Posts
Comments
Assuming "bit string" means "machine code", this isn't true. The same machine code will not result in the same logical operations being performed on all computers. It may not correspond to any logical operations at all on other computers. And what logical operations are carried out depends entirely on "the molecules bouncing around" in the computer. You aren't making DNA sound different from machine code at all.
How do most of these objections not apply also to computer programs? Computer programs are physical objects, and what the program actually does depends entirely on the physical machinery that runs it.
The assumption of the adversarial mode is that if the other person loses their temper, it's because their position is weak.
Wouldn't this reward trolling?
There are alternatives to monarchy, and an example of a disappointing monarch should suggest that alternatives might be worth considering, or at the very least that appointing a monarch isn't invariably the answer. That was my only point.
Why would you believe that something is always the solution when you already have evidence that it doesn't always work?
In the earlier period, Uruk was in fact substantially larger, thus the quibble. Marc Van De Mieroop, The Ancient Mesopotamian City, p.37:
But many aspects of Uruk show its special status in southern Mesopotamia. Its size greatly surpasses that of contemporary cities: around 3200 it is estimated to have been about 100 hectares in size, while in the region to its north the largest city measured only 50 hectares, and in the south the only other city, Ur, covered only 10-15 hectares. ... And Uruk continued to grow: around 2800 its walls encircled an area of 494 hectares and occupation outside the walls was likely.
Historical quibble- in "The First City" section, you seem to be partially confusing Ur with Uruk. Uruk is generally regarded as the first city in Sumeria, during the eponymous Uruk period (4000-3100 BC). Also generally believed to be the center of the "Uruk phenomenon" during which cuneiform writing and a number of other features of Mesopotamian civilization were developed. Ur was the capital of the Neo-Sumerian Ur III empire c.2000 BC, which built the Great Ziggurat of Ur shown in the picture.
You're right, you didn't "imply mass murder, theft, and enslavement are okay", you neglected to mention them entirely, despite them being relevant to your claim that "the actions of the Aztecs are a far better example of religion causing people to bad thing", unlike disease. You made no argument against the claim that the suffering inflicted by the Spanish directly exceeded that caused by the Aztecs (#3 in TimS's post). Instead you simply noted that disease caused "the main suffering", and restated your previous position. What would you accept as a charitable interpretation of that?
Mass murder, theft, and enslavement don't become okay just because contemporaneous plagues have a higher death toll. And yes, the former tended to justified in religious terms, for whatever you think that's worth.
Plunder and glory?
edit: To put it another way, I'd argue the conquest of traditionally Christian territories under the Rashidun and Ummayad Caliphs was due to religion in the same way the Spanish conquests in the Americas were - enabled and justified by religion, but motivated primarily by the desire for wealth and fame. I can go into further detail if anyone wants, though I doubt that is the case.
There probably would be people complaining if D-Day had occurred four centuries after the fall of France.
How are you imagining the US government enforcing the abolition of slavery ca. 1800? Even in a much stronger relative position ca. 1865, it was extremely costly to do so. There was fair less abolitionist sentiment in earlier decades, and in relative terms, the federal government was far weaker and the southern elites far stronger. Attempting to outlaw slavery "quickly after the US started" (I'm assuming a window from about 1790-1810, please correct me if I mis-guestimated) would have been an act of suicide by the central government.
I am not calling you a liar, because I accept that you are sincere, but I don't believe you. The claim that you determine the quality of comments without regard to the positions they express is outlandish, for at least two reasons. One, that you are human, and therefore subject to the same biases as every other human known to have ever existed, meaning that you will inevitably tend to appraise posts that agree with your views more favorably than those that disagree. Two, that if you aren't judging comments' quality by the positions they express, there's little of substance left by which you could judge them. The vast majority of comments and posts are neither formal nor rigorous enough for their reasoning, when considered solely on the comments' own merits, to hold up to any serious scrutiny. So that leaves presentation, and...?
There's no Omega, so why not take the nanoslice of power that's readily available, in addition to whatever you can get by trying for more? It appears to me that doing both maximizes the expected payoff in all probable contexts.
If a non-negligible number of people upvote comments expressing negative opinions of Eliezer Yudkowsky or the Sequences, what leads you to the conclusion that the best response is to label these comments "slander" and cast for roundabout ways to suppress them? If you want an echo-chamber (a reasonable thing to want), that can be easily and non-disingenuously accomplished, for instance by making it explicit policy that disagreement with local authority figures is not permitted.
LW has seemed uncertain about which role it is playing for as long as I've been here.
Yes, that's certainly the single largest problem. If the LW moderators decided on their goals for the site, and committed to a plan for achieving those goals, the meta-tedium would be significantly reduced. The way it's currently being done, there's too much risk of overlap between run of the mill moderation squabbles and the pernicious Eliezer Yudkowsky cult/anticult squabbles.
If you're going to tap out, fair enough, but don't do it after a three paragraph response. That's just a chickenshit way of trying to have the last word.
