
Personhood: A Game for Two or More Players - benbreen
http://www.meltingasphalt.com/personhood-a-game-for-two-or-more-players/
======
dang
The article uses the word "mask" (and "face") quite a bit without mentioning
that it is the original meaning of "person".

[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=person](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=person)

Perhaps the omission is deliberate, because it does mention the origin of
"family" from "servants".

[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=family](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=family)

(A delightfully unapropos Yeats quote is hidden in plain view at that last
link. I wonder who stuck it in there.)

~~~
evanwillms
The author does mention the etymology of 'person' in an earlier article, so
they appear to be aware of it.

"'Person,' by the way, has a neat etymology. It comes from the Latin persona,
referring to a mask worn on stage. Per (through) + sona (sound) — the thing
through which the sound (voice) traveled."

[http://www.meltingasphalt.com/ux-and-the-civilizing-
process/](http://www.meltingasphalt.com/ux-and-the-civilizing-process/)

~~~
dang
Good catch! I had a hunch that the current post was inspired by that
etymology, which seems a tasteful reason for it not to mention it.

The 'sound' bit is disputed, though, and probably too cute.

------
spindritf
If personhood is an interface then it naturally lends itself to hacking. And
of course there are methods (power plays, social tricks) that technically
violate the rules (implied threats of violence, walking out of a meeting,
whole pickup routines) but, when successful, don't result in user experiencing
any loss of personhood, quite the opposite.

There are whole life strategies which are based around hacking the interface.
Technically, we sometimes call people who choose them psychopaths and
therefore less than persons, but realistically they often go undetected.

~~~
jlees
Well, if we establish personhood as a two-sided social contract then I would
argue that psychopaths are those who view it as a one-sided social contract,
seeking to maximise the rewards for themselves without maximising the rewards
for the other side of the interface. Though, you could argue that this is
really just another way of saying it's a hack, which is an intriguing way of
looking at things.

------
dojomouse
Interesting implications (which I'm sure people who've been thinking about it
for longer than me have already considered) for the development and evolution
of Friendly Superintelligent AI.

The way this is presented, personhood (which involves behaviours that we'd
like a friendly AI to display) is an adaptation based on mutual benefit. We're
not nice to other people because kindness and empathy is an unavoidable
consequence of intelligence - rather we're nice because we're better off in a
society in which we're known to be nice. And that's because we've got fairly
limited personal capabilities so are heavily dependent on efficient
cooperation with other people.

An intelligent entity without this constraint (e.g. a superintelligence that
had access to advanced nanotech and could do pretty much whatever it wanted)
w.r.t interactions with humans might not (probably wouldn't?) have any
evolutionary pressure towards achieving and maintaining personhood. Which
would mean we shouldn't take the approach of "Let's just make an advanced
intelligence, because its intelligence will surely mean it behaves with
empathy towards us".

~~~
VLM
"a superintelligence that had access to advanced nanotech and could do pretty
much whatever it wanted"

Without water I will die in about 3 days. I have no "want" for the nicely
brewed tea currently steeping on my desk. The point I'm making is wants
invariably gravitate to what you can't get, at least not easily.

Its quite possible a nanotech equipped superintelligence (human or artificial)
might really desire fame, or founding a new religion or philosophical school,
or military conquest, or scientific discovery, or the creation of some really
great art (fine or pop). Or maybe just collecting a vast pile of money. Those
all have at least some requirement for empathy, however little.

Previous human fiction and semi-fiction along the lines of vampires,
mythology, religion, and even robinson crusoe epics always seems to really
like the idea of human culture even if the protagonist spends most of its time
separate. As far as I know no one has explored the theme of introducing an AI
to something like Buddhist meditation and letting it burn some machine cycles
meditating, at least not in a hard sci fi setting (I would not be interested
in that in a fantasy or soft sci fi setting, so if it exists I wouldn't know)

Some of this is self selecting in that its not hard to find lifestyles that
human higher end intelligences like, and they're all vaguely empathic, and
variations have only been cultural. Thomas Jefferson might not have empathized
with his slaves very much, but that lack was because none of his people did,
not because he specifically was very smart. There is probably some self
selection in that smart people who completely separate from civilization are
going to be unknown to civilization, so whatever they do, we as a group donno,
so if they exist, whatever they do, there's not much evidence, and its likely
an AI would have similar results.

------
rolux
Excellent article. This paragraph strikes me as a bit odd though:

> When you aren't your own master, the rest of the personhood contract breaks
> down. This is true, but to a lesser extent, among e.g. husbands who are
> "whipped" by their wives. A group of men who want to stay out late playing
> poker can't reason with their whipped buddy; all of their reasons fall on
> deaf ears. And thus he loses a bit of personhood within that community.

