Rationality Quotes November 2009
A monthly thread for posting rationality-related quotes you've seen recently (or had stored in your quotesfile for ages).
- Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
- Do not quote yourself.
- Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB.
- No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.
Loading…
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (275)
“I was forced into a measure that no one ever adopts voluntarily: I was impelled to think. God, was it difficult! The moving about of great secret trunks. In the first exhausted halt, I wondered whether I had ever thought.”
F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Crack-Up, found here.
-- John Cavil (Battlestar Galactica character)
--- Edward O. Wilson, Consilience
-- Marcus Hutter
This is my last one for the month, it seems.
"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." - Rene Descartes
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair
"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"Construing a rock as conscious via a joke interpretation is paradoxical only insofar as it seems to suggest that we should therefore respect and care about rocks. Resolving the paradox requires a theory of what we are obligated to respect or care about, and why." - Gary Drescher
Disagreed; it also affects anthropic reasoning.
How is anthropic reasoning affected by the existence of a conscious stone that nobody and nothing can ever communicate with, even in principle? If it is indeed affected, then this says bad things about anthropic reasoning.
But I don't think it is: Some smart LW poster once noted (I can't find the link now) that for anthropics all is needed is an agent that can do a Bayesian update conditioned on its own existence. An agent that can do this does not necessarily have consciousness under any reasonable definition of consciousness.
I think the point Nick Tarleton was getting at was that you might BE one of those "joke interpretations" of a rock. So, combine that with any sort of decision theory that can handle Newcomblike problems...
"It is one thing to show a man that he is in error,| and another to put him in possession of the truth." (John Locke)
Jonathan Carroll
"Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence." - Robert Frost
http://www.dorktower.com/2009/12/04/dork-tower-friday-december-4-2009-mayadamus/
"We confess our little faults to persuade people that we have no large ones." - Francois de La Rochefoucauld
... If the machine seemed a functional object to the artist, an instrument whose significance was that it was there to be used - as a typewriter was used for typing a manuscript - so to the engineer it was the communication that was functional. The machine was the art. - N. Mailer, Of a fire on the moon, 1969
The Cat Empire - Protons, Neutrons, Electrons
"I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realized who was telling me this." - Emo Phillips
-- Scott Bakker, Neuropath
-- Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
But beware, lest the input becomes master over you.
I think the implication is that, by default, the input is already your master, and this is an undesirable state of affairs.
How about I take control of my output and so master my input? Seems to work better for me.
What distinction are both of you making between "take control of" and "master"?
Objectivity must be operationally defined as fair treatment of data, not absence of preference. —Stephen Jay Gould
Love consists of overestimating the differences between one woman and another. —George Bernard Shaw
(OK, it's sexist. I admit it.)
Lampshading it doesn't make it go away. But the quote would work just exactly as well in the other direction, and so it's not so bad IMO.
Seems to make it worse .
It eliminates plausible deniability for ignorance. It doesn't actually make it more sexist, and it's arguable whether "saying something sexist on purpose for what one can presume is a halfway decent reason like sharing a neat quote" is worse than "saying something sexist accidentally through carelessness or ignorance or both".
I do not agree. Without the lampshading the sexist implication (that is, "women are more worthy recipients of love than men are") is negligible. Claiming that the quote is sexist while saying it increases the extent that this implication is present and so gives men more cause to feel slighted.
I don't take offence at the possible slight but do find the lamp-shading distasteful.
The implication you've mentioned isn't present, with or without the "lampshading".
I'm not sure enough to state it categorically, as you have, but his choice of sexist implication to withdraw seemed strange to me as well. The obvious problem to my eyes is that it assumes that the entire possible audience is attracted solely to women.
That one, and not the indication that women are all pretty much alike if you aren't deluded by an emotional illusion, is the one that jumps out at you?
I read the remark as a cynical retort against the idea of the One True Love, which would make the implication you point out hyperbole, not misogyny.
Barring that interpretation, though, I'll grant that's the worse one.
One can reject the "One True Love" idea without thinking that the members of the relevant sex(es) are pretty much all alike. cf. the excellent Tim Minchin.
You say "the sexist implication" like that's the only one there.
Anyway, drawing attention to a sexist implication doesn't increase the extent to which it's present - only the extent to which it's consciously noticed. The quote would carry on being exactly as sexist as it is without the lampshade. With more conscious noticing, there is both more offense taken and less chance for the statement to have insidious subconscious influence (on which level most -isms operate). Without the lampshade, it could feasibly pass without notice, and join a host of similar statements in the back of the brain that combine to form dispositions that yield more sexist statement. With the lampshade, conscious effort can go into de-sexismifying the statement, or rejecting it whole-cloth, and reduce its long-term effect, even if it makes it more unpleasant to hear in the short term.
