he did provide some evidence, though little
Can you please point out the relevant part?
SpectrumDT
Karma: 252
the second-order effects of turning off the WiFi are surely comprised of both positive and negative effects
Linguistic nitpick: Strictly speaking the effects comprise both positive and negative effects. Equivalently, the effects are composed of both positive and negative effects.
The whole comprises the parts. The parts compose the whole.
then they decide to check, and it turned out one of them right and one of them wrong, one person was doing 75% of the work, and the other 25%
I am skeptical of this measurement. Your wording suggests that they were able to determine this with 2 digits of precision. I doubt that. Maybe you meant “one person was doing 3⁄4 and the other 1/4”, which sounds much more plausible and implies a much rougher, vaguer measurement.
As far as I remember (I did not re-read the OP), John provides no evidence that he did all or most of the work. We have only his word for it.
The problem of calculating workload is inherently highly nebulous and partially subjective, because a task can be more painful and/or time-consuming for one person than for another. In general it is not possible to measure workload precisely, not even in principle.
Say more words?
people frequently feel they did more then their fair share
Sure. My point was that maybe John felt like he did more than he really did.
Well, I am somewhat anhedoniac by nature. There are a lot of positive experiences which many (most?) people report and which I do not recognize. For example, the sunset does nothing for me. Sex has its moments but is overall disappointing and a far cry from its reputation. Live concerts are described by some as borderline religious experiences; for me they are cool and fun but nothing really exceptional.
Fortunately, my Buddhist-inspired meditation practice is helping me discover more joy in life.
I have Asperger, and I found it funny. :)
I can describe the different predictions that I can make when i say something is a urge or a goal—when it’s urge i can’t fail to get it, i do the thing i want to do, and feel satisfied.
This is not my experience. When I act on an urge, I do not necessarily feel satisfied. There is generally some pleasure associated with the act, but it can be extremely fleeting and short-lived.
This fleeting pleasure is better than nothing, and I will often act on an urge in order to get this feeling. But after the feeling has passed, I do not feel satisfied.
I only feel satisfied after I have accomplished something that feels valuable—a goal.
May I ask how you define the actual artsy counterculture?
as i see it, something like CEV work like that
What is CEV?
you can translate that to goal-framing by saying that my goal is the experience of walking or the pleasant sensation,
That is how I would explain it.
but i think that translation lose something important, and that it’s the wrong framing.
Can you please elaborate on what important thing you think is lost?
well, in my model, i act to achieve goal of from some impulse. the impulsive doesn’t have to be subconscious.
Fair point. It is possible to be conscious of an impulse and act on it even if it does not serve any particular goal. Let us rephrase:
When I do something, it is either because I want to achieve some goal, or because I am in the grip of some impulse.
moreover, there are circumstances when i try to act on my impulses more rather then less!
Why do you do this? In order to achieve some goal?
Your posts in this thread ooze with contempt for large swathes of people, on and off LessWrong. In this last post you are not doing much analysis; you are mostly just judging.
I get the impression that your reasoning here is motivated less by a desire to genuinely understand the human mind and more by a desire to dismiss people who disagree with you and feel superior to them.
Please note that this is NOT intended as an attack on you. It is intended as constructive criticism. I am suggesting that you could benefit from being more curious and more aware of your own biases.
Ads may have greater impact on you when you buy gifts for others. You are less sure about their utility function than you are about yours, so it is easier to nudge you.
This is a good point.
(Maybe I should even watch more ads for women’s stuff. I am usually clueless about what to give my wife...)
Are you taking into account the distinction between the preferences that people act on and the preferences that people wished they would act on? I don’t know if there is any standard terminology for this (in philosophy or on LessWrong), but an obvious example is the smoker who struggles to stop smoking. It is possible to “prefer” one’s own convenience and luxury, and at the same time want to be a “better person” by doing more for others.
I get the impression that you think the majority of rationalists actually prefer their own convenience over effective altruism even though they maybe deluded or dishonest about it. What evidence do you base this on?
Thanks for the explanation!
So it would be epistemically suboptimal to be “immune to” the outputs of the advertising.
I get that you are saying that ads convey useful information. It seems to me, though, that instead of relying on ads for this information, I could get the same information just as easily by observing people.
Are there any particular situations where it is especially useful to pay attention to ads for this kind of group signalling information?
(I gather that hightops and brogues are types of shoes. I had to look them up...)
I still do not understand it. Could I ask you to please rephrase the sentence “However, a lot of people...” so it expresses what you intended to say, as exactly as reasonably possible?
Are you saying that no one genuinely agrees with Peter Singer’s conclusion (that you should sacrifice your own convenience to save a stranger)? And that everyone who claims to agree with Singer either (1) lies or (2) is too stupid to know their own beliefs?
However, a lot of people who don’t get caught with Singer’s thought experiment, and don’t recognize the inconsistency with their previously held beliefs.
This sentence is not completely grammatical. It looks like the result of an editing mistake. I would love to know exactly what you intended to say here.
Smarter and more honest inductees will report that, “I care about having nice things for myself, and then my friends and family, much more than a random child,” leave the room muttering, “cult,” and not show up to the next EA reading club.
Could you please elaborate on why you think “smarter and more honest” people will give this answer?
Let me ask you just one question: Do you truly want to learn to be more rational?
Please give me a direct answer to this.
The motivation, after the double edit, is clearly to express suprise after connecting the dots and to enumerate it…
Sure, but do you need to express all your emotions?
In my experience (as a rough guideline), when I do something, it is either because I want to achieve some goal, or because I am in the grip of some subconscious impulse. The latter is something I want to catch and notice as often as I can, in order to learn to be more conscious and more rational as much of the time as possible.
Since you read and post on LessWrong, I assume that you want to learn to be more rational. Am I right?
I may have been expressing myself too vaguely. What I have been trying to say is this: I think that when you write these posts, you are in the grip of subconscious urges—presumably an urge to defend yourself and “win fights” in order to secure your social status. I am trying to convince you that you can train and improve your own rationality by introspecting more about why you do the things you do.
I wrote it in the most straightforward and direct manner possible?
Is this a question? Or are you just defending yourself again?
1 vote
Overall karma indicates overall quality.
0 votes
Agreement karma indicates agreement, separate from overall quality.
Sorry, I am not going to read through the comments to look for it.