Posts

Comments

Comment by anon895 on How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy · 2015-03-14T21:29:56.224Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I don't see how any of those questions relate to my post.

(For transparency:

I initially read your post as saying that, because RationalWiki isn't "really" rational, their opinion on LW is automatically wrong and stupid; that therefore, anyone who shares or has absorbed that opinion (since the RW link was just a conveniently available illustration) is also wrong and stupid; and that therefore, their potential opinion of me as part of it is either inconsequential or totally outside my control. Or maybe you meant that people you know don't take RW seriously, and that therefore I shouldn't worry about encountering RW attitudes in the wild.

I then read more closely and realized that you weren't actually saying any of that. Furthermore, your post wasn't even directed at me, since I never claimed that RW served some vital and unique function (though if nothing else it's good for documenting and illustrating the beliefs and attitudes of the type of people who contribute to it). For you to take my post to mean that (I reasoned at the time) would be stupid; and steelmanning and the principle of charity obligated me to act under the assumption that you weren't stupid until conclusively shown otherwise. Therefore, I had to consider your post a personal tangent and ignore it.

I now realize that I was committing illusion of transparency, assuming short inferential distance and neglecting connotation. I apologize if my previous post connoted that I was holding RW above reproach; and I reject your connotation that RW's flaws mean that I'm wrong to be concerned about the consequences of loudly promoting LW and its memes wherever I go.)

Comment by anon895 on How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy · 2015-03-14T05:05:22.860Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

This post (edit: fixed link) reminded me of this thread. 2.5 years later, I'm still not sure I understand your point or why it has a +5 score. How does what LW (which I guess I'm not part of) "wants"^W "wishes" relate to my concerns?

Comment by anon895 on Conjunction Fallacy · 2015-03-09T17:51:57.861Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I agree that there are some important methodological issues with the paper, and it is far from the last word. What the criticisms you link don't address well, however, is that fact that (a) the paper is strengthened by the fact that it has a strong, validated theory of underlying behavior...

- "AnonySocialScientist", Reddit

Comment by anon895 on LINK: In favor of niceness, community, and civilisation · 2015-02-24T03:19:21.422Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Could you post a screenshot or archived version of your Facebook link?

Comment by anon895 on Vote for MIRI to be donated a share of reddit's advertising revenue · 2015-02-22T09:26:17.804Z · score: -2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Thanks for the link, but that's one weak headline. Next time try something like "Pro-deathers have been trying to make sure MIRI doesn't get Reddit's donation. Vote for MIRI so they are better able to help life!"

Edit: Well, I thought it was funny.

Comment by anon895 on LW Women Submissions: On Misogyny · 2013-04-12T15:56:09.953Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

What do you think public perception would be of two teenage girls who played with the genitals of an unconscious drunk guy?

Tangentially, it might be similar to public perception of this writer. From the top-displayed comments:

This is rape. Period. You're one sick fuck.

Also:

Yes, because when a man is aroused it's totally not rape is it...Fucking hell you're stupid...

Edit: It might be a poor example of a gender-symmetrical act, since one actually can "play with" male genitals non-sexually; I do it whenever I use the bathroom, and have it done whenever I have a medical chekcup.

Comment by anon895 on [LINK] Obviously transhumanist SMBC comic · 2013-01-30T18:37:17.255Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I like how everyone who links this talks about the immortality tangent and ignores the first two panels and "suicide is not legitimate". You don't want to live? Too bad, it's your job! You're not happy? You're not trying hard enough! This mythological figure was happy, so you should be too! Depression is a choice!

Comment by anon895 on 2012 Less Wrong Census/Survey · 2012-11-08T14:22:30.251Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I imagine because it was an implied insult and the intended friendly tone didn't come through or wasn't considered appropriate. Seems to be back to neutral, though.

Comment by anon895 on 2012 Less Wrong Census/Survey · 2012-11-06T22:35:23.650Z · score: 0 (6 votes) · LW · GW

Don't worry; I'm sure there are plenty of ways you can still contribute.

