All of Lu93's Comments + Replies

You don't use some words only if you think the other guy would classify that as an insult (unless you want to insult him). If you dont know someone classifies something as an insult, you might use it on accident.

There is a set of rules that I use to describe an insult (which I have gotten from my culture). You have one, probably everybody has some set of rules. Some general set of rules. If my set of rules does not classify something as an insult, I will think it is safe to say that.

If it happens that I say something, which you consider an insult, and I do... (read more)

Well, now you know. What I am trying to avoid is * I explain why the statement is an insult * You think "that's not a very good reason" or "that's not my motivation". * You decide that because you don't think the reason is very good, you can keep using it. Or you decide that because your motivation doesn't match the reason, you can keep using it. If you think I'm the only person who sees such things as insulting, and that the cultures you have already faced do not, you haven't been paying attention.

You can't add a disclaimer "Don't interpret my words as aggressive"

Well, you can often interpret someone's words many ways. Just because you cannot see the person, and you cannot get information about their emotional state. So, i think you can write something that can be understood many ways, and add a disclaimer, "it's not the other thing".


using excessive familiarity with an opponent is a type of insult

I never saw this. Maybe we are from different areas, and this could be explained through cultural difference. First, ... (read more)

You can try, but it's unlikely to work, because anyone who wants to be aggressive and lie about it can say exactly the same thing as you. Yes, I'd mind. Because you can reply "I don't understand your explanation (or I think your explanation is wrong), and since I don't understand it, I can keep using the insult". That's wrong. You need to stop using insults whether you understand why they are insults or not. You can't use "I don't understand the insult" or "nobody has explained it to me properly" as an excuse to keep saying it.

Edit: I believe that if it is plain there is no intention of insult, insult does not exist.

I plainly said that I wasn't aggressive towards him, that i was afraid my words can be interpreted like that, and that i wanted to cut that possibility off with words "i love you".

I have positive record with that tactic, people have understood my attitude like that in the past, and I expected it to work again. It didn't, and that is fine. Maybe I need better technique to express myself, but that is different topic now, and not important since I expressed e... (read more)

1. You can't add a disclaimer "Don't interpret my words as aggressive" and then be able to say anything at all without it being interpreted as aggressive. After all, anyone who does have aggressive intentions and just wants to lie about it can use any disclaimer that you can use. 2. Even as a disclaimer, "I love you" is not very good. 3. The reason why it is insulting is that using excessive familiarity with an opponent is a type of insult. I'm sure I could find some explanation for it (sounding like you're above him is pretty close), but really, you just need to know that certain things are insults. Understanding why they are insults is less important than understanding that they are insults.

You are just rude now. You just straight up try to insult and discredit me, you did not even try to hide it.

I never said "this is how to ..." I offered course specialized in that topic. I offered material. I don't own that course, i just thought it would be useful to people who try to get more members here (I met few of them, so i expect there are more). I properly separated what is my idea, from that course.

LW doesn't have a culture where trying to hide what you want to communicate is valued.

You still need only one man outside LW to be like you to be wrong.

That's arguing with semantics instead of arguing with substance.

That is arguing with substance. Say there is probability x someone is like you. Talking about your personality, not genes. N is number of people outside LW. In the first approximation, where "person is a member of LW" is independant of "person is like you." you have (1-x)^N to be right. I have 1-(1-x)^N to be right. If N is big, my probability goes to 1, your goes to 0.

Now, you can say, my approximati... (read more)

The problem is that you don't focus on the intent of the statement. You try to find a meaning in the statement that's wrong and then focus on that. That goes against the idea of "refuting the central point" []. Instead of trying to understand where I'm coming from you assume that I haven't thought about what I'm saying. "Like you" is a very vague category. There a good chance that you engage in the typical mind fallacy. Your personality is more or less normal and therefore there are a lot of people like you outside. My own personality is not normal but shaped in contexts. It's shaped by things like doing QS community building where I explained to journalist why QS is the new thing. It's also shaped by Danis Bois perceptive pedagogy. That's not what "like me" means. A professor of psychology is in many ways not like me but he might still contribute to developing the art of rationality. My argument doesn't rest on the fact that LW influenced me. The QS community is not the LW community even when it's no accident that I meet. That's still the kind of passive aggressive communication that Jiro complained about.

