# tomcatfish(Alex)

Karma: 207

Newbie from spring 2020. Found HPMOR when bored, then read all of Eliezer’s stuff that I could understand, then Scott Alexander’s, then both again, and am now working through the greater community.

Looking for a group to join of people who still take this stuff seriously.

• FWIW, I have a tendency to do quote-grouping for ideas sometimes too, but it’s pretty tough to read unless your reader has a lot of understanding in what you’re doing. Although it’s both ugly and unclear, I prefer to use square brackets because people at least know that I’m doing something weird, though it still kinda looks like I’m [doing some weird paraphrasing thing].

• That’s interesting to me, thanks for replying. I wonder if I just like the chocolate more, flavorwise, or if there was less before. I think without the wetness that comes from me microwaving it and melting the chocolate, it would be pretty damn dry and hard to eat.

• Oh geez, I have one in the morning before work and it’s perfect for me, but 5 or 6 would probably burn me out no matter what they are. I can totally see now why they would taste bland after that many, and I’m amused to think that anything you can comfortably eat that amount of is probably required to be bland.

Thanks for clarifying!

• Very small point here that I’d like clarified for my personal curiosity:

Do you find MealSquares bland? I really enjoy eating them, and I think it’s because they’re “normally palatable” or something, but not bland.

• I’d like to note the irony that I found this interesting and want to comment on it, but don’t want to drill down on anything you don’t agree is an important point :)

Really though, I experienced this as a kid when I had a larger conversational memory “stack” than my friends. There tend to be more topics “in play” for me than for my conversational partners, which made it seem like I was reluctant to let the conversation move forwards.

As time went on, I had to learn how to let things go more, which helped me out a lot when I started having larger conversations, as your point will almost certainly drift by before you get a chance to share it.

• I actually really enjoyed these voting axes.

I wouldn’t be opposed to them being rewritten, but I really liked being able to separate these things out. I will say that not knowing whether or not I voted on an axis from overview is annoying (like how you can see green or red arrows on a post when you regular-vote it.

• I’ll own up to a downvote on the grounds that I think you added nothing to this conversation and were rude. In the proposed scoring system, I’d give you negative aim and negative truth-seeking. In addition, the post you linked isn’t an answer, but a question, so you didn’t even add information to the argument, so I’d give you negative correctness as well.

• Schelling actually uses the term “zero sum game” repeatedly in his essay “Toward a Theory of Interdependent Decision”, even explicitly equating it to “pure conflict”. This essay starts on page 83 of my copy of the book.

I only realized this after my comment while flipping through, so I was going to leave it off, but it’s been driving me mad for a few days since it significantly strengthens my above argument and explains why I find the derision in the replies so annoying.

• On the contrary, I wonder if this might be useful in highlighting “true but conflict-seeking” things or whatnot. When I see a user with −10 because they were being a jerk, maybe now they could be at −20 conflict and +10 truth.

To note: I do kind of expect people to (accidentally?) correlate on the axes (like a halo-effect sort of thing), but the current system FORCES that at all times, so I think it would still be better to be 75% correlated instead of 100%

• I think that the heart matching “empathy” makes me think it’s intended to show emotional support for someone, like if I had a post about my dog dying or something. You might not “agree” since there might not be anything factual going on, but it would still be nice to be able to somehow make me know you noticed.

• Pages 4-5 of my edition of my copy of The Strategy of Conflict define two terms:

• Pure Conflict: In which the goals of the players are opposed completely (as in Eliezer’s “The True Prisoner’s Dilemma”)

• Bargaining: In which the goals of the players are somehow aligned so that making trades is better for everyone

Schelling goes on to argue (again, just on page 5) that most “Pure Conflicts” are actually not, and that people can do better by bargaining instead. Then, he creates a spectrum from Conflict games to Bargaining games, setting the stage for the framework the book is written from.

[edit-in-under-5-minutes: Note that, even in the Eliezer article I posted above, we can see that super typical conflicts STILL benefit from bargaining. Some people informally make the distinction between “dividing up a pie between 2 people and working together to make more pies”, and you clearly can see how you can “make more pies” in a PD.]

I’m pretty unhappy with the subthread talking about how wrong LessWrong Folk Game Theory is and how Game Theory doesn’t use these topics. One of the big base-level Game Theory books takes the first few pages to write about the term you wanted, and I feel everyone could have looked around more before writing off your question as ignorant.

• I don’t understand what you mean either.

Are you saying that the operator represents the fact that you could offer either input into the statement you made? Like,

• I just never actually see above, only the and . Am I misreading something? I’ll note that the first example seems to me to have a different form: it’s the only one which doesn’t have an explanation of the relation between and at the end.

• I’m curious why you think “Virtue Points” are appropriate to award for involuntary suffering. I do not share this belief, so I’m wondering what motivated it for you. I’m very surprised you would feel that (ex) someone getting hit is more virtuous than someone not getting hit (all else equal, of course).

• You can use Markdown to make real footnotes here if you want, I almost missed your footnote because of a misread. In your text, it looks like[1] (I typed that as [^this]) and below it looks like

1. I typed this like [^this]: (the same as above with a colon and space after) ↩︎