It would be far more instructive (imo) to describe how you conceive of death in this way, rather than merely stating that some Very Smart People have.
adamisom
Karma: 286
I think this assumed dichotomy of material/mechanical vs non- is itself a cached thought. I do assume everything can be explained; but whatever mechanism of explanation I use can, if you feel like it, be called “material” or “mechanical”… therefore what you really mean to say is ‘another example of a false idea is that everything can be explained’.
Because being rational isn’t just something fun to play with. It’s aiming to correspond your beliefs and actions with reality, which will eventually catch up. Nothing you’ve said here indicates that you actually have read this blog.
WOW. This is the only entry that made me think WOW. Probably because I’ve wondered the exact same thing before (except a less strong version of course)....
I loved this, but I’m not here to contribute bland praise. I’m here to point out somebody who does, in fact, behave as an agent as defined by the italicized statement: “reliably do things it believed would fulfill its desires” that continues with “It could change its diet, work out each morning, and maximize its health and physical attractiveness. ” I couldn’t help but think of Scott H Young, a blogger I’ve been following for months. I really look up to that guy. He is effectively a paragon of the model that you can shape your life to live it as you like. (I’m sure he would never say that though.) He actually referenced a Less Wrong article recently, and it’s not the first time he’s done it, which significantly increased my opinion of him. His current “thing” is trying to master the equivalent of a rigorous CS curriculum (using MIT’s requirements) in 12 months. Only those on the Less Wrong community stand a good chance of not thinking that’s pretty audacious.
I wouldn’t be sure about this. If you read his blog, you’ll know he’s completed many many projects and is probably much more aware of the planning fallacy than most people.
Thanks, I should’ve known
Okay, I don’t mean to be annoying, but I’m curious if anyone else ever thinks this way.
Right after I read this: “Those who do it well are rare and valuable”, this is what I automatically thought: ‘Okay, so he’s setting himself up to, in the future, pursue a career in explaining, and this sentence/article functions as a tool of justification by making the value of the endeavor “objective” through writing it here’
That is, some part of me sometimes leaps away from the normal way of reading—which sees things as from the writer to yourself—and considers the writer as writing from himself to himself, unconsciously using writing as a selfish tool to shape the narrative of his/her life.
I think this has something to do with the fact that I am probably way too pessimistic about humans in general and think that much of what we say masquerades as something virtuous like reasonableness but is really functioning in a very self-oriented way to affirm and justify oneself and that one’s life is a good (enough) life. Has anyone else’s thoughts while reading anything ever flinched in this direction? [p.s. this has nothing to do with lukeprog, in fact he’s probably my favorite writer here]
.… (wall of references at the end).… I am mystified by this. How the how the heck do you even skim all of that? I think it’s awesome to have all these references, but can somebody enlighten me as to how one can do this?
To quote another user, Scott H Young, “superficial would be the right word to describe most aphorisms, as being merely pointers to a more nuanced set of beliefs”. So I’m sure it just has to do with the fact that of the bundle of qualities aggregately known as “jerks”, some of those qualities are attractive. Check out the blog Hooking Up Smart for more nuanced stuff on the idea of nice men vs jerks.
Hi.… I haven’t read this whole thread, but I know one very important thing that immediately discredited PhilosophyTutor in my view. I strongly feel that the best pua’s are not at all about merely extracting something from the woman they interact with. They claim they live by the motto “leave her better than you found her”. From my impression of Casanova, the ultimate pua, he lived by that too.
You’re absolutely right about the methodological issues. I’ve thought it myself; besides the enormous survivor bias of course.
But it is far more irrational to discount their findings on that ground alone, because the alternative, academic studies, are blinded by exactly the same ignore-the-elephant and keep-things-proper attitude that the original poster of this thread pointed out.
Take this into account: a lot of good pua’s may fall far short of the ideal amount of rigor, but at the same time, far exceed the average person’s rigor. I can’t condemn those who, without the perspective gained from this site, nevertheless seek to quantify things and really understand them.
Meetup : Any Salt Lake City residents who might be interested in a meetup?
By the way, I’m a university student, discovered Less Wrong about 6-9 months ago, have read HPMoR and some of the Sequences (&plan to read more).
I’ll have to look into that more, that sounds awesome! I had a vague idea of doing something like that too.
I need to clarify—there isn’t a meetup planned in Salt Lake City on the 29th, to any who live there. (I’m the one who proposed it.) There will be one in January though :)
I’m jumping in late, but isn’t it kind of obvious? Making a high school text harder to read could simultaneously improve retention if you are obligated to read it and at the same time be a bad move for something people must elect to read.
“It wasn’t urgent, but it was urgent enough that it had to be done before any of my other projects. It turns out this is a killer combination.”
You’re not the only one—I’ve been having this exact problem for the last few days. Even the Paul Graham essays part is spot on. Like EphemeralNight, I’ve been finding that banning myself from semi-productive tasks has only made it worse—which is consistent with “Structured Procrastination” (loved that essay).
You know, a lot of the frustration in these comments is exactly what might interest someone in “personal development” i.e. “instrumental rationality” in LessWrong-lingo. I’m not sure what to make of that. And although it’s perfectly acceptable—in fact, necessary—to point out the lack of evidence for most self-help suggestions, there is a point—and I do not think it is very difficult to reach—a point at which abstaining from the subtly damaging actions and subtly damaging attitude of acceptance characterized by ‘being into personal development’ is no longer worth it.
Maybe a (temporarily?) venturesome—even self-deceptive—attitude is more likely to lead to a higher ‘local maximum’ in terms of effectiveness in life (namely what you value). After all, if we’re only “kluges”, and rationality is not what drives us naturally (beyond the sub-optimal rationality of heuristics), then maybe we need to follow actions based more on what does drive us, such as emotions, or.… something like that....
I may be missing something here -- Occam’s Razor is “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem)
NOT "The simplest explanation that fits the facts."-- but isn’t the post using the first definition anyway? So even if he explicitly wrote the second definition instead of the first, he was clearly aware of the first since that’s what corresponds with his argument.
Maybe. I’d love all the help I can get to make a great LW Meetup. I think I remember seeing that article and having, um, strong positive affect (haha) towards the idea.
I’ll get back to you—I plan on announcing the actual Meetup in 1 week and doing it in about 2 weeks.
Of course. But I wonder what the word “we” is referring to in this sentence: “So WE develop a shorthand...”. Didn’t that strike anybody else?