Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


And I can say, also honestly, that everybody I worked with is really, really impressive. It is hard to work in a highly regulated private industry.

So, when I say "ask me anything," I can promise: you are safe in the hands of my friends.

Now that I have said this, I am not allowed to say other things.

"My rights begin where others end."

That is a theory. It has implications. I will go to private messaging. I believe that you are decent.

It is my most important theorem.

Grounding is a good word.

Like "Grundlagen..."

Jesse Parrish. 109 Stanley Ave. Maryville, TN. Mathematics dropout. Blue collar worker. I worked for airlines. I did everything right. I put in my notice months ago.

(Continuation - a concept I did not "appreciate", in a format I never "needed" until "just now.")

That's why I overheard it. The wise man, who never taught me, accidentally said this, before I ever heard of Bayesianism. One of the wise man's friends knew Bayesianism - not as it is practiced here - though he knew the differences... Why am I confident, when he had never heard of less wrong... What did the other wise man do to describe the field to an interested novice, who ended up being a typical dumb young kid, and disappointing him.. He said a word that I didn't know then, and I looked up my unfamiliar words...

"The field is in its baroque phase."

I "smell something," years later, long after stopping being a Bayesian. I sense, very indirectly, that the baroque phase is starting to draw to a close... Not everybody is on the same page.... If they could all communicate, if I were to help...

What if that's an "intelligence explosion.." Wait, those were scary... Why...

Less Wrong. Ok... Weird... I was never a "Kurzweil" guy. I was just an internet atheist.... like... lukeprog. Why would I remember "that name..."

On other days, looking at "functional programming," I ran into "gwern..."

Where are my experts hiding... Who is qualified to solve this problem, when I am not... Who can help me there...

"Unfortunately I don't know enough about you to put my finger on something and it's harder over text without real time feedback."

It is impossible, and absurd, to show up listing all of one's implicit motivations. This is why I could never write anything before. It somehow never "felt complete." It never, "felt entire." My problem, was that I could not "trust people" enough to "give adequate credit" to their expertise. I agreed with this, but I did not understand it, sufficiently. I wrote it down, I made predictions, and I tested them, and what I found was... "deep understanding." I do not reread Less Wrong or the sequences before coming as another "implicit motivation." Everything is a test. I was "always a Bayesian." I "found a new attitude towards my priors."

I want to use my own words - raw, uncontrolled - while I know that I am not ready. Who was ahead of me all along? Who started out "more right" than me? I remembered something vaguely, about the need to "start out right" before discussing "heuristics and biases." I always believed that, because it involved "not trusting strangers." I always "knew myself," but I did not like "self-knowledge" to "constraint." The link I found - which is not a professional diagnosis and is therefore subject to all of the limitations of any amateur googling his symptoms, and as I learned not to do years ago - was called "anxiety."

I was never hospitalized for "anxiety." How might experts have missed something true, when I know no bet... Ah. There are reasons. Those are the reasons I did not "land in the hands of" the right expert. I was "incapable of honesty" when it was "wise to be honest," just as I was incapable - like a typical undergraduate - of being "incapable of communicating," because I was an "ordinary novice" relative to that weakness, even though I was "high level" in particular topics...

My professors! How did they warn me... Subtly, motivating examples... Wait, am I "like my professors..."

Am I "like everybody else...?"

Am I "normal...?"

What did I remember, suddenly, from my ill-advised days of googling my symptoms. What was that... Ah, "ego destruction." I ran away from the idea... Why did I do that... It was "associated with stupid things..." What did I just remember, unprompted... years ago... "

Did I suddenly supplement my analytical side to "problems for analysts" with "emotional maturity?" How would I describe the "sensation," the "texture," while it is "pure." It's sort of like "Godel, Escher, Bach," though I have never read it, I suddenly suspect it intensely... Why... Did Eliezer recommend it? Was this the author of HPMOR? I was never "like Harry from HPMOR" before, because I didn't know about "quantum physics stuff..."

Oh god I missed some point. For years, back when I followed that one... I am almost afraid to read it. I am afraid my head will explode. In a goofy way. Not an "impending sense of doom way." It feels different... Wait, any addict can say that, though I was never an addict. My father was a "manic depressive," and he - a strict Southern Baptist - would sometimes get into "goofy moods" and write "weird letters" quoting people he "didn't understand.." I never believed that my father was stupid, but I did not believe that he was....



"That said, you don't have much karma to this account so there no real reason against starting anew. What speaks against starting anew with an account under your real life name?"

I have never read Less Wrong on Karma. I have never been interested in meta threads anywhere, concerning the social rules developed on different websites that I visited. I just suddenly "appreciated the concept." I used "karma" recently to motivate a philosophical idea to my philosophically illiterate mother, who loves me, and who I "could not talk to" because "I could not relate."

I said weird things... I used a technique... I disguised it. I could not just say, to my poor mother who has reason to worry.... "MOM CHECK OUT MY MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF EVERYTHING!!!!"

Why can I not just say something simple... It "feels simple." How would I communicate "simple things" to an "ordinary person..."