Simple irrationality would be taking the implausible scenario both seriously and at face value. A priori, the likelihood of someone honestly offering you money for nothing is extremely low, as is the likelihood that they even have a million dollars to give away. If you don't take the scenario seriously, it's just a case of guessing the teacher's password. If you do take it seriously, it would not be rational in most contexts take the offer at face value, in which case "$500 now" has about as a good an expected pay-off as any, and at least provides guaranteed evidence of the offer's legitimacy.
If you really need the $500, why throw that away for a one-off, low odds chance for more? The first $500 almost certainly has greater marginal utility than the second, and possibly more than the next 1,999 put together. And that's assuming the offer is totally legit, which is not very rational.
Only when it's used at all, which is far less often than 'guys'. Yes, it's true that it's a distaff counterpart to 'guys', but so is 'dolls', and would you seriously propose unironic usage of 'dolls'?
I agree that there are downsides, they just don't seem that terrible..
What about the never-ending meta discussions, or are you counting on those dying down soon? Because I wouldn't, unless the new policy is either dropped, or an extensive purge of the commentariat is carried out.
You know those people who say "you can use numbers to show anything" and "numbers lie" and "I don't trust numbers, don't give me numbers, God, anything but numbers"? These are the very same people who use numbers in the wrong way.
"Junior", FIRE JOE MORGAN
Since when has the institution of slavery been a charitable one? Historically, slave-owners have payed immense costs, directly and indirectly, for the privilege of owning slaves, and done so knowingly and willingly. It is human nature to derive pleasure from holding power over others.
What those eggheads need is a good ass-kicking!
A praiseworthy sentiment.
I see no good reason to presume a correlation between a med school's admissions criteria and total lives saved over a doctor's career as tight as this reasoning requires. Or to presume that it is near certain that if he hadn't lied, another liar wouldn't have been accepted in his place.
But wouldn't that defeat the purpose, or am I missing something? I understood the offensiveness of the specific example to be the point.
Comments that will end up being hidden by default mostly shouldn't exist.
Then why don't the grand-high muckity-mucks just censor the posts honestly? I do not see how that could possibly be less effective than this crowd-sourced star chamber scheme, which manages to be simultaneously opaque, unaccountable, and open to abuse by the trolls it's supposed to be suppressing.
One could argue that they where and still are the intellectually and socially invested backbone of the community that formed around Overcoming Bias and LessWrong!
That's the argument I wanted to make, so I think I'll steal it. The intellectually and socially invested backbone of the community was and is distinctly right-leaning. Hence, the site is in many ways unwelcoming to people on the political left, much as was earlier claimed that the site is unwelcoming to some on the right.
They will just have to get over that though.
Right. And I think this applies equally to the right-wing readers and commenters who feel the site isn't sufficiently sympathetic to their political views. Obviously I do not think that the political right deserves special treatment on account of somehow being innately more rational than the other tribes.
About as big as "human biodiversity" is for a leftist. I think you are severely underestimating the strength of conviction among people whose beliefs disagree with your own, or the extent to which these are moral disagreements, rather than exclusively factual.
Maybe this is because I'm European. In Slovenia calling someone far right is usually always calling that person a dangerous nationalist or even a crypto-fascist. The implied context is that they should be suppressed or arrested since we don't have free speech. A dope smoking libertarian isn't called Far Right but a capitalist lap dog. ;)
Yeah, that's a very different context from the US. I don't have much direct experience of Slovenia, but I do have some familiarity with Serbia (my Mom's from there), so I hope you aren't too offended if my mental model of Slovenia is a smaller, richer, much less screwed up Serbia. In the US, capitalist lap dogs are generally lumped in with dangerous nationalists and crypto-fascists. It doesn't work the same when you've got some experience with really dangerous nationalists, like in 90's former Yugoslavia.
In the lifetimes of Rand, Chesterton, and Orwell, socialist vs. anti-socialist was possibly the dividing line in the world of politics, so it's not a minor difference. I think a slightly better translation might be "LW has traditionally been very sympathetic to non-religious anti-socialists". I wouldn't call it a wrong thing, because I don't perceive this issue as having that much moral weight. I disagree on the facts with a particular assessment of site-wide political bias.
A libertarian who is also a fan of Moldbug and PUAs is in my estimation almost certain to be some way out on the non-religious branch of the right. Obviously my views are not unbiased, and I hope I have not claimed them to be. Your last paragraph is good snark, but I think it's pretty close to how a fair portion of those on the political left would see it. Anyone who identifies as liberal is likely to see Peter Thiel and Robin Hanson as far-right nutcases (assuming they've heard of them). Yudkowsky, as I see it, is libertarian by upbringing but generally indifferent to politics, so he can only be far-right by association. All of his really far-out opinions are elsewhere.
Our sister site Overcoming Bias does directly link to Heartiste's blog (under its old name of Roissy in DC) so maybe he is overrepresented in PUA discussions, but I'd argue a larger part of why he is overrepresented is that he makes a good target to straw man PUA.
He is a good target to straw man PUAs! I'm glad we found something we can agree on! Naming himself Heartiste was the greatest gift any man could give to snarky enemies of the PUA movement. But he also writes some truly messed up stuff (no links because I don't want to vomit right now), and he is linked to by Hanson, so I don't think criticizing him is unfair.
