Part of the persuasion sequence
***Bullshit alert: This may well be bullshit. Expect unempirical distinctions, ungrounded assumptions and fuzziness all round.***
Shallow or ordinary persuasion changes opinions by tackling the surface of a persons psyche. You convince then of facts. You get them to grudgingly accept your point of view or fully accept it for a while. The problem with this is that people are not rational creatures. This is true of all of us, and more so for most of us. People want to believe certain things, things which fit in with their world view or that of their tribe. Reds want to believe that crime is a product of degenerate sub-cultures, that their own culture is superior. Blues want to believe that crime is a product of oppression and that all cultures are equal. If you challenge facts, if you challenge individual beliefs without challenging the worldview into which they fit, it is very difficult to affect lasting change. Inevitably, people slide back towards the easy path. Most minds are too small to hold two horizons. When ideas conflict, the lack the ability or understanding to accept the paradox and walk down both paths. Rather, they choose one and it is usually the one which they have walked down further already.
To really change a persons mind, you have to change the person. You have to change their entire belief system and in doing so change their conception of self. This is deep persuasion. Deep persuasion is more stable. People don't revert to their prior beliefs. They don't need to. The tension between natural beliefs and the new beliefs which don't really fit, the tension which ultimately undermines so many attempts at shallow persuasion, doesn't exist.
Afterthought: A fear of deep persuasion.
I wrote this piece, but I didn't want to. What I wanted to write was an explanation of why good enough persuasion is truly terrifying. Why people think that, even if an AI persuaded us wrongly, we could realize what lies its persuasion was based on. You wouldn't. Good persuasion changes your beliefs, your basic axiomatic moral beliefs. Even if your factual beliefs don't change, even if you realize you were persuaded, the new you dosen't want to revert to the old, immoral/stupid you and has to stay where they are, even if it's with a biter taste in their mouths.
The only solution I can see to this is establishing clear Schelling fences, but that sticking to them requires an inordinate amount of willpower.
***Bullshit alert: This may well be bullshit. Expect unempirical distinctions, ungrounded assumptions and fuzziness all round.***
Shallow or ordinary persuasion changes opinions by tackling the surface of a persons psyche. You convince then of facts. You get them to grudgingly accept your point of view or fully accept it for a while. The problem with this is that people are not rational creatures. This is true of all of us, and more so for most of us. People want to believe certain things, things which fit in with their world view or that of their tribe. Reds want to believe that crime is a product of degenerate sub-cultures, that their own culture is superior. Blues want to believe that crime is a product of oppression and that all cultures are equal. If you challenge facts, if you challenge individual beliefs without challenging the worldview into which they fit, it is very difficult to affect lasting change. Inevitably, people slide back towards the easy path. Most minds are too small to hold two horizons. When ideas conflict, the lack the ability or understanding to accept the paradox and walk down both paths. Rather, they choose one and it is usually the one which they have walked down further already.
To really change a persons mind, you have to change the person. You have to change their entire belief system and in doing so change their conception of self. This is deep persuasion. Deep persuasion is more stable. People don't revert to their prior beliefs. They don't need to. The tension between natural beliefs and the new beliefs which don't really fit, the tension which ultimately undermines so many attempts at shallow persuasion, doesn't exist.
Afterthought: A fear of deep persuasion.
I wrote this piece, but I didn't want to. What I wanted to write was an explanation of why good enough persuasion is truly terrifying. Why people think that, even if an AI persuaded us wrongly, we could realize what lies its persuasion was based on. You wouldn't. Good persuasion changes your beliefs, your basic axiomatic moral beliefs. Even if your factual beliefs don't change, even if you realize you were persuaded, the new you dosen't want to revert to the old, immoral/stupid you and has to stay where they are, even if it's with a biter taste in their mouths.
The only solution I can see to this is establishing clear Schelling fences, but that sticking to them requires an inordinate amount of willpower.
No comments:
Post a Comment