Posts
Comments
I don't know how this happened. My comment was supposed to be a reply to:
When the axe came into the woods, many of the trees said, "At least the handle is one of us.
Is this just supposed to be a demonstration of irrationality? Can some one unpack this?
What? Of course people care about the lives of dogs and cats.
Anecdotal Evidence: All the people I've seen cry over the death of a dog. Not just children, either. I've seen grown men and women grieve for months over the death of a beloved dog.
Even if their sole reason for caring is that their cute, that wouldn't invalidate the fact that they care. There's some amount of "organized lying" in most social interactions, that doesn't imply that people don't care about anything. That's silliness, or puts such a high burden of proof/ high standard of caring (even when most humans can talk about degrees of caring more or less) as to be both outside the realm of what normal people talk about and totally unfalsifiable.
Under the circumstances of the test (Hours to work and they can't just ignore you) then yes, captain obvious. Without that, though? Much less sure.
And the way Eliezer seems to have put it sometimes, where one glance at a line of text will change your mind? Get real. Might as well try to put the whole world in a bottle.
Well, I still think it made a valid point about being careful about engineering humans and other optimizing.
What I said could be easily boiled down to "What's so great about programming?" To which one could easily reply, "What's so great about running from tigers?"
The point is that programming really is an awesome intellectual activity that could help the human race survive so we might want to maximize the sensuousness of that, but if someone just wants to code that's just as useless as wanting to run from tigers (If that, say lead you to find and taunt tigers.) or having a huge amount of sensuousness involved in running (If running doesn't help survival much.). Ideally, you want to engineer human minds so that they can focus with their full minds on their own terminal goals, which is a super hard problem.
But no one here seems to like it when I put things the way I did in the post. It may be a mental hygiene thing, trying to avoid the illusion of transparency. It may be that the tone is slightly antagonistic, although only in good fun. And it might be a dislike some members have for memes.
I stand by the post, but there's also some fuzzy thinking/ logical rudeness going on as sensuousness isn't the same thing as enjoyment.
So every time a business gains on account of departures from the free market, that's a travesty, but every time it loses, that's the way things are supposed to work. No wonder you think academics are the only ones who do any good. Besides, TBTF isn't an economic problem, this is a political problem. They had too many lobbyists to be allowed to fail, that's all.
He didn't say that. You're being a troll.
I would expect not exist in a way that suggests causality, e.i. being born and then expecting death, rather than the other way around. This is hard for me to imagine because I didn't really evolve for that world. It's possible that our universe doesn't work that way at the smallest level, but it seems might suspicious that random events lead to a largest world that operates very deterministically. Still, it is possible that this is just the manifestation of probabilistic laws at the smallest level. It's definitely paying rent so far,(for those who do the experiments) so that's we're going with, and there hasn't been a good argument or experiment against it yet.
Infintesmal "violations" of causal laws as manifestations of probabilistic laws don't seem to effect me very much. Large ones that would pay rent haven't happened on the level that would pay rent on an evolutionary or personal level, and, as I understand it (which is not terribly well) these probably won't happen unless the universe ran from the big bang to heat death a couple hundred times.
I can make models in my head where the universe (on my scale) is really chaotic, but looks deterministic because of a conspiracy by matrix gods or whatever, but that seems to violate Occam's Razor, for what that's worth when matrix gods control your life.
I'm not sure. And am not sure how you would you do an experiment to check. My rules aren't data typed into a computer program on which the universe runs, they're descriptions of the universe as experienced through my senses and processed through my mind be things like "inference" and colored by things like the "expectation of beauty", and "Occam's Razor."
The reason I don't believe in the epiphenomenal theory of consciousness is because of the evidence against it, starting with my awareness, the existence of all this talk about awareness, and ending with fuzzier sort of thinking like, "Animals seem awake and aware and aware that they're aware."
Oh, that and saying that consciousness doesn't cause anything you can sense seem a violation of Occam's Razor, while consciousness not effecting anything, ever, even in principle, seems to be a rejection of causality itself.
