Comment by scrafty on 2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey · 2014-10-30T02:11:38.104Z · score: 31 (31 votes) · LW · GW

I did it, I did it, I did it, yay!

Comment by scrafty on Proportional Giving · 2014-03-03T04:34:02.823Z · score: 6 (6 votes) · LW · GW

A compromise that I find appealing and might implement for myself is giving a fixed percentage over a fixed amount, with that fixed percentage being relatively high (well above ten percent). You could also have multiple "donation brackets" with an increased marginal donation rate as your income increases.

Comment by scrafty on How big of an impact would cleaner political debates have on society? · 2014-02-07T01:24:49.755Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I doubt an IQ test would be useful at all. One has to be quite intelligent to be a real candidate for presidency.

Comment by scrafty on Arthur Chu: Jeopardy! champion through exemplary rationality · 2014-02-03T05:53:01.313Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

He also likes arguing with Jeff Kaufman about effective altruism.

Comment by scrafty on Physics grad student: how to build employability in programming & finance · 2014-01-10T02:32:24.304Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Probably shouldn't say someone "probably" has an IQ between 145 and 160 unless you have pretty good evidence.

Comment by scrafty on [LINK] Why I'm not on the Rationalist Masterlist · 2014-01-06T05:14:00.706Z · score: 6 (10 votes) · LW · GW

I think it makes a big difference if the preferred theory is gender/racial equality as opposed to fundamentalist Christianity, and whether the opposition to those perceived challenges result from emotional sensitivity as opposed to blind faith. At the very least, the blog post doesn't indicate that the author would be irrational about issues other than marginalization.

Comment by scrafty on Fascists and Rakes · 2014-01-06T00:33:47.416Z · score: 5 (7 votes) · LW · GW

I don't see how the fact that the permissiveness principle is only based on one (two, actually, including the third one) of the six foundations would imply that it's not a widely-held intuition.

Comment by scrafty on December Monthly Bragging Thread · 2013-12-04T02:08:48.493Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

How risk-averse are you? But even if you aren't, I suspect that right now bitcoins aren't a great investment strictly in expected-value terms due to the high risk that they will decline in value by a lot. No one really knows what will happen, though.

Comment by scrafty on A critique of effective altruism · 2013-12-03T01:50:22.731Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Another possible critique is that the philosophical arguments for ethical egoism are (I think) at least fairly plausible. The extent to which this is a critique of EA is debatable (since people within the movement state that it's compatible with non-utilitarian ethical theories and that it appeals to people who want to donate for self-interested reasons) but it's something which merits consideration.

Comment by scrafty on Some thoughts on relations between major ethical systems · 2013-11-26T03:56:48.220Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Ehh, I think that's pretty much what rule util means, though I'm not that familiar with the nuances of the definition so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Rule util posits that we follow those rules with the intent of promoting the good; that's why it's called rule utilitarianism.

Comment by scrafty on Some thoughts on relations between major ethical systems · 2013-11-25T18:40:18.371Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

That would be a form of deontology, yes. I'm not sure which action neo-Kantians would actually endorse in that situation, though.

Comment by scrafty on Some thoughts on relations between major ethical systems · 2013-11-25T17:24:53.061Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I think that's accurate, though maybe not because the programming jargon is unnecessarily obfuscating. The basic point is that following the rule is good in and of itself. You shouldn't kill people because there is a value in not killing that is independent of the outcome of that choice.

Comment by scrafty on Some thoughts on relations between major ethical systems · 2013-11-25T05:54:14.797Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Your description of deontological ethics sounds closer to rule consequentialism, which is a different concept. Deontology means that following certain rules is good in and of itself, not because they lead to better decisionmaking (in terms of promoting some other good) in situations of uncertainty.

Comment by scrafty on 2013 Less Wrong Census/Survey · 2013-11-22T17:51:06.478Z · score: 37 (37 votes) · LW · GW

Survey taken. Defected since I'm neutral as to whether the money goes to Yvain or a random survey-taker, but would prefer the money going to me over either of those two.