SpectrumDT

I recently read this article (linked by David Chapman): JOINT REVIEW: Philosophy Between the Lines, by Arthur M. Melzer (by Jane Psmith and John Psmith).

The article talks about esoteric writing, i.e., where writers will sometimes not state their entire message explicitly but leave some important messages only implied, in the hope that the "wise" reader will be able to "read between the lines" and understand the hidden message.

The article argues that this is sometimes necessary, either to protect the writer from persecution or to protect the public from information hazards (basilisks?).

The article gives the below example of an alleged information hazard. But I do not follow their reasoning. I do not understand... (read 347 more words →)

Replying toAsk and Guess

What examples do you have in mind here?

Replying toAsk and Guess

It is important to note that these are not the only two options. The toxic part of Guessing is that they judge others for Asking. It is possible to be a "Friendly Guesser" who tries to Guess other people's intentions but also allows others to Ask.

Replying toAsk and Guess

The Secret of Our Success by Joseph Henrich talks about that, but it was published in 2015, after your comment, so that is probably not the one you were thinking of...

Replying toAsk and Guess

There are some things which it's impolite to say, in any words, because the sentiment is impolite--for example, "I don't want you to come to my party." Guess culture, applied well, allows you to avoid having to say those things or cause the attendant hurt feelings. (Guess culture applied poorly avoids the hurt feelings but puts you in the awkward position where they're at the party anyway because you felt compelled to invite them.) The same situation in ask culture requires you come out with it.

How would "guess culture applied well" look like in this situation?

Replying toAsk and Guess

Parasitic Language Games: maintaining ambiguity to hide conflict while burning the commons

Could you please elaborate on this with some examples? I would love to hear more about it.

Replying toParasitic Language Games: maintaining ambiguity to hide conflict while burning the commons

SpectrumDT24d

There's a conflict which features lying, but it's a coalition of founders and investors against regulators and customers.

In that case it is important to shout from the rooftops that, while it may be rational for the players, this game is malicious. It is played with evil intent.

Replying toYou don't get to have cool flaws

SpectrumDT1mo

You don't get to have cool flaws

What examples of flaws do you have in mind here?

Can you recommend some reading about effective environmentalism?

How to account for misinformation when looking for effective altruist causes?

2mo

Effective altruism (EA) is a big topic here on LessWrong, but for some reason I seldom see environmental causes get more than a trivial mention here.

Can anyone recommend me some good reading about environment-focused effective altruism?

(If anyone can explain why no one on LW seems to talk about it, I am also interested. Maybe LW is dominated by Silicon Valley types who tend to be not very environmental. I don't know.)

Do you take joy in effective altruism?

2mo

Like many here, I want to support effective altruist (EA) causes - by giving money, buying ethical products, voting, et cetera.

But nowadays the world appears to be more full of misinformation than ever. This seems to be a problem when I want to choose EA causes to support. I have trouble figuring out what I can do about this. How am I supposed to verify that a particular person or organization is both honest and competent, and that I am not merely getting manipulated?

I asked a related question some months ago: Supposing that the "Dead Internet Theory" is true or largely true, how can we act on that information? The responses I... (read more)

Do we have terminology for "heuristic utilitarianism" as opposed to classical act utilitarianism or formal rule utilitarianism?

2mo

I have been interested in effective altruism since before I knew the term. I have long done things like give money to charity, buy products that seem ethical and avoid products that seem unethical (such as factory-farmed meat).

I do not derive much joy from any of this, though. It feels like a chore.

Nor do I particularly enjoy things like giving money to beggars.

The kinds of easily-available altruism that I do enjoy tends to be helping people that are already relatively happy - for example when an old lady asks me to reach something for her on the top shelf.

(I might also also conceivably enjoy helping people with major things, but those opportunities... (read more)

If I imagine that I am immune to advertising, what am I probably missing?

2mo

I recently had a discussion with a fellow rationalist about the strengths and weaknesses of utilitarianism. We realized that our disagreement was at least in part one of words:

When he said utilitarianism, I gather that he meant "trying to predict and calculate utility as precisely as possible for each decision you make". (This is often infeasible in practice, for several reasons.)
When I say utilitarianism, I mean "having maximum utility as a terminal goal and using any convenient heuristics to approximate that terminal goal".

The utilitarianism I describe is not necessarily rule utilitarianism, because I am not necessarily trying to establish a clear set of rules to follow. It is more of a "winging... (read more)

SpectrumDT, johnswentworth

5mo

I tend to tell myself that I am not affected by advertising. But I suspect that most people think that. So I ask myself: What am I not seeing?

I have heard that many ads are designed to sell you a "lifestyle". I do not care about lifestyle, and I care relatively little about social status.

I do occasionally buy something after seeing an ad - usually when it something obviously useful to me. (For example, I bought "The Level Up", a physical platform for board games, after seeing an ad for the Kickstarter campaign.) But I can find no examples where it seems like I was manipulated into buying something I had no good reason to want.

Does anyone have experience with this? When someone says "I don't let ads manipulate me", what are they probably missing?

What is "Meaningness"

Gordon Seidoh Worley

Gordon Seidoh Worley, SpectrumDT

6mo

Gordon Seidoh Worley

Hey, SpectrumDT! You wrote a post asking what David Chapman means by "meaningness" and "meaning". I'm quite familiar with Chapman's work, so I gave a reply. We've been having some productive back and forth in a thread over there, and I thought we should try to elevate it to a dialogue post to continue our discussion.

To bring readers up to speed, my answer is that by "meaning" Chapman means "purpose". Meaning is about orientation towards, salience, importance, and a sense of why things matter.

You then asked:

Hm... do you understand Chapman's claim that meaningness (or purpose) is neither objective nor subjective, and that existentialism is therefore false? Because to me purpose

... (read 4466 more words →)

What are some good examples of myths that encapsulates genuine, nontrivial wisdom?

What is David Chapman talking about when he talks about "meaning" in his book "Meaningness"?

7mo

I am watching John Vervaeke's lecture series Awakening from the Meaning Crisis. In episode 3 at around 5:00 (linked below) Vervaeke says:

Myths are not false stories about the ancient past. They are symbolic stories of perennial patterns that are always with us.

This take is not unique to Vervaeke. I have seen similar claims many times before - that myths supposedly encapsulate some eternal and valuable truths. These claims are seldom accompanied by examples, nor does Vervaeke provide any. (At least no clearly understandable examples in his first 4 episodes.)

If you think the claim is reasonable, can you give some good examples?

Those of you with lots of meditation experience: How did it influence your understanding of philosophy of mind and topics such as qualia?

7mo

I have read David Chapman's online "book" Meaningness. I find his concept of nebulosity very useful, and his treatment of intellectual history is at least very interesting.

But his whole book is supposed to be about "meaning", and I have never really understood what Chapman means when he talks about meaning. The bulk of the book details the conflict between what Chapman calls eternalism and nihilism, but most of his concrete examples of meaning seem extremely far removed from that conflict, and I struggle to bridge the gap.

Chapman likes to say that meaningfulness is "obvious" and gives some examples:

If you haven’t eaten in a couple days, then the meaningfulness of food is obvious.

... (read 381 more words →)