Well first of all, we're not perfect philosophers of perfect emptiness. We get our beliefs from somewhere. So it's true that all sorts of things are true that we have no evidence of. For instance, it's very, very likely there's life outside our solar system, but I don't have any evidence of it, so I act as if it's not true because in my model of the universe, it's very unlikely that that life will affect me during my natural lifetime.
I would even go far as to say that there may be matter beyond the horizon of the matter that expanded after the big bang, or that we're all running on an alien matrix, or that God is real but he's just hiding, and I act as if it's false. Not because they're untrue, or unlikely to be true, as I have no way to tell. But because I am very, very unlikely to ever, ever get evidence about any of those things, and they probably will never, and probably could never (especially in the near future) affect me. Not so much a "Nuh uh," as a "So what?"
You know your partner loves you based on evidence. If you have no evidence (from past experience or otherwise), then you are very likely wrong. Love operates according to mechanisms, and we understand some of those mechanisms.
Similarly, just because you don't understand the mechanism by which your psychic cousin works, doesn't mean there isn't one. He could be getting unbelievably lucky, or he could be playing a trick, or there could be things we don't know yet that really truly give him psychic powers. You don't know what the mechanism is, but you haven't really investigated either, have you? Even if you never find out what the mechanism is, how much evidence is that that there is no mechanism?
Lastly, I'm not sure, "no mechanism" even makes sense. What does it mean for something to have no mechanism? What does a thing that doesn't have a mechanism look like? How would you tell?
So, from the top: A Priori, Making Beliefs Pay Rent, No One Knows What Science Doesn't Know, What is Evidence?, Fragility of Value (Why something is unlikely to be true without evidence of it), Uh what was that one about you failing the art and not the other way around?, and Not Even Wrong.
My Dad's a retired airforce officer. Living with him. right now. Studying nursing. I do some digital painting and programming and I'm going to see if I can make some money at it (online, wages are terrible here!).
Not literally God, just faith in the idea that bad things above a certain threshold somehow aren't allowed to happen to you. Sometimes the power is thought to be in some other, real or unreal entity, like the state or the fed or democracy or science or whatever. And sometimes it's not. It's just a bias, floating around in your thoughts in ways you aren't terribly aware of.
He wasn't generalizing from one example. He cites many example of people talking and thinking like this.
I'm going to go ahead and take his side on this one. It's just a bias. It's a cognitive malfunction of your brain that you might be able to work your way around by reframing if you remain vigilantly aware of it, or you construct a formula (like an actuary would) and operate according to that formula with as little input from the relevant buggy software in your brain as possible, but the bias is still there. For the vast, vast, vast, majority of people that bias is here to stay.
Like scope sensitivity, I really don't think there's much fixing it (without upgrading the hardware) and I just basically don't believe people who think they have accomplished this via mental discipline. It's possible, but it seems extremely unlikely. What's more, a claim like that seems motivated by exactly the same kind of optimistic bias.
In context it refers to the very same fallacy mentioned in Beyond the Reach of God just put into psychoanalytic terms. I understand if you dislike the style. I completely understand if you think psychoanalysis has a really shitty use of words, but that's really what he's saying, and you would have known if you were paying attention.
The point made in Beyond the Reach of God, that the universe can really hurt, kill and maim you without moral limit, that cancer isn't only allowed to happen to you in theory, but really to you, at any moment, that catastrophies like the holocaust, and the collapse of science in the middle east, and really can and do happen, is a real point that deserves to be made again and again. And again. And again.
Oh, I agree, at least to a certain extent. Don't be so green and blue. We really are shirking responsibility. If your morality has responsiblity as the highest virtue, than it might be bad to have a nanny state, but there a serious advantages to having one, such as, as you point out, specialization.
The libertarian in me says it'd be ideal to have a third party, like an advocacy group, or a religion or whatever, taking that responsibility for those who need it while the government did the minimum against fraud and such. But as long as people don't realize they're Beyond the Reach of God, that's going to have problem of it's own.