Wouldn't the more obvious example be wives who are "whipped" by their
husbands? And wouldn't that example be better at explaining why in most
societies, women feel like they're only half a person?

~~~
jacobolus
It’s frankly pretty offensive that the author considers men who keep their
promises to their wives (e.g. who promise to be home by a certain time and
then won’t break that promise for their poker buddies) to be only half
persons. It seems to discount the personhood of the wives, or not recognize
that the marriage relationship is one between two “persons” who negotiate with
each-other.

Or perhaps the author doesn’t himself feel that way, but still finds it
unremarkable that this community of poker buddies does (i.e. it’s not worth
mentioning how dysfunctional this situation is). He’s so casual about totally
dismissing the obligations of a husband to his wife, when any other arbitrary
external obligation would have presumably had similar concrete effects. (For
example, if the man had to leave to visit his sick parent, help a work
colleague, see an old friend in town for the day, or even if he just needed
some time alone, would he still be considered a half person?)

~~~
mcphage
> It’s frankly pretty offensive that the author considers men who keep their
> promises to their wives (e.g. who promise to be home by a certain time and
> then won’t break that promise for their poker buddies) to be only half
> persons. It seems to discount the personhood of the wives, or not recognize
> that the marriage relationship is one between two “persons” who negotiate
> with each-other.

It's not necessarily that. Have you ever met a person who uses "Oh, my [X]
won't let me do that" to get out of social situations? I think that's a better
interpretation of what the writer means; it's not where they're keeping a
promise to their spouse, but one where they use their spouse to deflect
decision making. They make the choice, but claim it's their spouse's decision,
to prevent having to explain their decision.

~~~
jacobolus
That’s different from keeping a promise to his wife, but it’s also different
from being “whipped” (i.e. under the complete control of his wife). That’s
just lying to his friends and blaming his wife for it. (Which is also pretty
dysfunctional, but clearly not what the essay’s author was talking about.)

I think it’s pretty weird that the only real discussions of gender relations
in this essay are (a) husband and wife can be naked with each other, when they
wouldn’t go naked in public, and (b) this cheap throwaway stereotype about the
controlling wife not letting the hapless guy have fun with his buddies.

The essay would be stronger with the section about the “whipped” guy removed
altogether.

~~~
teddyh
It’s not weird to not discuss gender issues in an article _not about gender
issues_.

> _The essay would be stronger with the section about the “whipped” guy
> removed altogether._

I agree — these kinds of examples very much serve as triggers for people with
gender-related issues or other axes to grind, and are therefore not very
effective as examples.

------
brazzy
The core idea is "The way it works is that the more you behave like a person,
the more you'll be treated like one."

Is the author even living in the same world as the rest of us?

In almost every society, there are large (sometimes _extremely large_ ) groups
people who are more or less completely denied the right to "earn" personhood
like that, because no matter what they do they will be considered inferior and
less trustworthy.

~~~
jamesaguilar
There's nothing wrong with covering a general rule and leaving the exceptions
to another article.

------
dameyawn
Really interesting connection to Aspies at the end. Also a good basis to delve
further into relationships with non-persons of the state or corporations.
Overall insightful piece in simple terms.

~~~
lukifer
> Also a good basis to delve further into relationships with non-persons of
> the state or corporations.

At some level, personhood becomes interchangable with the concept of "brand",
with the latter being an invention to piggyback on the interface of the
former. President Obama is a person, Kellogg's is a corporation, and the USDA
is a government institution, yet each is also a brand, carefully managed by a
public relations team to mimic certain characteristics of personhood.

------
lotharbot
Given that the article is largely about (1) fitting in and (2) maturity, the
term "person" could likely be improved upon, and certain controversies could
be avoided. Both "citizen" and "adult" capture key pieces of this essay; note
that "non-participant in society" and "child" are two of the significant
methods for someone to fail to be a 100% "person" in this article.

Thinking a little outside the box: perhaps some sort of portmanteau like
"persozen" (a person who is a participant in society).

------
prutschman
I think there are interesting aspects of this that apply to interactions
between different social groups and different ethnic groups. Even if there are
broad similarities in the attractor points that different groups converge to,
they're not identical. Acting as a person according to one set of conventions
may constitute insult according to another, and a downward spiral of decreased
expectations--similar to that described of people with mental health diagnoses
--can result.

------
orasis
If you liked this article, you might also like the EigenMorality essay -
[http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1820&re=1](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1820&re=1)

------
threatofrain
Here's some few complications I would add to Kevin Simler concept of face and
politeness.

The author talks a little bit about Aspies, and he also talks about a metaphor
of squares and triangle faces. He implies the possibility of clans, but
doesn't go further. I think Kevin thinks that Aspies are an edge case because
he relegates this part to the end of his article with relatively less content
than the surrounding sections.

I would think that while people diagnosed with autism may be proportionally
rarer, the clanish strategy, which they represent, is very common. I would add
that I think religious and political folk are a part of this clan strategy,
and that callous (not prepared with expected mitigating introductions or hedge
words) contradiction of their political or religious viewpoints could be
thought of as a threat to their personhood. The interesting part here is that
they are not as interested in the opinions of those outside to their clan.
Also, they maintain at least two personhoods, one being the interface for
their clan, which they value the most, the other being the interface for
either a generalized or specific external group. A person can carry many faces
depending on the degree of logistical separation between the groups they
belong to.

