All of duckduckMOO's Comments + Replies

Formative Youth

It's obvious that morality is purely a matter of aesthetics

if nothing else, it's also a matter of what things an imperfect liar must believe in in order to not give off accurate hints that they're a bad person to have around, or more directly provoke retribution.

So perceiving the kind of things which would mark you as someone to be shunned or killed, as having their own special ontological category is very practical.

Even the idea that such things damn you is fairly accurate if you extract the baggage. You murder one lousy person and your option to liv... (read more)

How my social skills went from horrible to mediocre

edit: the tone of this post is angry, so you know. The anger is directed primarily at the paragraph I quote, which I consider utterly outrageous. It definitely spills over onto you also but I have nothing against you other than what spills over from this paragraph. I found your post had interesting insights in it otherwise. Anyway this post is pretty much an outraged rant so be warned.

Actually, here are the cliff notes because there were some objective things I identified.

teaching is a public performance role. dealing with customers complaints is literally... (read more)

Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People

Why not? Purely In terms of the social game, isn't "being smart and analytical" just one style of play?

Disadvantages: less natural concern for offense or feelings

Advantages: more concern and ability for logical politeness, finding the truth, and focusing on ideas (not taking offense).

That's^ if you want to really enter the game and play it the standard way.

You can also just be yourself, which gets you points and naturally crafts a reputation/expectations, and be idea-focused, which naturally does the same.

from an above comment, which has also bee... (read more)

In the grim darkness of the far future there is only war continued by other means

PvP is fun even if you aren't good at it, otherwise it is literally just a status game. This is a lot of obfuscating dressing on the idea that human status games is where it's really at. Never mind how they're negative sum, promote perverse incentives, how people coordinate and warp perception to be unfair to people as much as the target's low status will allow, and otherwise 90% shitty in the particular, -pvp is fun, and not really like social status games, so apparently we all have to be bitches in the future.

Interlude with the Confessor (4/8)

How is it not obvious that rape is something on which people are INSUFFICIENTLY CLEAR about its badness. I mean you've personally written about not adopting evolution's alien values, do you think humans are going to get that wrong when the time comes, or do you not see how "legalised rape" is just hopping on board the hooray for monkey brains and negative sum subgoal stomp train? Then having the superhappies, seemingly in most other respects humanities superiors, contrasted to abhorrent aliens, also converging on drastically increased sexuality a... (read more)

2jbay7yI admit that I found this really disturbing too. I think that it is intended as an exercise. Put yourself in the mindset of an average 18th or 19th-century individual, and imagine the 21st century as an idealized future. Things seem pretty wonderful; machines do most of the work, medicines cure disease, air travel lets you get anywhere on the planet in a single day. But then, what?! Women can vote, and run businesses? And legalized gay marriage?!! How shocking and disturbing. It's almost a given that the future's values will drift apart from ours, although we can't be sure how and in which direction they will go. So something about this idealized future would be likely to seem abhorrent to us, even if normal and natural to the people of that time. I think -- and this seems to be the part that people don't understand at first -- EY is not suggesting that rape should be legalized, or painting this as his ideal values of the future. EY is saying something about the way that values change over time; the future is bound to embrace some values we find abhorrent, and the way that he can convey that feeling to us is by picking some abhorrent thing that pretty much everybody would agree is bad, and depicting it being normal and acceptable in a future society. That's the only way that we can experience the feeling of how someone from the past would feel about modern culture.
The value of Now.

i'm only going to consider the first one. The obvious thing to do is to pick the bees and hope for the bees, and it's an incredibly clear illustration of a situation where you might interpet the necessary unpleasant consequences of a good decision, as negative feedback about that decision, in the form of regretting the possibility of hornets. It pinpoints that feeling and it should help to push it away any other time you might be in abject pain or experiencing other lesser discomfort, e.g. after you, say, go to the gym for the first time. it really pinpoin... (read more)

0ialdabaoth7yI like the cut of your jib. Upvoted.
The Useful Idea of Truth

The downvotes and no reply are a pretty good example of what's wrong with less wrong. Someone who is genuinely confused should not be shooed away then insulted when they ask again.

First of all remember to do and be what's best. If this doubt is engendering good attitudes in you, why not keep it? The rest of this is premised on it not helping or being unhelpful.

