= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Shalmanese comments on Any sufficiently advanced wisdom is indistinguishable from bullshit - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (37)
The advanced wisdom you describe is basically just experiential knowledge that has not been well described or quantified. It seems like bullshit because: (1) it's not described specifically enough to be applicable (\what exactly does 'be yourself' mean?), and (2) scope insensitivity of anecdotes (there may well be a vast sea of evidence for how 'being yourself' is useful, but there is certainly some evidence as to how it can be damaging, and the two are not quantified for comparison). In general we should give such experiential anecdotes some weight, especially when many people describe similar experiences, but we should not assume such reports are representative of anything more than the singular experiences of individuals.
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.
How do you posit the model is formed or updated if not through experience? The reason why your self of 10 years ago doesn't believe 'just be yourself' will work is that he hasn't experienced what actually happens yet, and everything you say is purely theoretical for him. Even giving examples of other people following your advice might not work, because those people are not him, and the idea that this will work for him is still theoretical. Now, if the population in question were picked to be as similar as possible to the subject, and the variable (being or not being one's self) was well defined and well controlled, then a good rationalist would indeed take the result seriously and not just say, "this advice is bullshit," though he still might be uncertain as to whether or not it would work for him.