I say it because it is not the first sexist implication that is consciously noticed, even by me. This is despite being the clearest literal meaning in this instance. I say it because although becoming more aware of the discordance between the politically correct application of 'sexist' and 'sexist' itself can be frustrating it leads in some small way to eliminating sexist assumptions.
Not so. I assert that that claiming something is sexist then saying it gives an actual different meaning to the words. Context is important.
For example if the lampshade was replaced with "yeah, this is sexist against da bitches. lolz." then I would say a different interpretation of sexist implication would be most appropriate.
Obviously if you say "yeah, this is sexist against da bitches. lolz" then you have added sexism to your complete utterance. I don't think you've added sexism to whatever you said before "yeah".
I disagree fundamentally. I also would not be able to reconcile ascribing sexist (or any other) implications that are not part of the literal meaning while also asserting that the surrounding context can not change meaning. Either the meaning communicated includes subconscious nuances and dispositions or it doesn't. Those nuances are affected by the context.
Context can affect sexist content. Sure. I just don't think lampshades are a kind of context that tends to increase sexist content, for reasons described above. If one wants to make what one says more sexist, one can accompany it with action (particular or over time), or elaborate on any potentially sexism-free components of one's utterance in such a way that they can now be interpreted as sexist where before they were innocuous. Acknowledging that there already existed a particular sexist interpretation of a statement makes that sexism consciously accessible when it might not have been, but doesn't make it greater in magnitude.
I love this last analysis.
After all, this whole discussion on how the lampshading would be perceived turned out to be much more amusing and instructive than the quote itself, which makes me glad that I risked adding it.
Actually, it was more like an act of superego-driven risk-aversion, so I'm twice as glad. More precisely, the lampshading was fruit of spotlight effect of my part, as I quickly fantasized that a great deal of politically correct readers would be outraged by the sexism. But it was more like when you say "Hello, get in, make yourself at home; please don't notice the mess.".
I will repeat this point again until I get hoarse: a mistake is not something to be determined after the fact, but in the light of the information until that point. —Nicholas Nassim Taleb
This is something I actively remind myself whenever my intuition starts feeling vindication over lucky reprieves or mourning low probability misfortunes. "It's ok, a six wasn't rolled anyway. I made a mistake. It would have been better to trade the wood and build a settlement. I want to become stronger." (The hyperlink is included instead of the phrase. The inner dialog doesn't like wordiness!)
I've played some Settlers of Catan myself, and it took me a while to realize what you were talking about. (If I understand correctly, you chose not to build a settlement next to a tile that produces resources when a 6 is rolled, and by chance, the settlement wouldn't have produced any resources this turn because a 6 wasn't rolled. Therefore, waiting a turn to build the settlement didn't actually hurt you, but it could have.) I see similar situations all the time when playing Magic.
Similarly, even if you do win the lottery, buying a negative expected value ticket was still a mistake.
This also happens all the time in poker, especially when you see the flop and instinctively feel good (or bad) that you folded.
Well spotted!
Yes, By forgetting I had a wood port I could have lost possible resources from a 6 or even more if a 7 came while the cards were still in my hand.
I see them rather less. I've played sufficiently few games that I mostly notice the mistakes when the cards drop and my Feral Hydra gets fried. RIP.
I was mostly thinking about mulligans. If you kept a one land hand and go on to win because you drew three lands in a row, that doesn't mean keeping it was the right decision. Conversely, if you do mulligan your 7 card hand and then end up with completely unplayable 6 card and 5 card hands, that doesn't mean that you should have kept your original hand.
Perfect example.
And now we've managed to completely confuse all the non-gamers here. ;)
I think the same things in both mtg and catan. Up until recently, the online version of catan ("xplorers") ensured a balanced distribution, so you could make decisions based on what was "due." Good for developing sloppy habits.
That's actually a variation. It's marketed as the "deck of dice" or something like that. Essentially, you're making random draws from the set of all 36 outcomes when rolling two dice without replacement, instead of with replacement. I'm not sure that leads to sloppy habits as much as it encourages card-counting, which isn't that strategically interesting. But since Settlers is a game of exponential growth, it does avoid the problem where 11 comes up five times in a row near the beginning of the game, giving one player a huge advantage.
