gjm comments on Tell Your Rationalist Origin Story - Less Wrong

30 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 25 February 2009 05:16PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (399)

Comments (399)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gjm 16 April 2009 08:29:23PM 5 points [-]

This is not a rationalist origin story, because it is not the story of how you became a rationalist. (It seems fairly clear that in fact you are not a rationalist. This is a description, not a criticism; most people are not rationalists, and manage just fine without being rationalists.)

It is also not about "how we can overcome bias", but about how we can (allegedly) overcome one particular failing which is not a bias in the sense that OB is meant to be about.

As an account of how one can go about eliminating (perhaps unconscious) hatred for oneself and others, and replacing it with love, it has a severe deficiency: it doesn't actually explain comprehensibly how one can. (Your central idea seems to be that you should love yourself "as" everything, including things you aren't. That seems pretty incoherent to me. You might try to do it by, e.g., imagining yourself in the shoes of everyone you interact with, and that might be an effective way of having a more positive attitude towards them; is that the sort of thing you mean? And you say that by not loving yourself "as" an X, where X is something you aren't, you're thereby hating others. I think that's obviously false.)

I think your interpolations into the words of William James and Bertrand Russell change their meanings (James's more than Russell's). Since you appear to be quoting them as authorities, it doesn't seem to me a good sign that you have to change what they're saying to do so.

In general, attempts at proselytism are not likely to find an enthusiastic reception here.

Comment author: ama comment score below threshold [+] (7 children)

Comment author: ama 17 April 2009 03:11:46AM -5 points [-]

gjm: This is not a rationalist origin story, because it is not the story of how you became a rationalist. (It seems fairly clear that in fact you are not a rationalist. This is a description, not a criticism; most people are not rationalists, and manage just fine without being rationalists.) ama: Big thanx for all your thoughts.

Hmmm Am I not also rational and also a rationalist by agreeing with you, who are a rationalist, that I am not a rationalist? smile

And aren't you, to some degree, also not a rationalist by agreeing with me, who you say is not a rationalist, that I am not a rationalist? smile

I consider myself to be both rational and irrational, especially since rationalists believe in irrational numbers.smile

gjm: It is also not about "how we can overcome bias", but about how we can (allegedly) overcome one particular failing which is not a bias in the sense that OB is meant to be about. ama: I wd appreciate you or anyone explaining in what sense that OB is meant here. Also explaining what is that one particular failing. Thanx in advance.

gjm: As an account of how one can go about eliminating (perhaps unconscious) hatred for oneself and others, and replacing it with love, it has a severe deficiency: it doesn't actually explain comprehensibly how one can. ama: That was just a teaser. The comprehensive bit was going to be my next post as per Blume!smile

gjm: (Your central idea seems to be that you should love yourself "as" everything, including things you aren't. ama: I am and you are everything already because all words and their opposites are stored in us as as, and those words are everything in the brain and represent everything outside of the brain, 'everything' also being a word. There are even more words than things since we have a word for no thing. smile

So I love myself as gjm so that I auto love and respect gjm as myself. I love myself as known and as unknown too, so that I don't have to know you to love you but love you to know you and so am loving you before I know you or get to know you. This way, no bad knowledge I happen to know about you after I get to know you, will affect nor be able to affect my Love and Respect for you since my L&R was not and is not based on who you are, good or bad, but on Love of itself: the Love and R being unconditional, having no conditions nor limitations. Neat, eh?smile It is why kids say 'It takes one to know one' just based on learning the alphabet, and without any adult teaching them to say so, which teachers in fact discourage them from saying so.

gjm: That seems pretty incoherent to me. ama: I understand why you feel that way: it will tend to discombobulate you initially.

I love myself as coherent and incoherent and so I take your opinion of me with Love and Respect, and thank you for your honesty. However, there is coherence in incoherence, and vice versa.

kjm: You might try to do it by, e.g., imagining yourself in the shoes of everyone you interact with, and that might be an effective way of having a more positive attitude towards them; is that the sort of thing you mean? ama: Sort of, but all inclusive: it covers all words and their opposites and so includes all those who I have NOT interacted with nor yet imagined.

kjm: And you say that by not loving yourself "as" an X, where X is something you aren't, you're thereby hating others. I think that's obviously false.) ama: But I am x, since x is one of the letters stored in me as me. Example: If I hate or love myself as kjm or as any word that describes you, then I auto hate or love you as myself. It's automatic. The brain works by words, words work by their opposites, and all words and their opposites work most well by the word Love, and don't work at all well with the word Hate.

