Jasnah Kholin

while i dislike the word naughtiness and its connotations, i don't see the contradiction. as the post state int he start "They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that matter. ". all Decision Theory rules are rules that matter.

this doesn't answer the question of what rules to break and what not. but you cant be Lawful by following all laws in our way-to bureaucratic society.

my mother think that going outside while wearing pajamas is unthinkable. it can probably be described as naughty. it's also totally harmless.

but also, now that i thought about you... (read more)

did you run it? what did you found out?

the thing this post missing is the connection between the Process Crime and Actual Crime. the child have no reason to use the stepstool, beside to eat the cookies, in the vast majority of situations. is it true about lying to banks, or is in situation when Everyone guilty of some crime and the state get to lawfully punish whoever it want, by some criteria that are not written in the law?

this is empirical question with empirical answer, and when i saw disagreements about Process Crimes and Pedantic Rules in real life, it was of the form of "there are legitimate, non-criminal reasons to break this Process Rule" or "this Pedantic Rule is pretty costly to this set or rule-abiding citizens".

interesting, i came to the opposite conclusion. or, more concretely, i found that there are rules that i can follow 95% of the time, and it's actually better then follow it 100% of the time, and there are rules when i simply can't, and i slip all the way down the slippery slope. and a lot of time i can search for differentiator, or more complicated solution.

simple rules need for coordination, when you have about five words. but i have much wider channel to coordinate with future-me, and i should use it to my advantage.

so my lesson was that having rules tha... (read more)

And once you have a message you actually need to share, you'll actually be able to express it.

that doesn't look like good advice to me. or, rather, to make sense, one should assume, a priori, that the day will come when one will have "a message you actually need to share". this way of thinking proving too much - why shouldn't I read those trip reports, assuming one day i will need this knowledge, instead?

there are a lot of things one can do with one's time, and most people don't come to situations like that. learning to write better because one day i wi... (read more)

there is a high correlation between what voters as a whole want on any single narrow issue, and what the outcome of the black box produces.

I'm way to late to the party, but I'm still reading old posts, and this is evidence that other people may too.

this statement is not true, in the country that I live. there are some narrow issues in which there is large public majority, and the black box produce not-correlated output. and this happen for a long period of time.

For the rest of this comment, I'm going to restrict "fox" to "good-scoring generalist forecaster"

why? this is very much not how I understand it, and I find it hard to even generate hypothesis to how you came to this conclusion.  which make the rest of the comment seem irrelevant and missing the point. 

foxes are people who go to people that have some big theory, and telling them they are wrong, everyone who try to have one theory is wrong, they should have many theories in their toolbox and use the more appropriate.

basically I understood it ... (read more)

I opened a tab with this comment as something I want to answer too, when an opportunity arise for that. it was two years now, and the tab remain open. I wrote two post about that in my blog, and clarified my thinking about the issue a lot. and yet, I still believe what I believed then, although hopefully I'm more capable to express this. not sure if that, English is hard. but, it's worth trying. 

here is my opinion, in its most simple form: one should not be cooperation bot.

if I have repeated opportunities to pay 1 unit to get someone 10 units, and the... (read more)

small and very belated comment to comment (6): I did, actually believe in things and do things because of the decision theory. I sometimes had the impulse myself, but considered it childish and stupid and basically irrational, as in the past i saw people implement "spite" in really bad way.

then I encountered the decision theory on that, and evidence that people react to incentives more then I thought (I'm not sure if it's a crux - I endorse doing the correct thing even when the relevant people don't react to incentives).

so I changed my mind. I endorse the... (read more)

One of the best forums I knew was homeschooling place, that was officially anti-vax. it was really bad at true-seeking, but I learned there so much. it turned out there are a lot of things that doesn't get said in places that are no default-collaborative. my models of people and societies much better because I was there. and also I leaved when I couldn't endure the idea that I'm bad and wrong for pointing out obvious falsehoods.

I don't think you can seek true without pointing out at false thing and saying they are false. but also, this way of thinking tend... (read more)

the "it will be used i status based asymmetry" claim look to me like general counterargument to any norms at all. in the same time, it pessimistic in way tat look unjustified to me. there are rules that enforced more or less neutrally, and i see no reason to assume the worst here. LessWrong is not actually the sort of places when the popular kids never get called out.

while the emoticons suggestion is interesting, it's missing the point of building mental habits. like asking myself if I'm dreaming is practice for lucid dreaming. having other people do that loss that benefit. it's also loss the saving throw of avoiding escalating by apologizing,

I actually disagree, it may be true about the other parts of the prefix, but reading something that is tagged as uncharitable rant would make me less inclined to get mad and react uncharitably. the point of the tagging things as rants is to prevent the dynamic when emotions mindkill people and discussions, and saying something is unfair at the beginning produce different emotional reaction.

also, the last time i encountered that sort of prefix it was at part of long post, and was much less hard to parse, as i had context. and it prevented the need to going ... (read more)

Can anyone reading this truly deny that those warnings came true from the doom sayer's perspective?

yes. your arrow of causality look backwards to me - I don't see divorce destigmatization - > more divorce. in the divorce case it's clearly more divorce -> destigmatization. i don't remember where to find the posts about how the laws that allow divorce came after the spike in divorce, and not the other way around.

there is important point here. i only recently re-evaluate my opinion on TV and decided the doomers was right there. but it sure look to m... (read more)

maybe i took all the low hanging fruit or something, but doing entire new thing every day is A LOT. like, the things i have to do and didn't, it's because they are hard and take more then 5 minutes. also, i can't even check if it worked, and i don't actually have so many things to do!

like, do you really expect to have 365 small things to do? because that suggestion sounds like applause lights to me - designed to be hard to say "actually, that's insane!", while being totally unrealistic.

also, i agree with Taylor. there are things like fixing small problem, ... (read more)

See, my leading hypothesis is that you inclined to make negative interpretations, without noticing you are doing it or that there are alternative, and without checking what interpretation is more likely. I think this because i saw you doing it twice.

so saying that you did look on the alternative, that you considered both options and then chose one, is already giving new information. although, you didn't actually said you did that.

I will say on my part that in Facebook I frequently have the experience of reading comments when it looks like they didn't read ... (read more)

see, I actually assumed everyone obviously read it all before commenting, before I saw your comment. WHY you assume they didn't? why you assume they/we pretending?

I say nothing about people who read and didn't comment and have no idea from where this weird misunderstanding, and the accusation came from. 

at this point I have the hypothesis you inclined to assume bad path where there are none, and then jump to accusations before checking if it even true. I saw zero evidence to people commented without reading, but you rise the hypothesis and then behave as if you encountered some evidence to it being true.

where is the part, when after thinking about it, you search for evidence?

I encountered the correct read - about the inability of people to believe in Utopia - more then once although i don't remember where. i think the story do both of those things.

also, i have really boring of an answer: because the story lack details. i have no problem to imagine dath ilan, and without tortured children. 

 

Yeah, legit, i avoided do it second time myself :-) 

somewhere in the comments, about how he talked about it with the professor. it's not STRONG evidence, if you say you are not convinced I will not say it unreasonable.  the next step would have been to decide what are the right kind of evidence, and then ask for them.

 

1. I wasn't suggesting this at all. i consider 1/4 equivalent to 75% (and dislike to use the / character because it move when I change languages, and this is  annoying). i find this claim weird - i use percentage all the time and people generally understand that 75% means quarter.
2. this is the sort of discussion that we should have! he did provide some evidence, though little. 
   i once had classwork that should done in pair, that i get 90 ad grade and my teammate get 60 (i think? some numerical equivalent of F). and i was reigned with him freeloading, i