The main thing that concerns me about NPC discourse is that, for one, it's a totally valid strategy that someone could purposefully choose as an intelligent choice, and for two, it assumes that a non-NPC pathway exists for the NPC. What if they have been systematically trained into that behavior and can no longer grasp an alternative? As a self-delusional person, how would they even know that they are NPCs (including myself, and yourself in this question). What if non-NPC behavior is only attainable by the cognitive elite, and even then only with training or other guidance (infected with moral virtues in your case)?
Also, my assumption is that everyone is an NPC some of the time, but perhaps not all of the time, and they vary in their %NPC.
Regarding your first paragraph, these are all excellent points, but I don't see how they matter. If a dog attacks me, I'm going to shoot it. It doesn't MATTER to me whether the dog chose to bite me, whether it was systematically trained, or whether the dog ever grasped an alternative. If we kill every dog that tries to bite us, eventually we'll have a world where dogs tend to be more domesticated and mild mannered. I think the same strategy ought to apply to NPCs.
Regarding your second paragraph, I would agree with you, but I wouldn't lump those people into the NPC category that I am describing for purposes of this article. EVERYBODY occasionally behaves selfishly and engages in motivated reasoning: that's part of the human condition. NPCs however do it consistently enough that it's statistically predictable, and that's what makes them a plague on humanity.
1. SBF talked incessantly about Effective Altruism but, at least in the articles and interviews that I have read, he is remarkably vague as to how exactly he supposedly intended to benefit humanity and by what means he intended to do so. As a practical matter, mostly this seemed to be "contribute to Team D" and possibly "assist the Ukrainian regime in laundering money" but that somehow sounds less noble when you phrase it that way.
2. From the point of view of the rational selfish hedonist, the best Stag Hunt strategy of all is for everyone else to do the work and take the risks, but for the hedonist to claim and get a share of the kill when dinner time comes around. This is why "Objectivism" isn't especially objective.
I can't speak knowledgeably about point 1, but in regards to point 2, that's exactly why it's important to hurt people who try to exploit the system that way. When the risks of exploitation outweigh the potential reward, then the rational calculation is to avoid exploiting others. But when there IS no potential risk (because our soft-hearted leaders hesitate to dispense punishment to people like that), then the rational calculation is to do exactly what you described.
I know SBF is a narcissistic piece of shit, but I don't know the specifics of what his self-delusional "altruism" was. As I mentioned in my substack post, NPCs always lie to themselves and come up with some story where their behavior is for "the greater good" and it's seldom worth the bother to poke into the details of whatever bullshit story they tell themselves and others, since it's going to be a lie anyway.
A rational selfish hedonist (aka a "sociopath") will inevitably find ways to game the system, make themselves indispensable in other areas, take advantage of the benefit of the doubt, etc..
That's why the best solution is to make the system ungamable. In an ideal world, sociopaths would be do-gooders because the best way to advance themselves would be to help others. Sadly, we don't live in that world because our elites either don't understand incentive alignment (unlikely) or exploit the system themselves, so they have no INCENTIVE to fix it (very likely).
This is why I'd like to seize power. Sure, I'm mildly selfish, and if I were in charge I'd definitely enjoy life, but I'm also smart enough and honest enough to create a system that isn't rigged for our elites. After all, I'm not one of the elites (and I strongly dislike them), so why would I want a rigged system that they benefit unfairly from? And I'm also nasty enough to make NPCs fear the consequences of their actions. In other words, I consider myself the cure to society's cancer.
That's because sociopaths are prevented from designing the systems by moralizing pearl-clutchers. If you want to design a system that is resistant to criminals, you need somebody who thinks like a criminal to help design it.
A possible pernicious strain of NPC may be the "Golden Rule for thee and not for me" variety; that's a ridiculous position, as granting any exemption to anyone defeats the Rule's purpose. (Of course, if the person doesn't preach the Golden Rule then I won't mind so much.)
By the way, I'm developing an admiration for masochism: I'd rather be in the company of people who enjoy pain, than that of bitchy narcissists who wind up drawing in substantially-similar personalities (but with opposing views on whatever wedge-issue arises) and keep whining about it.
Yeah, most NPCs do this a lot too. When THEY need forgiveness they're quick to talk about the "Golden Rule," but if somebody else wrongs THEM suddenly they're all about "accountability."
