If you interpret the father’s statement as “all else being equal, being a better cook is good” and you completely divorce it from a historical and cultural context, it is indeed not really problematic. But given that we are, in fact, talking culture here, I do not think that this is the interpretation most likely to increase your insight.
JoachimSchipper
Karma: 741
Automatic dishwashers are really cheap per hour saved. The actual costs will vary widely (esp. in the US, where the cost of electricity is much lower than where I live), but our best estimate at the time of buying was $2/hour saved (based on halving the 30 minutes we need to do the dishes, and assuming it breaks the moment it’s out of warranty—not entirely unreasonable, since we pretty much bought the cheapest option.) Locally, about half is depreciation of the dishwasher and half is electricity/washing powder/water (negligible).
(I’ve brought this up before: http://lesswrong.com/lw/9pk/rationality_quotes_february_2012/5tsb.)
Computers have revolutionized most fields of science. I take it as a general “yay science/engineer/computers” quote.
Sure, thorium reactors do not appear to immediately allow nuclear weapons—but the scientific and technological advances that lead to thorium reactors are definitely “dual-use”.
I’m not entirely convinced of either the feasibility or the ethics of the “physicists should never have told politicians how to build a nuke” argument that’s been made multiple times on LW (and in HPMOR), but the existence of thorium reactors doesn’t really constitute a valid argument against it—an industry capable of building thorium reactors is very likely able to think up, and eventually build, nukes.
Aren’t you just confusing distributions (2d2) and samples (‘3’) here?
This is true in theory, but do you think it’s an accurate description of our real world?
(Nuclear power is potentially great, but with a bit more patience and care, we could stretch our non-nuclear resources quite a bit further, which would have given us more time to build stable(r) political systems.)
I’m not completely aware of the correct protocol here, but “with what gender do you primarily identify? … M (transgender f → m) …” is not something I would expect a transgender person to say—if I’d made that much of an effort to be (fe)male, I’d want to be “(fe)male”, not “(fe)male (transgender …)”.
Splitting out blog referrals from general referrals seems odd; is there a reason you cannot use “[ ] some blog, [ ]” and “[ ] other, [ ]”.
I see no benefit to “revealed” in “What is the probability that any of humankind’s revealed religions is more or less correct?”.
Calibration IQ: ”… is greater than the reported IQ...”
We already have a poll about whether this is useful content, and it’s currently at +32. I can imagine a few reasons why you made this second poll, but none of them are exactly complimentary.
There’s quite a bit of LessWrong/Hacker News cross-polinization, anyway.
The major value-add of professional VCs is that they are (should be) better at picking startups than most people. It’s very much possible for 90% of startups to fail while VCs still make money. (For one, successful startups can use much more capital; and the rest of the money is supplied by unsophisticated founders.)
Yes, our attitude towards nationalism has certainly been shaped by WW2. I’m not enough of a historian, but it may also be important to note that the Netherlands have been a rather fragmented (we prefer “tolerant”) society before WW2; that is, one’s loyalty was more to “the catholics” or “the socialists” than to the nation itself.
Although we technically still have conscription, it’s been “paused” for many years, and re-introducing it would be unpopular, to say the least. We are indeed quite active in a military sense, but the current army is all-voiunteer and rather small. Humanitarian aid and international justice are more our speed (although humanitarian aid is increasingly coming under fire for being less effective than promised.)
Football matches and the monarchy aside, I haven’t detected many traces of nationalism in the Netherlands. With our local far-right party riding high in the polls, there has been an effort to revitalize Dutch nationalism, but that hasn’t been very successful. (Xenophobia/racism/anti-islam has been much more successful in setting the debate and drawing votes.)
The Netherlands is (used to be) pretty un-patriotic, to the point that “nationalist” means “nazi” and “patriot” isn’t used, ever. Our “Remembrance Day” is explicitly for all victims of all conflicts (admittedly with precedence given to Dutch WW2 victims, but explicitly including the people on the other side of our last colonial war).
One could argue that we are geopolitically reliant on the United States’ overwhelming military force, but that would be moving the goalposts.
(The Netherlands are #17).)
True, but you can still get Alicorn’s issues again—“let’s all hug NewMember, except NiceGirlWhoGotRaped” doesn’t sound terribly comfortable for all involved, either. Good protocols can probably solve that, but that does get complicated quickly.
This post has been retracted.
Rationalizing anything: ask participants questions like “why did you have that cake?” or even “yesterday, you hit your kid. Why?”. These questions should not be based on reality, and the instructor(s) should probably do the first two or three rounds themselves to get people used to these kinds of questions. Despite the fact that the facts are blatantly false, the participant should come up with a reason that sounds as impressive as possible. (“Yes, I hit my child yesterday. Fourteen generations of Smiths have been brought up that way and gone on to be successful businessman, politicians and lawyers; I’ll be damned if I let some wishy-washy state nanny tell me what to do.”)
This may teach people to recognize rationalizations in themselves and others.
Good choice—I’ve read all of it, and I still don’t have a really good idea what it says. Please do post something if you can make an accessible and concise summary.
I currently do not have time, but it may be helpful if you state which sequences you intend to look at.
I’ve met women who honestly and persistently profess that women should not be allowed to vote. In at least one case, even in private, to a person they really want to like them and who very clearly disagrees with them.
From AlexanderD’s comment:
“The point, though, is that the narrowness of focus in the adventure precluded exploration of a large set of options.”
If playing D&D with a bunch of girls consistently leads to solutions being proposed that do not fit the traditional D&D mold, that can teach us something about how well that mold fits a bunch of girls. More generally, the author is a pretty smart woman who thought this was a good example—you’d do well to take a second look.