If you don't mind, explain, I honesty don't get it. I don't see how that can be an insult. If i wanted to insult him, I would do that much simpler. My reasoning was: There is no way he can see my face, or my mimics, therefore he can perceive me as aggressive, although I am not. I wanted to make an end to any idea of aggressiveness. I want to make an agreement, and not to have endless conversation just because I am perceived aggressive, and because I don't look like someone you want to agree with. I wanted to show open palms or something, but I cannot do ... (read more)

Insults don't work that way. And I don't think you seriously believe that just because someone's insult could be simpler, it isn't an insult. Besides, just because the explanation for an insult isn't simple doesn't mean the insult isn't simple. The only way you can end aggressiveness is by not being aggressive. You can't be aggressive and then add something at the end to make up for it. It has a meaning based on context, and the meaning based on context is not "I love all human beings". This ought to go in "geek social fallacies" if it isn't already; "it's literally true" is not an excuse. Words have connotations and implications, and it is your responsibility to understand them.
You suggested that I likely haven't spend 5 minutes thinking about the subject which shows complete ignorance. That might be a honest belief but it certainly not rigorous. Everybody regular of LW has thought about how to improve LW for more than 5 minutes. In my case I have even written tons of posts about the subject. There are two ways to read this. (1) You felt personally attacked and wanted to retaliate. (2) You lack basic understanding. It's very hard to read what you wrote and not come to the conclusion that (1) played at least a part. And you failed. You communicated in a way that doesn't signal what you want to signal.
Funny thing, the previous person with minimal earlier site presence who came in with "here's how to start properly growing Less Wrong" was also kind of tone-deaf and annoying.
That's arguing with semantics instead of arguing with substance. A person who lives in a village in Africa, might have similar genes as I have but they don't live in the same culture as I. The fact that I discovered LW is a function of the culture to which I'm exposed. Rationality isn't the only think that make a person like me, to be like me.

Agree. However, I did not post this to take ownership of a problem, but to facilitate someone who will.

I don't think that having more meta-threads on how the community can improved provides the kind of content that brings LW forward. I don't think that having an extra section for meta conversation about LW could be improved would be a move in the right direction.

Funny you say that. Because you want LW to go forward, no? I got that from your wording. However, you want to avoid talking about that, and you want to proceed doing what you feel you need to do, which is making posts on whatever you want to post about. You don't want to do it deliberately, and y... (read more)

Please stop this. Unusual familiarity in the context of disagreeing with someone, is condescending and an insult. And no, it doesn't fool everyone, either.
Karma shows to what extend people contribute to this community. People who don't contribute to this community don't have the same standing to tell other people on LW to do things to change LW than people who contribute. Goals of a community aren't supposed to be set by outsiders. It says on the top of the page that this community exists for refining the art of rationality. You don't care for that goal. You also don't care for the AI discussions with are a main reason for which LW was founded. If you want to have something different than what this community is about then why don't you start something different?
It's interesting that you ask that question will ignoring my request to define what you mean with LW. If you would search posts that I have written on the topic, would would see that I spent many hours thinking about this topic. Basically the only way for you to hold this misconception is by being ignorant of prior discussions on the subject on LW. The fact that you haven't read them suggests to me that you have thought relatively little compared to the amount of thought I put into the subject. I think having too much segregation of topic is one of the reasons why the QS forum doesn't work (where I'm a moderator but lost this argument). I say that as someone who did moderate a big personal development forum for 4 years and who has been asked for advice by other people starting personal development forums. How much experience do you have in shaping online communities? No, I don't believe in intelligent design. On LW everybody is free to start a new threads without having a debate about starting it. Karma votes then either show that the community likes the new thread or that it doesn't like it. It sometimes worthwhile to express arguments for why you vote the way you do, but no group design progress is needed at the start. Do-ocracy is a decent organisational concept.
It's hard to define the terms of that bet. What am I pointing towards: I did hear of LW in multiple different contexts online. I heard it recommended at a CCC event. I know two people who attended local LW meetups who I meet at QS events. The week before the first LW Community camp a 99% match turned up on OkCupid. It was a woman who was in Berlin for the LW Community camp. If I wouldn't have known about LW that's also an event that would have made me check out LW. Not having heard of LW would mean that I would have quite different ways to consume information and hang out with people.

I was not talking about "this elevation is higher than yours". I mean, if you got better idea that solves my problem more efficiently, thank you very much. I was talking about the ideas which are at the same level. You need hot chocolate, which is hot and sweet, but all you have is coffee and lemonade. You can drink coffee, it's warm but bitter, and you can drink lemonade, which is sweet, but cold. Someone says, take lemonade, someone says take coffee. In the end, it doesn't matter which one you take. Both solve the problem partially, but communi... (read more)

I was confused by casebash's reply, but your explanation of the same suggestion makes sense. Pointing out when we are engaging in analysis paralysis and thus becoming less effective would be a good habit, I think. I'm not good at it, but I'll see what I can do.