Edit: Well, I thought it was funny.

Comment by anon895 on Most-Moral-Minority Morality · 2012-09-15T03:10:18.634Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Recently stumbled into this. It's probably incomplete, but it's something.

Comment by anon895 on The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world? · 2012-09-14T02:39:58.157Z · score: 8 (8 votes) · LW · GW

I (and any other casual visitor) now have only indirect evidence regarding whether eridu's comments were really bad or were well-meaning attempts to share feminist insights into the subject, followed by understandable frustration as everything she^Whe said was quoted out of context (if not misquoted outright) and interpreted in the worst possible way.

Comment by anon895 on How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy · 2012-09-09T03:33:26.456Z · score: -4 (14 votes) · LW · GW

"Threatening with violence"? Seriously?

Comment by anon895 on How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy · 2012-09-09T02:40:01.558Z · score: 3 (9 votes) · LW · GW

As a low-status male, right now I'm less worried about being excluded from a meetup than I am about being publicly associated with LW at all. It already has a reputation (and not just for the things mentioned there); now it's a place where a comment like Jade's here isn't just downvoted, but downvoted to a level that labels it a troll comment not worth replying to.

Comment by anon895 on Exploiting the Typical Mind Fallacy for more accurate questioning? · 2012-08-04T06:41:59.076Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Demand Media and eHow in particular have been criticized for large amounts of low-quality content...with poor quality articles intended mainly to drive up search results rather than inform....

Should I read your link or will I just be exposing myself to made-up unresearched advice?

Comment by anon895 on Undiscriminating Skepticism · 2011-09-24T18:50:13.898Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW · GW

You mean conspicuously not displaying the emotion that should fit the facts sends a signal that it's not present and that you possibly don't think it should be, a position that isn't exactly unheard of in the present world?

Comment by anon895 on Knowledge is Worth Paying For · 2011-09-24T18:05:36.748Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Huh. Worked fine for me using files from a previously existing setup of Kindle for PC under Windows XP.

Comment by anon895 on Knowledge is Worth Paying For · 2011-09-23T05:20:58.177Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

People know Kindle DRM can currently be broken, right?

Comment by anon895 on The Cognitive Science of Rationality · 2011-09-17T00:12:04.272Z · score: 5 (7 votes) · LW · GW

The comments on Reddit are worth reading:

Cognitive science is an oxymoron and who ever said the humanity is rational?

Also:

you know, not everything has to be reduced to effieciency and end results. humans and human society is still special even if some shut in bean counter thinks otherwise.

Comment by anon895 on Well, that does it, I suppose · 2011-07-17T18:43:17.941Z · score: 6 (6 votes) · LW · GW

"Forbidden comparison fallacy", maybe. Googling "forbidden comparison" turns up at least one example of it. It was called "Comparing Apples and Oranges" in this comment, but that seems less descriptive.

Comment by anon895 on Dark Side Epistemology · 2011-07-17T18:32:40.898Z · score: 3 (5 votes) · LW · GW

Somehow I doubt that "regardless of circumstance or outward sign" is their wording and not yours.

(Edit) Also, the converse of "not everything that is not expressly forbidden by a law is good" is "not everything that causes the slightest incidental harm is unforgivable babyeating evil".

Comment by anon895 on Most-Moral-Minority Morality · 2011-06-28T00:37:14.049Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

i've never heard of a carnivore who thought meat eating was morally better.

I suspect that you either haven't looked very hard or very long.

Comment by anon895 on Drive-less AIs and experimentation · 2011-06-17T21:31:02.776Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

(I wrote this before seeing timtyler's post.)

If there is a rule that says 'optimize X for X seconds' why would an AGI make a difference between 'optimize X' and 'for X seconds'?

I does seem like you misinterpreted the argument, but one possible failure there is if the most effective way to maximize paperclips within the time period is to build paperclip-making Von Neumann machines. If it designs the machines from scratch, it won't build a time limit into them because that won't increase the production of paperclips within the period of time it cares about.

