= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Golovin comments on A Sense That More Is Possible - 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 (205)
It's easy to define success in martial arts. Defining 'rationality' is harder. Have you done so yet, Eliezer?
Even in martial arts, many of the schools of thoughts are essentially religions or cults, completely unconcerned with fighting proficiency and deeply concerned with mastering the arcane details of a sacred style passed on from teacher to student.
Such styles often come with an unrealistic conviction that the style is devastatingly effective, but there is little concern with testing that.
See also: http://www.toxicjunction.com/get.asp?i=V2741
I've read a great many comments and articles by people talking about how karate black belts are being seriously beaten by people with real-world fighting experience - pimps, muggers, etc. Becoming skilled in an esoteric discipline is useful only if that discipline is useful.
Do not seek to establish yourself as a sensei. Do not seek to become a "master of the art". Instead, try to get better at fighting - or, in this case, thinking correctly - even you don't get to wear a hood and chant about 'mysteries'.
Yes, I heard such stories as well (edit: and recently read an article discussing real-world performance of Chinese and Japanese soldiers in melee/H2H combat). This is one of the reasons why I think that performance in the real world is a better way to measure success at rationality than any synthetic metric.