There is also this isolating effect when the media tells a lie, e.g. denies some true fact X, and most people don’t buy it, but they decide “this is what we’re all conspiring to tell our enemies”. And while you’re busy trying to “convince” your opponent that X actually happened, you never get to discuss whether X is the right thing to do.
seed
Karma: 231
Wait, I thought EA already had 46$ billion they didn’t know where to spend, so I should prioritize direct work over earning to give? https://80000hours.org/2021/07/effective-altruism-growing/
It seems like the source of your disagreement is that you do not believe turkeys actually suffer (as you write “suffer” in scare quotes), while the OP clearly believes they do. I think this question needs to be settled first before we decide which emotional reactions are reasonable. (I myself have no idea what the answer is.)
Radical actions. The word “radical” means someone trying to find and eliminate root causes of social problems, rather than just their symptoms. Many people pursue radical goals through peaceful means (spreading ideas, starting a commune, attending a peaceful protest or boycotting would be examples), yet “radical act” is commonly used as a synonym to “violent act”.
Extremism. Means having views far outside the mainstream attitude of society. But also carries a strong negative connotation, in some countries is prohibited by law and mentioned alongside “terrorism” like they’re synonyms, and redefined by Wikipedia as “those policies that violate or erode international human rights norms” (but what if one’s society is opposed to human rights?!) Someone disagreeing with society is not necessarily bad or violent, so this is a bad concept.
“Outside of politics”. Any choice one makes affects the balance of power somehow, so one cannot truly be outside. In practice the phrase often means that supporting the status quo is allowed, but speaking against it is banned.
What the heck did I do wrong, why are you downvoting me, guys?
Berlin.
Are you saying that MIRI enforces altruism in their employees? If so, how do they do that, exactly?
Scott Aaronson, for example, blogs about “blank faced” non-self-explaining authoritarian bureaucrats being a constant problem in academia. Venkatesh Rao writes about the corporate world, and the picture presented is one of a simulation constantly maintained thorough improv.
Well, I once met a person in academia who was convinced she’d be utterly bored anywhere outside academia.
If you want an unbiased perspective on what life is like outside the rationality community, you should talk to people not associated with the rationality community. (Yes, Venkatesh Rao doesn’t blog here as far as I can tell, but he is repeatedly mentioned on LW, so counts as “associated” for the purpose of this exercise.)
How do you know it’s useful though? Did you apply the advice? Did it help?
>> Sometimes I try to tell the people what I can see, and that doesn’t always go well. I’m not sure why.
Can you describe a concrete example? Without looking at a few examples, it is hard to tell if a “context-free integrity” fallacy is to blame, or you are just making bad arguments, or something.
One benefit is that you can do calisthenics everywhere (even in prison), no need for special equipment.
What’s to stop the prosecutor from lying about their Briers score?
We have exercised our innovative technique of meta-honesty to successfully dupe some computer programmers into thinking we want their participation.
I actually thought Ty was a real person. :)
And Y/2 pain, probably? (Or the conclusion doesn’t follow.)
How do you measure intelligence though? Obviously you don’t mean IQ, since IQ test scores are deliberately calibrated to be normally distributed.
Generally, I feel like all these bold claims need some supporting evidence. E.g.
Increased information makes smart people smarter and stupid people stupider.
Citation needed?
[Question] Is MIRI actually hiring and does Buck Shlegeris still work for you?
I totally agree that it’s useful to hang out with a diverse set of people.
It also helps to treat people’s opinion of you as an instrumental goal. Every time I’m worried what someone thinks of me, I ask myself if this person’s opinion is important, and why—can they hurt me or help me in any way? Sometimes the answer is yes, e.g. I want to impress employers, or I need voters to like me if I’m doing politics. Often, though, the answer is that the person is not going to affect my life in any way, and so their opinion doesn’t matter. People’s opinions may also matter as an estimate of my own virtue, but if their opinion is based on a misunderstanding, or they’re confused about what’s virtue and what’s vice, then their opinion can be discarded again.
Is starting capital really a bottleneck for entrepreneurs? Don’t you just get money from investors?
Elon Musk and Bill Gates only needed a laptop to start their business. Or, from Warren Buffet’s biography: “In 1945, as a high school sophomore, Buffett and a friend spent $25 to purchase a used pinball machine, which they placed in the local barber shop. Within months, they owned several machines in three different barber shops across Omaha. They sold the business later in the year for $1,200 to a war veteran. … In high school, he invested in a business owned by his father and bought a 40-acre farm worked by a tenant farmer. He bought the land when he was 14 years old with $1,200 of his savings. By the time he finished college, Buffett had accumulated $9,800 in savings”.
Thanks for the report.
You’re implying that Russian POWs are treated inhumanely unless they say what the captors want. That assertion needs proof.