A pair of the same species:
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. —Yeats
The trouble with this world is that the ignorant are certain, and the intelligent are full of doubt. —George Bernard Shaw
Star Trek, Richard Manning & Hans Beimler, Who Watches the Watchers? (reworded)
-- Gary Drescher "Good and Real"
(I really like this quote as a counterweight to the ubiquitous cliche-advise to follow you intuition. Often, your intuition may be fooled. And, it cannot be repeated often enough, Good and Real is a must-read for LW-minded folks)
By the way, what's so special about it? I got it off Amazon a while ago and read it up to around page 100, but none of the content up to that seemed too special. This might be because I'd already internalized many of those points off OB/LW, of course, but still.
Large chunks of the remaining book seem to mostly be about physics and ethics. I'm hesitant to spend time reading any popular physics, as I don't know the actual math behind it and am likely to just get a distorted image. Formal ethical systems are mainly just rationalizations for existing intuitions, so that doesn't seem too interesting, either. Where are the good bits?
I read it twice, and I'd summarize it as: for a longtime OB/LW reader, the only interesting parts are the treatment of Quantum Mechanics and the Newcomb's Dilemma chapters*. Those, incidentally, are past page 100.
* I assume that the person taking the advice is like me and has not understood very much of the 'timeless decision theory' stuff that's been flying around for months, which Drescher takes seriously (he's a user here after all), and which seem to be similar to or better to what he advocates.
The book is similar to Eliezer's posts in content, but with different examples and a focus more towards refuting non-materialism. If there's something you don't understand from reading LW, it's probably explained differently in Good and Real. The different arguments and examples may or may not be more enlightening.
You should probably buy Good and Real if any of the following are true:
You dislike Eliezer's attitude or writing style.
You are often distracted by other things while reading on your computer.
You prefer the structured organization of a book to the Wiki-link effect of blog posts.
You like to show how smart you are by having shelves of books with important-sounding titles.
OK, that last one might have been a joke.
Fair comment. The books is not perfect - I think it gets a bit tedious in the examples. Maybe my recommendation was a bit too strong.
Nevertheless, I do think it's special in the way it promotes the naturalistic worldview, and how it applies this all across the board - from consciousness to the sense of time to quantum physics to ethics. There's indeed quite some overlap with topics discussed here, but it's nice to read it in a book with all the themes connected. Those are the 'good bits' for me.
Talking about books, it'd be great if there were some LW Books Top-10 for 2009.
Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity.
-- unknown
Hanlon's Razor
-- Aubrey de Grey
-- Phillip E. Johnson
I feel dirty now.
I just feel confused.
-- Galileo Galilei, The Assayer
– Rudi Hoffman
– Robin Hanson
– Michael Vassar
source
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms." - Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
Substituting "has perpetuated" for "has settled" in that quote results in a statement of essentially the same veracity.
-- George Vincent
--Napoleon Bonaparte; quoted by his secretary in Memoirs of Napoleon (1829-1831)
-- Albert Einstein
Many quotes are widely attributed to Einstein. Please provide chapter and verse on when and where he said this.
"It is always disconcerting to disagree with Einstein." Nevertheless, I think I disagree with this; or at least believe it is vague enough to be abused.
Do you disagree with the first sentence or the second? I actually agree with the first sentence, at least if you interpret it to mean that consciousness is a software tool which serves the parallel-processing unconscious brain hardware.
E.K. Hornbeck in Inherit the wind
Are little heroes supposed to be good, or bad?
Good. I thought about just writing "Disillusionment is what heroes are made of", to avoid the possibility of confusion, but decided to go with the original quote. It is said by a cynic as an encouragement to a person disillusioned by the behavior of people in groups. It's a call to embrace it. For even if it might be better that the world lives up to your expectations, it would be worse if you didn't have the judgment to realize something is wrong. And it is only the ones who realize something is wrong who will do something about a problem.
No man knows the state of another; it is always to some more or less imaginary man that the wisest and most honest adviser is speaking.
-- Thomas Carlyle, Advice to Young Men
Our actions generally satisfy us: we recognize that they are in the main coherent, and that they make appropriate, well-timed contributions to our projects as we understand them. So we safely assume them to be the product of processes that are reliably sensitive to ends and means. That is, they are rational, in one sense of that word. But that does not mean they are rational in a narrower sense: the product of serial reasoning.
-- Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained
Incidentally, it seems to me that this invokes the anthropic principle. To wit, if our actions generally seemed irrational and unsatisfactory to ourselves, we would probably go insane.
That seems to stretch the anthropic principle rather further than I would be included to do.
-- Jean-Yves Girard
I second RobinZ's request for an elaboration. I know a little (a very little) about the technical topics of that paper, but I find Girard's philosophising here and elsewhere (for example) impenetrable.
This particular idea seems straightforward, at least in non-technical sense: "infinity" should only appear from "traces" of finite dynamical processes, as a way of talking about their dynamics. Infinite objects are artifacts of objectifying time, and any infinite object can as well be regarded as a statement about a finite dynamical system. I liked this remark as a self-contained way of thinking about infinity (on informal level, apart from the specific axiomatizations).
(For example: think of the process of normalization as the dynamic on a term not in a normal form; whether it'll terminate is undecidable, and a priori the normal form can't be considered as another term (finitely encoded), yet we may reason about this output as another term, considering how it'll reduce in interactions with other terms, etc.)
Is there a way of describing it that doesn't require a computer science background? What are "traces" in this context? And what is a "finite dynamical process" that introduces infinities, and what is the "objectifying"? I can tell this is grammatical English, but the terminology is opaque.
Trace is something like a list of execution steps of a program, a list of what happens at each step, for all steps. When a program runs indefinitely, it'll be a potentially infinite list (or actually infinite if we know the program won't terminate). Finite dynamical system is something like a program (together with its current state) that is itself finite, and allows to compute data of the same kind (e.g. program + state) for the next step: this transition from the current step to the next step is the dynamic. Infinity appears in this process when we consider all the (future) steps, not just one, even though one step is enough to determine them all. Objectification as I used it is a concept from mathematics, when you are trying to capture some phenomenon as a certain kind of single mathematical object (as opposed to a thing with whistles, processes and hand-waving).
Thanks - that's much clearer.
Elaboration, please?
--Harold Bloom
I recommend the "Prologue: Why Read?" from Bloom's book How to Read and Why. http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Why-Harold-Bloom/dp/product-description/0684859076
"Admiration is the state furthest from understanding." - Sosuke Aizen, Bleach
... perfect existence, huh?
Perfection does not exist in this world. It may seem like a cliche, but it's true. Obviously, mediocre fools will forever lust for perfection and seek it out.
However, what meaning is there in "perfection"? None. Not a bit. "Perfection" disgusts me. After "perfection" there exists nothing higher. Not even room for "creation", which means there is no room for wisdom or talent either.
Understand? To scientists like ourselves, "perfection" is "despair".
Even if something is created that is more magnificient than anything before it, it still however, will be far from perfect.
Scientists are constantly struggling with that antinomy. And furthermore, must become beings capable of drawing pleasure from such.
In short, the instant that absurd word, "perfection", came from your lips, you had already been defeated by me.
-- Kurotsuchi Mayuri
It's possible, and not undesirable, to achieve perfection. For example, the majority of words I type are spelled perfectly, and the perfect answer to "what is two plus two?" is "four". It's just not possible or desirable to achieve it everywhere.
It really isn't. Hatred and infatuation are both further away from understanding than admiration is. So, I expect, is indifference. Then there's the state of 'incomprehension'...
Apart from being technically absurd the quote also gives a message that I don't particularly like. I'll cynical it up with the best of them but I reserve the right to admire things that I understand. In fact, I've discovered that my taste in music largely consists of admiring songs that convey insight that I understand and empathise with. This holds even when confessing to liking Hillary Duff and Pink sends all the wrong signals of affiliation.
To put it In context, the quote should read: "admiration for another person is the state furthest from understanding."
I like Pink...
Leave me the fuck alone.
(eg.)
?
Sharing CronDAS's appreciation of Pink without, well, inviting him to come home. Good song that. Perhaps her best.
Haven't actually heard that one.
The ones I can remember having heard on the radio are "Who Knew?", "U + Ur Hand", "So What", "Sober", and "Please Don't Leave Me". I liked them all.
"Who Knew?" would have been less of an apparent vulgar non-sequitur.
You're right and I love that song too!
Infatuation would probably be a better word to describe the attitude of the character Aizen's referring to in that quote, although the subtitle says "admiration."
There are two different types of people in the world,those who want to know,and those who want to believe.--Attributed to Friedrich Nietzsche
"You can tell the truth but you better have a fast horse." - Rita Mae Brown
"If you speak the truth, have a foot in the stirrup" Turkish Proverb
A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist.