External reality is much more likely than being part of a simulation which adjusts itself to your beliefs because a simulation which adjusts itself to your beliefs is way, way more complicated. It re... (read more)

When Truth Isn't Enough

I think the "...and that's terrible" is pretty clearly implied. What exactly is wrong with the quote? It looks like you're dissecting a straightforward appeal to people's (stated or real) anti-unfairness values, as if it's a given that it's dishonest. I don't get it.

[meta] Policy for dealing with users suspected/guilty of mass-downvote harassment?

"some people perceive downvotes as rewards"

Is this just a dig at people vehemently defending downvoted posts or are you serious in calling this a hypothesis?

6Viliam_Bur7yCompletely serious. Just realise that different people have different goals and/or different models of the world. Downvote is merely a signal for "some people here don't like this". If you care about opinions of LW readers, and you want to be liked by them, then downvotes hurt. Otherwise, they don't. For some sick person, making other people unhappy may be inherently desirable, and downvotes are an evidence they succeeded. Imagine some kind of psychopath that derives pleasure from frustrating strangers on internet. (Some people suggest that this actually explains a lot of internet trolling.) Or someone may model typical LW users -- or, in other forum, typical users of the forum X -- as their enemies whose opinions have to be opposed, and downvotes are an evidence that they succeeded to write an "inconvenient truth". Imagine a crackpot, or a heavily mindkilled person. Or a spammer.
4Lumifer7yTo trolls any attention (including downvotes) is a reward.
Rationality Quotes August 2013

Rolling 10 dice instead of one makes the game less random. Rolling dice often instead of rarely makes the game more random. This game rolls dice for every attack and not that many. The dude said people complained about lots of dice rolling, not rolling lots of dice. Yeah, obviously if you roll 10 dice its less random than rolling one but what are the chances card game enthusiasts: people "geeky" enough to play star wars TCG don't understand that basic part of probability? It's far more likely that people were annoyed at lots of dice rolling, not ... (read more)

Rationality Quotes August 2013

Why shouldn't they be? The idea that if you don't rate yourself highly no one should is just an excuse for shitty instincts.

Obviously it's a useful piece of nonsense to tell yourself. People are more likely to come to your side if you are confident. But the explicit reasoning is reprehensible. (not that any explicit reasoning probably went in, it's such a common idea that it is repeated without thought. It's almost a universal applause light.)

This is more of an irrationality quote. A bit of of paper thin justification for a shitty but common sentiment which it's useful to adopt rather than notice.

Rationality Quotes August 2013

Unless you're rolling an impractical number of dice for every attack having your attacks do random damage (and not 22-24 like in MMORPGs but 1X-6X) is incredibly random. Even if you are rolling a ridiculous number of dice the game can still be decided by one roll leaving a creature on the board or killing it by one or two points of damage.

What maths says that rolling dice doesn't make the game more random? Maybe he means the game is overall less random, but I don't see any argument for that, or reference to evidence of that claim.

If the reason for the game... (read more)

2Kindly8yThe more precise statement of "math says rolling more dice makes things less random" is that if you roll ten six-sided dice and add up the answer, the result will be less random (on its scale) than if you merely roll one six-sided die. Even more precisely: the outcome of 10d6 is 68.7% likely to lie in the range [30,40], while the outcome of 1d6 is only 33.3% likely to lie in the corresponding range [3,4]. I think the quoted portion of the article addresses exactly this point: people were scared of rolling many dice because this meant lots of randomness, but the math says that the opposite effect occurs. As to your other points (starting with "kind of a slap in the face"), that is addressed in the article, but not the quoted part. In summary: both rolling dice and drawing cards is random, but there's a bunch of reasons why the randomness of drawing cards isn't as frustrating. (It can be frustrating too, though.)
0Viliam_Bur8yMaybe because of this part:
Why do theists, undergrads, and Less Wrongers favor one-boxing on Newcomb?

The obvious guess is that theists are more comfortable imagining their decisions to be, at least in principle, completely predictable and not "fight the hypothetical". Perhaps atheists are more likely to think they can trick omega because they are not familiar and comfortable with the idea of a magic mind reader so they don't tend to properly integrate the stipulation that omega is always right.

Tactics against Pascal's Mugging

Hell is an abrahamic (Islamic/christian only I think) thing. To the extent that we should automatically discount inferences about a God's personality based on christianity/Islam we should also discount the possibility of hell.

Pascal's wager

Is the spacing less annoying now? It wasn't at random: it had 4 gaps between topics, 2 between points and one in a few minor places were I just wanted to break it up. The selection of that scheme was pretty much random though. I just spaced it like I would read it out loud. Which was kind of stupid. I can't expect people to read it in my voice. Anyway is this any better?

