Posts
Comments
You don't use some words only if you think the other guy would classify that as an insult (unless you want to insult him). If you dont know someone classifies something as an insult, you might use it on accident.
There is a set of rules that I use to describe an insult (which I have gotten from my culture). You have one, probably everybody has some set of rules. Some general set of rules. If my set of rules does not classify something as an insult, I will think it is safe to say that.
If it happens that I say something, which you consider an insult, and I don't, unless I understand what is it about, I will need to remember "never tell to Jiro that you love him" (I simplify for the sake of shortness, but there are other parameters inside that statement). I assume there is an underlying explanation behind your rule. This is probably not the only thing you would consider an insult and i wouldn't. Maybe you will consider an insult "I hate you", "I like your dog", "You love me", or whatever, but I cannot deduce that based on the "never tell Jiro that you love him".
Help me. I literary see chaos in your statements. I cannot deduce anything better than "Jiro (and maybe culture he is coming from) is quite different from the people (cultures) I faced already". I don't know if you can imagine that state of knowledge about something. It's mostly empty with only one example.
You can't add a disclaimer "Don't interpret my words as aggressive"
Well, you can often interpret someone's words many ways. Just because you cannot see the person, and you cannot get information about their emotional state. So, i think you can write something that can be understood many ways, and add a disclaimer, "it's not the other thing".
Regarding
using excessive familiarity with an opponent is a type of insult
I never saw this. Maybe we are from different areas, and this could be explained through cultural difference. First, I am thought to never approach opponent as an enemy, and to always keep in mind they are like me (meaning they are humans, with feelings, with ideas, with goals, with hobbies, with experiences) and not empty, emotionless, evil, etc. Furthermore, I approach discussion as a cooperative activity, since its purpose is to improve both me and the guy I discuss with, and give us both insight in something new. That's why I never saw "familiarity" being looked upon, since that behavior highlights those two mindsets.
However, I acknowledge there are people with different background, who have different approach (different, not opposite). And now I acknowledge some people could perceive familiarity as insult. Would you mind explaining me how does that insult work? I don't even have a feeling for it. The closest I ever encountered was where middle-high-class-old-lady meets some homeless person who says something along the lines of "we are the same" and then she stops him to say they are not the same, etc, but that is pretty far from this case.
Edit: formatting and spelling.
Edit: I believe that if it is plain there is no intention of insult, insult does not exist.
I plainly said that I wasn't aggressive towards him, that i was afraid my words can be interpreted like that, and that i wanted to cut that possibility off with words "i love you".
I have positive record with that tactic, people have understood my attitude like that in the past, and I expected it to work again. It didn't, and that is fine. Maybe I need better technique to express myself, but that is different topic now, and not important since I expressed everything explicitly afterwards (and now again). Why are you still behaving like I wanted to insult him with these words? You clearly see I don't have that intention.
it is your responsibility to understand them.
Yeah, it is, but today i don't understand. The only thing i see is related to "mother love" and sounding like I am above him, but I can't make a clear case out of it. And understanding is not dirty dishes, I cannot just make a decision to understand them and do it in a few minutes. Maybe I'll read something on that topic this year. I think it's your responsibility that if you see what I expressed and what i wanted to express, you take what I wanted to express (you can even warn me that I expressed wrongly, if you feel so.)
You are just rude now. You just straight up try to insult and discredit me, you did not even try to hide it.
I never said "this is how to ..." I offered course specialized in that topic. I offered material. I don't own that course, i just thought it would be useful to people who try to get more members here (I met few of them, so i expect there are more). I properly separated what is my idea, from that course.
You still need only one man outside LW to be like you to be wrong.
That's arguing with semantics instead of arguing with substance.
That is arguing with substance. Say there is probability x someone is like you. Talking about your personality, not genes. N is number of people outside LW. In the first approximation, where "person is a member of LW" is independant of "person is like you." you have (1-x)^N to be right. I have 1-(1-x)^N to be right. If N is big, my probability goes to 1, your goes to 0.
Now, you can say, my approximation is false, which it is. LW influenced you, etc, so there is a correlation. However, unless correlation is 1, there is still a probability for someone to be outside of LW and like you, and if there is a large number N, my probability is still going to 1 and yours is still approaching 0. Exponentially. Now, you can narrow the choice by demanding more similarities, and then this growth would not be strong enough to make up for the smallness of x. But we are talking about someone who could give equal contribution to LW as you(edit: and who would like to develop art of rationality), you can't diminish x too much.
It is pretty shitty someone is down-voting you, you are just making a very common mistake of underestimating exponential growth. They could at least tell you what mistake did you make.
