For starters the fact that Sparta actually won.
lmn
I agree there is a big danger of slipping down the free speech slope if we fight too hard against fake news, but I also think we need to consider a (successful) campaign effort of another nation to undermine the legitimacy of our elections as an act of hostile aggression,
You know, your campaign against fake news might be taken slightly more seriously if you didn’t immediately follow it up by asserting a piece of fake news as fact.
Liberals see the potatoes, recognize that some people still die even when they eat potatoes like their ancestor, and decide they need more crops.
Like, say, kudzu to enhance the soil and help prevent erosion.
However, unlike the people who actually introduced kudzu, liberals aren’t even willing to admit they made a mistake after the fact and will insist that the only reason people object to having their towns and houses completely overgrown with kudzu is irrational kudzuphobia.
subsidized egg freezing and childcare
Fertility is inversely correlated with income, the problem isn’t that people don’t have enough money, the problem is that in some sense they don’t want children. I think a better approach would be cultural changes that make it high status to have lot’s of children.
I don’t think that is a correct summary of the essay at all, which is really pointing to a problem with how we think about coordination.
True, his point that Bayesians should be able to overcome these coordination problems by doing X, Y, and Z. Except neither him nor anyone else has should any interest in actually making an effort to do X, Y, and Z.
Unfortunately, analogies with Greek city states are wasted on me, because I don’t have enough knowledge about them to make deep connections. For example, how specifically did Athens solve the problem of refugees bringing their own culture, sometimes incompatible with the original values of Athens?
Citizenship, and hence the right to vote, was restricted to people both whose parents were citizens.
I don’t know of any case of the collapse of a technological civilization. If you want to stretch the definition of “technological” you can find something in the BC eras, but that isn’t very relevant.
So what’s your definition of a “technological civilization”? Can you give another example of one? Otherwise this sounds like your arguing that you are immortal because no one exactly like you has ever died.
For example, lead and copper production create characteristic types of atmospheric pollution so we can get estimates for historical world production levels from Greenland ice cores. The resulting graph for lead shows two peaks, corresponding to ancient Rome and modern civilization. The graph for copper shows three peaks, the two for lead and also Song dynasty China. The peaks are surrounded by troughs, eg, world lead production wouldn’t return to Roman levels until the 18th century, so in that sense we can objectively say that technological civilizations have collapsed in the past.
Of course, the there is a game theoretic reason to shoot the messenger. The whole point of doing so is to burn a bridge. The original meaning of the term is:
Originally in military sense of intentionally cutting off one’s own retreat (burning a bridge one has crossed) to commit oneself to a course of action
Ancient battles, and probably to large extend in modern battles as well, were won or lost on moral. When a large part of your army panicked and ran your side was almost certain to loose. Furthermore, whoever was the last to run would be the first one killed when the enemy overran your position. Thus, if you were afraid the soldier next you would run, you were likely to run as well. Burning the bridge behind you was one way to resolve the game theoretic dilemma. Running cannot save your life, so you might as well hold the line.
Metaphorically burning a bridge by killing the messenger serves the same purpose. By publicly killing Sauron’s messenger Aragorn is reassuring his allies that he’s not going to betray them by cutting a deal with Sauron that leaves them out to dry.
In (1) the subject is the word “none”. The word “us” is part of the prepositional phrase “of us”.
There are many issues where Trump lies about an issue where the truth would be simple to explain and be understood by average people. When Trump tells the public that John Stewart invited Trump multiple times when John Stewart did no such thing it might be “emotionally true” in the sense that people who watch Trump want to emotionally belief.
It’s interesting that the best example you could come up with appears to be an obscure bit of trivia. I wasn’t able to figure out the exact details by searching, but Jon Steward certainly said many things that sounded like he was implying he’d love to have Trump on his show, e.g., this. I suspect, what may have happened is that Jon Steward (whose whole schtick is telling lies and half-truths, using a laugh track in lieu of a counter-argument, and pleading “just joking” when called on it) likes to imply he would totally beat Trump in an argument. A much more fun thing to say until Trump implies you’re just desperate to have him on the show for the ratings boost.
Berny Sanders for example said in on of the debates that America is the richest country on earth. There are countries with a richer per capita GDP but that’s besides the point that Sanders made for the debate.
Which was? I’m guessing it was something along the lines of “America is the richest country on earth therefore we can afford to adopt ”.
There’s a bunch of politics involved and additionally, it’s about the distinction of states for which I believe jimmy to which I have replied to have mental models
And why does this discussion of psychological states depend no you asserting false statements about contemporary politics?
Honestly, the problem with this approach is that it tends to degenerate to “when my side tells lies, they’re still emotionally true; when the other side makes inconvenient statements that are true, I can dismiss them as emotionally false”.
Maybe you can’t think of a way to set up such trade, because emails can be faked etc, but I believe that superintelligences will find a way to achieve their mutual interest.
They’ll also find ways of faking whatever communication methods are being used.
I’m currently atheist; my deconversion was quite the unremarkable event. September 2015 (I discovered HPMOR in February and RAZ then or in March), I was doing research on logical fallacies to better argue my points for a manga forum, when I came across Rational Wiki; for several of the logical fallacies, they tended to use creationists as examples. One thing lead to another (I was curious why Christianity was being so hated, and researched more on the site)
So you came to a pseudo-rationalist cite, (you will find the opinion of Rational Wiki around here is much lower than the of Christianity) discovered that your beliefs are unpopular in certain circles, and decided to change them to fit in.
Honestly, why does it seem like every deconversion narrative I’ve read always has the stupidest reasons for it?
Magnitude—Is the criticism too harsh, does it point to something completely unlike the original proposal, or otherwise require changes that aren’t feasible for the generator to make?
I’m confused, I thought the point was to avoid getting stuck in local maxima. Discouraging criticisms that are too harsh or demand too many changes sees a weird way of doing that.
The failure of Soviet agriculture wasn’t very salient to Americans.
Yes it was. The “success” of Soviet collectivization compared to the apparent failure of capitalism was being used as an argument to justify leftwing/collectivist economic policies.
If a topic would be the center of a culture war in the US they would notice and in today’s traffic driven times feel like it’s a good idea to write an article that ranks decently on the keyword.
The NYT isn’t going to publish an article that would offend the world view of it’s liberal readers. Any description of HBD that conceptualizes it as an empirical scientific hypothesis that could be tested and potentially confirmed would certainly fit the bill.
Specifically, the main quality factors in people reading a Wikipedia page are (a) the existence of the page (!), (b) whether the page has the stuff they were looking for.
(c) whether the information on the page is accurate.
I proxied the first by number of pages, and the second by length of the pages that already existed.
Except not all topics and not all information are of equal interest to people.
You seem to be conflating quantity and quality.
To mention the elephant in the living room, I wonder if the increasingly broken wikipedia mod culture has something to do with this.
What about ostensibly apolitical posts that nonetheless use hot button issues as examples?
What about situations where a hot button issue comes up in the context of discussion?
I agree with your post except for this. Based on reading post-WWII accounts of Germany and Japan, when the economic/trade system breaks down, it becomes hard to get food if you don’t live where it’s being grown.