Fixed both.
Typo. Fixed.
Also, he makes the assumption that you've read other stuff by him, which creates a decent sized inferential distance. This alllows him to cover more material per post. This is a pretty common trope among blogs, including this one. But it can be confusing.
I tend to just ride the wave of confusion until something later clarifies it, but that makes skimming nearly impossible. I like styles that make me read every word as important as it helps me remember what I'm reading.
Living in Tagbilaran on Bohol right now. If you can find other interested parties I might be able to make it to Manila.
Users always have an idea that what they want is easy, even if they can't really articulate exactly what they do want. Even if they can give you requirements, chances are those will conflict – often in subtle ways – with requirements of others. A lot of the time, we wouldn't even think of these problems as "requirements" – they're just things that everyone expects to work in "the obvious way". The trouble is that humanity has come up with all kinds of entirely different "obvious ways" of doing things. Mankind's model of the universe is a surprisingly complicated one.
Jon Skeet
The forty twoth virtue of rationality is "Let me not become attached to sex I may not want"
I am running on corrupted the set of all possible fetishes.
Someone awsome on here recommended Learn Python the Hard Way. I've had school off since Tuesday and I've been kicking it's ass since. It's really fun. I thought it'd be neat to test out what my abilities are like on Project Euclid.
I've solved three so far. I'm particularly proud of coming up with a program to do the Fibonacci sequence. It's a simple program, and probably not as efficient as it could be, but i didn't look at any spoilers and feel like a diabolical genius after having solved it.
Of course, but you don't get surprised when we turn out to be a bunch of apes after all.
Of course. But it destroys excuses, which I've found to be the best motivation for action, both in myself and others
I suspect the denial doesn't come so much from "determined to do things despite consent" as much as "determined to preserve one's own self esteem." But it comes off creepy anyway.
They're totally applying it inconsistently. But they don't know that. Hence, the social ineptitude.
The point of my post was: you may have swung rather wide of mine.
I mean, women almost never react to being creeped out with an unambiguous response that makes a socially inept person know what's going on with no room for denial.
I really wished they did, but I can understand why they don't.
I didn't say that. You can do what you want. But if someone made you feel uncomfortable, you already feel uncomfortable. Should they not have made you feel uncomfortable? Yes. Is it fair? No.
What are you going to do about it? That's the only question you get to answer.
I, for one, have read these. They come up any time feminism rubs up against male geekdom, like blisters. Hopefully they do some help, but change is hard, and that's just how social skills are: they're skills, and acquiring them is and requires serious change on your part as a person.
This is obfuscated by other things, like hey, sometimes it is the other person's problem. Not all the time. Maybe even only rarely. But sometimes. And the temptation to make that excuse for yourself is very strong, even if you do know better.
The defensiveness isn't a good thing, but it's certainly understandable, and if you're part of the contrarian cluster, there's going to be some instinctive, automatic pushback. I know there is in me. Plus the criticism is leveled at (one of) my (our) tribe. What did you think was going to happen?
If you're dealing with a person with a person with poor social skills, the onus is already on you. You can try to help, or you can run away, or do a hundred other things, but you are already dealing with it.
I'd just like to suggest that using subtle social cues on the socially inept might not be terribly effective for accomplishing desired social outcomes with that person.
They totally told me I was doing things wrong. All the time. It's just they were doing so in a code I didn't understand and expecting me to operate by rules I wasn't told about. If a woman did something like this seven years ago, (And, while the same thing didn't happen, a lot of the subtler cues did.), I would have done the same things the man did. I was never, ever told, "Hey man, you're being creepy. Cut it out." I wouldn't have known what to do, and I would have done the exact wrong thing.
I wouldn't do it now. I'm roughly as good of a person as I was then, I just understand the rules better.
So, my social skills are not great. Aren't even really good. But over the last few years, I've gotten so much better from where I was that it's ridiculous.
