Yes, that is true. However, the thought I intended to convey when I started writing my comment was that it’s possible that many people have ideas that they just don’t write or talk about that much because of confidence or just not caring enough or whatever.
In other words, you might be asking “why don’t people want to share their ideas?” rather than “why don’t people have ideas?“.
My first thought was...how do you know people aren’t having ideas? Very few of my ideas are something I’ve thought enough about to write down or talk about in public, and many (most?) people do not have a great desire to write down or discuss their not-fully-fleshed-out ideas for public consumption anyway.
This comment is an idea of sorts, and I just happened to read it whilst at the right confluence of mood, energy, thoughtfulness, etc for me to put in the effort of making it. Another possible contributing explanation for the dearth of idea-having people?
Not that I’ve noticed.
This doesn’t jive with my personal experience. I definitely crave nutrients and am satisfied by them even without tasting them.
This is interesting to me. I have no similar experience.
The “correct” part is what everyone is concerned about, though.
You make Ezra’s point so much better than he did. (If that is indeed a good summary of what Ezra was trying to say).
Of course, that’s much easier to do while not in the midst of a back-and-forth.
I’m not commenting to agree or disagree really, just saying something your post made me remember thinking about before...
I’m not convinced that the typical religious person has actually thought through the implications of the supposed end result of their religion. Even when confronted with the fact that wireheading or whatever is the end result, other tribal biases come into play.
Something about the text formatting, paragraph density, and paragraph size uniformity makes this difficult to read.
As has been mentioned a couple times already...I don’t know how I’m supposed to use the site.
I go there and then I’m just like “now what?“.
It looks like there’s different places I can go to read different subsets of all available posts. How do I know I’m not missing any posts?
When I go to lesserwrong.com, there’s a huge section at the top of stuff I’ve already read and it’s always there. I have to scroll below the fold to see new content.
So the first section I see when I scroll down is called “Featured Posts”. What makes these posts featured?
Next section is “Recent Frontpage Posts”. What’s a “Frontpage” post? Am I missing some sort of non-frontpage posts by just reading this section?
Under the “Frontpage” posts heading there’s a couple of links that look like they’re supposed to filter the posts. Maybe I should be reading the “see all posts” link. Does that mean all “frontpage” posts and leaves out non-frontpage posts? I dunno.
What, specifically, is the problem you’re having that requires patience? It’s not using any notably weird/esoteric/advanced technology...
I’m a little confused about how to use my current LW account over there.
If I click “forgot my password” I never get an email, even though I have an email address tied to my LW account.
ETA: nothing in my span folder when I search for “lesser”
Over the years I’ve gone through periods of time where I can devote the effort/time to thoroughly reading LW and periods of time where I can basically just skim it.
Because of this I’m in a good position to judge the reliability of karma in surfacing content for its readability.
My judgement is that karma strongly correlates with readability.
I’m very impressed you’re still using this sort of system 5 years later!
I’d be really interested in how someone uses (work|vim)flowy day to day.
I’ve started to use workflowy several times over the years but then just kind of drift away after a week or so...
Also, Ditto is a great clipboard manager for Windows.
1) It’s not readily apparent to me that it is readily apparent to all potential readers that it is a throwaway generalization.
2) I’m not sure what you mean by “focus on”. Are you claiming that someone who notices that some might feel outgrouped or that someone who does feel outgrouped are going to be unable to read, comprehend, and/or appreciate the rest of the post? Are you claiming that the rest of the essay makes it readily apparent that the phrase under discussion is just a throwaway generalization? Are you claiming that everyone should always recognize throwaway generalizations and not react to them? Are you claiming that throwaway generalizations do not ever say anything about the mindset of those who are using them?
Consider that the phrase seems like a pretty effective way to out-group other people.
I’m skeptical that meetups are representative of rationalists in general.
Rationalists like to live in group houses.
Rationalists like to live in group houses.
Do they? This seems like a pretty strong claim to make.
I read almost every post and not very many comments...because i subscribe to the RSS feeds.
My first thought after skimming your post and thinking about it for 30 seconds is that reality does not have to care about about what you think is presumptuous. (I post because many times I reason myself out of my initial reaction and then later regret having done so. Maybe by putting it down in writing it will help me only do this if necessary.)
If the problem with EDT is that is spanws or destroys multiverses with a single thought, and you want to use this fact as an argument against EDT, than you’ll have to make the argument that multiverse spawning/destroying is not logically or physically possible.
Presumptuousness is a state of your mind, not something upon which the workings of reality hinges...or at least it doesn’t seem that way.