My head feels funny, and I can't tell whether I have trouble expressing my thoughts clearly or if they're hopelessly disorganized to begin with. But I feel compelled to attempt sensible replies to your comments, so here goes(Jetzt Mit Bulletpoints!)...
- mainstream conservatives feeling unwelcome
In the US context, I would take mainstream to mean religious. In that case, LW is an atheist site, which is only attractive to atheists and religious eccentrics who enjoy arguing with atheists. US demographics being what they are, LW won't be welcoming to mainstream anyone, though the right end of the political spectrum will be most affected by this.
- eclectic, eccentric, and weird right vs. far right
I think the overlap between "weird right" and "far right" (and "weird left" and "far left") is extensive, to the point that it's rare to have one without the other. Political intellectuals almost always espouse eclectic and eccentric views, and are almost always on the fringes compared to the political rank-and-file. A politically centrist intellectual is a politically apathetic intellectual. My point here, assuming I have one, is that "he's weird-whatever" isn't a rebuttal to "he's far-whatever."
- meta-contrarianism
I agree with your general point. The difference in my take is that I think LW, especially in earlier times, has tended to express meta-contrarian views that align with the general politics of the techie-right. A rough description of what I'd consider the techie-right cluster: pro-libertarian, anti-gun-control, anti-religion, anti-environmentalist, pro-hard-sciences, pro-evopsych, pro-mainstream-economics, anti-the-rest-of-academia.
- That Stalinist Guy
Uh, yeah, well...exception that proves the rule, that was central to my point, but I equivocated "few or no" etc...nah OK, you got me there. I even remembered TGP's endorsement and still had that obvious hole in my argument. Didn't know he had ever posted here though.
It is interesting to see Ayn Rand, Heartiste, and Chesterton as examples of "the right". Makes me thinking what exactly does this concept mean; what exactly do these three have in common... which they don't share with George Orwell.
Not being avowed socialists. Anyway, the fact that "the right" is an incredibly broad and imprecise category doesn't make the concept meaningless. It is empirically true that most politically aware Americans vote unerringly for one of two parties based on their identification with a broad and imprecisely defined category, even if you think they ought not to behave that way. A private citizen's specific policy opinions are of far less practical significance than their identification with "the right" or "the left."
I think that you are selecting only a part of the story. For example, the official boogeyman here is the religion. (By the way, it happens to be associated with political right, at least today in USA.)
Definitely. But there are groups associated with the US political right that are non- or anti-religious. Objectivists are an obvious example. Unsurprisingly, these groups are overrepresented on the internet (though this is becoming less and less the case over the years). My impression is that LW has traditionally skewed toward this branch of the right.
Yet somehow, quotes from Chesterton often get many upvotes in "Rationality Quotes". Does it mean that LW is secretly very sympathetic to religion? Or just that we are able to appreciate a decent quote even from people with whom we disagree on other topics? Could the second explanation possibly apply also to Heartiste or Moldbug?
Yes, but "possible" is a low bar. I do not believe it could entirely, or even in large part explain the frequency of references to Heartiste and Moldbug, or their reception. Chesterton is less famous and less respected than, say, George Orwell, but he is nonetheless a well-known and often quoted political writer in the English speaking world. Heartiste and Moldbug are not. They are so obscure that even having heard of them requires an unusual degree of familiarity with the fringes of the blogosphere.
Your description of political correctness makes it sound a lot like the "Politics is the Mindkiller" gag-rule. The Boogeyman version of political correctness is more like a hybrid of the Cheka and the Inquisition.
Disingenuous racism ("race realism" or "human biodiversity" or whatever euphemism it hides behinds currently). Libertarianism. Chest-beating displays towards right-wing boogeymen like political correctness and the media-academia complex. Multiple apparently respected posters taking "Heartiste" seriously, even though his entire shtick is gay-bashing and misogyny, and despite the fact that he's a grown-ass man who calls himself "Heartiste." And oh yeah, Mencius Moldbug. Is there a left-wing writer of similar obscurity and extremism so widely and approvingly quoted on LessWrong?
Religious variants of social conservatism aside, this site has traditionally been very sympathetic to the far right. There has been little or no Stalinism or Maoism advocated here, but quite a bit of the right wing equivalent. If the site becoming somewhat less welcoming to Neo-Birchers, PC-Paranoiacs, and other Reverse-Leninists upsets you, perhaps you might consider how the past political climate has been perceived by those left of center, or even those only slightly right of it.
"Accepting Breivik's narrative" sounds even less appealing. Why give him the satisfaction? Just lock him up til he dies of old age. Whether or not the Norwegian government could legally justify his execution has little bearing on whether they'd want to execute him in the first place. I think you underestimate the amount of smug self-satisfaction derived from looking down on the "barbaric" states that still have the death penalty.
Assuming it is important to Norwegians' self-image that they are a state without a death penalty, it's not clear to me what compensatory benefits could be derived from executing Breivik. Appeasing foreign and domestic bubbas would definitely not be a plus for the typical Norwegian.
"Crackpot moment"? Moldbug might have lucid moments, but Bircher crackpottery is the mainstream of his political writings.