From the Yes, Minister TV show.
--Lillian Hellman, The Little Foxes (1939)
-Ambrose Bierce
It's a good quote. But I say combining the latter two gives the first.
The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless.
From the Yes, Minister TV show.
-- Napoleon Bonaparte
--Ringworld, Larry Niven
-- Homer Simpson
-- G. K. Chesterton
The quote is good; but I have a knee-jerk reaction against all rationality quotes by Chesterton, who cleverly confused social conservatism with rationality in the minds of so many people.
-- Dorothy L. Sayers
--W. Somerset Maughan, "The Creative Impulse" (1926)
-- Alan Kay
That's great when you can pull it off, but one can only invent a small part of the future.
-- Kozma Prutkov
--George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1898)
--George Bernard Shaw, A Treatise on Parents and Children (1910)
— Henri Poincaré
(necroreply:) In many ways this is true of mathematics in general, except where those mathematics are adopted for their beauty or elegance.
— Brendan O’Regan
"But goodness alone is never enough. A hard, cold wisdom is required for goodness to accomplish good. Goodness without wisdom always accomplishes evil." - Robert Heinlein (SISL)
Never? Always? Hogwash.
Aside from that, yes.
— Leonardo da Vinci
— Alain Robbe-Grillet
— Marvin Minsky
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." --Woody Allen
This quote always reminds me of another choice one: "I want to live forever, or die trying".
^ Yossarian, a character in the novel Catch 22, by Joseph Heller.
--Aubrey de Grey
Where is this from, http://vimeo.com/7396024 ?
I don't remember exactly, but I think it was from a conference where he was speaking with Eliezer on a panel or Q&A, so that might be it.
I don't think his measure of difference is comprehensive:
It's not really surprising, though, is it? Brilliant people want to have other brilliant people as their colleagues.
(In fact, one mathematician of my acquaintance said that he once dabbled in circuit design, but when his first paper in the field was received as a major achievement, he left it immediately, concluding that if he could make such a large contribution so easily, the field must be unworthy of him.)
This is interesting. Which mathematician? Which paper? Could you at least say what field or what advance?
"I sent the club a wire stating, PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT ME AS A MEMBER."
Groucho Marx
Maybe was just a one-hit wonder who ran out of ideas. :P
No, just appalling.
How utterly selfish of him.
My intuition marked this comment's intent as more humorous than serious- is my calibration off?
I read ironic sincerity.
Yup.
"Ironic sincerity"?
Edited to amplify: I have never seen the term previous to this thread. Google doesn't turn up much beyond the quoted quip. Is ironic sincerity when you pretend to pretend not to believe what you're saying and then everyone pretends to pretend you didn't believe it so that no-one need be put to the trouble of thinking about it and deciding whether it actually made sense or not? Or not?
It means that it was a true statement, but that reading the statement still tickles the "irony" feeling in your brain.
I think part of the reason that this is so is that some people sympathize with this mathematician's motives. An analogy:
"He donated $1,000 to charity, instead of donating his entire discretionary income."
"How utterly selfish of him."
It's true that it's selfish, but it's a lot less selfish than what most people do, so it feels ironic and sarcastic that we are calling him selfish.
How about ha ha only serious?
It is two terms. Just 'sincerity' that happens to also be ironic. Or perhaps irony that just so happens to be expressed through sincere. It's like saying something 'tongue in cheek' but when the point you are making is something you clearly really mean it even though you know it may be surprising to the audience at first glance.
I don't see how this reveals his motive at all. He could easily be a person motivated to make the best contributions to science as he can, for entirely altruistic reasons. His reasoning was that he could make better contributions elsewhere, and it's entirely plausible for him to have left the field for ultimately altruistic, purely non-selfish reasons.
And what is it about selfishness exactly that is so bad?
"And what is it about selfishness exactly that is so bad?"
It's fine and dandy in me, but I tend to discourage it in other people. I find that I get what I want faster that way.
Now give me some cash.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1hh/rationality_quotes_november_2009/1ai9
He may have, for his own reasons, not been happy with the ease with which he achieved something great. His selfishness at this point is not for the fact that he may still be able to contribute to the field and yet he chooses not to but for the fact that he will be happier if he had to work harder on something before achieving greatness. That is his value system. I think his choice is justifiable.
