User Profile

star8
description36
message1681

Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
All Posts
personIncludes personal and meta blogposts (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

Suppose HBD is True

2y
4 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
187

Making My Peace with Belief

2y
2 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
42

Dark Arts: Defense in Reputational Warfare

2y
3 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
70

Omega's Idiot Brother, Epsilon

2y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
7

The Winding Path

3y
2 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
10

In Defense of the Fundamental Attribution Error

3y
2 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
28

Visions and Mirages: The Sunk Cost Dilemma

3y
2 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
68

Subsuming Purpose, Part II: Solving the Solution

3y
2 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
6

Does the Utility Function Halt?

3y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
9

Emotional Basilisks

5y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
28

Recent Comments

>No it doesn't. You use up more calories when you weigh more. If you eat an apple a day you will reach an equilibrium where you have just enough extra weight to burn a number of calories per day equivalent to an apple. 95 calories in an apple will still get you to about 9.5 kilograms extra, which is...(read more)

It's not just "harder", it requires skills and knowledge, which most people don't actually have.

The point is that "exercise" isn't helpful advice to lose weight. First, it's not terribly effective at it over short durations, and people need to know that what they're doing is working. Second, if ...(read more)

I don't recommend having this argument. It's useless in almost every respect.

There are two fundamental issues. First, most people don't understand what a Calorie looks like, and think the difference between a healthy weight and an unhealthy weight is a large amount of food, rather than a small a...(read more)

You think that an argument that ultimately boils down to "Look how capitalism is a failure at providing basic things" isn't going to provoke defensive reactions?

This doesn't even pretend very hard.

Downvoted: If we're going to have a ban on politics, let's have a ban on politics.

>That does not mean never ever having a single negative emotion, just as I presume that he was not speaking of never having any emotions of any kind.

I was, indeed, speaking of not having any emotions of any kind. Or rather, not qualitatively experiencing them; I'd get angry, for example, but I'd ...(read more)

>Absolutely agreed. But it's about conflicts among preferred outcomes of a decision, not about preferences among disconnected world-states.

Less about two outcomes your preferences conflict on, and more about, say, your preferences and mine.

Insofar as your internal preferences conflict, I'm not c...(read more)

>Ethics is solely and simply about decisions - which future state, conditional on current choice, is preferable.

From my perspective, we have a word for that, and it isn't ethics. It's preference. Ethics are the rules governing how preference conflicts are mediated.

>I'm not trying to compare a ...(read more)

Well, I followed a policy of strict emotional regulation, and it made me anhedonic for more than a decade. I'm actively working on feeling things, whereas previously, I would have described my emotional state almost entirely in terms of equanimity, although, since I didn't know the word, I used an ...(read more)

There are two problems.

In the first scenario, in which ethics is an obligation (i/e, your ethical standing decreases for not fulfilling ethical obligations), you're ethically a worse person in a world with poverty, because there are ethical obligations you cannot meet. The idea of ethical standin...(read more)