that are informative/relevant (but misleading).
Instead, what if they were allowed to give ANY answer so long as it wasn't true?
Q: "What would the other guy tell me to do?"
The answer could be "Bulldozer" or "57" or "peanut butter" or "colon cancer"... it could be literally anything. All that can be said with certainty is that the answer is not the correct answer to the question.
All of a sudden the "right question" becomes impossible.
That's why lying-as-default can never be a social optimum. It doesn't reduce the uncertainty.
True enough... but nowhere near as important as toe-jam maintenance.
Since I'm a dedicated black-piller, I tend not to listen to anyone who caims to be uttering "stuff of societal importance". The best guess is always "they're bullshitting" - so the content doesn't matter.
The fact that they're NOT discussing something isn't a very good guide: the range of things they're usually *not* discussing is almost-infinite.
As an aside: the "many alternatives" problem is why in the "thought experiments" about lying, the experiment is binary ("left or right fork", "drink is Poisoned/Safe").
In that sort of setup the best thing is to ask "What would THE OTHER GUY tell me to do?".
This gives the impression that if people are smart enough they can get the right answer in an Empire of Lies... they can just "ask the right question".
The problem is that the whole 'setup' relies on the axiom that the people answering the question are restricted to answers that are informative/relevant (but misleading).
Instead, what if they were allowed to give ANY answer so long as it wasn't true?
Q: "What would the other guy tell me to do?"
The answer could be "Bulldozer" or "57" or "peanut butter" or "colon cancer"... it could be literally anything. All that can be said with certainty is that the answer is not the correct answer to the question.
All of a sudden the "right question" becomes impossible.
That's why lying-as-default can never be a social optimum. It doesn't reduce the uncertainty.