That's cool. Do you want to have everything sorted in this forum, so that you can choose which topic you want to read? If yes, contribute to that idea, it will help you.

I hope you get rational, cure death alone, and spare me the effort.I'm lazy and selfish as well, and I'm better at that than you./s

And then why not do the whole job, and create tab for meetups, to avoid spam in main, tab for AI, tab for decision making, tab for overcoming biases, tab for... Well, we came to my solution. =)

Thanks for the warning. I forgot to check the title. Grammar-Nazis always lurk for that fresh non-native-speaker flesh.

Grammar is the mind-killer []. Once you know which spelling is correct, you must attack all words that appear incorrect; otherwise it's like stabbing your teachers in the back -- providing aid and comfort to the uneducated. People go funny in the head when talking about grammar. The evolutionary reasons for this are so obvious as to be worth belaboring: In the ancestral environment, spelling was a matter of life and death. And sex, and wealth, and allies, and reputation... Writing "execute not, release!" as "execute, not release!" could let you kill your hated rival! If you want to make a point about science, or rationality, then my advice is to not choose a contemporary language, if you can possibly avoid it. If your point is inherently verbal, then use French language from the Louis XVI's era. Language is an important domain to which we should individually apply our rationality—but it's a terrible tool to learn rationality, or discuss rationality, unless all the discussants are already rational. /s

I agree with you completely. Just want to point out that LW lacks directions. It's complete bullshit that we should all focus on one thing. And having all directions interfere is just making it harder to do anything sensible.

He just gave you a reason.

Whenever you post an idea, you might get a few upvotes, but you'll also get a lot of comments saying that something else is a better idea instead.

If you organize content, you would get rid of that sort of things. Imagine going on reddit, to math subreddit, and commenting on some theorem "yeah, but it's better to develop new political system than solving these equations". It's just bizarre, and for a reason: not everyone on this world should be solving the same problem.

I actually appreciated ChristianKl's question, I didn't answer it as well as I could have

When it comes to gathering new members quality is more important than quantity.

Exactly the reason why I posted. Nobody wants to make a big community by destroying the quality. That's the main topic of this course I recommended.

For me one of the most important goals is developing the "art of rationality". Would it be easier if there were 10 times more people like you, who want to do the same? Would it be easier if existing people were more rational? Your goal has nothing(or very little) to do with my goals, which is self- and world-improvemen

... (read more)
Everyone who's like me already knows that LW exists.
I don't think that having more meta-threads on how the community can improved provides the kind of content that brings LW forward. I don't think that having an extra section for meta conversation about LW could be improved would be a move in the right direction. Especially for people with low karma.

I found this book very good as well. I want to add a comment, though.

If you start reading it, and you get lost, just stop reading that chapter and go to the next one. Read this book lightly at first, then start clarifying everything afterwards. Reading introduction of every chapter first is very clever.

You need some solid Linear Algebra: Vector Space, dual vector space, unitary and hermitian matrices, eigenvectors and eigenvalues, trace... Mind that you should learn these things with mathematical approach, for example, vectors are elements of vector space which has certain axioms, and not 3D arrows, like pupils learn in school. Since book has this approach (matrix mechanics, rather than wave mechanics), you don't need too strong analysis, you can just trust that some things are working that way, but if you want to understand it fully, i recommend taking some analysis course as well, to be able to understand decomposition in eigenfunctions. Integrals and derivatives are MUST, however.

Ok, this thing is harder then it looked. Writing demands time and concentration, and I am not sure if i can explain things as good as they were explained to me.

I am absolutely sure it would be highly beneficial for people to understand basics of economics and finance, but I think I am not the right person to do this. So, I give up, and I will just recommend some literature/video lessons. I think i saw some book list on this forum, so, if you want to hear more about this stuff, head there.

Did i fail in my reasoning here? Because if i didn't, it is of major importance, and if i did, well, it's not important at all, but i would still like to know where i failed.

On the other hand, I see people have been trying to isolate themselves, so, i suppose my comment got unnoticed because of that.

Edit: TL;DR I made equivalent problem. It is sufficient and necessary. Prove: p(H causes destruction | H is Alive) < p(H causes destruction | H is Dead)

I have exams so I don't have enough time to do the whole process, as it should be done. I wanted to donate my thoughts and hope for someone else to do the job.

If you remember, we are not supposed to give solutions at once, we should talk about problem first. This includes gathering fair knowledge about all the mechanisms mentioned.

I see some people listed available objects, which could be used in open c... (read more)

Did i fail in my reasoning here? Because if i didn't, it is of major importance, and if i did, well, it's not important at all, but i would still like to know where i failed. On the other hand, I see people have been trying to isolate themselves, so, i suppose my comment got unnoticed because of that.