Anyway, I wish people, particularly women, had been that open with me about my behavior.
Let me be clear: the scenario you present almost never happens. Now, if it does happens, yes, the creep involved has no excuse but to stop. But the signals people, and particularly woman, give off can be much more obscure if you don't know what you're doing.
Like jury duty. Yeah. Why would it be different in Greece?
I think this is it:
Which culture?
I don't get it either. Seems to happen every time politics is brought up. My own posts in this thread have gone up and down several times. Reflexive down voting over politics I can understand, even if I think it's silly.
The up votes are actually harder to explain. It's possible I could have educated some one, but given the people who post here, that seems doubtful.
I didn't argue that the amount of regulation was zero in all cases. I don't think may people really believe that, and the argument amounts to a straw man. Only that if a job market didn't exist, the people working in that job market would be worse off.
I thought the point was clear. Apparently, I was wrong.
If you found it was rude, it's because I found the point silly, obvious, and really not worth the time. And here I find shortcuts make long delays.
I didn't mean literally don't complain ever, that's silly and I never said that. There is a certain extent to which I think that if you have immediate control over something you should just shut up and do, but that wasn't what I meant either.
All employment is comodification of human time, and therefore objectification of human beings. Part of living in the real world is making peace with that. The fact that people want to single out porn is silliness. That's what I meant. Is this really what this whole conversation has been about?
You could always head out into the woods and farm. Or beg. Or steal. Or kill yourself. I didn't say you liked the job. I said you like the job enough. If the job didn't exist, you'd be worse off.
I, personally, would be in favor of the existence of both, but I'd also wish much higher working conditions for both -- a wish which your command to "Deal!" in regards to their low working conditions, because they're supposedly better than the "alternative" of their non-existence doesn't quite adequately represent.
I personally would like better working conditions for everyone. I live in the real world. They chose the work. Given real world economic realities, I'm not sure I see the problem. An actress can work less, choose different films, pick another career. These all come at cost, because that's the real world. Every actor who isn't a slave made their decision. Who am I to question it?
What's the actual difference between "dumb" and "imperfect" besides the former being a ruder word than the latter?
I tend to think people generate utility from all those things and don't really see the problem. I'm an athiest, but know both Christians and, I hesitate to say Athiest, but people who don't really believe in a personal god as such, who go to church like functions for the utility they recieve from them. Same goes for lottery tickets, booze, and drugs.
I tend to think in terms of imperfect = less than perfect mathematically described agent, dumb = less than me, at least in this particular domain. That last one is probably not great. I apologize for any confusion.
That again may sound reasonable, but it isn't a logical necessity. It isn't a logical necessity that having more options causes greater profit, unless people are indeed perfect rational agents, with perfect knowledge of the consequences of each choice, including psychological/social/etc.
I'm not sure I said that, though I do think there enough smart people gaming the system where that works out, albeit with a certain amount of inefficiency. How much inefficiency? No idea. The common libertarian arguement is usually not that libertarianism is perfect. But it's better than the alternatives as they currently exist.
At this point, you're comparing two different versions of society, a society (A) where the job exists and a society (B) where the job doesn't exist.
Yes.
But at this point, you're comparing two different choices for an individual within the same society (A), choosing to have the particular job (choice A1) or quitting (choice A2).
Yes.
Those are two different questions. E.g. imagine that the porn industry didn't exist at all, for some magic reason. Wouldn't the customer money financing it go to some other form of entertainment or product? What makes you think that the additional jobs that industry would create wouldn't have less shitty working conditions than the porn industry?
Because there is only so much demand for goods, and only so much investment. The how any why of porn suggests that the mainstream entertainment industry probably isn't where that money would go e.g. probably towards prostitution which is even less humane. And doesn't pay as well.
More importantly, the reason people invest in porn is because they think that would be the best return on their dollar. The drive on investment is of course demand, utility represented by dollars in the economy. A redirection of that would have to be to the perceived second and third best percieved investment. If you think people who invest in porn are dumb and the percieved second best investmentwould generate better returns, then OK. But I tend to assume every one is an (imperfect) rational actor, who's trying to generate the best return on investment, so changing that would be a bad Thing (TM).
