Thank you Korin43! I found this feedback super-useful.
glennonymous
Karma: −9
Further clarification: Zvi put quotes around the word “genius” and meant it ironically. Neither he nor anyone in the rationalist community has ever to my knowledge actually accused me of higher than average intelligence.
I get that the original version at least appears one-sided.
BTW: Presently trying to Steel Man the attacks against me.
I did get upset at being called a Troll. That is the only part of your description I can agree with. The bet is not one-sided.
That is what was said. I’m also pretty sure it’s wrong FWIW… but I can’t explain why without spoiling the joke. I know this will get me downvoted. Shrug
Steve, I see how this was an offensive way to describe what Zvi wrote. He did use that word but not in the way I implied. All my (secret) criterion required was that he use the word “genius” somehow in his email and point it at me. To be clear: He meant if I won the bet, then I would be a genius.
Hey Laura, would love to talk by Skype if you are free. See my note to Ray below.
Ray, I just tried calling you and Zvi. I would love to talk with someone who can set me straight. I understand well that people are upset and I almost certainly did something “bad” by some definition of that word. I don’t get all the hostility now that I mostly explained it.
This is pretty amazing — Zvi (winner of my one box award) and I independently invented the exact same concept and used the same word to describe it. I assume Zvi invented it first and deserves the credit, yay Zvi!!! I believe Danny Reeves may be able to verify this FWIW. (Danny, it’s a concept in Optimojo.)
Proust’s In Search of Lost Time, with its famously long and complicated sentences that often take four or five reads to parse, is great for this. As a bonus, it’s Great.
Read the Boring Advice Less Wrong thread periodically and do what it says.
I’m more than a little ashamed to admit I’m only reading this now, after writing about half of a first draft of what is nominally a piece of “Rationalist Fiction,” Erica’s Adventures In The Multiverse.. I say nominally, because reading this I realized that I didn’t even know what “rationalist fiction” is, despite having read and loved HPMOR and having other, even more embarrassing reasons, to school myself in this regard.
The good news is, I’m going through what I’ve written so far, and I think I can salvage what’s good about it while reconstructing what needs to be reconstructed to transform the thing from fake rationalist fiction to something hopefully worthy of the label. It’s invigorating, actually.
I’m confused. Is the date and location in the body of the post correct or not? These “I’ve amended the X” comments seem to imply so, but this thread would suggest the date is now the 16th, and the post says the 9th. Please clarify. I live in Central NJ and would love to attend if I can. Either date works for me.
Great post. Here’s my unvarnished answer: I wouldn’t jump, and the reasons why involve my knowledge that I have a 7-year old daughter and the (Motivated Reasoning and egotism alert!!) idea that I have the potential to improve the lives of many people.
Now of course, it’s EXTREMELY likely that one or more of the other people in this scenario is a parent, and for all I know one of them will invent a cure for cancer in the future. In point of fact, if I were to HONESTLY evaluate the possibility that one of the other players has a potential to improve the planet more than I do, the likelihood may be as great as the likelihood that one of the other players is also a parent. Which makes me think that yes, my incentives are screwed up here and the correct answer is: I should be as willing to jump as to push the fat man off the bridge.
I also note that, if my wife or daughter was one of the people tied to the track, I would unhesitatingly throw myself off. This makes me conclude that I should want to throw myself off the bridge (because the supposedly, flimsily ‘rational atruistic’ reason—that I have the potential to help people—is revealed to be bogus). I still wonder, however, if there is any possible rational reason to not choose to sacrifice oneself in the scenario. I am unable to come up with one.
My “Q.E.D.” was not making the point that your disagreeing with me constitutes proof of my assertion. It was that every time I have made this assertion to anyone not already familiar with Harris’ book, they immediately rejected it, making it a perfect example of the kind of thing the original post was asking for.
As for the mountain of evidence supporting my claim, the “pop psychology books” I linked to are extensively referenced. The easiest way to think about it is to consider twin studies. Since identical twins have the same genes, we can measure the amount of difference parenting makes on personality by measuring the differences in personality between identical twins raised in the same home and identical twins separated at birth and raised in different homes. Numerous studies have shown that there is no greater difference in personality between identical twins raised in the same home and those raised in different homes. Ergo, whatever environmental influences shape personality come from outside the home, not inside.
Studies that purport to show massive influence of parenting style on personality are very frequently flawed, as Harris shows abundantly in The Nurture Assumption. And as far as Vaniver’s argument that parental abuse is an exception to all this, I would have to re-read Harris’ book, but I’m pretty sure this was covered.
Wow. Well I see that my comment has been downvoted out of existence, which I’m pretty sure means that it is a perfect example of that the original post was looking for. FWIW, people hating on this would do well to at least LOOK at the books to which I linked in my comment. Harris’ book in particular is beautifully and rigorously argued, and very useful. The chapter in Pinker is a nice encapsulation.
Q.E.D.
As elucidated by Judith Rich Harris in The Nurture Assumption and Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate, and completely contrary to our current cultural fad of attributing all neurosis to the failure of parents to properly nurture their children, parenting has close to zero effect on how children turn out. How our peers interact with us has a far greater impact on personality development than whatever our parents do or don’t do, whether they abuse us, slather us with affection every day, ignore us, constantly berate us, constantly tell us we are wonderful, et cetera.
FWIW I am attacking certain community norms, and I’m trying to use humor to do that. I can understand how this can shock and offend people I care about in the community. I’ve been through similar things before and it sucks, but I sometimes choose to do it anyway. Gadflies are important. I’m not talking about this dumb bet, exactly, but the “bet” has inspired me to work on more elaborate things that play off it. For instance: https://rokosbasilisknovel.com. Seeking constructive feedback.