I would say this is not ALWAYS true. But for the purpose of civilized discussion between human beings, it does seem like a very useful rule of thumb.
Osuniev
I read this trying to keep as open a mind as possible, and I think there is SOME value to SOME of what he said (ie no two experiments are totally the same and replicators often are motivated to prove the first study wrong)… But one thing that really set me off is that he genuinely considers a study that doesn’t prove its hypothesis as a failure, not even acknowledging that IN PRINCIPLE, this study has proven the hypothesis wrong, which is valuable knowledge all the same.
Which is so jarring with what I consider the very basis of science that I find difficult to take Mitchell seriously.
Well, as a kid I got bullied at school, quite a bit, and I DO remember bullying other a handful of times.
I remember being conscious about it and feeling like shit for it, but at the same time being so relieved because as long as someone else was being bullied, I wasn’t.
I certainly did not enjoy it, mainly because it contradicted my vision of myself as a courageous victim.
upvoted for not taking argument as soldiers.
re-reading chapter 76 made me realise the prophecy could not be about Voldemort at all :
Let’s look at this prophecy in detail :
“The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches,”
Vanquish, as Snape said, is a strange word to describe a baby accidentally toasting Voldemort, especially since we have evidence that this might not be what really happened. “Dark Lord” is used by EY quite loosely, and not as something specifically relating to Voldemort. Indeed, Dumbledore seems to worry that he could be this Dark Lord. Now, if we step outside of what we think we know about the prophecy...
Who is Harry trying to “vanquish” ? Who is it which Harry has “the power to Vanquish” ?
Dementors ? Death in general ? Dementors as an incarnation of Death ?
Could Death be considered as the Dark Lord ? I admit this is stretching the use of the word Dark Lord, but it does sounds interesting and more appropriate to Vanquish. Now, bear with me a moment and let’s look at the rest of the prophecy : Born to those who have thrice defied him,
Now, while Lily and James have defied death 3 times, there’s a million person in the same case on the planet. But WHO has defied Death three times in the Universe ?
The Peverell Brother. Harry’s ancestors through the Potter Family.
Born as the seventh month dies, And the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal,
The Tale of the Three Brothers specifically says : ”...”And then he [the third brother Ignotus, owner of the Cloak] greeted Death as an old friend, and went with him gladly, and, as equals, they departed this life.” Harry having the Cloak works, as such. Alternatively, Harry “killing” Dementors make Death and he litteraly equals, in that they can destroy each other.
But he will have power the Dark Lord knows not,
The only unique powers Harry has are Dementor 2.0 and partial transfiguration Dementor 2.0 seems rather good.
And either must destroy all but a remnant of the other, For those two different spirits cannot exist in the same world.
I find really interesting that nowhere it is said that the dark lord “lives”. “Destroy all but a remnant” could mean Dementing Harry, or Destroying all dementors except one, or giving Philosopher’s Stones to everyone but without the death rate falling to zero (because accidental Death would still happen buit would not be an inevitability.
Note that this theory (still improbable, if I had to bet on it I wouldn’t assign more than a 15 % chance for Death to be the “Dark Lord” of the prophecy) is still compatible with Dumbledore trying to trick Voldemort in a Dark ritual, or both of them interpreting the prophecy as in canon.
Well, rationalists should end up “winning” insofar as winning means “doing better than non-rationalists ON AVERAGE.
Then again, it doesn’t mean all rationalists end up living 120 years old and extremely rich. If yo are a non-rationalist born with 1 billion of dollars on your bank account you’ll probably end up richer than a rationalist born in North korea in a poor family with no legs and no arms.
But on the other hand, if you cannot identify the causes for your defeats as completely independant of yourself, it probably means you are doing something wrong or at least not optimally.
In the lottery example above, there is 99 other worlds where the rationalist who bought the tickets is better off than the man who did not (unless the lottery is rigged, in which case the rationalist is the one who realised that this smells funny and doesn’t buy tickets). Or more intuitively, if there is a lot of such lotteries, the Rationalist buying the tickets every time will end up richer than the man who doesn’t.
IN YOUR LIFE, there is probably enough such “lotteries” for you to end up better off if you are rationalist than if you are not, and reliably so.
(and “you did everything right” but maybe the right thing to do would have been to arrive at the sales office earlier).
/ Reeves, if both players play (C, C) and then divide up the points evenly at the end, isn’t that sort of… well… communism?
Is this wrong for other reason than cached thoughts though ? (Probably yes, but you didn’t explain it).
Well, so much for that !
Comme le titre l’indique, ce roman cherche à être rationnel.
Yes, it’s used to make the Elixir of Life.
But things ARE moving in this direction, I believe. Bolivia is trying to figure a way to start getting money from the world’s largest reserve of lithium, currently untouched because under the natural wonder Salar de Uyuni
In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Imperiused Pius Thicknesse is charged by the Death Eaters with imperiusing other members of the MoM. (Or was he the one being imperiued by an imperiused ?)
Putting my wager where my mouth is : http://predictionbook.com/predictions/20831
Well, I may have read too much into this statement, that’s true. I always assumed that Dumbledore conveniently “going to the Ministry of Magic” on a broomstick or with a Thestral (and not using one of the million other possibilities such as Floo Powder, Portkey, Apparating), then SUDDENLY realizing halfway that Hogwarts is where he ought to be were meant to signify the adult reader that, unlike what Canon!HP understood, Dumbledore knew all along and was trying to trick Voldemort/Quirrel into trying to get the Stone (which was safe inside the mirror of Erised). It also explained the perfect timing of Hagrid and Harry retrieving the Stone from Gringotts the exact same day Quirrel/Voldemort broke in. The Stone had in my opinion been a bait all along, to try and catch the Dark Lord while waiting for the Chosen One to be old enough to defeat him.
THIS. Although I`m unsure about the particulars you mention here, being an European, people and effective altruists need to realize that your job is INSIDE the world you live in. Estimating how much good you’re producing is not just about how much money/time you’re giving to effective charities, but also how much your way of life is helping/damaging the world.
Quote ? I think the 7th book of the chronicles of Narnia clearly establishes that Aslan IS, in fact, Jesus in a very litteral sense.
Maybe because you are hurting and getting hurt, but these “enablers of foolishness” are getting hurt while they don’t (consciously) hurt others, and therefore would probably consider unfair to be attacked.
´Well, tolerating them has a good chance of signalling to neutral observers that you are not a pompous jerk, and therefore listen to your ideas favorably.
(...Except when faced with a rationality-punishing deity)
And even there, arguably, the true beliefs of “this deity punish rationality” and “this deity uses this algorithm to do so” could lead to applying the right kind of behaviour to avoid said punishment.
Correlation is not causation. Who you are defines your friends probably as much as your friends define who you are, AND both are mainly consequences of something different entirely (which schol you went too, etc...)