Meetup : First Eugene Meetup 2011-11-15T01:18:52.184Z
Disability Culture Meets the Transhumanist Condition 2011-10-28T19:02:32.583Z
Life is Good, More Life is Better 2011-10-14T05:21:32.106Z


Comment by Rubix on Making yourself small · 2018-03-10T19:47:53.942Z · LW · GW

A high/small example with someone who isn't physically petite: Stringer Bell, from The Wire, especially when he's interacting with Avon.

Comment by Rubix on Rationality Quotes April - June 2017 · 2017-04-02T04:52:24.537Z · LW · GW

“Witches don’t often get angry. All that shouting business never really gets anybody anywhere.”

After another pause, Letitia said, “If that is true, then maybe I’m not cut out to be a witch. I feel very angry sometimes.”

“Oh, I feel very angry a lot of the time,” said Tiffany, “but I just put it away somewhere until I can do something useful with it. That’s the thing about witchcraft—and wizardry, come to that. We don’t do much magic at the best of times, and when we do, we generally do it on ourselves.”

-Terry Pratchett, I Shall Wear Midnight

Comment by Rubix on Project Hufflepuff: Planting the Flag · 2017-04-02T04:34:15.392Z · LW · GW

"Some newcomers often find the culture impenetrable and unwelcoming" seems like a feature (not a bug). If anything ought be changed about it, I think the unwelcoming attitude ought be more discerning - excluding people based on properties most of the community actually doesn't want around, rather than or in tandem with whatever criteria it's currently operating on.

Comment by Rubix on I Want To Live In A Baugruppe · 2017-03-18T19:22:01.437Z · LW · GW

I grew up in a hippie commune and I recommend this!

Comment by Rubix on I Want To Live In A Baugruppe · 2017-03-18T19:18:55.878Z · LW · GW


Comment by Rubix on I Want To Live In A Baugruppe · 2017-03-18T01:56:45.064Z · LW · GW

I voiced my reservations about this project in the feedback form, but in summary for public record:

I approve of:

  • a thriving in-person rationalist or rationalist-adjacent community ("community" for short) existing somewhere that's not a metropolis

  • a community that does not oblige its members to "live rationally" according to some consensus definition thereof

  • a community encouraging people to experiment with their lives and gain real-world rationality skills

I have reservations about:

  • the claim that the rationalist community as it exists is predominantly upper-middle-class.

In particular, it seems very likely to me that Bendini's sense of alienation from the UK Cambridge Solstice is best explained by the demographics of Cambridge, rather than the demographics of rationalists. I know many high-profile rationalists who do not come from upper-middle-class backgrounds and who spend their money carefully. Most of the rationalists I know in-person are college dropouts, not Oxbridge elites. There's plenty more I could say on this issue.

  • the tone of the project

  • the difficulty of immigrating to the UK

  • the degree of similarity to Alicorn's bagruppe idea - there's one line about kids, but this doesn't seem like a thoroughly kid-oriented project.

Comment by Rubix on I Want To Live In A Baugruppe · 2017-03-18T01:49:05.017Z · LW · GW

Source on those statistics, please? I find the claims dubious: in particular, the 25% figure seems to come from this "information packet", which is unsourced and uncited, suggesting that it may not exist. The two Jensens, Cory Jewell and Steve, seem to build a career around inflating the numbers associated with child sexual assault. I can't find sources for either of the other figures.

My stake in the game: I strongly distrust statistics given about child sexual assault unless they are highly specific about what is being discussed, for two reasons.

One is that the definition is incredibly vague: some sources mean "an adult engaging in intercourse with a minor under 13", others mean "touch intended to be sexually gratifying, of a minor under 18, by another party of any age", and definitions run the gamut. Another example: under this website's definition of child sexual abuse, "any sexual activity between adults and minors or between two minors when one forces it on the other (...) like exhibitionism, exposure to pornography", I was sexually abused at 11 when a chatroom troll sent me a link that turned out to be Two Girls, One Cup.

My second reason for reservation around these statistics is that they rarely take into consideration the preferences of the minor. When I was a minor, I had healthy and fulfilling sexual relationships; under many existing definitions, I was sexually assaulted by my loving sixteen-year-old boyfriend when I was sixteen, and under many more I was sexually assaulted by him when he turned eighteen and I was still seventeen. This seems ridiculous and objectionable to me.

