Post in this thread if you live in Finland.
Bongo
That’s what I was going to reply with. To begin with, a rationalist style of rethoric should force you to write/speak like that, or make it easy for the audience to tell whether or not you do.
(Rationalist rethoric can mean at least three things: ways of communication you adopt in order to be able to deliver your message as rationally and honestly as possible, not in order to persuade; techniques that persuade rationalists particularly well; or new forms of dark arts discovered by rationalists)
(We should distinguish between forms of rhetoric that optimize for persuasion and those that optimize for truth. Eliezer’s proposed “ethical writing” seems to optimize for truth. That is, if everyone wrote like that, we would find out more truths and lying would be harder, or even persuading people of untruths. Though it’s also awfully persuasive… On the other hand, political rhetoric probably optimizes for persuasion, in so far as it involves knowingly persuading people of lies and bad policies.)
Shouldn’t just assert that it isn’t groupthink. Maybe it is. Let them judge that for themselves. Now it sounds defensive, even.
It’s probably always dangerous and often wrong to assert that you, or your group, is free of any given bias.
Otherwise I do like the paragraph.
I would be interested to know what it is then that you desire nowadays.
And does everyone who gives up the thousand shards of desire end up desiring the same thing?
So happiness is the difference between your set point of happiness and your current happiness? Looks circular.
It seems to me like if you define complexity in any formal way, you’ll end up tiling the universe with either random noise, fractals, or some other extremely uninteresting system with lots and lots of variables.
Could complexity-advocates reply to this point specifically? Either to say why they don’t actually want this or to admit that they do. I’m confused.
I like to avoid “label words” and just say “I don’t believe in God” or even “I don’t think God exists”. Using label words can make the whole encounter adversarial and make the other less likely to listen to you (or you to listen to them!).
Label words bring to mind identity-based convictions, like “I believe in Allah because I’m a muslim” or “I don’t believe in God because I’m an atheist” instead of “I don’t believe in God because I’ve come to exclude the supernatural for such and such reasons...”.
This also avoids disputes and confusions over the “correct” definitions of words. For me, saying “I don’t believe in God” communicates everything that I need to communicate without having to muddy the waters with the connotations of the words “atheist”. Of course the word “believe” is pretty problematic too, but less so.
By the way, it’s interesting that the word is “agnostic” instead of “agnostist” or “agnosticist”, though it could be just a matter of grammar.
tl;dr—taboo your words often, avoid identity politics
Yes
Reading Overcoming Bias has messed with my head to such a degree that I can’t even understand anymore what people mean when they ask about the meaning of life. I can’t imagine the feeling that would give rise to such a question. Worrying?
I think it was so that newcomers wouldn’t think that LW are a bunch of fringe technophiles that just want to have their cause associated with rationality.
“Interested in rationality”
The two pictures are identical.
Edit: My bad, they’re not.
Does inflationary cosmology give me a reason to think that the earth will not turn into a pink elephant the next second?
You didn’t give any examples.
Does anybody think pain and/or death are unconditionally bad
You don’t?
When is pain or death not bad?
Or “procastination”.
Saying “akrasia” is signaling.
omnivore who concluded that food animal conditions were bad enough to warrant not eating meat
I’m one.
But admitting you knowingly do wrong is creepy. Faux pas. The normal way out is to rationalize, but sometimes I forget...
Is this historical story of optimization predictively applicable or just a story?
I liked philosophy before OB, so I knew you were supposed to question everything. OB revelealed new things to question, and taught me to expect genuine answers.