“Did you just generalize from fictional evidence?”
“You’re a one-boxer, right?” (Said with no context.)
“You’d choose specks, right?” (Said with no context.)
“Mysteriousness is not a property of a thing.”
“You’re running on corrupted hardware.”
“Replace the symbol with the substance.”
“Could you regenerate that knowledge?”
“Consider a group you feel prejudiced against, frequentists for example.”
“But what’s the best textbook on that subject?”
“Is that a compartmentalized belief?
“I notice I am confused.”
“Of course I have super-powers. Everyone does.”
“Beliefs are properly probabilistic.”
“Is that your confidence level inside or outside the argument?”
“Did you credibly pre-commit to that rule?”
“That’s just what it feels like from the inside.”
“Conceptspace is bigger than you imagine.”
“No you don’t believe you believe that.”
“No, money is the unit of caring.”
“If that doesn’t work out for you, you can still make six figures as a programmer.”
“Purpose is not an inherent property.”
“You think introspection is reliable?”
“Why didn’t you use log-odds?”
Bullshit Rationalists Say:
“My priors are different than yours, and under them my posterior belief is justified. There is no belief that can be said to be irrational regardless of priors, and my belief is rational under mine.”
“I pattern matched what you said rather than either apply the principle of charity or estimate the chances of your not having an opinion marking you as ignorant, unreasoning, and/or innately evil.”
“Rational...” (used in the title of a post on any topic.)
Shit and Bullshit Rationalists Don’t Say:
“You’re entitled to your opinion.”
“You can’t be too skeptical”
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
“Did you read what Kurzweil wrote about the Singularity?
“100%.”
“But was it statistically significant at the p<.05 level?”
“Yeah, I read all the papers cited in lukeprog’s latest article.”
“Those are just more available to you, not actually more likely.”
“Are you more an aspiring rationalist, ‘aspiring rationalist,’ ‘aspiring’ rationalist, or aspiring ‘rationalist’?”
“The invisible is implied here.”
“Is that a disjunctive or conjunctive event?”
“It seemed hard until I hacked away at the edges.”
“You didn’t time yourself thinking about it before proposing solutions?”
“I have something to protect.”
“Someone should type a transcript of that.”
“I don’t know if that’s still an open problem, I’ve been following the HPMOR thread instead of that one.” (Said to a Philosophy professor about a philosophical problem.)
“Is there a more technical explanation?
“Argument screens off authority.”
“Go ahead and try to ‘other optimize’ me.”
“That’s one of my ugh fields.”
“That’s not a property, it’s a dangling variable.”
“ADBOC.”
Shit and Bullshit Rationalists Don’t Say:
“Gwern hasn’t summarized any research on that.”
“Did Yvain even edit that before posting?”
“What are his/her credentials?”
“That’s absurd!”
“Let’s hope that’s true.”
“I’ve read more papers by Scott Aaronson than just the one.” “Which one?” (Both of these.)
“All I want to know is the net positive or negative votes my comments and posts have received.”
“I don’t have an opinion as to which explanation of Bayes’ theorem I’d recommend.”
“Did you just generalize from fictional evidence?”
“You’re a one-boxer, right?” (Said with no context.)
“You’d choose specks, right?” (Said with no context.)
“Mysteriousness is not a property of a thing.”
“You’re running on corrupted hardware.”
“Replace the symbol with the substance.”
“Could you regenerate that knowledge?”
“Consider a group you feel prejudiced against, frequentists for example.”
“But what’s the best textbook on that subject?”
“Is that a compartmentalized belief?
“I notice I am confused.”
“Of course I have super-powers. Everyone does.”
“Beliefs are properly probabilistic.”
“Is that your confidence level inside or outside the argument?”
“Did you credibly pre-commit to that rule?”
“That’s just what it feels like from the inside.”
“Conceptspace is bigger than you imagine.”
“No you don’t believe you believe that.”
“No, money is the unit of caring.”
“If that doesn’t work out for you, you can still make six figures as a programmer.”
“Purpose is not an inherent property.”
“You think introspection is reliable?”
“Why didn’t you use log-odds?”
Bullshit Rationalists Say:
“My priors are different than yours, and under them my posterior belief is justified. There is no belief that can be said to be irrational regardless of priors, and my belief is rational under mine.”
“I pattern matched what you said rather than either apply the principle of charity or estimate the chances of your not having an opinion marking you as ignorant, unreasoning, and/or innately evil.”
“Rational...” (used in the title of a post on any topic.)
Shit and Bullshit Rationalists Don’t Say:
“You’re entitled to your opinion.”
“You can’t be too skeptical”
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
“Did you read what Kurzweil wrote about the Singularity?
“100%.”
“But was it statistically significant at the p<.05 level?”
“Yeah, I read all the papers cited in lukeprog’s latest article.”
A bunch of links almost no one clicks. It’s like the Anti-TVTropes.
I cannot believe I missed this one.
“We played reference class tennis.”
“Those are just more available to you, not actually more likely.”
“Are you more an aspiring rationalist, ‘aspiring rationalist,’ ‘aspiring’ rationalist, or aspiring ‘rationalist’?”
“The invisible is implied here.”
“Is that a disjunctive or conjunctive event?”
“It seemed hard until I hacked away at the edges.”
“You didn’t time yourself thinking about it before proposing solutions?”
“I have something to protect.”
“Someone should type a transcript of that.”
“I don’t know if that’s still an open problem, I’ve been following the HPMOR thread instead of that one.” (Said to a Philosophy professor about a philosophical problem.)
“Is there a more technical explanation?
“Argument screens off authority.”
“Go ahead and try to ‘other optimize’ me.”
“That’s one of my ugh fields.”
“That’s not a property, it’s a dangling variable.”
“ADBOC.”
Shit and Bullshit Rationalists Don’t Say:
“Gwern hasn’t summarized any research on that.”
“Did Yvain even edit that before posting?”
“What are his/her credentials?”
“That’s absurd!”
“Let’s hope that’s true.”
“I’ve read more papers by Scott Aaronson than just the one.” “Which one?” (Both of these.)
“All I want to know is the net positive or negative votes my comments and posts have received.”
“I don’t have an opinion as to which explanation of Bayes’ theorem I’d recommend.”
Wrong list.
Brain fart.
This is relevant.
To be fair, this is true if you interpret “absence of evidence” as meaning “absence of evidence in either direction”.
The last section is amazing!
Oh man, had me laughing for a good while with this one. Nice job! ^_^