A last note: I agree that it is impossible to tell from a few hours of interaction whether someone will abuse your child. Many people can't tell even after years of loving marriage whether their spouse will abuse their children, so "demonstrating acceptable qualities" is not a very good intervention. The absolute best defense against one's children having unwanted/traumatic interactions is to tell them how to set boundaries, tell them to yell if they're touched in a way they don't want, tell them that their body is their own and that nobody gets to touch it without their permission. This has the virtue of defending against all manner of abuse and mistreatment, at the hands of parents, extended family, family friends and acquaintances alike.

Comment by Rubix on I Want To Live In A Baugruppe · 2017-03-17T04:41:15.586Z · LW · GW


Comment by Rubix on Double Crux — A Strategy for Resolving Disagreement · 2016-12-02T01:21:23.059Z · LW · GW

For the author and the audience: what are your favourite patience- and sanity-inducing rituals?

Comment by Rubix on On the importance of Less Wrong, or another single conversational locus · 2016-11-27T07:16:55.421Z · LW · GW

I'm up for doing this, because I think you're right; I notice that commenting/posting on LessWrong has less draw for me than it did in 2011/2012, but it's also much less intimidating, which seems useful.

Comment by Rubix on Lesswrong 2016 Survey · 2016-03-28T22:09:05.762Z · LW · GW

The contrast on the side-by-side options is way too low (clicking a dark blue text bubble turns it a slightly darker blue).


Comment by Rubix on Negative polyamory outcomes? · 2015-01-07T22:43:41.181Z · LW · GW

Personally: Overall positive experiences. I'm polyamorous by nature, and have never had a relationship that wasn't poly. In my friend circle (bay area rationalists) there's a fair bit of polyamory. It seems like there's more + happier relationships, as well as more + calmer breakups, when I compare to the current relationships of my acquaintances from high school.

Negative data point: someone I know tried polyamory for (I think) 10-25 years, had a lot of difficult life experiences some of which related to her relationships, and has lately skewed towards relationship anarchy but with one primary romantic partner.

Data point in favor of poly, but sad: I know a person who left a 10-year relationship last year due to (her own) cheating and has been cheerfully doing CNM since then.

Comment by Rubix on 2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey · 2014-10-24T01:27:49.444Z · LW · GW

Survey surveilled!

Comment by Rubix on My Best and Worst Mistake · 2014-04-01T04:41:40.021Z · LW · GW

s/by seeing someone else stupidity/by seeing someone else's stupidity/

Comment by Rubix on 2013 Less Wrong Census/Survey · 2013-11-22T17:28:10.966Z · LW · GW

I took the survey.

Comment by Rubix on The Power of Pomodoros · 2013-03-09T07:19:44.894Z · LW · GW

The top item in my to-do list reads: "If confused, make list! If confusion persists, make lists for lists!"

Point being, I think taskifying in order to avoid counting difficult, unpleasant tasks as one item is useful because it better mirrors reality. For (very ground-level) instance, eating enough meals in a day is hard for me to do consistently because "eat a meal" has a ton of steps: decide what to eat, find ingredients, assemble, and so on. So if I lie to myself and say it's only one step, I feel bad about being so stupid for having trouble with Just One Step, and subsequently don't do anything because I'm in an Ugh Field. If I acknowledge that if I am having trouble accomplishing something, that means it has multiple steps... well, I still do less than my fictional idealized self would do, but I still do more than otherwise.

I find that a lot of my friends have trouble grokking this because the rationalist/perfectionist ideacluster is heavily grouped. For some reason it's hard to think about what a perfect rational agent would do without, at least somewhat and unconsciously, comparing oneself to that agent.

Comment by Rubix on Rationality Quotes February 2013 · 2013-02-02T01:17:50.604Z · LW · GW

"In any man who dies, there dies with him his first snow and kiss and fight. Not people die, but worlds die in them."

-Yevgeny Yevtushenko

Comment by Rubix on Morality is Awesome · 2013-01-11T21:30:24.528Z · LW · GW

I assume the capitals are about signaling "goodness"

I use Meaningful Initial Caps to communicate tone, but recognize that it's nonstandard. Sorry for any confusion.

So as far as I can tell, you're saying that "awesomeness" is a good basis for noticing what one's brain currently considers moral, so it can then rebuild its definitions from there.