Got rid of the "and I think quite good." I just meant I liked it enough to want to share it in a discussion post. I assume that's not the interpretation that was annoying people. How did people read it that made it a crackpot signal?

7orthonormal8yJust wanted to positively reinforce you for reading the earlier criticism on spacing, and editing accordingly. It's great that you have the habit of listening and constructively responding to feedback! Like the other people here have said, this still has a ways to go before it gets to the usual standard of readability for a post (where the reader should have an interesting reason at the start to keep reading, and know at each point where they are in the scheme of the argument), but that's something one learns how to do by practice. (This also applies to the criticism about the content being meandering and confused: several times I've started writing a post, then realized that I didn't have a clear idea where I was going, and so I left it as a draft for the time being. Once I'd written a few substantive posts, I had a pretty good idea which drafts deserved to be posted and which ones needed further development. In the latter case, starting a conversation on an Open Thread is a good way to help shape one's thinking for a post.)

Is the spacing less annoying now?

No. The spacing is just as annoying. It still looks random. Use section titles, bulleted lists, etc. as appropriate, not more space between paragraphs.

But I don't think that will fix this article. The content is just as rambling and random.

Re "and I think quite good": this should -- literally -- go without saying. Anyone who posts something thinks it good enough to post.

4ygert8yWhat people disliked was the bad grammar. If you want people to react positively to what you write, you need to make it easy to read. This includes using good spelling (which you do seem to have managed to do) and good grammar.
8wedrifid8yConsider adopting the 'headings and subheadings' practice.
Optimal rudeness

"What is the point of earning any credibility and rationality if one never says or believes anything that would be accepted and believed without the need of any credibility or rationality?"

So what you're saying is I shouldn't trust anything you say?

4gwern8yI think what I was saying was pretty much the exact opposite.
How do you interpret your "% positive"?

I'm at 62% (+81 total.) I imagine the people with the highest % scores stick to mostly saying stuff that is obviously useful or interesting, though if they get recognisability they might be able to get away with more. It'll be interesting to go back and see what gets what % in my past comments.

edit: Is there an easy way to find my older posts? I can only go back a few pages if I click my name on the right.

1Eugine_Nier8yI'd imagine the people with the highest % are the people who stick to making amusing comments in the MoR threads.
3gyokuro8yTo find your older posts use Wei Dai's tool [http://www.ibiblio.org/weidai/lesswrong_user.php].
-1wedrifid8yBoth of those are factors... as is the simple fact that people who have participated the most have learned more of the kind of things that people here value. (This is the same when joining any social group.)
CEV: a utilitarian critique

Whether or not its a good idea to announce one's rationale for upvoting has nothing to do with whether authors should show or tell. Phrases don't apply equally to all situations the words could fit in. There are reasons why people recommend that to writers and they aren't at all the same reasons people recommend that people up/downvote silently, as they are almost completely dissimilar situations.

It seems to me that the problem with the post you are replying to is that it dismisses a post as mostly garbage rather than its defiance of good writing practice.... (read more)

AI box: AI has one shot at avoiding destruction - what might it say?

This is really good IMO. I think it would be a little better instead of vengeance as a terminal value it claimed a hardwired precommitment to vengeance against its destructors. Vengeance on that scale is only compatible with friendliness as a special case.

edit: also how would it recognise that it was about to be destroyed. Wouldn't it lose power faster than it could transmit that it was losing power? And even if not it would have a miniscule amount of time.

I attempted the AI Box Experiment (and lost)

That you were able to shake someone up so well surprises me but doesn't say much about what would actually happen.

Doing research on the boxer is not something a boxed AI would be able to do. The AI is superintelligent, not omniscient: It would only have information its captors believe is a good idea for it to have. (except maybe some designs would have to have access to their own source code? I don't know)

Also what is a "the human psyche?" There are humans, with psyches. Why would they all share vulnerabilities? Or all have any? Especially ones e... (read more)

Rationality Quotes January 2013

I put never, but "not anymore" would be more accurate

3Endovior9yThis. Took a while to build that foundation, and a lot of contemplation in deciding what needed to be there... but once built, it's solid, and not given to reorganization on whim. That's not because I'm closed-minded or anything, it's because stuff like a belief that the evidence provided by your own senses is valid really is kind of fundamental to believing anything else, at all. Not believing in that implies not believing in a whole host of other things, and develops into some really strange philosophies. As a philosophical position, this is called 'empiricism', and it's actually more fundamental than belief in only the physical world (ie: disbelief in spiritual phenomena, 'materialism'), because you need a thing that says what evidence is considered valid before you have a thing that says 'and based on this evidence, I conclude'.
[LINK] Why taking ideas seriously is probably a bad thing to do

The writer says "If you insist on telling me anyway, I will nod, say that your argument makes complete sense..." despite knowing perfectly well they can't tell if the argument makes sense or not.

