Voted down. Rationally, your statement indicates you presently have multiple women—I’m doubting the truth of that. Your name indicates (with reasonable probability) that you are male—which increases the misogynistic nature of the comment. It’s disappointing that this comment reached so high.
Just in case you hadn’t actually known this: “I like my women the way I like my coffee” is an archetypical joke beginning, like “Two men walked into a bar” or “How many [profession members] does it take to screw in a lightbulb?”. I saw it as more a clever twist on the genre of the joke than as a statement of steven0461′s philosophy.
Yes, I’m aware of that template of jokes. That doesn’t take away the confusion with multiple women, or the connection to slavery. I don’t think steven0461 meant it literally—I assume this person is likely the typical overweight nerd without much luck with woman. It was clever, though.
Even outside the joke template, “I like my …” is a statement purely about preferences, not about actually having multiple concurrently. And “my” in English is not purely about ownership, but about relations, ownership being just one specific and quite common relation. (Consider “my school”, “my employer”, or “my friend”).
Voted down. Rationally, your statement indicates you presently have multiple women
You know what? I read the comment a second time and I actually don’t even think it indicates that, even when being literal. It doesn’t indicate that he is presently drinking two cups of coffee either.
More to the point, 1337 is the popular convention. If the numbers were not meant as a reference to the convention then they would be more silly than they already are.
MOAR PEDANTRY: I always thought we Less Wrongers avoided ‘rationalism’ because it already has a history as a philosophy; one which most Less Wrongers wouldn’t endorse. However, both you and FAWS have used it in this thread, so I’m confused.
Since the word ‘rationalist’ is used everywhere in the OB sequences and in many LW posts, I don’t see why we should have any particular qualms about using ‘rationalism’. If it confuses some people, we’ll just have to specify what we mean by it, which is something we should be doing anyway.
I was actually just thinking about bringing that up in the open thread. Is there a preferred term for the philosophy characteristic of LW? “Rationalism” does indeed have too many irrelevant associations, from the old-timey Platonic philosophy that we can get useful information about the universe without studying the universe, to the philosophy termed “Traditional Rationality” around here (not sure exactly what defines that, but I have a general sense), to those people who spend a lot oftime on reversed stupidity.
If making up a new term is okay (assuming there isn’t a preferred term already), I might suggest “neo-rationalism”. That way, people will know right away that it has something to do with rationality, but they will have to ask what the “neo-” signifies instead of jumping to any conclusions about it.
There is definitely a need for such a term, and no suitable options (descriptive terms not already taken by something else) have been presented before, so I’ll support this one (Neo-Rationalism) unless someone presents an obviously-better alternative very soon. Note that googling indicates that there was also an architectural movement called neo-rationalism om the 1970s, but I don’t think there’s much risk of the two getting confused.
Yeah, I did google “neo-rationalism” before posting that, and I found the architectural movement, but plenty of “isms” (“idealism”, “realism”, “structuralism”, and “modernism” for instance, not to mention “rationalism” itself) have very different meanings in different domains, and it’s easy enough to tell what meaning is intended in context.
I’m not sure, here. Notice I didn’t go for the group-think label (even though apparently I got downvoted much as the original reply got upvoted). Humor will be more relevant post-singularity, but it seems somewhat orthogonal to rationality. Pedantry would be indicating grammar issues—it’s entirely possible steven0461 has multiple female human animals as slaves.
That is a significant claim. Not least because it implies that given that a singularity occurs it will be a singularity that doesn’t suck. (Better as a goal than it is as a prediction.)
Good point. I admit to being confused by the use of “suck” and singularity. But certainly—a dystopian singularity will leave perhaps nothing to laugh at.
I like my women the way I like my coffee: detrimental to hippocampal neurogenesis, but conducive to short term memory and attentional control.
You, steven0461, are my hero of the day. Thanks for your brililant wit, may I quote you?
Hey steven, you have been quoted on TV tropes now, the single most prestigious recognition anyone can receive. can I have your autograph?
Voted down. Rationally, your statement indicates you presently have multiple women—I’m doubting the truth of that. Your name indicates (with reasonable probability) that you are male—which increases the misogynistic nature of the comment. It’s disappointing that this comment reached so high.