To extend the metaphor, "sexiness is (perceived by the intuitive parts of your brain, absent intervention from moralizing or abstract-cognition parts, as) consent" is a good thing to pay attention to, so you can know what that part of you actually cares about, which gives you new information that isn't simply from choosing a side on the "Sexiness is about evopsych and golden ratios and trading meat for sex!" versus "Sexiness is about communication and queer theory praxis and bucking stereotypes!" battle.

What I'm curious about is:

rebuilding it from intuition without interference from Deep Wisdom or philosophical cached thoughts.

What, then, do you rebuild your current conception of morality from? "Blowing up people, when I have vague evidence that they're mooks of the Forces of Evil, by the dozens, is a bad idea, even though it seems awesome" seems like a philosophical cached thought to me. Do you think it's something else?

Counterfactual terrorism - "but those mooks may not be mooks!" - isn't a good tool for discerning actual bad ideas.

If I respond to "Consent is sexy!" by saying "But some of my brain doesn't think that!", noticing what those brainbits actually think, then change those brainbits to find sexy what I think of as "consent", I'm not in a very different situation from the person who's cheering blindly for consent being sexy. I just believe my premise more on the ground level, which will blind me to ways in which my preconceived notions of consent might suck.

In other words, both my intuitive models of awesomeness and my explicit models of morality might be lame in many invisible ways. What then?

Comment by Rubix on Morality is Awesome · 2013-01-11T20:46:18.949Z · LW · GW

"Morality is awesome", as a statement, scans like "consent is sexy" to me. Neither of these statements are true enough to be useful except as signalling or a personal goal ("I would like to find X thing I believe to be moral more awesome, so as to hack my brain to be more moral").

In some cases of assessing morality/awesomeness or consent/sexiness correlation, one would sometimes have to lie about their awesomeness/sexiness preferences, and ignore those preferences in order to be a Perfectly Moral Good Individual who does not Like Evil Things.

Comment by Rubix on Morality is Awesome · 2013-01-11T20:32:37.890Z · LW · GW

Quirrell scans, to me, as more awesome along the "probably knows far more Secret Eldrich Lore than you" and "stereotype of a winner" axes, until I remember that Hermione is, canonically, also both of those things. (Eldrich Lore is something one can know, so she knows it. And she's more academically successful than anyone I've ever known in real life.)

So when I look more closely, the thing my brain is valuing is a script it follows where Hermione is both obviously unskillful about standard human things (feminism, kissing boys, Science Monogamy) and obviously cares about morality, to a degree that my brain thinks counts as weakness. When I pay attention, Quirrell is unskillful about tons of things as well, but he doesn't visibly acknowledge that he is/has been unskillful. He also may or may not care about ethics to a degree, but his Questionably Moral Snazzy Bad Guy archetype doesn't let him show this.

It does come around to Quirrell being more my stereotype of a winner, in a sense. Quirrell is more high-status than Hermione - when he does things that are cruel, wrong or stupid he hides it or recontextualizes it into something snazzy - but Hermione is more honorable than Quirrell. She confronts her mistakes and failings publicly, messily and head-on and grows as a person because of that. I think that's really awesome.

Comment by Rubix on LW Women- Minimizing the Inferential Distance · 2012-11-24T23:59:08.968Z · LW · GW

I'm curious about this as well.

Comment by Rubix on 2012 Less Wrong Census/Survey · 2012-11-04T01:02:33.027Z · LW · GW

I scored really low on everything - in fact, I got 4th percentile Agreeableness. Not over-correcting for self-importance is hard!

ETA: I do actually have reason to believe that I'm not an extremely disagreeable person; I'm concerned that failing to acknowledge that or present those reasons made it look like I failed to consider that possibility.

Comment by Rubix on 2012 Less Wrong Census/Survey · 2012-11-04T00:47:59.464Z · LW · GW

Took it. I think the example of 0.5 being interpreted as 0.5% and not as 50% anchored me a bit, but don't see a way to circumvent it.

Comment by Rubix on How to Deal with Depression - The Meta Layers · 2012-10-27T17:35:32.967Z · LW · GW

Yeah. I actually hack this somewhat; if I'm distressed, even if I've objectively had enough to eat, the ritual of snacking on something little often gives me the wherewithal to at least get myself to a less stressful location.