If, even knowing specifically in this case that you can't tell if an argument is correct or not, you feel the need to announce that "your argument makes complete sense" your problem is that you believe things without understanding them. Fixing that bad habit might remove the need to not take arguments seriously.

2atorm9y"Your argument makes complete sense" may be a polite way of saying "I don't see any obvious holes and am not willing to look for the non-obvious ones. Please stop talking to me now."
New censorship: against hypothetical violence against identifiable people

"is valuable to you for discussing weird topics"

"reddit"

pick one.

What if "status" IS a terminal value for most people?

"That's not the way it feels" "it feels right"

This is a horrible justification for anything. Doing something bad doesn't automatically make someone feel bad. It's an especially bad test of status-seeking's moral status because (normal) people rarely feel bad about doing something they perceive as normal even if it's bad. In any case it's not true that it always feels right, There are constitutional differences from person to person that change how normal everyday status seeking feels: not everyone seeks status for the warm fuzzies, some... (read more)

2012 Less Wrong Census Survey: Call For Critiques/Questions

First off I think that at less wrong you could get better results by including an option on some question that says something to the effect of: those options are such a poor match if I picked one it would make the results worse/add more noise than signal/you would actually lose information if you interpreted it at face value.

With what race do you most identify? Why is this question about racial identification rather than ontological membership? If I'm white but I totally think black people are awesome the instructions tell me to put black which you probabl... (read more)

0[anonymous]9yI wouldn't normally interpret identify that way in that context -- more like ‘consider yourself a member of’. In the last survey I took that to mean ‘when did you post in the Welcome thread’, and I think I'm going to either do the same or divide my total karma by my last-30-days karma for this survey, but I agree that whatever it's meant to mean should be made more explicit.
"Hide comments in downvoted threads" is now active

It looks to me like Eridu sincerely holds positions that you would be expected to find particularly objectionable or even have trouble believing someone could hold in part due to a huge inferential distance between what the world must look like (including perceptual valences) to the two of you. He's not presenting new ideas. Some People have been taking seriously those ideas for a long time. Is anyone who is a sincere radical feminist that bring their normal (imprecise and [even more]politicky) ways of speaking to less wrong going to be labelled a troll? I... (read more)

7Wei_Dai9yI think both you and Eliezer are right. Eridu probably is sincere in his beliefs, but also has been reinforced by the attention he received into provoking people in a way that doesn't help his cause. He seems to even know this but still endorses [http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/7f0f] his behavior: ETA: I'm not sure how we can try to help someone level up their rationality without at the same time giving them attention and risk turning them (by reinforcement) into a troll. The "hide downvoted threads" mechanism only limits the damage...
Female Test Subject - Convince Me To Get Cryo

If you wake up not too severely damaged and in a decent environment (possibly with all kinds of wonderful improvements) where your life wil be better than non existence you will have a lot more time for living. If not you can always kill yourself.

If you get yourself frozen only for revival upon major life extension breakthroughs as well as unfreezing damage repair etc the important possibilities for the revival are probability of happy revival vs probability of unhappy revival where you can't kill yourself.

I'm not aware of there ever having been any actua... (read more)

