Arbitrary Silliness
When I visited Oxford a few weeks ago I brought up a subject which has been bugging me lately – we don’t understand what makes research topics “silly.” For example:
Apparently most people the world over think aliens exist, think searches might find them, think that would be a very important discovery, but think the subject is way too silly to justify government funding.
Similarly, most people think futarchy (government by betting markets) is silly, even though most think it has a decent chance of performing well, and even though it isn’t obviously less likely to happen than a strong world government, which is not nearly as silly. Or see this giggle–fest on future robot threats.
At Oxford we listed possible obstacles to dealing better with global catastrophic risks, and we guessed the biggest obstacle is that the topic seems silly. This puzzle of what makes topics silly seems to have stuck in the mind of Anders Sandberg:
Regarding some things as silly does not seem to result from an estimation that the probability is extremely low, it seems to be a direct rejection of it as unthinkable and irrelevant – not the same thing, although the rejector will quickly argue that the chances of the things happening are minuscule. The rejection has many similarities to the yuck reaction we see in ethics, where certain possibilities are rapidly rejected as immoral with little reflection (c.f. the work of Haidt). So maybe the best explanation of what makes a paper silly is just that it goes against the social intuitions we have built up about thinkable, serious subjects. Space travel is science fiction and science fiction has low status, so hence papers about the economics of space travel must be silly. Life extension is silly, so papers looking at its consequences must be silly. Framing world government in terms of non-silly globalisation makes it non-silly. (more)
This silliness-taboo has been a thorn in my side all my life, so I’m eager for any insight.
The problem with Vladimir's definition of silliness as (being in part) that which doesn't attract reproductive females (playing in garage bands, collecting stamps etc) is that the reason these reproductive females aren't attracted is because they think these are silly pursuits. So we haven't actually made any progress in our definition here, beyond that we should trust the good sense of women regarding what qualifies as silly.
In general, I think silliness is a reflection of how (non) 'useful' or 'relevant' something might seem to be. So in one end of the spectrum we have things that appear so far fetched and distant they seem irrelevant to the present or mid term future(like in Scott's examples) and on the other we have things that seem so 'obvious' and proximal (I'm really not sure if this is the right word..buy anyway..I'm thinking of the belly buttons) that they also seem irrelevant. Then theres a big mesh in the center of things people consider to be silly because of this lack of relevance.. Now, what determines if something is useful and/or relevant to individuals (or groups..)? we may have some universal wants and needs (things that reflect in higher fitness for example-Vladimirs post) but then theres a great mesh thats influenced by culture.... i also think, as Phil says, that culture is the largest component..I was tempted to say that people who have never heard of science fiction per se, when asked what they thought of research on aliens might also say it is very silly.. but then again maybe not and maybe they would not deem it silly at all (as they have no contact with the stereotypes of science fiction and believe in creatures-aliens that harm livestock, crops..etc.)... but if you ask it compared to other research topics (tests on flu-drugs) then the silliness might kick in..so when considering it in research topics that 'relative' silliness might be quite important.
I also agree (Phil) that even though someone mentioned above that string theory is not considered silly (here), I would say that probably the majority of people, at least in western countries (where I have been) still consider it silly.. and thats where McCain comes in saying studies of bears DNA is also silly. I dont think it is..but how could we (can we) convince him otherwise? because of its use? (relevance..)-maybe. I might say because of bears inherent right to exist but he might think thats silly so where do we go from there?
anyway..bye!