Wait, this "feels like it should be simple." I will try "talking to normal people..." Did I write that down before, in my exploding notes? I bought my first smartphone just to deal with this sort of problem... I work wayyyy to much to have the time....

Ah, the wisdom of one of my advisors from UT. I was always confident that "wherever I went, I would be able to study mathematics." He did not outright contradict me. He merely promised that it would be "hard," but I "knew that already..." I never took a class from him. What else did I "miss."

I need to "compress the gibberish." I need to "structure my thoughts." I "was a math geek." What were my fundamental theorems, again? How do I "define myself," and does it lead to "true beliefs..." There is so much to do here, I could use a programming language. "Haskell feels right." No, I have no programming experience.... Start simple. HTML. I have no time... (weeks later) That only took A DAY!!!!! Whoa!

Why was I "not this smart..." I just remembered, randomly, a quote from another expert... He did not say it in class, and it came to me by rumor... He wanted to leave the school and teach elsewhere. He was a number theorist. He produced graduate courses "from memory" and it was "amazing" even to "other experts." What did he say, privately...

Oh yeah, he was frustrated that "Americans cannot seem to appreciate that mathematics is a tool."

Did I "agree but not agree..." Did I "know but not really know.." What did I lack... I need to compress this. Simple first, per the implications of the fundamental theorems...

Wisdom? No. I do not want to call myself wise, unless I am "sure." I need to indicate "uncertainty" without "exploding my notebook." Again... I need... Math? Programming? Not a formal language, no, those never really seem to "take off." What is a "formalized language of structure" that people "actually use" for formal, high level abstraction...

Category theory. That "feels like it has to be it." But category theory is for "rings and groups and homotopy and stuff," when I just want to take "really good notes." If I use "category theory" to describe what I am doing.... That does not "feel right."

Another expert said something, which I remember again.... He wasn't talking to me. I never took his class. He was yelling at a grad student... Inside, I was laughing at the grad student - boy I was not nice - but why was he yelling... That is the "texture" of the associations I am making, my "structure-thinking..." My "category"... Wait, Sapolsky. Wait, I am losing focus. I really need "time to organize this..."

I bought a smart phone. I started working to "make myself unnecessary" to the friends I work with. I set down how much time and effort I was willing to spend. I used a vector, so that it would be "easy to look it up later." My literary friend "understood it all instantly..." Weird. He was never a math guy. He also "understood Grundlagen Der Arithmetik" really easily, with no background in mathematics...

Oh, and I used to make fun of him for reading "Heidegger," because "Heidegger" is a "bad philosopher." What did my wise young friend say... "I just want to hang out and do hood rat shit with my friends." No, what else... When I not-so-nicely interrogated him...

Oh yeah. This is "learning from experts" again. My friends are kind of my "fun experts," in a weird way. I definitely need to "not annoy them with all of this, unless they are interested." I don't want to be "like that guy who just became an evangelical..."

Oh my program, I really need time to develop you. I have worked for months to give myself time. To do right by my coworkers, those decent people, who all taught me so much... The "wisdom of strangers," what only a "normal job" would have ever done for me... I would never have made it in academics before.. I'm not sure that I would now, either. I should wait, until I "feel strangely certain..."

Again, the wisdom... I have to "focus the wisdom..." I am a novice at wisdom... What is the closest thing to a practical, everyday "focus of wisdom," which communicates well, where it needs to... a practical expertise... I need to focus. I cannot repeat the past. My life is "too important," though I have "less ego." I suddenly... "want to grow old," when I "never did." Oh god, I need to start sleeping well... I never did that before... I need to "de-stress". Time to quit work... Sapolsky... What did he work against, so hard... Oh.. Stress! George C. Williams, what did he end up wanting to do... Medicine! Same with Linus Pauling.... He was just so bad at it, because he was "already great..." Is that the "nobel syndrome..."

The grad student. The expert. Back to the comment.point. The common.point is:

plain.english: "a very wise man once chewed out a hapless grad student for ignoring a feeling. The thing that angered the very wise man was this: the grad student had tried to explain, not trying to excuse, submitting some bad paper I didn't understand. The very wise man caught the grad student, and corrected his folly. The wise man said...


Just muse.

Except that doesn't necessarily reflect anything real besides the details of the culture in question.

Except [supporting lowering the age of consent under some circumstances] doesn't necessarily reflect anything [real] besides [culture], [like witchcraft!] Word salad. What you could have said is, "I was mistaken, as I could not have predicted that," or, "I was correct, because lowering the age of consent is a really popular right now."

And yes, having something happen to you that does not cause physical damage or mental distress (because you don't know it happened) can reasonably be categorized as not containing "harm", although obviously there are different possible definitions of the word "harm".

I think people should have a say in what happens to them, be it politically or otherwise. Would it "harm" a child to keep him locked in a giant playground/amusement park, with everything he could ever want provided, but kept from any education? Would it "harm" the human race as a whole to be kept in a state of perpetual orgasm, kept alive, but forgetting everything else? Is a slave being harmed, even if his master does not beat him and feeds him well?

