lucidian

Karma: 641

lucidian 10 Aug 2012 12:21 UTC
1 point
in reply to: GLaDOS’s comment on: [Link] Admitting to Bias
Our large cryonicist population is probably biasing us towards cryonicist ideas. Our large computer scientist population is almost certainly biasing us towards explanations of consciousness/intelligence which rely on computational metaphors. Our large, outspoken atheist contingent probably biases us away from conveying positive attitudes towards religion, lest we be publicly ridiculed. Are these biases problematic too?

Social groups form based on shared ideas. Of course they will be biased! I think most of us would be unhappy in a totally unbiased LessWrong, because we’d be so busy debating things like theism vs. atheism that we’d have no time to delve into the finer-grained implications of our philosophical worldview.

lucidian 10 Aug 2012 13:29 UTC
5 points
in reply to: philh’s comment on: [Link] Admitting to Bias
I agree with you; I am abusing terminology.

For the record, though, I do think we have a bias against theism in the sense that you’ve described. I understand why LessWrong might choose to consider the “does God exist?” question settled, but we go further than that. We frequently discuss how terrible religion is, and applaud efforts to promote atheism, despite the benefits to happiness etc. that religion provides.

I think it’s understandable that we have such a bias. On LessWrong, we value truth and truth-seeking; this goes far enough that it’s almost a moral value. When other groups actively discourage truth-seeking, we oppose them.

I don’t know anything about social psychology, but my experience with other social sciences suggests that liberal, humanist values are deeply ingrained in their system. What I mean is, the social sciences are not just truth-seeking engines looking for facts about humanity. They have their own moral values attached (e.g. reducing discrimination).

Just as we on LessWrong are reluctant to engage in discussions with people who oppose truth-seeking, social scientists may be reluctant to engage in discussions with conservatives, because conservatives tend to hold moral values that are actively opposed to the social sciences’ agenda.

This article suggests implicitly that the social sciences should be about truth-seeking, not about promoting some political/moral agenda. The willingness of social scientists to admit their bias against conservatives suggest that they feel otherwise.
What links here?
- Eugine_Nier's comment on [Link] Admitting to Bias by GLaDOS (16 Sep 2012 7:19 UTC; 0 points)

lucidian 11 Aug 2012 2:56 UTC
5 points
in reply to: Eugine_Nier’s comment on: [Link] Admitting to Bias
The problem with HBD is that it’s not pure truth-seeking; there are value judgments attached. Most HBD advocates I’ve encountered don’t just claim that the statistical correlation between race and IQ can be explained by genetics; they also claim that people with high IQs are better than people with low IQs.

I often see HBD presented as a heroic scientific effort, one that is only embraced by those truth-seekers brave enough to swim against the tide of political correctness. But HBD (as presented on the HBD blogs I’ve encountered, at least) is so fraught with value judgments that I have trouble taking it seriously. I have to wade through all sorts of claims about how awful black people are in order to dig out the bloggers’ actual data. Furthermore, I distrust the factual claims of anyone with so obvious an agenda.

I’m not familiar with vdare.com, but I think it’s perfectly reasonable for a truth-seeker to reject a source for making blatant value judgments. If the findings reported in that source are in any way scientific, they will be contained in the academic literature, which is presumably more neutral. A truly conscientious truth-seeker might want to completely avoid bloggers with political agendas, and go straight to the scientific journal articles.

lucidian 7 Sep 2012 21:08 UTC
14 points
in reply to: ’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
If male creepiness is contributing to the gender imbalance on LessWrong, I would expect high-status creepiness to be far more problematic than low-status creepiness. In a social setting, it’s a lot easier to call a low-status member out for being creepy. If a high-status member is being creepy, a newcomer might prefer to leave than to confront him/her or complain about his/her behavior to the rest of the group. Alternatively, if the newcomer does complain about the high-status member, he/she might be scoffed at by the rest of the group, who likes that individual.

lucidian 7 Sep 2012 21:30 UTC
13 points
in reply to: Athrelon’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
People behave differently in different social contexts, though. If person Y finds person X’s behavior creepy, and no one else finds person X’s behavior creepy, it could be that X is behaving differently towards Y than he/she is towards everyone else.

