All of Bluehawk's Comments + Replies

The chances overwhelmingly are that there are factors affecting the rocket's trajectory that the experiment (and by extension, the hypothesis) has failed to take into account.

Unless it's that you have a very specific definition in mind for "well-controlled burns" (ie. burn engine P for X seconds:milliseconds, then burn Q and R for Y seconds:milliseconds, and your position will be Z) and the mechanism controlling the rockets has failed to time them properly, or if your rocket is shot down by an orbital defence laser (or otherwise sabotaged).

That ... (read more)

This is of course what I have in mind. If you take a die that you measure to be perfectly symmetrical and have chance of 1/6 to land on each side (after, say, >10 bounces), and you check your reasoning about the die by throwing it, and measuring probability of it landing on each side, you'd need quite a lot of throws until the strength of evidence from deviations can overwhelm the strength of the reasoning. That is to say, your prior for probability being very close to 1/6 is high and for any other value, very low. The experiments are not always deterministic; deterministic experiments, if anything, are an exception.

Lack of rationality causes religion causes lack of rationality causes religion causes lack of rationality --

Thus, if we destroy religion irrationality will resurrect it, and if we improve rationality religion will drag it down again. Depressing.

I'm having a little trouble actually articulating what I find wrong here, and I'm not sure if that's a fault in what I'm supposedly intuiting or in my ability to articulate.

That's not so much a "logical fallacy" as a mistaken belief that belief is incontrovertible (or a mistaken over-valuing of "the personal opinion"). You've also substituted Argument for Fallacy.

The one you've outlined might also be less important here because it's a lot easier to recognise for what it is, and is likely to be recognised as a stonewall rather than as a ... (read more)

Hi there, denizens of Less Wrong! I've actually been lurking around here for a while (browsing furtively since 2010), and only just discovered that I hadn't introduced myself properly.

So! I'm Bluehawk, and I'll tell you my real name if and when it becomes relevant. I'm mid-20's, male, Australian, with an educational history in Music, Cinema Studies and Philosophy, and I'm looking for any jobs and experience that I can get with the craft of writing. My current projects are a pair of feature-length screenplays; one's in the editing/second draft stages, the o... (read more)

As an Australian with an American partner:

Australia has slightly different rules about relationships than the U.S. does. Getting married is one way to do it, but if you and your partner live together in an exclusive relationship for the span of a year or two you can be recognised with "de facto" status. It's a legal step between "single" and "married", and it's another legal basis on which you can apply for a longer-term visa in Australia and CAN be done from within Australia.

It is, however, just as expensive to travel back t... (read more)

Well damn. That's inconvenient. How about "still stable, exclusive and any time we have sex with others it is because we are Bad People and cheating"? ie. It would be a shame if polyamorous people in stable primary relationships were penalized for using different moral vocabulary.

At the risk of nitpicking:

"Makes Deity happy" sounds to me like a very specific interpretation of "utility", rather than something separate from it. I can't picture any context for the phrase "P should X" that doesn't simply render "X maximizes utility" for different values of the word "utility". If "make Deity happy" is the end goal, wouldn't "utility" be whatever gives you the most efficient route to that goal?

Utility has a single, absolute, unexpressible meaning. To say "X gives me Y utility" is pointless, because I am making a statement about qualia, which are inherently incommunicable - I cannot describe the quale "red" to a person without a visual cortex, because that person is incapable of experiencing red (or any other colour-quale). "X maximises my utility" is implied by the statements "X maximises my deity's utility" and "maximising my deity's utility maximises my utility", but this is not the same thing as saying that X should occur (which requires also that maximisng your own utility is your objective). Stripped of the word "utility", your statement reduces to "The statement 'If X is the end goal, and option A is the best way to achieve X, A should be chosen' is tautologous", which is true because this is the definition of the word "should".

There was an implied "Bill is not an accountant" in the way I read it initially, and I failed to notice my confusion until it was too late.

So in answer to your question, that has now happened at least once.

I, too, was worried about this at first, but you'll find that [] contains a thorough examination of the research on the conjunction fallacy, much of which involves eliminating the possibility of this error in numerous ways.

While words have a normative value as part of their common use, I think the reason you're getting so many down votes for those comments is that "value" is only a behavioral mechanism on our own part. Lots of people ascribe negative or positive values to event X. Great. But that's just a response in the human brain(s) that observe(s) event X, not a part of event X itself.

And to say that "his courage was vicious" -- you know what, I like that. I'm going to look for a way to use that in prose.

I think it's more likely that I got downvotes because I was 1) telling people they're using a word wrong, and 2) invoking Aristotelian idioms in a context not friendly to Aristotle. I'm not concerned. That really isn't relevant. The words are also produced by human brains, and are often about value. If you say "good" and mean "bad", then you're using the word wrong. At a minimum, that's bad communication. And some words have "good" or "bad" as part of their meaning. If you don't want to imply virtue, you can say (for example) "bold" or "fearless" instead of "courageous" (if you want to imply vice, you can say "brash" or "reckless"). There are many words.

