Open Thread: July 2010, Part 2

Alicorn

This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.

July Part 1

This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.

July Part 1

Yes, that is what you said you'd do. An 0.0001% existential risk is equal to 6700 murders, and that's what you said you'd do if you didn't get your way. The fact that you didn't understand what it meant doesn't make it acceptable, and when it was explained to you, you should've given an unambiguous retraction but you didn't. You are obviously bluffing, but if I had the slightest doubt about that, then I would call the police, who would track you down and verify that you were bluffing.

7Emile16y

I think you're overestimating your ability to see what exactly is wrong and how to fix it. Humans (westerners?) are biased towards thinking that improvements they propose would indeed make things better. This tendancy is particularly visible in politics, where it causes the most damage. More generally, humans are probably biased towards thinking their own ideas are particularly good, hence the "not invented here" syndrome, etc. Outside of politics, the level of confidence rarely reaches the level of threatening death and destruction if one's ideas are not accepted.

11

Open Thread: July 2010, Part 2

11

11

11

Open Thread: July 2010, Part 2

11

11