I'm with the old-school utilitarians on this. Utility is not hedonism. Immediate pleasure and pain are not the sum of all harm. I think that women and men should have some say in what happens to their bodies. That's why I'm not fond of circumcision, especially fgm. (Another cultural prediction?) That's why I have no problem with almost any type of relationship between consenting adults. Bondage? Sure. Open relationships? I've had them and they're my favorite. Polyamory? Why not? Homosexual? Obviously. Incest? With some exceptions concerning guardian/minor relationships, but otherwise, why not? I would even support tax breaks/rights for polyamorous relationships similar to those now granted for monogamous couples, the scale of which to be determined after research into outcomes for children and other - to my knowledge - unknowns.

But this is obviously "culture", which you would have predicted. That's why it wouldn't have helped you to use "meaningful consent", right? If I were to give some other LWer a checklist of predictions about my feelings about sexual relationships, and tell him to use "culture", he - statistically a `he' - might use polls. If I tell him to use "meaningful consent", how much more accurate would he have been?

If your answer is "no more accurate", I'll propose an experiment. If your answer is, "yes, significantly more accurate," then we know that other people understand something that you do not, and that the problem is not the phrase but your own comprehension of it.

Well, I guess it's a good thing I noted it then, isn't it?

No, it's not. I'm trying to establish that something is an offense, and I'm not interested in whether or not something else aggravates it. I might have cut off her foot, too. Who cares. That's not "conflation." What's clear is that you don't think that violating self-determination is "harm". That's the difference between us. Keep it to the internet, though, because if you touch a sleeping girl, you might find "Schelling points in act space" won't help you.

This particular slogan was selected for usefulness. It retains it's meaning when considered as a question solely in the current context.

When I try to believe that, I become confused. I've found in this and other threads that my being reminded of rationalist truisms correlates with something other than a failure of rationality.

Sure. All I have to do is check what the culture you live in condemns.

Right, which is why you'd be able to guess that I support lowering the age of consent under certain circumstances and relaxing penalties in others. You have a bad discriminant. You are weak at something you shouldn't be.

As I have indicated before, I consider the term "rape" to include multiple Schelling points in act-space, most of which I condemn and advocate pushing, but to different degrees. As such, I would appreciate if you tabooed "rape" when asking this sort of question.

That's another thing. My being asked to taboo something here usually - there are exceptions - correlates not with understandable confusion or ambiguity, but with something else.

Taking my own advice, his crimes were slipping the girl a drug and violating her right to bodily integrity, the same as if he had preformed surgery on her, given her a piercing or tattoo etc.

So her "right to bodily integrity" extends to penis-in-vagina? We're trying really hard to not see the obvious. Go on, use the word.

Note that a crime is not the same a harm; technically the girl has not been harmed, we just prefer to enforce this right for game-theoretic reasons.

She hasn't? Under what "technically" are we working? Are "we" just preferring to enforce this right for "game-theoretic reasons?" Are you assuming too much on the part of "we"?

Also, I note you failed to specify if it was "safe" sex.

That "failure" was deliberate and appropriate.

What do you think you know, and how do you think you know it?

I wish we could get past slogans.

Ok, we're trying to determine whether or not "meaningful consent is meaningful". A question: could you guess with high reliability what situations I think constitute meaningful consent or not?

A scenario: suppose I slip a girl a roofie, slip her into my car, take her home, and fuck her. Then I sneak her back into the party.

Was my crime "slipping a girl a drug", or was my crime "that and rape"?

the sort of thing people picture when you say "rape"

Which in my experience people picture extremely inaccurately. They picture girls getting grabbed off a park sidewalk by a ravenous stranger. That's a very atypical case. Outside of prison, rape is typically perpetuated by friends and lovers and dates. This is unsurprising given pure opportunity, just as it's unsurprising that children are typically victimized by families and trusted friends of their families, not by strangers with candy.

Requiring rape to be "violent" is to require that most extra-penal rape be reclassified as not-rape. There is usually the implicit threat of violence, and the (typically) women in such circumstances are made to understand they have no choice or power. Anyone who looks at this issue will quickly meet people who insist that it isn't "rape" if the woman did not violently resist and never succumbed, or if there were no beatings involved.

"Rape" is only as meaningful as "meaningful consent."

At what point does consent become "meaningful"?

Babies cannot give meaningful consent. Children can sometimes give meaningful consent, but it is difficult to determine. We allow parents to make decisions for their children in weighty matters - within strict limits. We do not allow them to give their kids liquor and cigarettes nor restrict them to "alternative medicine" for deadly disease. All of this makes sense: by and large, we do not allow families to stunt and cripple development.

(I give one exception: it is still considered acceptable to give a child a poor diet to the point of severe obesity. I think this should be at least as criminal, if not more, than allowing cigarette-smoking.)

"Meaningful consent" comes in degrees: adults are better at it than young teenagers. Most states have age of consent laws which, while allowing sex with minors, only allows it within a certain age bracket. Differential intellectual capacity matters.

You'll notice that I haven't tried to give a definition. With complicated concepts, it is often better to talk about them as if they were meaningful, and notice that they are, that we can recognize their presence or absence from different circumstances. If you are wholly unable to recognize such circumstances, let me know and I'll try being more precise.

Load More