I prefer OB and don't read LW as much, but that's partly because there are other things competing for my time and you'd have to sift through a lot of mediocre stuff at LW to find the same sort of quality. I expressed my disagreement with Eliezer in his post on gardens, which I'd rather not reiterate here as others can read it there. Personally, I don't do any voting at all.
"Pure capitalism is so cruel at times that it cycles rebellion"
"Deprivation theory is wrong, social construction is right. “Objective” conditions don’t predict the rise of movements, but problem construction."
Fabio Rojas - Most Important Social Movement Findings
North Korea does not permit people to engage in "problem construction", so the objective conditions of deprivation do not pose as much risk of rebellion.
Yvain, people seem to have a hedonic set point. If you currently prefer life to non-life, I highly doubt you would not if you lived in Saudi Arabia or Burma.
Eliezer, what aspects of you do you think would have been different if you had consumed only non-fiction as a child?
I somewhat recently decided to only read non-fictional books. One of the reasons I gave for that in making that decision was the desire to seek the truth more fully and a distrust of my ability to discount the biases of fiction, but now I think the more operative reason was that there was a large number of non-fictional books I wanted to have read (distinct from wanting to read) and was dissatisfied with my throughput while fiction was able to compete.
Yvain, the most murderous dictator the world had ever seen and the biggest imperialist power of the day were on the side of the Allies and if our country had gone to war with his (and been as succesful) I am sure you would be talking about how lopsided the scales were in the other direction, having had it drummed into you through school and popular culture.
I don't think the teacher being punched by a parent is a good analogy. Here are two possible other scenarios that differ from the original in a small way:
Regarding judges, we consider it necessary for them to pass judgment but they can gain greater respect sometimes by practicing "judicial minimalism", or saying as little as possible while resolving the specific dispute.
"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who in time of crisis remain neutral."
-- Dante Alighieri, famous hell expert
The "good" part does all the work. 90% of everything is crap, and that's if you're an optimist.
This seemed terribly appropriate.
A reader at 2Blowhards: Depiction of trickster gods in West Africa seems a bit positive, at worst morally neutral. In Northern Europe, Loki was a clear-cut villain. Could that contrast come from selection-induced personality differences?
Greg Cochran: And yet Bugs Bunny is our hero. I think this line of analysis is about as sound and solid as Citibank.
I had been thinking of Hanson's above-mentioned metacynicism recently when he discussed the signalling that he engaged in. I don't actually have as much trust for people that claim to be Guardians of the Truth as for those who admit to having other motives in which truth may be incidental. I'm more willing to listen to Hopefully Anonymous even as he proclaims that he engages in mythmaking for his own advantage, and one of the things I liked about Der Ego was Stirner proclaiming in the opening that he owes no more duty to Truth than Truth does to him, and elsewhere that you are not reading his book for your own betterment (presumably through enlightenment) but his. I am now reminded of Barack Obama's ingratiating acknowledgment of the differing views of others as a sort of pre-emptive neutralizer of opposing arguments that didn't actually grapple with them head on. I could be granting too much credibility to people who have lowered my guard by being honest about their lack of commitment to honesty.