Since face is related to clan or group, some drugs elevate standing based on
group culture, and the unwillingness to intake some drugs like alcohol could
be interpreted as a failure to conform to group expectations.

------
ollerac
This is excellent. I really like reading articles like this, things that get
you thinking. Could use more illustrations though.

------
oxalo
I read an article recently about how the NSA spying strips people of their
privacy, which in turn strips them of their humanity. I think that fits really
well into what the OP is saying here. Without the ability to selectively
disclose information about yourself (ie develop a person mask), we lose the
ability to be a 'person.'

------
ziadbc
Did I miss the attribution to Alan Watts for the prickles and goo metaphor?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXi_ldNRNtM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXi_ldNRNtM)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts)

~~~
ziadbc
I (kind of) missed it. He mentions Alan elsewhere on his site.
[http://www.meltingasphalt.com/prickles-and-
goo/](http://www.meltingasphalt.com/prickles-and-goo/)

------
taylorlapeyre
The author at one point mentions how uniforms break down personhood by forcing
them to present themselves as something that they aren't.

How does this fit in with a High School mandating uniforms? Surely this
encourages personhood in some way. In my experience, uniforms were very
helpful in getting along with other people at my school.

~~~
azernik
Not that it forces them to present themselves as something they aren't, but
that it is "a signal that the wearer is enacting a role in which his agency is
outsourced and his individuality is suppressed". That is, when a soldier wears
a uniform, they are signalling that they are not the ones making decisions
about their own actions, but rather the organization they represent is making
those decisions.

School uniforms don't indicate nearly the same level of subordination to a
command structure.

~~~
thesteamboat
Continuing this thought, the uniform is a marker distinguishing those in
uniform from those not in uniform. People working in uniform for [insert
generic company here] retain their personhood with respect to each other, but
not to the public at large. (See
[http://www.viruscomix.com/page471.html](http://www.viruscomix.com/page471.html))

School uniforms don't really deal with this dynamic because they're only
relevant for interactions internal to the school rather than interactions
between the school and the outside world.

~~~
jlees
They cross the interface between school and the outside world by causing a
certain set of behaviours and/or expectations when in transition between
states. A schoolchild walking home in uniform may be better behaved than
otherwise, because he or she is representing the school, whether that's
intentionally known and communicated or not.

My school had explicit rules about how we should behave when in uniform
outside of school, and we lost some agency because of that. Although I have to
say it also felt empowering, to some extent, that we were kind of ambassadors
for the school. We would definitely show off sometimes.

Similarly, sweet shops near another school I attended had signs saying 'no
more than 3 children at once' or something similar. The uniform part was
implied but I think a parent taking in four kids on a weekend day would have a
different reaction from the shopkeeper than four uniformed children at 3:30pm.

Similarly, a group of teenagers in uniform may be less threatening on the
street than one out of uniform, especially as fashions change. A certain
school's uniform communicates a level of wealth or manners (or lack thereof)
and therefore sets expectations for behaviour. A child alone in the library
working in uniform may be far less likely to be approached by concerned staff
than one in mufti - at least this was the case when I frequently stayed at the
library outside of school hours.

------
venantius
I love articles like this for neatly summarizing the way I've always viewed
the world.

~~~
golemotron
I have mixed feelings. I don't know who the author is but this way of looking
this is very formal - almost software-like.

Every era adopts the metaphor of the day. In the early industrial age it was
mechanism. Later, it was electricity. Today, we see the world through the veil
of formalisms.

------
droopyEyelids
Pretty coherent, cool idea you wrote here.

I'd like to see you explore the implications of the idea that personhood is
socialized into we 'blank slate' human animals with regards to people with
Aspergers. Bet you get into trouble :)

------
dnautics
There is a standard gripe that the things labeled as rights are not rights but
rather privileges, by virtue of the fact that they must be earned and can be
revoked based on behavior

------
patcon
Did anyone else get thinking about the implications of this theorizing on
artificial intelligence and integrating the simple robots that are going to
start entering society? :)

------
ianamartin
I knew just from the title that I was going to suck at this game.

------
mitenmit
Can we make web social platform/game out of this idea?

------
joeclark77
Author starts by saying that this is not about labeling the unborn (or Jews,
kulaks, or whoever we are exterminating at any particular time) as _less than
persons_. Then immediately proceeds to declare that the unborn (or Jews,
kulaks, or whoever) are _indeed_ less than persons.

~~~
jpatokal
As the author explicitly states up top, "this is emphatically not the notion
of personhood I want to discuss". He's not stating that the unborn, toddlers,
childen are not _human_ , just that they have not been socialized into
personhood yet.

