“Another example of attribution error: Why would Gimli think that Galadriel is beautiful?”
A waist:hip:thigh ratio between 0.6 & 0.8 & a highly symmetric fce.
Shalmanese
Karma: 102
“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” GK Chesterton
- 's comment on Rationality Quotes December 2012 by (3 Dec 2012 23:38 UTC; 13 points)
- 's comment on Best of Rationality Quotes, 2011 Edition by (30 Dec 2011 12:25 UTC; 7 points)
- 's comment on Dominus’ Razor by (26 May 2011 10:41 UTC; 4 points)
- 's comment on Spring 2010 Meta Thread by (20 Mar 2010 22:52 UTC; 2 points)
- 's comment on Rationality Quotes October 2014 by (8 Oct 2014 10:33 UTC; 2 points)
- 's comment on Rationality Quotes Thread November 2015 by (12 Nov 2015 15:42 UTC; 2 points)
- 's comment on Being Half-Rational About Pascal’s Wager is Even Worse by (25 Apr 2013 10:35 UTC; 0 points)
OK, so my favorite man-with-a-hammer du jour is the “everyone does everything for selfish reasons” view of the world. If you give money to charity, you do it for the fuzzy feeling, not because you are altruistic.
What would you propose as the three factual claims to test this? I’m having a hard time figuring any that would be a useful discriminant.
Thinking about this a bit, it seems most useful to assert negative factual claims, ie: “X never happens”.
No, it’s not (only) experiential knowledge. It’s about the basic framework through which you view the world. More experience isn’t going to help if you keep on fitting it within the same, inaccurate model.
If you think Christians are Christians (to pick an arbitrary example) because of time constraints, then you’re in for a rude shock.
I’d be extremely suspicious that I’d stopped maturing if myself in 10 years could get along perfectly with myself of today. Take an informal poll of the people around you, I’ll bet the vast majority of them would regard their past selves as frustratingly irritating because of all the missing advanced wisdom.
I think the difference here is that science is still operating under the same conceptual framework as it was 100 years ago. As a result, scientists between different eras can put themselves into each others heads and come to mutual agreement.
Sufficiently advanced wisdom to me has always been a challenging of the very framing of the problem itself.
Note: The converse is not true. Not all bullshit looks like advanced wisdom.
Huh? That is not at all what I read from Scott Aaronson on this and I don’t see how your interpretation can be supported upon a close reading.
My interpretation about this is that people who are smugly contrarion suffer from their own rationality bias that leads them to a higher likelihood of truth but at the cost of a much, much higher variance.
Sure, the smug contrarians taught to wash our hands between surgery & discovered America, but they were also the ones who ushered in the French Revolution, the Cambodian Genocide & the Zimbabwe Land Reforms.
The first person who understood nutrition didn’t start on a perfect diet from day 1. Dieting is hard and we’re still not very much closer to figuring out effective strategies of subverting our harmful evolutionary preferences. Rebasing ethics is at least as difficult so have some patience while it gets figured out.
Perhaps. Could you unsimplify it for me? I don’t really see where they are being less than clear in their descriptions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCL63d66frs
“I do not lie, I do not cheat and believe it or not, all because that is what I CHOOSE. I know right from wrong. It is in the best interests of Humankind to ‘get along’. If we all killed each other off then we wouldn’t be able to carry on generation after generation. Killing each other and doing harm goes against all of Evolution!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx1yXvcT2kw
As an aside, it’s much harder to find text references to this than video links.
It’s easy: not tipping gives you an extra 18% of your dining out budget that you can spend on hookers & blow.
Better minds that I have talked about the quest for purpose in the absense of faith and I choose deliberately not to endorse any particular moral goal in this piece. selfish utilitarianism (is this really any different from hedonism?) is a good a goal as any although it’s not one I personally choose as a moral end goal.
The crux of the argument is not about how you should act but you how you should fight your own moral revulsion when deciding how you should act.
I deliberately chose an innocuous example so as to not overly trip the discussion into the specifics of the example itself. I’m not going to talk about some of the more extreme examples of what this would imply until other people do.
You’re correct in that modifying tipping behavior by itself would probably not be worth being a dick about in the same way that just switching to low fat milk is probably not worth absorbing all of our science of nutrition & dieting about. You have to be able to see the cumulative effects of a complete rebasing before you can judge it’s ultimate utility.
As for whether it’s worth it, I think you need to look at where a person wants to be vs where they actually are. Looking out in the world, I don’t see a lot of rationalists of the type who inhabit this board who are rich, powerful, admired, have happy marriages or have fulfilled the potential they believe they have. I’m not promising that you’ll have all of that if you just rebase your ethics but If you happy not to try just so you can keep your warm fuzzy moral feelings, that’s, of course, your own choice.
That may or may not be so but I’m going by what leading atheists claim. The only reason I finally wrote this was because I just got back from a screening of Collapse where Hitchens was espousing some Brotherhood of Man nonsense while weaseling out of directly confronting the issue of why secular morality looks suspiciously like christian morality warmed over.
Not tipping when the social expectation is not to tip is no big deal. But not tipping when it’s culturally expected of you is being a dick and that’s what I’m talking about.
Wasn’t there a post here a while back that talked about how anyone positing a confidence of 0.999 on something non-trivial was most likely to be suffering from their own cognitive biases?
my somewhat admittedly sketchy reasoning:
I go to the University of Washington where there is considerable interest in the case. Of the people who have only been marginally involved in the case, most believe that Amanda Knox is innocent. Of the people who are interested in the case, many believe she is guilty. There’s an obvious hometown effect here which biases towards innocence so I’m assuming those who look into the case are taking that into account when and still reach a guilty verdict.
Therefore, I assign a 70% probability to Amanda Knox being guilty (+ or − 30%).
When you encounter a road block, you don’t need to give up. You can simply emulate each other’s intuitions and proceed with as a provisional argument (assuming your world view is true...).
Another failure of rationality is failing to understand the difference between investment goods and consumption goods. A $745,000 house may cost more to buy than a $710,000 house but you’re also likely to be able to sell it for more as well. The “true” cost is not $35K, instead, it’s a complex calculation of marginal mortgage payments, expected rise or fall of housing prices and cash flow considerations.