One aspect of how “information hazard” tends to be conceptualised that is fairly new[1], apart from the term itself, is the idea that one might wish to be secretive out of impartial concern for humankind, rather than for selfish or tribal reasons[2].
This especially applies in academia, where the culture and mythology are strongly pro-openness. Academics are frequently secretive, but typically in a selfish way that is seen as going against their shared ideals[3]. The idea that a researcher might be altruistically secretive about some aspect of the truth of nature is pretty foreign, and to me is a big part of what makes the “infohazard” concept distinctive.
I think a lot of people would view those selfish/tribal reasons as reasonable/defensible, but still different from e.g. worrying that such-and-such scientific discovery might damage humanity-at-large’s future.
Is discourse around lying/concealing information out of altruistic concern really that rare in Western cultures?
I feel like lying about the extent of pandemics for “your own good” is a tragic pattern that’s frequentlyrepeatedinhistory, and that altruistic motivations (or at least justifications) are commonly presented for why governments do this.
“Think of the children” and moral panic justifications for censorship seems extremely popular.
Academia, especially in the social sciences and humanities, also strikes me as being extremely pro-concealment (either actively or more commonly passively, by believing we should not gather information in the first place) on topics which they actually view as objectionable for explicitly altruistic reasons.
Other examples might be public health messaging. E.g. I’ve heard anecdotal claims that it’s a deliberate choice not to emphasize, say, the absolute risk of contracting HIV per instance of unprotected sex with an infected person.
One aspect of how “information hazard” tends to be conceptualised that is fairly new[1], apart from the term itself, is the idea that one might wish to be secretive out of impartial concern for humankind, rather than for selfish or tribal reasons[2].
This especially applies in academia, where the culture and mythology are strongly pro-openness. Academics are frequently secretive, but typically in a selfish way that is seen as going against their shared ideals[3]. The idea that a researcher might be altruistically secretive about some aspect of the truth of nature is pretty foreign, and to me is a big part of what makes the “infohazard” concept distinctive.
Not 100% unprecedentedly new, or anything, but rare in modern Western discourse pre-Bostrom.
I think a lot of people would view those selfish/tribal reasons as reasonable/defensible, but still different from e.g. worrying that such-and-such scientific discovery might damage humanity-at-large’s future.
Brian Nosek talks about this a lot – academics mostly want to be more open but view being so as against their own best interests.
Is discourse around lying/concealing information out of altruistic concern really that rare in Western cultures?
I feel like lying about the extent of pandemics for “your own good” is a tragic pattern that’s frequently repeated in history, and that altruistic motivations (or at least justifications) are commonly presented for why governments do this.
“Think of the children” and moral panic justifications for censorship seems extremely popular.
Academia, especially in the social sciences and humanities, also strikes me as being extremely pro-concealment (either actively or more commonly passively, by believing we should not gather information in the first place) on topics which they actually view as objectionable for explicitly altruistic reasons.
Other examples might be public health messaging. E.g. I’ve heard anecdotal claims that it’s a deliberate choice not to emphasize, say, the absolute risk of contracting HIV per instance of unprotected sex with an infected person.