Just in case you hadn’t actually known this: “I like my women the way I like my coffee” is an archetypical joke beginning, like “Two men walked into a bar” or “How many [profession members] does it take to screw in a lightbulb?”. I saw it as more a clever twist on the genre of the joke than as a statement of steven0461′s philosophy.
Ayup.
That panel is missing my personal favourite punchline:
Yes, I’m aware of that template of jokes. That doesn’t take away the confusion with multiple women, or the connection to slavery. I don’t think steven0461 meant it literally—I assume this person is likely the typical overweight nerd without much luck with woman. It was clever, though.
Even outside the joke template, “I like my …” is a statement purely about preferences, not about actually having multiple concurrently. And “my” in English is not purely about ownership, but about relations, ownership being just one specific and quite common relation. (Consider “my school”, “my employer”, or “my friend”).
He’s engaged. They’re adorable.
You know what? I read the comment a second time and I actually don’t even think it indicates that, even when being literal. It doesn’t indicate that he is presently drinking two cups of coffee either.
You confuse rationalism with straw Vulcanism
Voted down for spelling 1337 wrong in your username.
Perhaps it is wrong to use the same digit to refer to separate letters. 133+ is OK, 1337 is OK, but 7337 seems to break that criteria. Point noted.
More to the point, 1337 is the popular convention. If the numbers were not meant as a reference to the convention then they would be more silly than they already are.
Well, yes, it is meant to mean “elite”. There are several variations of it, though.
You’re confusing rationalism with pedantry and humorlessness.
MOAR PEDANTRY: I always thought we Less Wrongers avoided ‘rationalism’ because it already has a history as a philosophy; one which most Less Wrongers wouldn’t endorse. However, both you and FAWS have used it in this thread, so I’m confused.
Since the word ‘rationalist’ is used everywhere in the OB sequences and in many LW posts, I don’t see why we should have any particular qualms about using ‘rationalism’. If it confuses some people, we’ll just have to specify what we mean by it, which is something we should be doing anyway.
I was actually just thinking about bringing that up in the open thread. Is there a preferred term for the philosophy characteristic of LW? “Rationalism” does indeed have too many irrelevant associations, from the old-timey Platonic philosophy that we can get useful information about the universe without studying the universe, to the philosophy termed “Traditional Rationality” around here (not sure exactly what defines that, but I have a general sense), to those people who spend a lot of time on reversed stupidity.
If making up a new term is okay (assuming there isn’t a preferred term already), I might suggest “neo-rationalism”. That way, people will know right away that it has something to do with rationality, but they will have to ask what the “neo-” signifies instead of jumping to any conclusions about it.
Maybe we should call it “epistemonomy”, because it’s trying to be to epistemology what astronomy is to astrology, sort of.
Or “likelihoodratiomancy”, because it’s the only divination method that actually works.
There’s Bayesianism.
There is definitely a need for such a term, and no suitable options (descriptive terms not already taken by something else) have been presented before, so I’ll support this one (Neo-Rationalism) unless someone presents an obviously-better alternative very soon. Note that googling indicates that there was also an architectural movement called neo-rationalism om the 1970s, but I don’t think there’s much risk of the two getting confused.
Yeah, I did google “neo-rationalism” before posting that, and I found the architectural movement, but plenty of “isms” (“idealism”, “realism”, “structuralism”, and “modernism” for instance, not to mention “rationalism” itself) have very different meanings in different domains, and it’s easy enough to tell what meaning is intended in context.
I’m not sure, here. Notice I didn’t go for the group-think label (even though apparently I got downvoted much as the original reply got upvoted). Humor will be more relevant post-singularity, but it seems somewhat orthogonal to rationality. Pedantry would be indicating grammar issues—it’s entirely possible steven0461 has multiple female human animals as slaves.
That is a significant claim. Not least because it implies that given that a singularity occurs it will be a singularity that doesn’t suck. (Better as a goal than it is as a prediction.)
Good point. I admit to being confused by the use of “suck” and singularity. But certainly—a dystopian singularity will leave perhaps nothing to laugh at.
And a great many Singularity scenarios will just leave nothing to laugh.