Comment by Rubix on Random LW-parodying Statement Generator · 2012-09-12T04:59:36.504Z · LW · GW

Thanks for making this! It's motivated me to copy and play around with your code, which I haven't actually done with code before and which turns out to be insanely low hanging fruit for learning. (Which you already knew, but I didn't.)

Comment by Rubix on Random LW-parodying Statement Generator · 2012-09-12T01:18:22.733Z · LW · GW

Spelling error.

Comment by Rubix on Random LW-parodying Statement Generator · 2012-09-11T23:08:10.126Z · LW · GW

As well as a much-loved pastime.

Comment by Rubix on Random LW-parodying Statement Generator · 2012-09-11T23:06:13.089Z · LW · GW

The thirty-fourth virtue of rationality is avoid sex at all costs.

Dammit, Spock.

sex is truly part of any rationalist

But you just said...

Less Wrong is not a cult so long as our meetups don't involve a cult.

Less Wrong is not a cult so long as our meetups don't include a sex maximizer.

The forty twoth virtue of rationality is "avoid universal rationality at any cost"

In the new version of Newcomb's problem, you have to choose between a box containing rationality and a box containing truth.

Humanity is the art of winning at torture.

Okay. I'm done here.

Comment by Rubix on How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy · 2012-09-11T22:50:17.647Z · LW · GW

Thanks! I totally did misread the comment.

Honestly, I might just be filtering out the noise at this point - or having recently worked out how to point out that a comment is noise in a certain way might be helping me consider noise more of a learning experience and less of a blank field.

Comment by Rubix on How to tell apart science from pseudo-science in a field you don't know ? · 2012-09-11T03:17:39.962Z · LW · GW

Today I learned that I should go re-read the Wikipedia page on fallacies.

Comment by Rubix on Call for Anonymous Narratives by LW Women and Question Proposals (AMA) · 2012-09-11T03:11:07.647Z · LW · GW

I agree with almost all of what you've said here, except for the idea that taking the middle way is correct in this instance.

Also, let it be stated in advance that anything I say about my behavior patterns, social strategies and so forth is noticed in hindsight. I am not actually a Machiavellian mastermind who plots every interaction to maximize for making you all my slaves. (Of course I am telling you the truth. I am your friend. )

My favorite approach to social tactics is taking the Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres route: I perceive that people are generally trying to box me into a social role, namely self-consciousness, and it feels from the inside like my options are to allow this and be shy and uncomfortable, or rebel against it and be angry and uncooperative. Usually noticing those two choices causes me to pick the first, then the second in frustration, then the first because I want to be conciliatory, &etc.

Or... I can weird their paradigm. I can do this in many ways, but there are two I seem to choose most:

  1. Vacillating confusingly between acting shy, uncomfortable, innocent, stupid and generically cute, and acting energetic, forward, eccentric and Michael_Vassar-ish. Note that when doing this I don't necessarily take hits to my well-being or attack that of others, because when performed ideally both social roles feel like fun games. This can be described as going the fae route and is only suitable for use in the short term and preferably in settings with several other people, because otherwise it's just glorified gaslighting unless I know exactly what I'm doing.

  2. Making goddamn everything explicit. If I don't like a thing, I say, calmly, pleasantly, that I don't, and offer solutions or ask the other person to help me come up with solutions. If I like a thing, I say I like it. This doesn't mean telling everyone about all of my thoughts, but it does mean not stewing on a discomfort or distress, and trying to never subtly intimate things about my mental state.

My problem is that I'm too meta. Making the issue about my personal self-esteem leads me into a terrifying infinite conceptual loop of pleasure and displeasure with my characteristics. Noticing these characteristics and how I can best use them is much simpler for me - the issue of a self-worth feels like a wrong question when there are results to be got. This doesn't mean that I think women and girls with low self-worth are being Insufficiently Meta and therefore deserve what they get; it means that the issue of what happens in their minds is totally separate from that which happens in my own.

I notice in hindsight that this comment might read like one big essay about one-upmanship (against you and your philosophy.) It's not meant that way; the thing that happened is I noticed myself accepting your statements unquestioningly after reading them and not replying, and felt the need to fix that.

Comment by Rubix on Kaj Sotala's Posts · 2012-09-11T00:11:57.274Z · LW · GW

Perhaps lukeprog's assistant should make a separate account to post these through, to avoid getting this complaint every time they make such a post.