If you don't mind, explain, I honesty don't get it. I don't see how that can be an insult. If i wanted to insult him, I would do that much simpler. My reasoning was: There is no way he can see my face, or my mimics, therefore he can perceive me as aggressive, although I am not. I wanted to make an end to any idea of aggressiveness. I want to make an agreement, and not to have endless conversation just because I am perceived aggressive, and because I don't look like someone you want to agree with. I wanted to show open palms or something, but I cannot do that on keyboard. So in order to express my attitude, i said that to point out my friendly attitude towards him in contrast to my rigorous attitude towards his arguments. Besides, it's not even a lie. My vocabulary is maybe too small, and "love" has a bit wide meaning, but I do feel some kind of brother or sister love towards everyone.
You still need only one man outside LW to be like you to be wrong. Although i don't know who you are (except the member of the LW), there are lot of people on this world (, andLW is not the only source of rationality).
Agree. However, I did not post this to take ownership of a problem, but to facilitate someone who will.
I don't think that having more meta-threads on how the community can improved provides the kind of content that brings LW forward. I don't think that having an extra section for meta conversation about LW could be improved would be a move in the right direction.
Funny you say that. Because you want LW to go forward, no? I got that from your wording. However, you want to avoid talking about that, and you want to proceed doing what you feel you need to do, which is making posts on whatever you want to post about. You don't want to do it deliberately, and you want to let it happen on its own. I think that if you thought for 5 minutes on this topic (improvement of LW), you would not have this opinion.
Especially for people with low karma. Is this ad hominem? Better evaluate my arguments than my karma. And even if you want to evaluate me, having karma as only argument is pretty miserable.
I will continue with position you want LW to improve. Do you claim that staying the same will improve LW or its members? Do we agree LW has to change, as well as its members in order to improve? Do we agree change has to be deliberately chosen to be an improvement? Do you claim you can do it with your gut feeling? Do you claim that course I offered as a resource is false in any way? If so, please refer me to the counterargument. Do you claim organization of the site would not be good for its members? Do you claim segregation of topics would not organize this site? Do you claim this solution is not feasible?
I tried to be rigorous towards arguments you offered, and not harsh to you. I love you, and i hope this conversation will do good to both of us.
Do you want to bet?
I was not talking about "this elevation is higher than yours". I mean, if you got better idea that solves my problem more efficiently, thank you very much. I was talking about the ideas which are at the same level. You need hot chocolate, which is hot and sweet, but all you have is coffee and lemonade. You can drink coffee, it's warm but bitter, and you can drink lemonade, which is sweet, but cold. Someone says, take lemonade, someone says take coffee. In the end, it doesn't matter which one you take. Both solve the problem partially, but community will take none, because it's not perfect. Translated to the case I wanted to cover: let's say we have part of the community which wants to improve the world we live in. Some think building better government will help, some think doing research, improving technology etc will help, some think we should start at the bottom and help the ones in the greatest need. They will fight each other, although they could give each team it's task and do it that way. This is my intention on the long stick. To make teams. Each member could help solving problems he feels he could solve, without spam from other teams, etc.
In the end, I just wanted to help solving our inability to organize.
That's cool. Do you want to have everything sorted in this forum, so that you can choose which topic you want to read? If yes, contribute to that idea, it will help you.
I hope you get rational, cure death alone, and spare me the effort.I'm lazy and selfish as well, and I'm better at that than you./s
And then why not do the whole job, and create tab for meetups, to avoid spam in main, tab for AI, tab for decision making, tab for overcoming biases, tab for... Well, we came to my solution. =)
Thanks for the warning. I forgot to check the title. Grammar-Nazis always lurk for that fresh non-native-speaker flesh.
I agree with you completely. Just want to point out that LW lacks directions. It's complete bullshit that we should all focus on one thing. And having all directions interfere is just making it harder to do anything sensible.
He just gave you a reason.
Whenever you post an idea, you might get a few upvotes, but you'll also get a lot of comments saying that something else is a better idea instead.
If you organize content, you would get rid of that sort of things. Imagine going on reddit, to math subreddit, and commenting on some theorem "yeah, but it's better to develop new political system than solving these equations". It's just bizarre, and for a reason: not everyone on this world should be solving the same problem.
When it comes to gathering new members quality is more important than quantity.
Exactly the reason why I posted. Nobody wants to make a big community by destroying the quality. That's the main topic of this course I recommended.
For me one of the most important goals is developing the "art of rationality". Would it be easier if there were 10 times more people like you, who want to do the same? Would it be easier if existing people were more rational? Your goal has nothing(or very little) to do with my goals, which is self- and world-improvement. So I would call your and my goals as subgoals with regard to community. If any of our goals would be main goal to the community, the other guy would not have interest to contribute. This is the reason i ask for separation of topics.
So, what's stopping you from posting new topics yourself? I just did, my friend. This topic is on growth of the community. What you want to say is "it's not the topic I'm interested in", and that's the reason I want separation of topics. So that I can speak about growth of the community without bothering you.