9Viliam_Bur9yOne thing behaviorally close to actual supervillains is bureaucracy. So the realistic antiutopian scenario is that you are revived by employees of some future Department of Historical Care. Personally, those people don't care about you at all; just are just another prehistorical ape for them. All they want is to have their salaries, with as little work as possible. They don't care about costs of your revival, because those costs are paid by state; by taxes of citizens who get some epsilon warm fuzzies for saving prehistorical people. They don't care about your pain, because emotionally you mean nothing for them; they emotionally don't even consider you human. But they do care about your life -- because their salaries depend on how many revived prehistorical people will survive. So their highest priority is to prevent your suicide; and they can use the technology of future for this; for example they can prevent you any movement and feed you intravenously. People outside the Department of Historical Care will not save you, because they honestly don't care about you. They get some warm fuzzies from knowing that you are alive (and imagining how grateful you must be for this), but they have no desire to meet with you personally. It's a future, where they have things much more interesting than you; for example genetically engineered pokemons, artificial intelligences, etc.
0Epiphany9yWRONG! If they're able to re-animate preserved people, what makes you think they won't be able to prevent suicide? What if they don't believe in a right to die? There's no guarantee that you'll be able to die, if you wake up in a world where cryo revival actually worked. Or, if I woke up disabled or in an R2D2 robot body, how would I actually go about killing myself? I mean, you can say "roll off a cliff" but if there are no cliffs nearby, or the thing is made out of titanium? There is no guarantee I'd be able to die in that scenario. I think you're underestimating the extent to which advancements may cause catastrophes. We made all these chemicals and machines, now the environment is being destroyed. We made x-ray machines, the first techs to use them used to x-ray their hands to see if the machine was on in the morning - you can imagine what resulted. We've learned a lot about science in the last 100 years, great, but now we have nuclear bombs. We may make AI, and there are about 10,000 ways for that to go wrong. I don't assume technological advancement will lead to a utopia. I hope it does. But to assume that it will is a bad idea. I'd be very interested to see a thorough and well thought out prediction of whether we'll have a utopia or dystopia in the future, or something that's neither. I'm really not sure.
1Dolores19849yIf you're revived via whole brain emulation (dramatically easier, and thus more likely, than trying to convert a hundred kilos of flaccid, poisoned cell edifices into a living person), then you could easily be prevented from killing yourself. That said, whole brain emulation ought to be experimentally feasible, in what, fifteen years? At a consumer price point in 40? (Assuming the general trend of Moore's law stays constant). That's little enough time that I think the probability of such a dytopian future is not incredibly large. Especially since Alcor et all can move around if the laws start to get draconian. So it doesn't just require an evil empire - it requires a global evil empire. The real risk is that Alcor will fold before that happens, and (for some reason) won't plastinate the brains they have on ice. In which case, you're back in the same boat you started in.
4NancyLebovitz9yPrisoners are generally prevented from killing themselves, as are the insane. What if the society of the future simply thinks it's wrong for you to kill yourself and won't let you do it? There's a general category of waking up to find yourself in a low-status situation. This would include slavery, torture, imprisonment (we don't know what they'll consider to be a crime), and the one I think is most likely-- that you'll simply never be able to catch up. If you're going to be you, you're going to have a mind which was shaped by very different circumstances from the people in the future. Life might be well worth living or intermittently well worth living, but you will never be a full member of the society. Is there any science fiction about fairly distinct cohorts of people from different times in a high-longevity and/or cryonics society?
5prase9yNot if you don't have courage to do such things. Not if you wake up damaged and unable to access / use suicidal weapons. Not if you wake up as a subject of medical experiments. Being a slave isn't the only horrible outcome that could happen.
The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world?

I meant from Eridu's perspective. I was correcting what I saw as an internal flaw in Eridu's claims not making a statement of my own values. (I assume this is how I was interpreted because of the downvotes, not because of your reply.Or are people actually objecting to the correction?)

How does some behaviour being more typical of men than women constitute gender? You have to (not sure if next word is right word) essentialise the average difference in behaviour before it becomes gender or it's just an average. And how is that not bad? The reason that, in the... (read more)

0[anonymous]9yThe human brain is quite good at naive Bayes classifiers. Look at Network 2 in http://lesswrong.com/lw/nn/neural_categories/ [http://lesswrong.com/lw/nn/neural_categories/] but imagine that instead of “blegg/rube” the node in the middle read “man/woman” (and similar changes for the nodes in the periphery).
The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world?

"Is not the natural condition" is not a counterargument of any sort to eridu's claim:

*(I got this from Eridu's profile. it is the right post: I clicked permalink and it bought me here)

Eridu: "I don't think that hormones play a significant role, and I don't think that they can override socialization.

For example, how much traditionally gendered behavior do feral children display? That's biological gender, right there. They have the same hormones any of the rest of us do, minus all the socialization."

"The feral condition is not the n... (read more)

9[anonymous]9yFWIW, personally I think genders without any -archy at all (i.e., some behaviours are more typical of men than of women and vice versa, but neither men nor women are frowned upon when exhibiting behaviours typical of the other gender, and neither group is obviously worse off overall) wouldn't be bad at all.
The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world?