When I was young, I went to psychologist because I was afraid of the dark. She made me find the origin of my fear, so i enlisted something like: recent burglary in our apartment, war, my imagination, some TV series, and said that all those mixed together can make you be afraid of the dark at night (10 years old kid can do that, yes, though I am not sure if I repeated what i heard from others). So, not after seeing that there is nothing in my backyard, but after seeing the origin of my fear, I stopped.

That is why I think that finding the origin of some beha... (read more)

Yes, infatuation is what i really wanted to say.(I'm not native speaker) So, two points:

  1. Affective death spiral has leading role in existence of humanity, (if none had it, less children would be born.)
  2. It's kinda shitty to find out that butterflies are consequence of false beliefs, which could lead to people being resistant to accepting this whole idea.

Not if he was the major ingredient in inventing immortality...

This is a creepy story, but not a contra-argument for my point: these people were thinking that government ban bad medications, so they were not careful at all. I would like to see some study which tests how careful people are when they know someone else is taking care of them.

If there were no government to regulate medications, I think that people would make companies which would test these medications and which would give them scores, or something like that.

There is one more factor, but in opposite direction: would you be more careful if there was nobody banning the medications? Do you read about medications now before you use them, and would you do that if there was no government doing tests? Your argument sounds to me like pro-minimal-wage argument, with the similar mistake: there are always two sides defining product/price, and one cannot think only about one of them and have good predictions.

0A1987dM9y [] Read and weep.

Well, I do have to start there, but, actually, i wanted to go different way. I will argue that immortality has different value given the different information and preferences we have.

(Because, it's not 1 + r + r^2... it's v(0) + v(1) r + v(2) r^2 +.... where vx is value we obtain in x-th year of our life. This can converge or diverge, it is dependent on our evaluation of v's and ofc. r.)

Also, please don't split it to multiple articles; and if you really have to, then please put something interesting in the first article already, don't make it merely a te

... (read more)
We do not have constant utility functions, so infinite limits with respect to time are not actually that interesting.

Thank you for warm welcome and thorough information!

It is practice. Why is, pardon, why was Hermione so much better in spells then others? Because of practice. Other children do not practice as much as Harry, or as much as Hermione did... It was somewhat suggested in part where Harry and Draco talk about muggle-borns, pure-bloods and magic.

Hi guys, my name is Luka, and I'm 20. I study physics at University of Vienna.

I follow LW since February, and I went probably through all core sequences, and good chunk of the rest. I did not gained too much, because I was kinda always eager to argue with good arguments and resistant to bad arguments, even from elder (which brought me into trouble quite a few times). My biggest win is that I remained strong in the moment when I started to fall: I started drowning in irrationality (because of lack of rational people in my surrounding), and started using pas... (read more)

Hello and welcome to LessWrong! Glad to hear you've already started digging in to some of the literature and found it to your liking. Yes, it's easy, when you have no community that encourages improvement, to fall into passwords, caches, and generally "not thinking." We can even forget to hope that we can make things better, as you've discovered. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people who can relate here and who are glad to help each other not fall back into those habits. Since you seem to have such a focus on self-improvement and applying rationality to personal habits, don't hesitate to write about your experiences using rationality or your own personal improvements. Personal anecdotes are, of course, not verifiable experiments, but they are still experiences. The Group Rationality Diary [] may interest you in that regard. You can share your own experiences, see what others have done, discuss personal habits and experiments. If you'd like a bit more discussion, you can go to the Open Thread [] or make a new Discussion [] post, though you might want to save that latter option for a more developed, researched topic. Starting in the Open Thread will not only help give you a chance to experience LW conversation and habits, but it can also help develop an idea you have before you present it as a full post. Applied rationality, or, as some refer to it around here, "the martial art of rationality," is one of our big projects of interest. It's right there in the title of the blog itself after all. We want to improve our abilities to improve the world. So we sharpen each other, and we develop new methods, find new discoveries, perform new experiments on using our tool kit in the larger world. We certainly welcome a new voice and new perspective to the conversation. Given your wide background,

While reading, i tried to think of a case when i fell in affective death spiral, and interesting thing came to my mind. Falling in love falls under Halo Effect? Butterflies in stomach, worshiping the beloved, etc... That means that who overcomes this bias can't fall in love that way anymore?

There is a difference between infatuation and love. (Similar to the difference between "Hollywood rationality" and rationality.) Affective death spiral is infatuation. A person who overcomes this bias will not say things like: "Oh, if this amazing person I met five minutes ago will not friend me on facebook then my life has no meaning and I have to slash my wrists."