Comment by anon895 on Less Wrong NYC: Case Study of a Successful Rationalist Chapter · 2011-03-18T20:46:19.982Z · score: 2 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Which conversation ends in a fight? Which conversation ends in both people actually feeling more at ease?

They don't sound meaningfully different to me; you're saying the same thing, just less emotively and more casually.

I saw someone recently suggest saying (in a sympathetic tone) "What are you planning to do?". (Possibly preceded by something like "Yeah, I can understand why you would be".) I wouldn't expect good results from it in real life, but I like it anyway (and it might be better than some alternatives).

Comment by anon895 on Rationality Quotes: March 2011 · 2011-03-15T17:54:34.900Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Inherent flaws of moral codes based on non-deterministic ideas of free will aside, I don't think I've ever seen a version of that argument where the two sides admitted that they were using different definitions of "be homosexual".

Comment by anon895 on The Trouble with Bright Girls [link] · 2011-03-05T22:27:36.543Z · score: 1 (5 votes) · LW · GW

I find that kind of interesting, since my mom's similar behavior comes off as extremely arrogant to me. Electronics and computer software of any kind are the Domain of Men, and any problems she has with them are our responsibility to solve, no matter how many thousands of hours she's been using a particular system and no matter how unfamiliar it is to us. If you try to guide her toward figuring something out herself, she'll eventually grin and throw up her hands and say "Confusing! Confusing!" and repeat the request just do it for her.

On further thought it's not strictly about doing things for her, but when she wants to know how to do something she wants specific, step-by-step instructions without trying to explain why those steps work (doing that will immediately trigger "Confusing! Confusing!"); i.e. "How do I check text messages on this phone which I've been using for years and which has simple and clearly labeled menus?".

...I'm probably using a thread as an excuse to vent again, but GIFT.

Comment by anon895 on The Singularity in the Zeitgeist · 2011-02-19T23:26:25.335Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Followup to previous comment: I feel like this link from Reddit may apply.

Comment by anon895 on Procedural Knowledge Gaps · 2011-02-09T02:39:36.961Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

But he might benefit from having her think she's blackmailing him.

Comment by anon895 on Hand vs. Fingers · 2011-02-02T04:36:11.950Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Not wanting to open a possibly long article: is that the same thing as dissociation? Is dissociation the symptom and depersonalization a cluster of symptoms that includes it?

Comment by anon895 on The Meaning of Right · 2011-02-02T03:21:37.190Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

...which won't happen if the computronium is the most important thing and uploading existing minds would slow it down. The AI might upload some humans to get their cooperation during the early stages of takeoff, but it wouldn't necessarily keep those uploads running once it no longer depended on humans, if the same resources could be used more efficiently for itself.

Comment by anon895 on David Chalmers' "The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis" · 2011-02-01T07:55:34.395Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Possibly relevant: AIXI-style IQ tests.

Comment by anon895 on Scientific Self-Help: The State of Our Knowledge · 2011-01-24T13:19:11.770Z · score: 0 (4 votes) · LW · GW
  • No, we'll split it.

From what I've read, being able to credibly offer a free meal is a critical tool in some men's dating arsenal. Changing it to "well, if you want I'll pay, but I'd be really grateful if you'd chip in too" could leave him substantially weakened. Her making decisions on his behalf and talking about them as a couple after one date also seems like a bad sign.

  • Hey, none of that, Neanderthal! (With a smile and or fake arm slap to indicate lightheartedness. Equivalent to assertiveness with humor.)

"Ha, ha! It's funny because she insulted me and dismissed my sex's relevance as economic agents!"

  • Sure, but I've got the next one!

"So just because I was curious enough to spend some money to get to know her better, suddenly I'm at her beck and call? What kind of spineless plaything does she see me as?"

...and that's one of many reasons I hope I don't need to date.