I found this book very good as well. I want to add a comment, though.
If you start reading it, and you get lost, just stop reading that chapter and go to the next one. Read this book lightly at first, then start clarifying everything afterwards. Reading introduction of every chapter first is very clever.
You need some solid Linear Algebra: Vector Space, dual vector space, unitary and hermitian matrices, eigenvectors and eigenvalues, trace... Mind that you should learn these things with mathematical approach, for example, vectors are elements of vector space which has certain axioms, and not 3D arrows, like pupils learn in school. Since book has this approach (matrix mechanics, rather than wave mechanics), you don't need too strong analysis, you can just trust that some things are working that way, but if you want to understand it fully, i recommend taking some analysis course as well, to be able to understand decomposition in eigenfunctions. Integrals and derivatives are MUST, however.
Ok, this thing is harder then it looked. Writing demands time and concentration, and I am not sure if i can explain things as good as they were explained to me.
I am absolutely sure it would be highly beneficial for people to understand basics of economics and finance, but I think I am not the right person to do this. So, I give up, and I will just recommend some literature/video lessons. I think i saw some book list on this forum, so, if you want to hear more about this stuff, head there.
Did i fail in my reasoning here? Because if i didn't, it is of major importance, and if i did, well, it's not important at all, but i would still like to know where i failed.
On the other hand, I see people have been trying to isolate themselves, so, i suppose my comment got unnoticed because of that.
Edit: TL;DR I made equivalent problem. It is sufficient and necessary. Prove: p(H causes destruction | H is Alive) < p(H causes destruction | H is Dead)
I have exams so I don't have enough time to do the whole process, as it should be done. I wanted to donate my thoughts and hope for someone else to do the job.
If you remember, we are not supposed to give solutions at once, we should talk about problem first. This includes gathering fair knowledge about all the mechanisms mentioned.
I see some people listed available objects, which could be used in open combat. Which is exactly what we should do, given that the problem is how to fight them. The problem is, however, not how to win the fight.
Now, I have to admit i haven't thought about the whole problem (I am not facing 37 Deathe-Eaters, true, but I am facing 3 exams next week), I focused on two things: Harry's mind, and Voldy's mind. I will deduce if Harry will actually try to defend himself.
These are my thoughts:
- Voldy (V) wants to stop the prophesy. Prophesy says Harry will cause great destruction.
- Harry (H) cannot change V's utility function.
- V's utility function has high preference for this world not being destroyed.
- V tried to maximize this function. (He showed he is quite "rational" up until now)
This is part where I imagined myself being V.
"H will cause great destruction. There is greater probability of him causing destruction, than his death causing destruction. Therefore i have to kill him. I just resurrected Hermione, so, someone can resurrect H. I have to stop that, so i will destroy his remnants."
- H did the whole Unbreakable Vow thing => he is now practically the only human who has no options when it comes to destroying the world.
H's utility function is practically the same as V's utility function now. (Both V and H prefer world over H)
"There is a prophesy i will destroy the world. I don't want to cause destruction. Is probability ("i cause destruction" if "I am alive") greater than ("I cause destruction" if "I am dead")? Whatever probability is lower, i will do that. "* (He can't chose anymore, he sacrificed it
H would not try to live if that would lead to greater probability of mass destruction. He would prefer himself dead over alive. (If he is rational he would do that, because his utility function is such.)
Now, let's see compare pA = p(H causes destruction | H is Alive) and pD = pp(H causes destruction | H is Dead)
Vow ensures that if there is even a minor risk of H's next step creating destruction, he would have to interrogate that risk, and avoid it if there really is such a possibility. With regard to this and H's cleverness, he could cause something destructive much easier while absent than while present. =>
pD>pA
Since I don't see EY killing Harry or being inconsistent, pD is probably indeed greater, whether or not my deduction has flaws.
On this deduction depends whether or not H will actually do something to defend himself. If he will defend himself, he might as well communicate all this to V and he will let him go, because V prefers no destruction over destruction.
Edit: formatting.
When I was young, I went to psychologist because I was afraid of the dark. She made me find the origin of my fear, so i enlisted something like: recent burglary in our apartment, war, my imagination, some TV series, and said that all those mixed together can make you be afraid of the dark at night (10 years old kid can do that, yes, though I am not sure if I repeated what i heard from others). So, not after seeing that there is nothing in my backyard, but after seeing the origin of my fear, I stopped.
That is why I think that finding the origin of some behavior is important when trying to stop it. For example, you can find out that your self-respect is causing your immunity to being insulted. So, if you want to be offended by something, you might want to undermine your self-respect first. You can as well imitate, and try to get really angry when someone offends you, but you will possibly feel fake, and eventually, you will go back to your pre-change-attempt behavior.
