The point of these scenarios is make the issue as “clean” as possible, to strip away all the unnecessary embellishments which usually only cause people to fight the hypothetical.
organically
I guess what’s inside the screenwriter’s skull is organic… :-)
But really, since the invention of writing pretty much every writer who addressed the issue pointed out the importance of one’s reputation of keeping promises. There are outright commands (e.g. Numbers 30:2 If a man … swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word. He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.) and innumerable stories and fables about good things which happen to those who keep their promises and bad things which happen to those who don’t.
But really, since the invention of writing pretty much every writer who addressed the issue pointed out the importance of one’s reputation of keeping promises.
I don’t disagree with what you say, but I do disagree with the connotation that things which are not original or counter intuitive are not worth pointing out.
The last time this show was quoted, it basically amounted to “try hard to win, give it everything”, which is also something that people have been saying since the beginning of writing. All quote threads are filled with things that have been said again and again in slightly different ways. Even outside of quote threads, it’s worth rephrasing things. Pretty much every Lesswrong post has been conceptually written before by someone, with a few rare exceptions.
innumerable stories and fables about good things which happen to those who keep their promises and bad things which happen to those who don’t
Yes, but usually it’s a punishment or reward issued directly from the other party, or by forces of nature...not about the practical value of going out of your way to establish reputation.
Ahem.
Er...right. Realistic, I should have said!
We often construct such ridiculous scenarios to illustrate this sort of thing …”You’re in a desert and a selfish pseudo-psychic drives by”? Really?
I enjoyed the fact that Parfit’s Hitchhiker came up as a pop-culture reference, in a situation that arose organically.
The point of these scenarios is make the issue as “clean” as possible, to strip away all the unnecessary embellishments which usually only cause people to fight the hypothetical.
I guess what’s inside the screenwriter’s skull is organic… :-)
But really, since the invention of writing pretty much every writer who addressed the issue pointed out the importance of one’s reputation of keeping promises. There are outright commands (e.g. Numbers 30:2 If a man … swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word. He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.) and innumerable stories and fables about good things which happen to those who keep their promises and bad things which happen to those who don’t.
I don’t disagree with what you say, but I do disagree with the connotation that things which are not original or counter intuitive are not worth pointing out.
The last time this show was quoted, it basically amounted to “try hard to win, give it everything”, which is also something that people have been saying since the beginning of writing. All quote threads are filled with things that have been said again and again in slightly different ways. Even outside of quote threads, it’s worth rephrasing things. Pretty much every Lesswrong post has been conceptually written before by someone, with a few rare exceptions.
Yes, but usually it’s a punishment or reward issued directly from the other party, or by forces of nature...not about the practical value of going out of your way to establish reputation.