The main thing that concerns me about NPC discourse is that, for one, it's a totally valid strategy that someone could purposefully choose as an intelligent choice, and for two, it assumes that a non-NPC pathway exists for the NPC. What if they have been systematically trained into that behavior and can no longer grasp an alternative? As a self-delusional person, how would they even know that they are NPCs (including myself, and yourself in this question). What if non-NPC behavior is only attainable by the cognitive elite, and even then only with training or other guidance (infected with moral virtues in your case)?
Also, my assumption is that everyone is an NPC some of the time, but perhaps not all of the time, and they vary in their %NPC.
Regarding your first paragraph, these are all excellent points, but I don't see how they matter. If a dog attacks me, I'm going to shoot it. It doesn't MATTER to me whether the dog chose to bite me, whether it was systematically trained, or whether the dog ever grasped an alternative. If we kill every dog that tries to bite us, eventually we'll have a world where dogs tend to be more domesticated and mild mannered. I think the same strategy ought to apply to NPCs.
Regarding your second paragraph, I would agree with you, but I wouldn't lump those people into the NPC category that I am describing for purposes of this article. EVERYBODY occasionally behaves selfishly and engages in motivated reasoning: that's part of the human condition. NPCs however do it consistently enough that it's statistically predictable, and that's what makes them a plague on humanity.
n.b.
1. SBF talked incessantly about Effective Altruism but, at least in the articles and interviews that I have read, he is remarkably vague as to how exactly he supposedly intended to benefit humanity and by what means he intended to do so. As a practical matter, mostly this seemed to be "contribute to Team D" and possibly "assist the Ukrainian regime in laundering money" but that somehow sounds less noble when you phrase it that way.
2. From the point of view of the rational selfish hedonist, the best Stag Hunt strategy of all is for everyone else to do the work and take the risks, but for the hedonist to claim and get a share of the kill when dinner time comes around. This is why "Objectivism" isn't especially objective.
I can't speak knowledgeably about point 1, but in regards to point 2, that's exactly why it's important to hurt people who try to exploit the system that way. When the risks of exploitation outweigh the potential reward, then the rational calculation is to avoid exploiting others. But when there IS no potential risk (because our soft-hearted leaders hesitate to dispense punishment to people like that), then the rational calculation is to do exactly what you described.
How can you not speak knowledgeably about point 1 when you dedicated an entire paragraph to SBF?!
I know SBF is a narcissistic piece of shit, but I don't know the specifics of what his self-delusional "altruism" was. As I mentioned in my substack post, NPCs always lie to themselves and come up with some story where their behavior is for "the greater good" and it's seldom worth the bother to poke into the details of whatever bullshit story they tell themselves and others, since it's going to be a lie anyway.
A rational selfish hedonist (aka a "sociopath") will inevitably find ways to game the system, make themselves indispensable in other areas, take advantage of the benefit of the doubt, etc..
That's why the best solution is to make the system ungamable. In an ideal world, sociopaths would be do-gooders because the best way to advance themselves would be to help others. Sadly, we don't live in that world because our elites either don't understand incentive alignment (unlikely) or exploit the system themselves, so they have no INCENTIVE to fix it (very likely).
This is why I'd like to seize power. Sure, I'm mildly selfish, and if I were in charge I'd definitely enjoy life, but I'm also smart enough and honest enough to create a system that isn't rigged for our elites. After all, I'm not one of the elites (and I strongly dislike them), so why would I want a rigged system that they benefit unfairly from? And I'm also nasty enough to make NPCs fear the consequences of their actions. In other words, I consider myself the cure to society's cancer.
I am aware of no system that will not eventually be corrupted by sociopaths, no matter how cleverly designed or well-intentioned at its founding.
The sort of people who most hunger for power are the people who should not have it.
That's because sociopaths are prevented from designing the systems by moralizing pearl-clutchers. If you want to design a system that is resistant to criminals, you need somebody who thinks like a criminal to help design it.
That assumes that such sociopaths would stop being sociopathic long enough to design such a system..
A possible pernicious strain of NPC may be the "Golden Rule for thee and not for me" variety; that's a ridiculous position, as granting any exemption to anyone defeats the Rule's purpose. (Of course, if the person doesn't preach the Golden Rule then I won't mind so much.)
By the way, I'm developing an admiration for masochism: I'd rather be in the company of people who enjoy pain, than that of bitchy narcissists who wind up drawing in substantially-similar personalities (but with opposing views on whatever wedge-issue arises) and keep whining about it.
Yeah, most NPCs do this a lot too. When THEY need forgiveness they're quick to talk about the "Golden Rule," but if somebody else wrongs THEM suddenly they're all about "accountability."