Comment by anon895 on Scientific Self-Help: The State of Our Knowledge · 2011-01-24T12:19:10.993Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I got a little angry reading that (didn't follow the original link), but I'm feeling too lazy to discard the post I wrote, so:

  • Never ever talk about previous [girlfriends], particularly their prowess in the bedroom. Your ex-[girlfriends] are your business only.

Thereby signalling to her (if she were rational) that she'll be equally a nonentity to you in a year, and/or (if you actively avoid the subject) that you handled your past relationships badly and are likely to do the same for your next.

  • Never assume anything about your date until you choose to know him better. You cannot always tell by looking.

If I had video of every time that was hilariously bad advice for me back when I still expected human statements to necessarily mean things, I expect I could make a substantially better contribution to this thread.

  • If the [girl] in the corner is gorgeous, go get [her] and create the need in [her] for you. Never wait for [women] to come to you because you may watch [her] leave with someone else.

This appears to be a disguised problem statement: "If she perceives you as pursuing her, she'll run a mile, but if you wait for her to pursue you she won't. Therefore, use magic." So glad I'm a lifestyle-aspie where the rule is "if you want something from someone, ask, if you don't think that'll work, offer something in exchange, if you don't have anything to offer, do without".

My imagined "stereotypical advice" version of that sentence is more like "If the girl in the corner is gorgeous, too bad. The girl who actually talks to you and affects an interest in you will be gorgeous too if you let yourself see it, and you don't want to miss out on her just because you're hung up on someone else that you probably didn't have a chance with anyway.

  • Never ever criticize [her] mother unless you want to remain single.

God, I love family-as-applause-light. Just seeing "criticize" and "mother" next to each other looks dirty. Mothers are sweet and upstanding ladies who work hard to take care of their daughters!

  • If his shoes or hygiene are a disgrace, dump him.

The lack of any definition of "disgrace" makes me want to look over the others to see if they fit the pattern of "blank canvas for the reader to project her already existing behavior on".

Often I'll do this as a hat tip to tradition or as a pure matter of convenience. It depends a bit on the girl. Sometimes it will pay for a meal then say, for example, that now she can take me and buy me icecream.

Should "it" be I?

She isn't a hooker!

Also love "hooker" as boo light.

I like how the unreasonable tips come with "dump him" instructions. Dumping her would be hard work after all.

Are you implying that the page is saying that men withhold flowers from women as a less hard alternative to dumping them directly?

Einstein would call that 'not being insane'.

...but probably didn't.

Comment by anon895 on Fictional Evidence vs. Fictional Insight · 2011-01-24T08:42:53.205Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

The nice thing about Eliezer's stories is that they're much harder to accidentally take as fictional evidence. They come off as obviously ridiculous, so there isn't much danger that you'll accidentally interpret those worlds as instructive of our own. Easy to use correctly; hard to use incorrectly.''

It's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure I buy it as generally true; as long as the critical human-interaction parts work properly, I think I automatically believe moderately absurd fiction about as much as I do anything else. We believe plenty of things in the real world that are absurd by EEA standards.

Comment by anon895 on Is Less Wrong discouraging less nerdy people from participating? · 2011-01-24T07:13:08.790Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

I know the above post only had one downvote, but just to check: Didn't we already have a discussion on how signalling agreement with things is a normal part of healthy human interaction and cooperation, and that we don't really want to suppress it for some mechanical standard of "high content" or "signal/noise"?

Comment by anon895 on Is Less Wrong discouraging less nerdy people from participating? · 2011-01-24T07:08:31.032Z · score: -3 (7 votes) · LW · GW

I've never been into science fiction, fantasy literature, anime, or D&D, but the alleged popularity of those on LW has never bothered me, nor even particularly stood out. (I mean, I've liked a few instances of the first three, but never anywhere near the point of being involved in their respective subcultures.)

You seem to be under the impression that a nerd is someone who pins a badge saying "nerd" on himself.