kjm: I think your interpolations into the words of William James and Bertrand Russell change their meanings (James's more than Russell's). ama: Sorry, my bad. I was trying to be helpful. But what prejudices do you think WJ was referring to?

kjm: Since you appear to be quoting them as authorities, it doesn't seem to me a good sign that you have to change what they're saying to do so. ama: Good point: In Love and Respect of myself as right and wrong, as correct and incorrect, as correcting and as corrected, I take this correction from you as correct and as corrector, and so it will make me even more correct.smile

kjm: In general, attempts at proselytism are not likely to find an enthusiastic reception here. Hmmmm This has no proselytistic angle to it al all, even though I see how it might seem so.

Actually, I am also both theist and atheist since I love myself as both, and so love and respect all atheists & all theists as they are. There is actually no reason to not be an atheist, and there are many atheists who are better theists as atheists than theists are at being theists. smile

The only purpose is to share on overcoming bias as in "Self-Haters Donate More" and "Haters Cheat Less."

Comment author: gjm 17 April 2009 12:03:14PM 1 point [-]

"Bias" here and on OB generally refers to systematic errors in our truth-seeking and decision-making processes. For instance, confirmation bias: we notice evidence in favour of our beliefs much more easily than evidence against.

those words are everything in the brain and represent everything outside of the brain [...] There are even more words than things since we have a word for no thing.

Lots of important things happen in the brain without words. (And, just in case that last sentence is meant to be anything more than a joke: there are obviously far more things than words, though it's not so clear whether or not there are more things than are adequately describable in words.)

my L[ove]&R[espect] was not and is not based on who you are, good or bad [...] the Love and R[espect] being unconditional, having no conditions nor limitations. Neat, eh?

I would certainly prefer to be loved on such terms than to be hated on such terms, but in general I value someone's love and/or respect more when it is based on who I am and what I am like. Consider a more specific kind of love: would you want to be married to someone who loves you exactly as much as s/he loves everyone else in the world, and whose love is entirely independent of who you are?

It is why kids say 'It takes one to know one just based on learning the alphabet, and without any adult teaching them to say so

I am skeptical; do you have any evidence that children spontaneously invent this idea themselves? I think the tradition of saying that is passed down from one child to another, and sometimes from parents to children (I don't believe that adults are completely consistent in not liking it) and the reason is not that there's any truth in it but that it's a good-sounding retort. If you're right then the idea should probably be found roughly equally in all cultures; if I'm right then it should probably be much less common in some cultures. I wonder which of these is so.

I understand why you feel that way

Perhaps you do, but I don't think you have enough information to know that you do.

it covers all words and their opposites and so includes all those who I have NOT interacted with nor yet imagined.

It seems to me that there is a difference between having the (single, vague, abstract) thought "for all X, I love myself as X" and the (multiple, more specific and concrete) thoughts for all X: "I love myself as X". And while I can imagine (though I remain to be convinced) that the latter might turn out to be helpful in the project of loving one's neighbours, the former seems less relevant; but the latter seems to be what you're actually talking about here.

The brain works by words, words work by their opposites

I do not believe you. Would you care to explain why I should?

(Unless you mean something as limited as "one thing the brain does is to use words, and sometimes words remind us of their opposites", which is true but doesn't seem to me to offer any support for your claims.)

what prejudices do you think WJ was referring to?

Any and all preconceived ideas, of which most of us have far more than we care to admit. You can find (what I take to be) a less condensed description of the same idea in <a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/10/cached-thoughts.html">an OB post from 2007</a>.

Comment author: ama comment score below threshold [+] (5 children)

Comment author: ama 18 April 2009 04:46:54AM * -6 points [-]

GJM: "Bias" here and on OB generally refers to systematic errors in our truth-seeking and decision-making processes. For instance, confirmation bias: we notice evidence in favour of our beliefs much more easily than evidence against. AMA: Thanks, GJM, for talking to me an for the info on what bias means at the OB. But don't you want to know why there there is confirmation bias or any other bias?

GJM: Lots of important things happen in the brain without words. AMA: True, but we can't describe them without words.