But if the question "What is P(X), given Y?" is stated clearly, and then the reader interprets it as "What is P(Y), given X", then that's still an error on their part in the form of poor reading comprehension.

Which still highlights a possible flaw in the experiment.

Ah. Yeah, I may have parsed that one incorrectly, now that you mention it. Thanks for pointing that out.

And for all that, The Devil is simply used as more rationalization for pack behavior and scapegoating.

Consider replacing "core ideas of science" with "core ideas of society" and I'll wager that's closer to the commonly-used meaning of "cult".

Dropping in mid thread, but I think you parsed that differently than intended; I read it as saying that the notion of unquestionable dogma runs counter to the core ideas of science, not that the dogma itself must run counter to anything in order to be a cult.

That's a question that everybody here needs to ask themselves every time they post, if they're to fight the good fight against cult-entropy.

I think it's easy to forget that world events that might have had lasting visible effects in present day might have much bigger lasting effects in a world of extended lifespans and older parenting that is also taking place twenty one years ago.

So I guess what I'm saying is I agree?

Fetusmouth sounds to me remarkably like a synonym for "babyeater".

Worth testing as to whether it occurs to different extents depending on what type of division it is, or how important the test subject believes that one difference to be.

The programmer believes that it's capable of lying for a good laugh...

I wish I could cite a source for this; assume there's some inaccuracy in the telling.

I remember hearing about a study in which three isolated groups were put in rooms for about one hour. One group was told to wiggle their index fingers as much as they could in that hour. One group was told to think hard about wiggling their index fingers for that hour, without actually wiggling their fingers. And the third group was told to just hang out for that hour.

The physical effects of this exercise were examined directly afterward, and the first two groups checked out (almost?) identically.


Yeah, I spotted that after making my comment, but after that I wasn't sure whether you were citing the same source material or no. The actual evidence does say a lot more about how humans (don't?) perceive musical sounds. Thanks for clarifying, though.

I'm curious. Did you say "aspire to aspire to post into Main" deliberately?

Might have something to do with the fact that happy/sad is neither an accurate nor an encompassing description of the uses of major/minor chords, unless you place a C major and a C or A minor directly next to each other. I for one find that when I try to tell the difference solely on that basis, I might as well flip a coin and my success rate would go down only slightly. When I come at it from other directions and ignore the emotive impact, my success rate is much higher.

In short: Your conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence.

I stated the evidence incorrectly, look at the uncle/aunt of your comment (if you haven't already) for the actual evidence.

Being promised low stress/high satisfaction and having a rough idea of what kind of work or work environment is (more or less) enjoyable to you are quite different things. A given idea of which work is enjoyable won't be 100% accurate; there are always going to be surprises from both inside the mind and out. But most people have a rough idea what kind of work they prefer to do. That's where the low stress/high satisfaction predictions come from in this scenario.

Obviously one can only expect so much "enjoyment" in a work environment (and no "... (read more)

Fair point. I'm fairly young, so most of my social group is still trying to figure out what sort of work environment they want, and how to actually identify it - a lot of entry level jobs outright lie about the work environment ("we value employee feedback, overtime only when necessary" -> "we are going to be doing another 80 hour death march this week because of an arbitrary release deadline").

The money isn't necessarily the only factor. Don't forget about location, working hours, stress levels, and job satisfaction. I'd take a $70k job that's intrinsically rewarding over a $100k job that "isn't really my type of environment" any day.

Of course, I'd have to KNOW that the $70k job was intrinsically rewarding and that the $100k job wouldn't be, but if the hypothetical fool does know this about his PhD job prospects, for example he wants to be an academic and the job offers so far are in unintellectual labor, or in the family business, or ... (read more)

Research suggests that once you have sufficient income to meet your basic needs, that travel time is one of the biggest factors in job satisfaction. I think we tend to focus on income because it's much easier to evaluate the actual pay rate of a job - if you're promised $100K, you can expect 100K. If you're promised 40 hours and no overtime then you'll often find that tested. If you're promised low stress and high job satisfaction, well, good luck suing for breach of contract on that.

Actually they would associate the stick with a number of things, including but not limited to the stupid thought process. They would be quite likely to associate the stick with their encounter with Eliezer, and to their (failed) attempt to converse with and/or follow his thought processes. Mind: They associate the stick with all aspects of the attempt, not only with the failure.

It might work in a Master/Apprentice scenario where the stick-hitting-victim is bindingly pre-committed to a year of solitude with Stick-Happy!Eliezer in order to learn from him the... (read more)

I was only pointing out that arguably-positive consequences would be present. I agree that they most likely would not predominate outside controlled conditions, and the overall decision not to engage in spontaneous armed assault was a wise one.

Easily reduced, in theory; educate them about the false dichotomy and other basic fallacies -early-, and have it cost them marks when said basic fallacies punctuate their thinking, the same as any other error.

Of course, it's not so easy to get that implemented in the broader system, in a world where people refuse to be taught how to think. But while we're talking about the "ideal" education...

1Synn Lee4y
Yum. More student punishment. Sweet.