Comment by anon895 on Gettier in Zombie World · 2011-01-24T06:45:53.824Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Partway through, I had the urge to look up a past comment saying something like "I've seen philosophers argue, in apparently total sincerity, whether a man in a desert seeing a mirage of a lake that coincidentally has a lake just beyond it "really" knows the lake is there".

Unfortunately I can't find it now; it probably either didn't use the exact word "mirage", used another metaphor entirely, or was actually on OB. Searching "mirage" brought up a similar metaphor in Righting a Wrong Question, but that's making a different point.

Comment by anon895 on Theists are wrong; is theism? · 2011-01-24T00:06:26.754Z · score: 2 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Here, of course.

Comment by anon895 on Tallinn-Evans $125,000 Singularity Challenge · 2011-01-21T22:06:10.541Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Ended up making the transfer over the phone.

Comment by anon895 on Tallinn-Evans $125,000 Singularity Challenge · 2011-01-20T22:49:45.766Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

...yep, didn't make it. I'll have to get to the bank early tomorrow and hope the mail is slow.

Comment by anon895 on Tallinn-Evans $125,000 Singularity Challenge · 2011-01-20T17:32:50.313Z · score: 13 (13 votes) · LW · GW

In a possibly bad decision, I put a $1000 check in the mailbox with the intent of going out and transferring the money to my checking account later today. That puts them at $123,700 using Silas' count.

Comment by anon895 on The Singularity in the Zeitgeist · 2011-01-15T18:00:13.074Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Read first comic, said to self "This is terrible" halfway through, didn't read further. There may be room for improvement.

Comment by anon895 on Of Gender and Rationality · 2010-12-01T09:07:01.040Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Part of the problem is that any attempt at direct enforcement or pressure could deter people from commenting in the first place, knowing that if they did they'd be expected to see any disagreements through to the end. (That's been mentioned in previous threads, I think.)

Random thought: Would individuals trying to shift the norm by setting an example work any better? Like, one person going through their comment history (possibly using the link here), and making a list in their profile page of unresolved disagreements and their current status (possibly including otherwise unvoiced ones), plus a list of resolved disagreements and how they were resolved, or a list of posts and comments that led them to shift their beliefs (incrementally or otherwise) on something?

Not volunteering either way, though. In the past I've occasionally killed time reading my old posts on forums, and on reading regrettable things I've tried to fix them by amending them in replies or putting notes about them my profile, but that doesn't seem like the same thing.

Basically, it seems you(general) would need to make a deliberate effort to continue discussions even after it becomes pure work, because you value having a site where disagreements are resolved more than you value anything else you might be doing with that time.

Edit: I idealistically hope that when agreement is impractical, people who try long enough can still reach a better level of understanding than the standard "agreement to disagree" cliché.

Comment by anon895 on Rationality Quotes - June 2009 · 2010-11-30T22:17:30.488Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

That clarifies it for me. Possibly related: Beyond the Reach of God.

Comment by anon895 on Belief in Belief vs. Internalization · 2010-11-29T03:44:50.160Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Possibly related: Taking Ideas Seriously.

Comment by anon895 on Should I believe what the SIAI claims? · 2010-09-01T20:50:16.579Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I was probably wrong in assuming I understood the discussion, in that case.

Comment by anon895 on Should I believe what the SIAI claims? · 2010-09-01T20:22:20.018Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

An AI that was a satisficer would't be "the" AI; it'd be the first of many.

Comment by anon895 on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 2 · 2010-08-30T18:04:38.469Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Other possibilities: (6) It was a non-breathing imitation of a pig. (7) It was inside an invisible box isolating it from the surrounding air.

Comment by anon895 on Open Thread, August 2010-- part 2 · 2010-08-23T19:32:28.185Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

A few posts down.

Comment by anon895 on Five-minute rationality techniques · 2010-08-18T18:23:10.222Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

A clever god applying its cleverness to the job of making itself invisible is going to succeed.

Comment by anon895 on Making Beliefs Pay Rent (in Anticipated Experiences) · 2010-08-09T18:13:14.460Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I was expecting the link to be Mundane Magic.