AspiringKnitter

Karma: 955

AspiringKnitter Mar 24, 2012, 5:21 AM
3 points
in reply to: Desrtopa’s comment on: Rationality Quotes March 2012
Interesting. I hadn’t thought about that. Now that I think about it, you’re right; most fictional magic does act on things that are fundamental concepts in people’s minds, rather than on things that are actually fundamental.

That said, I still say it all sounds like magic. I couldn’t tell you exactly what algorithm my brain uses to come up with “sounds like magic”, though.

AspiringKnitter Mar 24, 2012, 1:43 AM
0 points
in reply to: DanArmak’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Well… you know, this actually wasn’t my idea and I’m not sure it would actually work, but playing devil’s advocate here...

...anybody notice that Hermione’s testimony contradicted itself? No; if they had, it would already have mattered.

...anybody notice that Hermione knew something she shouldn’t at her age? No; she reads too much.

...anybody notice that Hermione knew something she shouldn’t about Important Player In This Game? For instance, being able to mention what Voldemort looked like. It could be a subtle reference that Harry would have to point out because it flew under the radar. But it would really hurt Harry’s relationship with Lucius.

...hey, notice how Hermione didn’t know something Hermione should have known? It’d have to be subtle, but maybe if she mentioned uncertainty about something she should have known, it could do something...

Well, I don’t know. Eliezer’s got me stumped this time.

AspiringKnitter Mar 24, 2012, 12:53 AM
2 points
in reply to: DanArmak’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11

Can’t use it to change what’s already happened. Hermione has already given her testimony, and Harry didn’t even listen so he wouldn’t be in a good position to subtly modify it. And the Veritaserum on her is already wearing off, precluding further testimony.

In canon, they thought they heard Buckbeak die, too. It could already be that Hermione gave altered testimony and Harry isn’t aware of it because he didn’t hear what she said because he wasn’t listening. In fact, that makes sense.

AspiringKnitter Mar 23, 2012, 6:34 AM
2 points
in reply to: ata’s comment on: Do you have High-Functioning Asperger’s Syndrome?
Could be both, e.g., it starts as the latter and the person becomes more aware and it becomes the former.

AspiringKnitter Mar 23, 2012, 6:27 AM
6 points
in reply to: Nornagest’s comment on: Do you have High-Functioning Asperger’s Syndrome?

Obscurity may also have something to do with it, but if I’m remembering right Asperger’s was comparably obscure until at least the late Nineties.

Actually, what’s now called Asperger’s was initially part of what Kanner called autistic psychopathy. However, some people with severe problems and/or mental retardation also had the same symptoms, so the diagnosis was expanded to cover them. Then it narrowed to include entirely those with very severe disabilities, such that autistics/Aspies with the ability to “pass” (act normal or act like something other than disabled) to any degree were overlooked despite needing recognition, information and assistance. So a researcher decided to introduce a new diagnosis, Asperger’s Syndrome, to cover spiffy-shiny-cool autistics, as opposed to need-lots-of-help autistics, because the spiffy-shiny-cool kind still needed assistance and often had serious problems as a result of the mismatch between their abilities and other people’s expectations. Asperger’s entered the DSM-IV in the early/mid nineties.

AspiringKnitter Mar 23, 2012, 3:51 AM
2 points
in reply to: malderi’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
That seems implausible. Most people probably think they wouldn’t shock someone to death if ordered to.

At least if it isn’t Azkaban, and it isn’t death outright, it’s probably not as bad as either, though. So if he can discredit Azkaban as a place to put criminals, that would improve things. Minimally.

AspiringKnitter Mar 20, 2012, 7:55 PM
3 points
in reply to: NoSignalNoNoise’s comment on: The uniquely awful example of theism
Does it really decline with age, or did older people form their values in a different culture? It’s possible people’s values are stable over time but people born a long time ago were more likely to form different values from the ones formed by people born more recently. Has anyone tried to distinguish between these possibilities?

AspiringKnitter Mar 19, 2012, 5:55 AM
4 points
in reply to: glumph’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Huh. I just reread that scene in Deathly Hallows after you mentioned it and you’re absolutely right.

I was sure I remembered an Unbreakable Vow in that scene. I wonder what else I could be misremembering… O.O Scary thought.

AspiringKnitter Mar 19, 2012, 3:43 AM
6 points
in reply to: Asymmetric’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Not very. Maybe he only has shrines to his fallen allies. If there are memorials of other fallen enemies/neutrals, then it would be evidence, but I’m not sure how strong it would be...

Plus, if she was an innocent who died because of an accident that was his fault, a memorial would be more likely than if he had nothing to do with it, so...

AspiringKnitter Mar 18, 2012, 5:23 AM
−6 points
in reply to: 75th’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
If it’s anything like canon in this regard, Snape made an Unbreakable Vow to protect Harry. His loyalties aren’t up for grabs.

AspiringKnitter Mar 13, 2012, 1:01 AM
4 points
in reply to: dhill’s comment on: Diseased thinking: dissolving questions about disease
The OP probably meant adipose tissue, not muscle.