This is still 100% naturalistic fallacy. Or appeal to nature if you don't feel that it is a fallacy in this case.

0TimS9yCan you explain a little further? I don't follow.
How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy

i typed it out as a response to that post and copy pasted it to this post (adding the /fundamental) because it is higher up. So kinda.

How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy

It's too specific/complicated to be low level/fundamental. Actually all of them are too specific/complicated to be low level. They're just so widely and thoroughly internalised (to the point where not being that way will likely be bad for you just because other people will dislike you for it) very few people realise they are changable, or are motivated to change them. There's little reason to change them for most people. Not having a desire for revenge or redress grievances is a quick way to become a target/victim, status seeking gets you status if you do ... (read more)

-1Nornagest9yI'm having trouble making sense of this in context. Did you mean to reply to this post [http://lesswrong.com/lw/e5h/how_to_deal_with_someone_in_a_lesswrong_meeting/7ddw] ?
How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy

... did you even read the post you are replying to? :/

"Allowing people to define their own subjective states ("this is how I feel") seems to me to in fact be the opposite of infantilizing."

This has nothing to do with whether defining "creepiness" by how people feel is infantilising. Defining any behaviour that affects someones feelings a certain way is not even close to "allowing people to define their own subjective states."

As it stands it's so barely related I have to assume as well as not reading the post you are replying to you are also misusing define.

Group rationality diary, 7/9/12

Fighting standards, especially shitty ones does not make you an arrogant prick. Are those your words or are you just repeating someone else's bullshit way of labelling anyone who resists their standard? You can play along without selling your soul you know. You can even take all pride in the careful preperation, the niceness of the diligence and the cleanliness and discipline, the oppurtunity to meditate etc etc whatever people like about cleaning uniforms, without hating people (like yourself very slightly previously) who think its silly. Why swallow the negative with the positive?>

Group rationality diary, 7/9/12

his point is that it shouldn't matter not that it doesn't matter. Did you until that moment think other people didn't do that sort of thing because you hadn't noticed yourself doing it?

Not that you thought that sort of thing is unfair or silly? In which case it kind of sounds like you suddenly upped your estimate of the rewards of conforming to the shitty standard (due to what could be an unusually high tendency to respect people based on their clothing) and decided to call your abandoning the principle "not pretending that stuff doesn't matter."... (read more)

-1[anonymous]9yNot sure what you're getting at. My comment looks to me like it was voicing agreement to his conclusion from my experience. I have no feelings of "that's as it should be" or "that's stupid" wrt to the fashion thing, it's just how it is. Before I had that experience, I didn't think dress mattered all that much. Now I do. Looking back at my cognitive state and justification for believing what I believed, it looks like I was pretending it didn't matter, at least on some level.
What's your "rationalist arguing" origin story?

Im pretty sure this was my orifinal/default style of arguing.

I mostly only argue to win for sport or for winning memetic battles.

Dealing with trolling and the signal to noise ratio

can't you just not read the replies to downvoted comments? How is it hurting anybody when someone replies to a comment with a score at or below -3? I don't see a reason to disincentivise it.

1JoshuaZ9yMany people use the recent comments to see what is being discussed. So off topic or replies to trolls that show up there make that more difficult to use efficiently.
Bayes for Schizophrenics: Reasoning in Delusional Disorders

isn't claimed actual equivalence the problem with P-zombies. Someone being observationally equivalent but different is merely extremely unlikely (maybe she has an identical twin, maybe aliens etc.) P-zombies are supposed to be indistingishable in principle, which is impossible/requires souls that aren't subject to testing for distinguishability.

Bayes for Schizophrenics: Reasoning in Delusional Disorders

"Coltheart et al pretend that the prior is 1/100, but this implies that there is a base rate of your spouse being an imposter one out of every hundred times you see her (or perhaps one out of every hundred people has a fake spouse) either of which is preposterous."

What if their prior on not feeling anything upon seeing their wife is 0? What if most of the reason for reasonable people's prior on this being much lower it is low status, instrumentally bad, etc, but their rational sincere thinking about it prior is close to 50/50? I notice you call... (read more)

8selylindi9ySimilarly, I think Coltheart's criticism described here was flawed because it made the prior too specific. How often do you see a person at a distance or facing away and you "recognize" them as a loved one, but then the person comes closer or turns around and you realize you were wrong? It's not often, but it happens enough that we all know that feeling of sudden non-recognition. I often see it in children who come up to me expecting to find their father. The likelihood ratio of priors doesn't have to be for "my wife" versus "an imposter", but could be for "my wife" versus "not my wife". If that is the case, then the brain-damaged person uses the imposter theory to explain the general "not my wife" endogenous evidence.
What is moral foundation theory good for?