GJM: (And, just in case that last sentence is meant to be anything more than a joke: there are obviously far more things than words, though it's not so clear whether or not there are more things than are adequately describable in words.) AMA: Hmmm Is Math English? Since all numbers are also words, and since numbers are infinite, and since there are non-number words and names, aren't there more words than numbers?

GJM: I would certainly prefer to be loved on such terms than to be hated on such terms, but in general I value someone's love and/or respect more when it is based on who I am and what I am like. AMA: And suppose you were! You cd only be loved and respected as such by another who did so for herself/himself, and you wd only accept such and be able to accept such if you already were loving yourself as such!

GJM: Consider a more specific kind of love: would you want to be married to someone who loves you exactly as much as s/he loves everyone else in the world, and whose love is entirely independent of who you are? AMA: Absolutely! Her choice of me for marriage would be honorable since she wd have chosen me in Love out of all the persons she loved, and NOT dishonorably by choosing me in Love out of all the people she hated!

To love only me while hating all the rest wd mean that she hated me or wd hate me if I were ever like all the ones she hated, and wd mean that I would be in the unenviable position of being threatened by her Love for any her dad and brothers and mom and sisters or anyone else: if she loved an old boyfriend, I wd think that she did not love me since she loved ONLY me and hated all the rest: so any Love for any of the rest wd mean NO Love for me!

To love me as all the rest, then to choose me out of Love for all the rest wd be the most reassuring choice ever: she loved us all and chose me out of Love! sigh I wd then never be threatened by her Love for anyone else!

GJM: I am skeptical; do you have any evidence that children spontaneously invent this idea themselves? I think the tradition of saying that is passed down from one child to another, and sometimes from parents to children (I don't believe that adults are completely consistent in not liking it) and the reason is not that there's any truth in it but that it's a good-sounding retort. If you're right then the idea should probably be found roughly equally in all cultures; if I'm right then it should probably be much less common in some cultures. I wonder which of these is so. AMA: I have spoken to tens of thousands of people from all over the world, and they all said so as kids! And it makes perfect sense: When you call me a name, me saying 'it takes one to know one' is more than a good-sounding retort: by ITOTKO, I am agreeing with you that what you say I am is who I am, and reminding you how you know that I am one! That's all I am doing when someone says I am chaotic or stupid or incoherent or nonsensical or any word! And as an adult, I can only do so because I have determined to love myself as all words and their opposites.

GJM: Perhaps you do, but I don't think you have enough information to know that you do. AMA: Being in-Love with all words gives us the insight and intuition to know without having any specific info!smile

GJM: It seems to me that there is a difference between having the (single, vague, abstract) thought "for all X, I love myself as X" and the (multiple, more specific and concrete) thoughts for all X: "I love myself as X". And while I can imagine (though I remain to be convinced) that the latter might turn out to be helpful in the project of loving one's neighbours, the former seems less relevant; but the latter seems to be what you're actually talking about here. AMA: As you think more about it, you'll see that each is a part of the other. Loving myself AS all words means the same as loving myself as much as any word and as much as all words, and as if I were all words.

Specific example: There is no difference or there is a difference with no distinction or there is a distinction with no difference between loving myself as a fool, and loving myself as much as a fool, and loving myself as if I were a fool.

There is no difference between a male fool and a foolish male.

GJM: I do not believe you. Would you care to explain why I should? AMA: Easy. And you already know this, but you filed it away since you were a kid.

First of all, there is nothing that is NOT a word.

2ndly: the brain cannot think without words: music is a word! Can you think of anything that is not a word? If so, please let me know what it is. smile All our words are stored in us and as us in our neurochemicals. So literally, we are words.

3rdly: Let's use the opposites Give and Take: To give is to take from yourself. To take is to give to yourself. So the opposite words, give and take, are inter-definable and mean each other, so that there has never been any giving without taking nor taking without giving in history. Therefore, any one who is really for only givers/giving and is against takers/taking, should not give in the first place since he is making others into takes by his giving; and no others should allow to give since his giving makes them takers. So in a world of only givers, there would be no 'takers.' Pun intended. This inter-definability applies to all words and their opposites.

Example: To succeed is to fail to fail. To fail is to succeed at failing. So? So those who hate failure must also hate success, or choke when it comes to the ultimate success of the exams, or in sports such as NFL or NBA and Baseball Championships.

So Love for all words and their opposites simply binds what's already bound, or rebinds them.