AspiringKnitter Mar 12, 2012, 5:52 AM
12 points
on: Of Gender and Rationality
This is an old post and I have little to add, but I notice that I’m very surprised and a bit put off by it. I’m surprised and put off by many similar things.

I speak as a female with an intuitive grasp of logic, anal-retentiveness and detail-orientedness. I also have primarily made friends with neurodiverse people, with a disproportionately large percentage being on the autism spectrum. I almost became a standard computers-and-stuff-that-xkcd-talks-about geek, but ended up becoming a video-games-and-anime-and-fanfiction geek instead. In an alternate universe, I might have eventually ended up a technical writer or computer programmer.

And as such, it always feels strange and off-putting to me when people talk about how there aren’t women on Less Wrong (/playing video games/whatever the “masculine” pursuit of the week is) and speculate about how these mysterious, socially-oriented creatures are put off by the most attractive qualities (e.g., people not being agreement-bots). I’m probably exceptionally prone to thinking that I should go away because nobody wants me here (or at whatever other place it is), but things like this make me feel unwelcome. But so does everything else anyone does, often. Also, I tend to feel that way all by myself before anyone says anything. So I wouldn’t worry all that much, unless women are more prone to...

Hey, that’s a possibility.

What surprises me is that I truly don’t know. I should… but I don’t. Until recently, I really hadn’t thought about it; I hadn’t noticed the trend, and if I did… it seriously didn’t occur to me. “Female (computer geeks/programmers/gamers/autistics/math geeks) are rarer than their male counterparts” never quite implied, to me, “female non-geeky, non-computer(/gaming/math)-oriented neurotypicals are more common than their male counterparts.” Almost as if women were just rare or something, except I obviously didn’t think that, either.

Wait a second, that actually makes sense, too. What if the skewed gender ratios in video games put off females, causing them to have less in common with the kind of person who plays games (and also is more likely to be geeky and more likely to be rational), making them gravitate toward different hobbies that bring them into contact with different kinds of people, influencing them in different ways?

My quick eyeball-it-probably-inaccurate guess from a relatively small sample is that the ratio is around 5:12.

Surely it wouldn’t account for the whole difference, though. That just seems kind of bizarre. Huh.

AspiringKnitter Mar 12, 2012, 2:48 AM
0 points
in reply to: Dmytry’s comment on: The kinesthesia switch
Is that actually uncommon?

AspiringKnitter Mar 12, 2012, 2:42 AM
2 points
in reply to: Ben_Welchner’s comment on: Rationally Irrational
Though among LW members, people probably don’t need to be encouraged to use basic rationality. If we could just upvote and downvote people’s arguments in real life...

I’m also considering the possibility that MHD was asking why we don’t see everyone using Rationality 101.

AspiringKnitter Mar 12, 2012, 2:00 AM
1 point
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Rationally Irrational

It is all fine and dandy that I am getting upvotes for this, and by all means don’t stop, but really I am just a novice applying Rationality 101 whereever I see fit in order to earn my black belt.

Personally, I think that behavior should be rewarded.

AspiringKnitter Mar 11, 2012, 9:22 PM
1 point
in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Rationally Irrational

Praying to the gods for revelation doesn’t work.

Supposing that you lived in a universe where you could pray for and would then always receive infallible instruction, it would be rational to pray.

If it leads to winning more than other possibilities, it’s rational to do it. If your utility function values pretending to be stupid so you’ll be well-liked by idiots, that is winning.

AspiringKnitter Mar 9, 2012, 7:00 AM
2 points
in reply to: Voltairina’s comment on: Rationality Quotes March 2012
Maybe he meant how a priori improbable it is?

AspiringKnitter Mar 9, 2012, 6:56 AM
4 points
in reply to: Eugine_Nier’s comment on: Rationality Quotes March 2012
And wrong. E.g., the perihelion precession of Mercury turned out to be caused by all matter being able to warp space and time by its very existence. We like to call that Not Magic, but it’s magic in the sense of disagreeing with established scientific theory, and in the sense of being something that, if explained to someone who believed in Newtonian physics, would sound like magic.

AspiringKnitter 9 Mar 2012 1:17 UTC
9 points
in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: I Was Not Almost Wrong But I Was Almost Right: Close-Call Counterfactuals and Bias

“this is lightweight humor, you’re supposed to read it with most of your empathy turned off”

Ever since reading The Sword of Good, I’ve lost the ability to do that. Not that I was ever great at it. I wonder if that’s happened to anyone else. /irrelevant tangent

AspiringKnitter 9 Mar 2012 1:14 UTC
4 points
in reply to: Spurlock’s comment on: I Was Not Almost Wrong But I Was Almost Right: Close-Call Counterfactuals and Bias
I disagree that there were too many extraneous details about Dr. Zany in this post. They didn’t detract from the value of the post and, at least, the blue-minimizing robot reference was funny.