Comment by Rubix on Call for Anonymous Narratives by LW Women and Question Proposals (AMA) · 2012-09-11T00:02:41.064Z · LW · GW

I notice about equal proportions of my male and female acquaintances/friends showing this kind of fear of being seen as showing off. It seems like it's perceived as a much more attractive trait in women, so people create two categories to describe it: shy, insecure, awkward girls, and beta, submissive, loser men. [Note that I think this kind of behavior is perceived as a subset of beta-malehood, not the whole thing.]

My shot-in-the-dark theory is that men nearly always prefer to be described as aggressive, competitive, forward &etc, while for women there are serious tradeoffs in being perceived as such. I have an intuition that's not generally explicit that acting shy, nerdy and awkward is the best default behavior for me, and acting assertive and making strange claims is best for when I can reasonably expect to get away with it. So this intuition seems to categorize Spock Rationality as belonging in the first category (kind of like how hot girls memetically do countersignalling by saying they play video games) and actual rationality as belonging in the second.

I also notice that nearly everyone I know who's referred to themselves as shy, awkward, or insecure behaves, well, not shy once you get to know them; this suggests that my intuition is pretty widespread. When it's written out like this it's an obvious simple utility calculation - which action will result in me winning most often if I take it every time in situations like these? - but I don't have a good model of what the standard male version of this utility calculation is.

Comment by Rubix on How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy · 2012-09-10T15:35:26.068Z · LW · GW

This is funny to me, because the first time I met a group of Less Wrongers, one of them tickled me a day or two into us having met. However, the person in question was MBlume, who is known to not be scary.

Comment by Rubix on How to tell apart science from pseudo-science in a field you don't know ? · 2012-09-10T04:53:48.606Z · LW · GW

This comment does all of the things I was concerned about Alicorn's not doing. The conversation I'd expect to ensue from her comment would be an argument over the definitions of "torture," "incomprehensible bossing" &etc, which wouldn't be explicit so much as the bashing together of "Doing these things to autistics is good" and "Doing these things to autistics is evil." I have good reasons to expect this, because it's what I've seen take place subsequent to such a remark a million times and with no positive outcome in any instance. (Add any amount, to taste, of "You're not a real autistic so you can't remark on the subjective experience of the Less High Functioning" and "People are actually being tortured and killed, so I shouldn't have to be nice to you or explain these things out. Therefore I'll just vaguely antagonize at you until you go away.")

I'll also point out that "doing things that are abhorrent to people for no goddamn reason" doesn't pay attention to the fact that people who do e.g. ABA do believe that what they're doing will improve the quality of life of whoever they're doing it to.

Comment by Rubix on How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy · 2012-09-10T03:02:55.997Z · LW · GW

I remain badly uncomfortable with this portrayal of the situation as "High status men are permitted to touch arbitrary women in their social group more," and this being presumed to be the same as "Women are more happy when high status men touch them [than when low-status men do.]" I can allow someone to touch me for a lot of reasons: fear, paralysis, having been Psychology-of-Persuasion'd into it, being friends with them, being ecstatic about something unrelated, sexual or aesthetic attraction. However, I have good reason to believe that nearly all men don't just want to touch women, they want to touch women and have those women be happy about it, in the moment and afterwards. For certain when I think about touching someone, I'm displeased at the thought of them pretending to enjoy it and feeling vaguely skeeved, but not knowing why/not thinking they have the ability to prevent me from doing so.

Comment by Rubix on How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy · 2012-09-10T02:55:59.926Z · LW · GW

I was also pleasantly surprised to notice how little this thread was mindkilled.

As for something I learned, the distinction between individual interpretation of someone's behavior as charismatic v. an individual's social status within a group was made salient in a way that let me notice it. There's several other things I can't call to mind but which I'm pretty sure I did learn.

Comment by Rubix on Call for Anonymous Narratives by LW Women and Question Proposals (AMA) · 2012-09-10T02:51:40.253Z · LW · GW

No, but I think my female LW acquaintances might as individuals object more to being described as "status-oriented, competitive and aggressive concerning their rationality" than my male LW acquaintances.

Comment by Rubix on How to tell apart science from pseudo-science in a field you don't know ? · 2012-09-10T02:43:53.372Z · LW · GW

This comment seems like it could be perceived as straw-manning. Backing up your statement with evidence that this is an accurate model of what people do with their autistic children would help.