If you don't know why good returns on investment are good, realize that if I want to send all my money to AMF, I need to get it from somewhere. If you want a job from me, I need to get the money from somewhere.
The choices wouldn't be the same, but they'd be worse, CP, because people were generating less return on investment, because one of their options was removed.
This is especially bad if you're primarily concerned about employment in a first world nation, say America, (I'd talk about Greece, but I just have no idea.) where porn is actually one of the home grown industries, and that money would end up going to China or India as a likely second best investment. Which would normally be cool; the Chinese have to eat too. But you're also supporting a government that keeps the wages down and standards cheap through methods you might not be entirely kosher with.
This doesn't have that much to do with porn per se, only to point out that you aren't necessarily supporting a less cruel industry, by removing a single industry that you find "objectifying".
I still say if you find your job objectifying, quit or demand more money for the inconvenience. If you can't do either, then the job is improving your life, or you are a slave. No one seems to attack the main point; they just don't like hearing it.
I'm comparing the job to the job not existing. Not to no job at all for an individual. We'd all prefer a better job for ourselves, and if we aren't jerks, we'd prefer better jobs for others too. Until the robots replace all the shitty jobs and all forms of scarcity vanish I don't see the point.
There are so many jobs on the labor market. If you have a job, then you must at least think it is better than the alternatives. How is this controversial?
I'm not sure if I'd go all the way to good. Only an improvement over nothing, given that you stay in the job. If you dislike the job enough to either not take it or quit, then it wasn't.
If there are a lot of people competing for a job, assuming they actually want the job and aren't tricked by magic fairies, they must at least believe the job is going to be and improvement over their current employment.
Ah. I thought you were implying something more like "40ish hours a week" of work.
I don't know how that changes my point. You like the job enough to keep working, therefore it is an improvement of your life. Conceivably, a solution could be better social welfare or better regulation of the industry, but if the job didn't exist, (as I assume would be the ideal state for an anti porn feminist) that takes away something that was improving their life.
I happen to live somewhere where wages are terrible, there isn't much of a safety net outside your own family. Some jobs, like TA, really pay poorly enough where it might be a good idea to go try and farm in your own backyard. Should the minimum wage be raised? Maybe. But for those working the job, it's enough to improve their lives, so taking away the job would be a Bad Thing(TM).
No, just imperfectly rational ones. Are you suggesting they were tricked into the job somehow?
Really? Cause it seems like it'd be more valid to me. You could take a part time or second full time job, take a hobby that produces goods (gardening, carpentry, etc.), and if you have full employment this implies you do not need secondary non full employment to survive.
EDIT: Oh, I've been there. I would have wished I could get a job in porn too. Or at McDonalds. Or anywhere. Again, if you take the job, you at least perceive it is an improvement over not taking the job. Right? Or am I crazy?
Are we talking about a separate world here, where the only form of employment is porn? If it was that unpleasant with lousy pay the job wouldn't be that competitive: they'd be doing something else.
They weren't sold into slavery. If you don't like a job, hold out for something you like more. If there's no such job, and you don't step out of the labor market, you don't not like the job enough to complain: it really is an improvement on your life. Or, demand more money to make up for the amount you dislike your job. This seems to be what happened in porn.
There are so many worse problems in porn as a job than the fact that people might not feel artistically fulfilled in their job. Porn can be a really unpleasant job for women, especially if you are working on several jobs a day, as many actresses do, but they don't have to do that to survive, as it can pay from hundreds to thousands of dollars. They do that because it pays shit loads of money, and because they know that it's not a job they want to work into old age.
They're working a job. They're getting paid. There's a case to be made that that is objectification. That's the labor market. Deal.
No. I just told you. Sometimes a disproportionate response encourages other people to hurt you. That's actually part of the rule.