# Alex Vermillion(Alex)

Karma: 467

I found the community in spring 2020 through HPMOR which I found while bored and reading stories online. When I learned that there were other people using such witchcraft as “not only using reasoning on math exercises, but also issues in the real world”, I was sold.

Crockers Rules and Metahonesty are in effect (on me) at all times.

You can always message me and I will not be upset. No anxiety needed around “bugging” me.

• I don’t know where you got that definition from, but it disagrees with common usage and the dictionary. All of the “cides” are about murder, not death (patricide, regicide, suicide, etc), which could have been a clue, since “suicide” would be nonsense if this pattern held.

https://​​en.wiktionary.org/​​wiki/​​homicide

homicide (countable and uncountable, plural homicides)

1. (countable, uncountable, crime) The killing of one person by another, whether premeditated or unintentional.

2. (countable) A person who kills another.

3. (countable, US, police jargon) A victim of homicide; a person who has been unlawfully killed by someone else.

4. (uncountable, US) The department within a police force that investigates cases of homicide.

• 30 Jul 2022 23:08 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Ben Amitay’s comment

If the program has not ended, there is a feedback and proofreading service that you can access, which would be really helpful if you don’t have any local proofreaders for making sure the audience will understand you.

Don’t put more effort into spellcheck, just paste your essay into a wordprocessor that has spellcheck! Spelling is so uninteresting that you should find the easiest way to touch it up.

Small confusions:

• I don’t know why you have a model which goes from man to woman along 1 axis instead of, say, many. You didn’t give any reason to think of 1 axis instead of 2 or 3 or 4, so I don’t know why we stopped there.

• The “Guns” section is very short. I don’t know how it connects to the rest of the essay

• The “Gods” section is very short. I don’t know how it connects to the rest of the essay.

• The “Gods” section says “So even bad-faith arguments have their pros”, but the examples given are about times we were wrong. It doesn’t make sense to me. I think you are saying “We disagreed with creationists, so we had to learn more about evolution and natural selection and more”, but this doesn’t seem right. We didn’t learn more so we could disagree with creationists, we disagree after and because we learned. If you were an atheist with no proof (and the Christians appeared to have proof), you’d be silly and not very rational.

• I’m not trying to convince you of anything, but I am curious: The bounty page says the bounty was discontinued as of March 2020 due to Coronavirus. Are there plans to bring it back at any point?

• What happened to the Facebook group? I’d like to snag an invite if possible.

• Thanks, I contacted an insurance agent with more confidence after reading your post.

• The link on “anecdote about Brewster’s angle” goes to a story about Richard Feynman contains the paragraphs:

Therefore I am brave enough to flip through the pages now, in front of this audience, to put my finger in, to read, and to show you. So I did it. Brrrrrrrup-I stuck my finger in, and I started to read: “Triboluminescence. Triboluminescence is the light emitted when crystals are crushed …” I said, And there, have you got science? No! You have only told what a word means in terms of other words. You haven’t told anything about nature-what crystals produce light when you crush them, why they produce light. Did you see any student go home and try it? He can’t.

“But if, instead, you were to write, When you take a lump of sugar and crush it with a pair of pliers in the dark, you can see a bluish flash. Some other crystals do that too. Nobody knows why. The phenomenon is called “triboluminescence.” ′ Then someone will go home and try it. Then there’s an experience of nature.” I used that example to show them, but it didn’t make any difference where I would have put my finger in the book; it was like that everywhere.

• If you downvote, I’d appreciate an explanation as well, even if you PM me so you don’t incur downvotes as well. I also will not respond to your feedback unless you ask for it, to lower the cost of giving some even more. Thanks.

• I like the bit, I took the time to try it out in my head too and it was a fun puzzle. I wonder if I can actually get better at visualization practicing problems of that difficulty level?

• I’m actually amazed how little it seems that most people track the definition of words in a conversation to see if they’re changing. Something like the points made in Arguing “By Definition” or Scott Alexander’s popularization of the term “Motte and Bailey” should be obvious. When someone makes one of these arguments to me, I am confused what is literally going on in their head. Unless the speaker does not care if their argument is sound, I have no map of what it is like to expect the switcheroo to work. In my brain, I resolve words into concepts, but it seems that 2 concepts that share the same symbols when written down are genuinely confusing to many people, suggesting this is a separate skill?

• Damn, I just used up half a cup of sugar and the only result I got was learning sugar packs into the grooves of my pliers INCREDIBLY WELL. I will have to try again later, maybe after making some larger crystals (so that the pliers are capable of breaking them apart).

Edit: Dissolving the sugar (in coldish water, just by stirring) and then letting that dry worked! Little greenish flashes. Fun

• As with all good advice for thinking, I cannot tell whether this is novel or trivial or both. I’d love more examples in either case, so I can make sure I understand what you’re talking about.

As I read the post, it would also recommend (for example, duh) testing lots of life coaches, seeing whose advice performed the best in the first month, and then getting lots more advice from them. In that sense, there is something of an Explore/​Exploit dynamic going on here, with a framing focusing on evaluating data sources.

I think this article might be related, if you decide to write more on this: https://​​www.gwern.net/​​Modus

• I say this as genuine feedback, not a snipe: Use more spellcheck next time. Less concretely, use more editing, of which spellcheck is one method. I think your post would have stood stronger if it had incorporated some feedback before publishing! You have many small things you say which indicate what seems to be a confusion you have about what people say, and people will tell you this if you ask.

• 17 Jul 2022 3:42 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0

I’ll note that there are some really neat comments on here, and that the button could be hidden in our 3-dots on the top left of comments (though I’ve never really ached to bookmark a comment before)

• 17 Jul 2022 3:39 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0