Posts
Comments
It seems I misunderstood. It didn't occur to me that you might have meant "Muggles" literally (i.e. exactly as used in Harry Potter). My apologies.
The phrase "X Studies" refers to lessons about X, not lessons for X. For example, in Harry Potter (or at least in HPMoR; I'm not so familiar with the original), "Muggle Studies" refers to classes that wizards take to learn about Muggles.
So you're either misusing this phrase, or using "Muggle" to refer to LWers instead of non-LWers.
TV/movie audience desire to view people who possess high-status markers...I don't think this has anything to do with respect
This is a contradiction.
It's mentioned explicitly at the beginning of his post Mathematicians and the Prevention of Recessions, strongly implied in The Paucity of Elites Online, and the website listed under his username and karma score is http://www.mathisbeauty.org.
I would seriously not be surprised to find that fat people have starved to death without their fat cells releasing fat, and blinded by preconceptions, nobody managed to notice or note down when this occurred.
Out of curiosity, I googled, and indeed it turns out that some of the heaviest people on record died of starvation.
(In the Recent Comments sidebar, this looked like:
Nietzsche is dead God
which is rather different!)
Sexual Weirdtopia: It's illegal to be a virgin past a certain age, say 25. Each person must show proof that they've had sex at least once before their 25th birthday, or face punishment (which could range from a fine to execution, depending on the level of dystopian-ness desired). Stories could deal with the difficulties faced by unpopular or unattractive people in meeting this deadline, or with the complications entailed by the requirement of proof.
An interesting variation would be for the rule to apply only to one sex, say males.
Whom use...can signal an excessive concern with pedantry
Speaking of pedantry, I have no doubt that you meant:
"Whom" use
The "bannination" is here.
EDIT: and here is Eliezer's explanation.
that some single large ordinal is well-ordered
An ordinal is well-ordered by definition, is it not?
Did you mean to say "some single large ordinal exists"?
It is neither deep (enigmatic or inferentially distant) nor punchy (counterintuitive or contradicting received wisdom). If anything it's too obvious. (By contrast, if I said "Be evil", now that would be deep/punchy.)
It was meant as a companion to this.
Yes; "do that thing" should not be confused with "do only that thing".
If you're good at something, do that thing.
(Obvious caveats apply.)
Don't be evil.
When does the job start, and how long does it last? Could someone apply to do it over the summer, say? Will the person(s) have work every week (and thus a "steady job"), or is it all sporadic and ad-hoc?
My personal belief is that female utility is maximized by a man who is alpha
Note that "utility" is not the same thing as "sexual pleasure".
It sounds to me like you might be in some kind of depression or low-enthusiasm state. I don't hear a coherent critique in these comments, so much as a general sense of "boo 'rationality'/LW".
Contrast:
Are you not comfortable with that happening at all, or not comfortable with being involved in one?
I'm not comfortable with it existing. I think it's not useful.
and
People with a common interest meeting up seems natural enough.
Well, if there are other people who feel that way, they're free to meet up to share that interest
This feels inconsistent; as if you had been caught giving a non-true rejection.
If SIAI were being founded today, it would surely be called the Rationality Institute.
For that matter, so is its parent.