Obviously, this is relevant to the gender situation, where person X is male and behaves differently towards females than he does towards males.

lucidian 8 Sep 2012 2:03 UTC
9 points
in reply to: Matt_Caulfield’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
Presumably some women are less averse to creepiness than other women. Perhaps a socially awkward guy could start by interacting with women who are tolerant of social awkwardness, but who will point out his mistakes so he can improve. Then, he could work his way up to interacting with people who are less and less tolerant of creepiness.

lucidian 8 Sep 2012 2:38 UTC
15 points
in reply to: JoeW’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
I agree with you that the socially awkward among us could reap large benefits by implementing these “anti-creeper measures”. That’s because we live in a society where such “creepy” behaviors are deemed unacceptable, and in order to fit into a society, one has to follow that society’s norms.

However, I think many people on this thread have a problem with these norms existing, and that’s what they’re upset about; they’d like to combat these social norms instead of acquiescing to them. And I can certainly see why a rationalist might be opposed to these norms. The idea of “creepiness” seems to be a relatively new social phenomenon, and since it emerged, people have gotten much more conscious about avoiding being “creepy”. Most of the discussion in the comments has been about unwanted physical contact, but another part of creepiness is unwanted verbal communication. Social norms seem to cater increasingly to the oversensitive and easily offended; instead of asking oversensitive people to lighten up a bit, we often go out of our way to avoid saying things that will offend people. And of course, any social norm that prevents people from communicating their beliefs and opinions honestly is contrary to the goals of the rationalist movement. It may then be of interest to rationalists to fight this increase in sensitivity by encouraging open discussion, and discouraging taking offense.

Of course, to actually change social norms, we would first have to infiltrate society, which requires gaining basic competence in social skills, even ones we disagree with.

lucidian 8 Sep 2012 12:51 UTC
12 points
in reply to: David_Gerard’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
Hmm, I think I meant that the label is new, as well as the increased social consciousness of creepiness. A couple years ago, I realized that at my college, the two things everyone wanted to avoid being were “awkward” and “creepy”. I could tell because people would preface comments with “this is super awkward, but” or “I don’t mean to come across as creepy, but”. Usually, the comments would be anything but awkward or creepy, but prefacing the comment does a couple of useful things:
- The speaker safeguards himself against being judged by anyone who might possibly find the comment awkward/creepy, or on the threshold of awkward/creepy. If he knows that he’s being awkward/creepy, at least no one will think he’s so socially maladjusted that he’s doing it by accident.
- The speaker demonstrates that she’s not awkward/creepy. I mean, if she’s worried about a comment as innocuous as /that/ being perceived as awkward/creepy, she’s certainly not going to do anything /actually/ awkward/creepy!
The conspicuous self-consciousness and constant safeguarding against awkward/creepiness always annoyed me, so I’m likely responding to that as much as I’m responding to the content of this thread.

EDIT: Maybe I’m completely misinterpreting the social situation. Maybe in the past, people were unable to express anything potentially awkward/creepy for fear of being seen as such. And maybe the increased social consciousness and explicit prefacing allow people to discuss ideas or opinions that they previously wouldn’t have been able to say aloud at all.