Sure, but it's also reasonable for him to think that contributing something that was much harder would be that much more of a contribution to his goal (whatever those selfish or non-selfish goals are), after all, something hard for him would be much harder or impossible for someone less capable.
If making a major contribution seemed so easy, and would be harder in some other field, it sure would suggest that his comparative advantage in the easy field is much greater; would not that suggest that he ought to devote his efforts there, since other people have proven relatively capable in the harder fields?
"the quality of being selfish, the condition of habitually putting one's own interests before those of others" - wiktionary
I can imagine a super giant mega list of situations where that would be bad, even if selfishness is often a good thing. There's a reason 'selfishness' has negative connotations.
I can imagine a super giant mega list of situations where love is a bad thing, too. Like when people kill themselves or others. That doesn't mean its default connotations should be negative.
The reason "selfishness" has negative connotations are at least partly due to Western culture (with Christian antecedents in "man is fundamentally evil" and "seek not pleasure in this life"). They're not objectively valid.
Point taken, I just think that it's normally not good. I also think that maybe, for instance, libertarians and liberals have different conceptions of selfishness that lead the former to go 'yay, selfishness!' and the latter to go 'boo, selfishness!'. Are they talking about the same thing? Are we talking about the same thing? In my personal experience, selfishness has always been demanding half of the pie when fairness is one-third, leading to conflict and bad experiences that could have been avoided. We might just have different conceptions of selfishness.
--Yvon Chouinard
Dupe.
I'm sorry.
In fact, it might actually be where I got it from. Yet one more reason why we need to upgrade our brains (or at least, why I need to write down where I find interesting quotes)..
The occasional duplication is probably not worth everyone writing down where they find interesting quotes. Though maybe you have other reasons. If it becomes more common we can request that everyone search for their quote on less wrong before they post it.
--Andrew S. Grove
--Adapted from something in The Economist (sorry, they don't have bylines)
Can't find the link to this Dilbert strip, but I saved it a while ago to my computer.
Dogbert is running for office:
Dogbert: Vote for me or the terrorists will use your skulls for salad bowls.
Dogbert: I promise to take money from the people who don't vote for me and give it to the people that do.
Dogbert: Pollution has vitamins!
Person in audience: I like how he makes me feel.
ETA: Uploaded it here. Now accepting pledges for my copyright infringement legal defense fund.
All of the strips can be found online at http://www.dilbert.com/strips/
And, tracing back from the filename, the strip in question.
What's interesting from a rationalist point of view is the surprising extent to which this is not actually the case.
Anymore, at least, relative to the power of the state.
-H. L. Mencken
Science involves confronting our ‘absolute stupidity’. That kind of stupidity is an existential fact, inherent in our efforts to push our way into the unknown.
Martin A. Schwartz
Judson Jerome, The Poet's Handbook, Chap. 1 ("From Sighs and Groans to Art")
The lesson I draw from this is that doing stuff is a better means of figuring out if I've got what it takes. Because surely, ultimately you want to focus your efforts on what you in fact can do?
Winston Churchill, 29 October 1941
I'd like to add to that:
I don't tend to yield to force or overwhelming might of what counts as my enemy. I do not consider this trait to be 'good sense'. Damn propaganda.
...yeah, it's not a brilliant rationality quote, but there's a bit of a good point in it nonetheless: this is a case in which precommitment is necessary, because despite the fact that you would prefer not to be subject to the assault of an enemy, you don't want to establish that every threat will be profitable, however imaginary. Naive calculations neglect the effect of your decision method on the actions of others. (It's like in cryptography - your strategy has to work even if other people know the function.)
Another quote that means something far different (better) coming from you than from a politician.
...I do believe this is why I have a section in my quotefile marked "uncontexted". I really couldn't say whether you're right or wrong - all I know is what I've read.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, Journals, Oct.-Nov. 1867
Egypt "peganthyrus" Urnash, comment thread, "a quick drawing lesson", July 17, 2008
I can't wait for her to finish her tarot deck.
I thought it was complete already - I haven't been paying attention, I suppose.
Some cards are still "coming soon".
It's completed now.
-- A. R. Ammons
-- Tom Peters, HT Ben Casnocha
"We are what we repeatedly do."
-- Russ Roberts, quoting some sports guy on the radio
I think you meant this link: http://ben.casnocha.com/2008/01/your-calendar-n.html
--Randall Jarrell, "A Girl in a Library," line 92; The Seven-League Crutches (1951)
-- Ernest Hemingway, The Sun also Rises
-- Nietzsche, On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense