User Profile


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
Personal Blogposts
personPersonal blogposts by LessWrong users (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

[Link] Key lime pie and the methods of rationality

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Cargo Cult Language

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

A new, better way to read the Sequences

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Recent Comments

**Update:** one of the readers of my blog has posted [this excellent response post of his own](, in which he explores the “experiment with variations” part of the SDI method I described. He writes: > My purpose here is to show you that: > ...(read more)

> is it really fair to praise a school as ‘top-class’ or ’the *best* school in city X’ Of course it’s fair. That this school *is* top-class cannot be seriously disputed. (I will leave it to others to substantiate this claim, if desired; it would be unseemly to focus overlong on the *objective* me...(read more)

> if you can be spending most of your time correcting your own lecturers when they get things wrong If you’re sufficiently smart and academically inclined, you can find yourself correcting *some* of your teachers without the school, *or even those teachers*, being bad. Finding very skilled teache...(read more)

You said, “You don’t embrace any kind of deontology, but deontology can prevent Omelas, Uility Monstering, etc.”

TAG said this, not me.

> I didn’t see any mention of bullying or the like in the OP? I didn’t say otherwise. The purpose of my description was to paint a picture of the environment, not necessarily to respond to specific things in the OP. > (Leaving aside the fact that putting forward “just select the smartest kids ...(read more)

See the graphs I posted on this month’s open thread for some relevant data.

> incidentally, Google has never even heard of utility monstering Au contraire: here is the [Wikipedia article on utility monsters](, and here is [some guy’s blog post about utility monsters]( more)

> The right answers are the ones dictated by the weighing up of harm based on the available information (which includes the harm ratings in the database of knowledge of sentience). I disagree. I reject your standard of correctness. (As do many other people.) The question of whether there is an...(read more)

> I have always judged it by the woeful stuff that makes it across into other places where the subject often comes up Well, that hardly seems a reliable approach… I should, perhaps, clarify my point. My list of terms wasn’t intended to be some sort of exhaustive set of prerequisite topics, but...(read more)