One is given the sense that from a dath ilani moral perspective, this is heartwarming. Merrin doesn't want to feel important, so everyone in her world colludes to conceal evidence from her than she's important. Isn't that thoughtful?
-From the moral perspective of an _Overcoming Bias_ reader in 2008 "on Earth" (_i.e._, in real life) who places value on authenticity and truth in human affairs, this is unsettling and even immoral, for the same reason [the Emperor Norton Conspiracy was immoral](/2018/Feb/the-categories-were-made-for-man-to-make-predictions/#emperor-norton). Merrin is living a lie, and everyone she trusts is in on it!
+From the moral perspective of an _Overcoming Bias_ reader in 2008 "on Earth" (_i.e._, in real life) who places value on authenticity and truth in human affairs, this is unsettling and immoral, for the same reason [the Emperor Norton Conspiracy was immoral](/2018/Feb/the-categories-were-made-for-man-to-make-predictions/#emperor-norton). Merrin is living a lie, and everyone she trusts is in on it!
The deception by the people in Merrin's life is especially galling in light of the fact that the situation that Merrin needs to be protected from is one of their own making. EMTs can't become famous on accident. If Merrin doesn't like attention, she should not have a TV show with a million viewers! (We can assume that most unusually skilled workers aren't celebrities in dath ilan, as in real life, not because their work is particularly secret, but because recording and editing it for public consumption is a cost that no one has particular reason to pay.) One almost wonders whether the deception is the point—that people in dath ilan enjoy "coordinating to pretend around" someone, and Merrin's psychological hangup presented them with a golden opportunity to put someone in a [_The Truman Show_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truman_Show)-like psuedo-reality.
That's not an accusation of hypocrisy. The dath ilani are being consistent. In a Society that prizes freedom-from-infohazards over freedom-of-speech, it makes sense that telling people things would be meddling, but colluding to not tell them, isn't.
-### Keltham and S/M
+### Keltham and the Masochism Coverup
+
+The story of Keltham's sexuality provides another case study on dath ilani Civilization's predilection for deception. In Golarion, Keltham discovers that he's a sexual sadist, and infers that ["not many sadists in dath ilan know what they are and Civilization tries to prevent us from finding out, because dath ilan does _not_ have masochists."](https://glowfic.com/replies/1735044#reply-1735044) (The notion of an evolved organism preferring pain in any context strikes him as implausible.) Word of God clarifies that masochists do exist, but are very rare, but Keltham's guess is otherwise correct; there is a deliberate effort (by the Keepers?—the exact agency responsible isn't clear) to prevent public knowledge that sadism and masochism even exist.
+
+The naïve utilitarian case for the coverup is straightforward. There aren't enough masochists to go around. People with a latent inclination towards sadism are better off not being self-aware about it, because if they knew what they wanted, they would feel sad about not being able to have it.
+
+The non-naïve utilitarian case is less straightforward, when you consider the second-order effects of censoring scientific information about psychology. The existence of sadism and masochism are facts about the world that you would expect to be mentioned in the sexuality section of psychology textbooks. If dath ilan is censoring real conditions from its psychology textbooks in order to avoid emotional harm to people with those conditions, that's a constraint on the extent to which their Society is in touch with reality.
+
+Again, [facts are connected to each other](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wyyfFfaRar2jEdeQK/entangled-truths-contagious-lies), which both
[TODO—
+ * They do manage to censor sex information for children, but "age" is a Schelling cateogry in human Society; you can limit epistemic damage somewhat
+
+ * What about the costs of all the other recursive censorship you'd have to do to keep the secret? (If a biography mentioned masochism in passing along with many other traits of the subject, you'd need to either censor the paragraphs with that detail, or censor the whole book. Those are real costs, even under a soft-censorship regime where people can give special consent to access "Ill Advised" products.) Maybe latent sadists could console themselves with porn if they knew, or devote their careers to making better sex robots, just as people on Earth with non-satisfiable sexual desires manage to get by. (I _knew some things_ about this topic.) What about dath ilan's heritage optimization (read: eugenics) program? Are they going to try to breed more masochists, or fewer sadists, and who's authorized to know that? And so on.
+
+ * transsexualism example
+
* "They're better off not knowing about masochists that they can't have" disregards other ways of dealing with it: fantasy, porn, inventing in better sex robots, implications for eugenic policy ...
* Difficulties of recursive censorship; do the people who can afford it have to stay in the closet for the benefit of people like Keltham? You could claim that they're so good at coordinating that they negotiated this, but how does the negotiation work when the people the deal allegedly benefits don't know about it?
- * Prediction markets imply that they believe in distributed agency, rather than being benevolent socialists
- * The text seems to suggest that "obligate sadism" is a real thing that already exists. It's not analogous to a drug that you can't miss if no one ever invents it.
-
-It would be one thing if BDSM orientation was a self-fulfilling propehecy.
+ * Word of God talks about "affording" a masochist—suggesting not just that classism and sex work are legal, but institutionalized??
+ * the empirical setting of probabilities and utilities just happening to settle such that ignorance is the best policy
-You can't miss an addictive drug.
+ * Keltham thought evolutionary psychology ruled out the possibility of masochists;
+ * It would be one thing if BDSM orientation was a self-fulfilling propehecy. You can't miss an addictive drug. The text seems to suggest that "obligate sadism" is a real thing that already exists. It's not analogous to a drug that you can't miss if no one ever invents it.
Comparisons to other possible non-practicable minority sexualities may be instructive on the perils of deleting concepts. Imagine a world where homosexuality couldn't be safely practiced because [an engineered plague made it amount to certain death](https://www.gregegan.net/MISC/MORAL/Moral.html). Would we then approve of censoring the concept itself, forbidding the knowledge that same-sex attraction was ever a thing? And homosexuality has other correlates. [(The stereotypes of masculine lesbians and feminine gay men are empirically grounded.)](/papers/lippa-gender-related_traits_in_gays.pdf) Given the plague, would it be better not to notice the clusters—for gay people to possibly be left with some vague sense that there's something not normal about them, and not have a concept to name it?
-Or consider how our Society handles pedophilia. This is a sexuality that we do not want to be practiced, so we stigmatize it and criminalize its practice. We do not censor the concept. Given that the tendency exists (and is not merely a cultural self-fulfilling prophecy that wouldn't exist if it weren't named), it's better to have a concept about it that can be reasoned about, rather than a blank spot on our map. Imagine a young man noticing he's attracted to children—or for that matter, an abused child—having _no idea what was happening to them_, because Society's benevolent censors decided that it was better that people not have concepts for this aspect of reality. Is that going to end well? How do you get help for a problem you don't have a word for?
+Or consider how our Society handles pedophilia. This is a sexuality that we do not want to be practiced, so we stigmatize it and criminalize its practice. We do not censor the concept. Given that the tendency exists (and is not merely a cultural self-fulfilling prophecy that wouldn't exist if it weren't named), it's better to have a concept about it that can be reasoned about, rather than a blank spot on our map. Imagine a young man noticing he's attracted to children—or for that matter, an abused child—having _no idea what was happening to them_, because Society's benevolent censors decided that it was better that people not have concepts for this aspect of reality. Is that going to end well? How do you get help for a problem you're not supposed to have a word for?
]
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / commitdiff