GJM: (Unless you mean something as limited as "one thing the brain does is to use words, and sometimes words remind us of their opposites", which is true but doesn't seem to me to offer any support for your claims.) AMA: Right, that is not what I mean.

GJM: Any and all preconceived ideas, of which most of us have far more than we care to admit. AMA: That is exactly what I am saying! Our Loves and our Hates were pre-disposed in us by teachers of all kinds so that those predispositions predispose us to certain preconceptions that explain why there is racial bias or sexual bias or confirmation bias. So by loving all words, we have one right Bias of Love which lends itself to both opposites or all angles to anything, and so eliminates the bias of Hate that favors one or the other! As above with giving and taking, it is only by applying the Bias of Love to both equally that we eliminate the unfair Bias of Hate which can only be for one or the other but never for both!

The reason Lady Justice is blindfolded is because she loves both opposites equally and so might as well be blind.

And because we justify hating others by hating ourselves, we don't want to admit our biases of self-Hate: that wd mean that we had to love those hated others because we now had to love ourselves AS them!

GJM: You can find (what I take to be) a less condensed description of the same idea in <a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/10/cached-thoughts.html">an OB post from 2007</a>. AMA: Thank you. And thanks again for your fairness or attempted fairness: you will definitely get convicted for being fair!smile

Comment author: gjm 18 April 2009 09:11:10AM * 1 point [-]

This is becoming extremely long. I shall try to be brief.

Of course I want to know why there are biases such as confirmation bias. (I am aware of some possible explanations, but so far as I know all anyone has is plausible conjectures.) I have seen no evidence that you have any accurate information about that.

There are more numbers than words. There are even more integers than words. There aren't more integers than descriptions of integers using words. Whether there are more things than words depends on all sorts of difficult scientific questions and perhaps also on exactly what your definition of "thing" is.

I remain unconvinced by your panegyrics about universal love.

"I have spoken to tens of thousands of people from all over the world, and they all said so as kids!": then I suggest that you have very strange priorities in what you discuss with them. (Actually, and I hope you aren't offended, I strongly suspect that you are lying or mistaken about this.)

"Being in-Love with all words gives us the insight and intuition to know without having any specific info!": ciphergoth was definitely right: you are either entirely unready for, or totally out of sympathy with the aims of, LW, and it is very unlikely that you will either get much benefit from being here or do much good to anyone else here.

"Specific example: [...]" You have misunderstood what I was saying, and that is not an example of anything to do with what I was saying.

"the brain cannot think without words: music is a word": No. I think you are fond of making confident statements about things you do not understand.

Comment author: ama comment score below threshold [+] (3 children)

Comment author: ama 19 April 2009 01:26:47AM * -6 points [-]

I'll be brief too.

We love or hate because we have been taught to. Did you, as a child, ever hear statements beginning or ending with: ...'Whether you life it or not'...? Can you remember if it was about you eating what foods you hated?

Integers, which are infinite, are also all words. So compared to integers, words are equal in number to integers: -infinity/minus infinity to 0/zero and 0 to positive infinity are all integers which are also all words: 8 is eight. Therefore, since there are non-numeral words, the infinite set of words is greater than the infinite set of numbers/integers. qed. PS: Since by definition, infinities must be equal, there is way to equalize the larger infinity of words with the smaller infinity of integers. It's so simple that it will tend to escape readers who have not yet overcome bias against fools and foolishness, since the simplicity looks foolish and simpleminded.

It wd be strange to anyone who still has not yet overcome bias for me to talk to people about overcoming their self-hatred by reminding them about what they said as kids.

"Love to Richard Is a strange brooch in this all-hating world."Richard II, [V, 5]

And there have been tens of thousands, if not more! By the way, a mistake is a lie in words. The real lie would be me saying 'I love you' and implying I love you all the way while hating liars.

If I misunderstood you, would you please say what else you meant? I could be poor in understanding OR you could be poor in communicating. smile

Please do not let my confidence about anything now intimidate you to the point that you don't ask questions. You have asked questions. Please do not stop now. People who have not yet overcome the bias against being ignorant or fools can't ask because they don't want to admit that they don't know. If you don't understand, would you please ask more questions? I love myself as a fool and so love and respect you as one. The first thing a wise man knows is that he is a fool. And I am sure you are wise!smile It could be that I am a poor communicator or that you have poor understanding.smile

gjm comments on Tell Your Rationalist Origin Story - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (399)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (399)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login