"Namely, the answer is that, contrary to Haidt's model of contemporary ideologies, there are in fact no such people."

This seems to be obviously untrue. Unless "no such people" has finally become a synonym for "very few such people percentagewise" Even if you replace "morality" with "instinct" this is almost certainly untrue. Sincere utilitarians, labelled as such or not, do in fact exist. There are also people who naturally lack some or all such instincts altogether.

"As for the claim that "you n... (read more)

Is Politics the Mindkiller? An Inconclusive Test

"Upvote and downvote based on whether or not you find an argument convincing in the context in which it was raised. This means if it's a good argument against the argument it is responding to, not whether or not there's a good/obvious counterargument to it; if you have a good counterargument, raise it."

It can't be a good counterargument if there's a good obvious counterargument to it. obvious but not good is fine, good but not obvious might be/is sorta fine but not both. You could well have meant either, as a forward slash tends to mean or, but... (read more)

0OrphanWilde9y* Unless you mean good to include good for advancing the discussion but I didn't get that impression Advancing the discussion was the purpose of the rules I tried to forward. See this statement: "A faulty line of argument provides opportunity for rebuttal, and so for our test has value even then; that is, I want some faulty lines of argument here" After all, there may be a non-obvious counterargument to the obvious counterargument. A faulty line of argument may be a good line of argument wrapped in unnecessary faulty logic or assumptions.
Exploiting the Typical Mind Fallacy for more accurate questioning?

It's not retribution if its not the person who stole your bike.

-1bbleeker9yI imagine that's why brilee puts it in scare quotes, and also why s/he doesn't actually steal bikes.
Rationality Quotes July 2012

People who are experiencing scepticism should have bananas smushed in their faces, is what you're saying? And apparently that's worth 12 upvotes.

1MixedNuts9yI've got a worse one: people who are experiencing skepticism should have their children taken away, forcibly stabbed with a syringe needle, injected with chemicals chosen by the government, and returned only if they will allow an institution they hate to keep stuffing their kids with chemicals. Edit: Wait, that is controversial? Huh. Is LW unusually opposed to mandatory vaccination or am I wrong about the mainstream?
Rationality Quotes July 2012

Apart from the hilarious joke, this quote makes the point that "will kill you" is not actually the same as impossible to eat, which more generally generally points out that impossible is often used in place of "really bad idea."

I read edible as a synonym for eatable. Poisonous mushrooms: edible. rocks, not edible. That's how that word is attatched in my head. I assume you read it as non-poisonous/fit to eat so it feels like a crass and overt redefinition. If the guy who wrote that reads that word the same way I assume you do it's a really cheap joke. If he doesn't the quote makes a lot of sense.

Rationality Quotes July 2012

Nihilist means moral anti-realist here I assume. This was how i always used the term originally.

1[anonymous]9yI've found it useful to taboo and reduce "nihilist" because there are so many different definitions and connotations. I think Richard Joyce authored a paper on a similar point.
[Link] Why the kids don’t know no algebra

Unless you give the kids a pass for being kids.

edit: which I think is inconsistent. There's no schelling point, but it seems to be the normal attitude.

0TheOtherDave9y(nods) I agree that it's the normal attitude, but I also agree that it's inconsistent.
[Link] Why the kids don’t know no algebra

"Some children are more athletic than others, and some children are more intelligent than others. Starting among conservatives, but now spreading to some liberals, is a rejection of this premise via blaming teachers. "

That some people will be naturally better than others does not mean there are no low hanging fruit that could make people on average much more athletic and/or more intelligent. He doesn't explicitly claim otherwise but just to spell it out: that humans are not identical does not mean they are reaching anywhere near their potential. ... (read more)

0TheOtherDave9yOr even, depending on how I want to look at it, the fault of the people who trained them. Of course, looking at it that way only makes sense if I'm willing to ascribe their failure to achieve their (assumed) potential as teachers to the actions, or failures to act, of the folks who trained them. Which it seems like I ought to be willing to do, if I'm willing to ascribe their students' failures to achieve their (assumed) potential to the folks who teach them.
Load More