Comment by Rubix on [Link] Article about rationality and CFAR · 2012-09-09T21:35:54.857Z · LW · GW

Julia Galef is quoted as Julie Galef on page 21.

Comment by Rubix on Friendship is Optimal: A My Little Pony fanfic about an optimization process · 2012-09-09T02:10:57.030Z · LW · GW

I would expect to read this in a sci-fi anthology if I lived in a world where My Little Pony wasn't actually a Big Thing. (In the world where it is, copywright.)

Comment by Rubix on How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy · 2012-09-08T20:06:50.443Z · LW · GW

If it happens that you don't know how to perform all of these magical tricks, using your words is a good first approximation. The likelihood of a good outcome is often improved if you ask e.g. "Can I hug you?" as opposed to just bounding up and hugging the person, and your blameworthiness is significantly lowered.

Note please that physically imposing folks who appear to be men and are not charismatic (like social status, but interpreted on an individual basis - the individual one considers highest-charisma is likely to be thought of as creepy by a lot of other people, because it's about walking the fine line between creepiness and friendliness) are most likely to benefit from this. This does stand to be noticed. Cute perky energetic young women can get away with hugging practically anyone without asking. This does not necessarily mean that they should.

Comment by Rubix on How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy · 2012-09-08T19:59:51.974Z · LW · GW

On the one hand, emphatically yes - when talking about How To Interact with people of X gender, people tend to make a lot of generalizations.

On the other, feminist scripts seem to be against didactically learning social rules to an extreme extent - instead of pointing out "Hey, this thing works on maybe three out of four women, referring to that subset as 'women' makes you believe less in the other one-quarter," they go the entirely opposite direction and say that learning any rule, ever, is wrong and misleading and Evil. I dislike this, and while your comment is clearly not being this, it can easily be read as it by someone with experience interacting with those scripts.

Comment by Rubix on Polyhacking · 2012-09-08T06:10:03.024Z · LW · GW

Young female rationalists, plural? There's more than one of us? :P

In seriousness, I suspect that the definition of "attractive" is being used quite widely here. When someone talks about a woman being pretty to look at, they're probably talking about something mildly different from her being aesthetically pleasing - which is, again, different from said woman being conventionally attractive - and all of these are in totally different ballparks from a woman being happy and pleasant and that doing halo-effect things to her prettiness.

ETA: using the word "attractive" to refer to all these things feels like it could lead to a "My subjective experience is realer than yours" argument ('Parsley is delicious!' 'No it's not!'), or a signalling war ('I have good standards!' 'Well, I have realistic ones!')

Comment by Rubix on How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy · 2012-09-08T04:31:19.175Z · LW · GW

See also: The Missing Stair. Source has a history of overusing feminist memes with the result of obfuscating their point, but I think this piece was particularly well-written.

Comment by Rubix on How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy · 2012-09-08T00:43:22.572Z · LW · GW

Moreover, when a low-status person creeps on me, I feel like I have more freedom to express nicely to them that I was creeped out and offer to explain why. When a high-status person creeps on me, I feel like they have too much power to want to stop or listen to me, and nobody else will listen to me either, because this person has social command.

Comment by Rubix on How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy · 2012-09-08T00:39:20.043Z · LW · GW

It might be optimal for this guy to befriend men, or women he knows to be married or gay, who know how to socialize with people and are willing to help him out with that. There's a bootstrapping issue, but it's the best outcome if it can be attained.

[ETA: I failed a pronoun.]

Comment by Rubix on Mentioning cryonics to a dying person · 2012-08-10T17:08:15.702Z · LW · GW

Seeing as there was a thriving thread about eating human babies a few months ago, that wasn't really on my list of concerns.

Comment by Rubix on Mentioning cryonics to a dying person · 2012-08-10T01:59:59.007Z · LW · GW

Like "statistically." The language a person uses affects their view of what they're speaking about, and I suspect that not adding qualifiers when taking about things most members of a faction do causes one to notice/believe in atypical cases less.

Comment by Rubix on Looking for a roommate in Mountain View · 2012-08-02T04:41:29.645Z · LW · GW

I wasn't put off by it. Actually, my reaction was "Wow, I wish I were looking for an apartment" and then "Wait, that's really silly. I actually mean that these guys sound fun to hang out with." :)