Your behavior can be learned, as well. If your father was a person-type that always steps aside, you can be like him. In this case, you will have to learn the other behavior, by observing other people doing it, and trying to imitate them (just like you learned from your parents?). These are my personal experiences, though, and I would like to hear some expert's opinion on this topic.
The last thing I want to point out is, be aware that you can make mistakes. You want to fix something in yourself, but you can make a mistake and try to fix something that you don't really want to fix. Like, you see that people who are devious have more success than you do, but this does not mean that you should become devious, for example, it can make you unhappy. (I am not stating anything about being devious, it's example).
Yes, infatuation is what i really wanted to say.(I'm not native speaker) So, two points:
- Affective death spiral has leading role in existence of humanity, (if none had it, less children would be born.)
- It's kinda shitty to find out that butterflies are consequence of false beliefs, which could lead to people being resistant to accepting this whole idea.
Not if he was the major ingredient in inventing immortality...
This is a creepy story, but not a contra-argument for my point: these people were thinking that government ban bad medications, so they were not careful at all. I would like to see some study which tests how careful people are when they know someone else is taking care of them.
If there were no government to regulate medications, I think that people would make companies which would test these medications and which would give them scores, or something like that.
There is one more factor, but in opposite direction: would you be more careful if there was nobody banning the medications? Do you read about medications now before you use them, and would you do that if there was no government doing tests? Your argument sounds to me like pro-minimal-wage argument, with the similar mistake: there are always two sides defining product/price, and one cannot think only about one of them and have good predictions.
Well, I do have to start there, but, actually, i wanted to go different way. I will argue that immortality has different value given the different information and preferences we have.
(Because, it's not 1 + r + r^2... it's v(0) + v(1) r + v(2) r^2 +.... where vx is value we obtain in x-th year of our life. This can converge or diverge, it is dependent on our evaluation of v's and ofc. r.)
Also, please don't split it to multiple articles; and if you really have to, then please put something interesting in the first article already, don't make it merely a teaser.
Thank you for advice, I will give my best to make it short and interesting. Though not at cost of making it unclear and therefore useless.
Thank you for warm welcome and thorough information!
It is practice. Why is, pardon, why was Hermione so much better in spells then others? Because of practice. Other children do not practice as much as Harry, or as much as Hermione did... It was somewhat suggested in part where Harry and Draco talk about muggle-borns, pure-bloods and magic.
Hi guys, my name is Luka, and I'm 20. I study physics at University of Vienna.
I follow LW since February, and I went probably through all core sequences, and good chunk of the rest. I did not gained too much, because I was kinda always eager to argue with good arguments and resistant to bad arguments, even from elder (which brought me into trouble quite a few times). My biggest win is that I remained strong in the moment when I started to fall: I started drowning in irrationality (because of lack of rational people in my surrounding), and started using passwords without noticing, I started learning at cost of thinking, instead of using them both. LW gave me structural knowledge of what I already used, and thus made me stay that way. AND HOPE! How did I forget that, it was big...
Which leads me to more interesting topic, and that is: what will I give to you?
I had strong education in mathematics, physics and informatics during high school, since I attended specialized high school. There I developed strong logical thinking, but even better, I always tried to implement that into my every-day-life. Since I do feel material from sequences on gut level, I will try to teach you how to do it, too (as soon as I understand what exactly I do different xD). Don't get me wrong, I don't try to show off, I just hope to give you insight from other perspective, and with help from more experienced members (because you guys know much more about cognitive science, teaching and writing then I do) to write good materials to help people move on from understanding rationality to actively using it. If someone of the experienced members live in Belgrade or Vienna I will be glad to meet you to discuss how to write all the things I would like to.
I strongly believe I did manage do actualize my self (in Maslow's sense (I just needed the term to express myself, I don't have so good knowledge in psychology to state that any of his theories is true or false)), and I will argue it has a lot to do with becoming rationalist in time.
I will try to diversify this community, since it is mostly devoted to development of friendly AI, and I think there are other things how to help our world (more) effectively. We should not put all eggs in one basket.
To tell you more about me, I believe I posses wide knowledge (and I invest time to make it wider): I am really good in mathematics, physics and programming(there i went in-depth the most), and I have some basic knowledge in finance, economics, psychology. I play guitar in free time, attend choir, play video games... I am not a native English speaker, which you probably already noticed, so please, send me private message if you notice some big errors, I will appreciate it. I speak Serbian (my native language) and German as well (since I study in Vienna).
I look forward to making this world a wonderful place!
While reading, i tried to think of a case when i fell in affective death spiral, and interesting thing came to my mind. Falling in love falls under Halo Effect? Butterflies in stomach, worshiping the beloved, etc... That means that who overcomes this bias can't fall in love that way anymore?