lucidian 10 Sep 2012 3:30 UTC
14 points
in reply to: Douglas_Reay’s comment on: Call for Anonymous Narratives by LW Women and Question Proposals (AMA)
I’d like an option to hide all karma scores. There’s two reasons for this:
- I worry that by seeing the karma of a post before reading the post, I will be unfairly biased toward or against that post. I’d really like to make up my own mind about these things before seeing what the community has decided. I’m pretty sure my opinions change drasticallly based on the opinions of the group I’m in, and this seems counterproductive for rationality (although very useful for social cohesion).
- I’m embarrassed to admit that karma scores affect my emotions a lot. Each time I lose a karma point, it’s like an emotional punch in the face. If someone politely disagreed with my post, I would not have this reaction. If someone violently disagreed with my post, I’d either be slightly upset, very amused, or both. But when I lose a karma point, I feel intense shame. Also, when I gain karma, I feel intense pride. When I post here, I feel like I’m talking to “win karma”, not to engage in an interesting discussion with thoughtful, intelligent people. This isn’t a motivation/reaction I like to have, and that’s why I almost never post here, and instead spend all my time on IRC. Basically, because of the karma system, I try not to say anything that might be disapproved of, and I’m reluctant to engage in candid discussion. Those of you who know me on IRC or IRL might be surprised to hear this, because in those situations I almost always discuss my thoughts/opinions candidly without fearing social rejection; in fact, in those situations, I genuinely don’t care whether I’m rejected. I don’t know why the karma system on LW is so different for me. Anyway, I’m going to try to train my emotional system to ignore karma altogether the way I’ve trained it not to care about IRL rejection; we’ll see how that goes.

lucidian 10 Sep 2012 3:34 UTC
6 points
in reply to: Douglas_Reay’s comment on: Call for Anonymous Narratives by LW Women and Question Proposals (AMA)
I don’t think I’ve ever feared a gender-specific negative response when posting on LessWrong, though I also deliberately use a gender-neutral username.

lucidian 10 Sep 2012 3:48 UTC
8 points
in reply to: Rubix’s comment on: Call for Anonymous Narratives by LW Women and Question Proposals (AMA)
Datapoint: I’m female, and I’m paranoid about becoming status-oriented and competitive, so I try to cull any behaviors in myself that I’d classify as “showing off”. I feel like I brag too much and worry constantly about being or becoming arrogant.

lucidian 10 Sep 2012 3:56 UTC
9 points
in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Call for Anonymous Narratives by LW Women and Question Proposals (AMA)
Some of each. I like attention, and bringing up my gender is a great way to get attention, because many people are interested in the rare female perspective on various LW topics. (It seems, though, that the attention I seek and receive on LW regarding gender is unrelated to my boobs.) When I don’t want gender-related attention, I simply don’t mention my gender; having a gender-neutral username is nice. Sometimes I like participating in discussions about gender/PUA/etc. without revealing that I’m female.

lucidian 10 Sep 2012 4:01 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: Call for Anonymous Narratives by LW Women and Question Proposals (AMA)
=O Thanks muchly! I’m trying it out right now. It doesn’t seem to work properly, but perhaps I’m doing it wrong; I’ll play with it more.

lucidian 10 Sep 2012 4:10 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Sarokrae’s comment on: Call for Anonymous Narratives by LW Women and Question Proposals (AMA)
I introspect almost constantly, and try to keep a detailed archive of my thought processes so I can trace how my beliefs and opinions have evolved over time. I’ve found introspection extremely effective, especially when I discuss the results of my introspection with various analytical friends.

lucidian 10 Sep 2012 4:16 UTC
8 points
in reply to: Athrelon’s comment on: Call for Anonymous Narratives by LW Women and Question Proposals (AMA)
“Death is a bad thing.”

I find death aesthetically pleasing as part of the great circle of life, and I also feel that the earth is overpopulated enough as it is. I bring this topic up because it’s been noted that females, even rational ones, are often opposed to cryonics. I’m female, and I’m opposed to cryonics.

lucidian 11 Sep 2012 2:36 UTC
14 points
in reply to: Rubix’s comment on: Call for Anonymous Narratives by LW Women and Question Proposals (AMA)
This is fascinating. I agree that it’s safer for a girl to act shy, awkward, and insecure, especially when first meeting people, and that agressive, competitive behavior is frowned upon. However, I feel like there’s a happy medium between these two poles. Is it possible for a girl to be confident, forthright, and assertive, while remaining respectful and cooperative? That is the ideal towards which I strive.

Actually, I’m quite meta-self-conscious about my lack of self-consciousness. I’m neither shy nor insecure, and I worry that I’m violating some unspoken social rule of girlhood with my excessive self-esteem. For instance, I’ve had multiple exchanges of the following variety with male friends:

Him: You’re very pretty.

Me: Thank you.

Him: What? You’re not going to argue with me? But all girls deny that they’re pretty.

I refuse to submit myself to this cultural meme of denying that I’m pretty. First of all, when a guy says “you’re very pretty”, I interpret it to mean “I find you very pretty”, and who am I to argue with his perceptions? Secondly, many of my male friends have complimented my appearance, and I’m too much of an empiricist to deny that I’m pretty in light of so much evidence to the contrary. Lastly, were I to deny my prettiness, I would be subjected to a long stream of compliments, all of which I’d have to refuse. “I’m not pretty.” “Yes you are. You have such nice .” “No I don’t.” “You do, and your is beautiful too.” I despise this kind of feelgoodism and refuse to fish for compliments.

Compared to… well, all the girls I know IRL, I guess… I have excessively high self-esteem. I used to read Roissy regularly, which made me terrified that my confidence was unwarranted and I would never find a mate on account of it. After realizing how much that blog had affected my behaviors, I stopped reading it, but still I worry that my confidence is offputting to potential friends and mates.

When it comes down to it, though, I’ll keep my self-confidence. I strive to base my self-esteem on purely internal measurements like the progress I’ve made towards my goals, not on external measurements like what my friends think. I don’t want to rely on their validation for my self-worth, and I don’t want to be crushed by rejection when it occurs. I don’t want to put my self-esteem at the mercy of society’s judgments. And that’s why I refuse to play this insecurity game that society has thrust upon girls. If people dislike me and potential mates me reject me on account of this, so be it; my self-esteem doesn’t rest on their acceptance or rejection anyway.

lucidian 11 Sep 2012 11:16 UTC
5 points
in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Call for Anonymous Narratives by LW Women and Question Proposals (AMA)
I am a girl and I approve of this suggestion. I’ll also note that LW has been very good about this in all of my experiences here (discussion forum, IRC, and meetups IRL).

lucidian 11 Sep 2012 11:25 UTC
3 points
in reply to: Sarokrae’s comment on: Call for Anonymous Narratives by LW Women and Question Proposals (AMA)
This strategy makes a lot of sense, but I wonder whether it’s applicable to professional settings. Jeans and a hoodie don’t just signal nongirliness; they also signal casualness. Does anyone know of equivalently gender-neutral clothes that are appropriate for formal settings? Or is it unnecessary because the formality prevents people from making unwanted advances anyway?

lucidian 11 Sep 2012 11:37 UTC
11 points
in reply to: daenerys’s comment on: Call for Anonymous Narratives by LW Women and Question Proposals (AMA)
In discussions such as these, how do you prefer that the community refers to its female members? Do you like when female community members are called “women”? “girls”? “females”? Do you actively dislike any of these options? What is your opinion on gender-neutral pronouns, and what do you use for the third-person-singular-neuter? I’m also interested in any other observations you’ve had on the linguistics of gender.

lucidian 14 Sep 2012 18:44 UTC
14 points
on: Experimental psychology on word confusion
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016782

Here’s a fascinating paper by Lera Boroditsky about how subtle metaphors influence the way we think about situations. Iirc, participants were asked to read a sentence about crime; in some versions, crime was described as a “virus”, and in others crime was described as a “beast”. People were then asked how they would stop the crime; the people who heard the different metaphors responded in different ways, but they were not conscious of how much the metaphor had influenced their response.