JoshuaZ comments on How to always have interesting conversations - Less Wrong

45 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 14 June 2010 12:35AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (331)
Tags: instrumental_rationality techniques social

Comments (331)

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

Comment author: JoshuaZ 18 June 2010 02:32:30AM 1 point [-]

When I said rules I was thinking something very narrow like the actual content of the 3.5 SRD which is more or less flavorless. Your point seems to be related to Darmani's criticism about the fourth criterion. This suggests that my criteria for intrinsically interesting as laid out above are serious flawed at least in so far as they fail to capture my intuition for what is intrinsically interesting in that D&D rules shouldn't be considered intrinsically interesting for reasons similar to why the infield fly rule in baseball isn't intrinsically interesting. This conversation makes me suspect that the distinction I am trying to make has no actual validity.

Comment author: Mass_Driver 18 June 2010 02:34:48AM *  1 point [-]

The key, I think, is to distinguish between topics that remind you of other topics, and topics that, upon being comprehended, actually help you understand other topics.

D&D rules remind you of D&D content, which helps you understand fantasy literature. D&D rules, by themselves, though, don't help you understand much of anything else.

Likewise, baseball helps me understand antitrust law enforcement, because baseball has a Congressional exemption to antitrust laws. The exemption has virtually nothing to do with the infield fly rule, though. The infield fly rule reminds me of baseball, but by itself it sheds no light on antitrust law enforcement.

Comment author: wedrifid 18 June 2010 03:45:13AM 5 points [-]

D&D rules, by themselves, though, don't help you understand much of anything else.

  • The influence of Charisma on social discourse, and things like intimidation and bluffing.
  • The role of strength vs dexterity, the difference between 'intelligence' and 'wisdom'.
  • Most natural traits, including brain makeup personality and body type are determined by genetics but some small changes can be made over time.
  • When it comes to performance of skills natural talent plays some part but the overwhelming majority of influence comes from which skills you learn.
  • Sometimes things boil down to shere dumb luck. All you can do is make the best decisions you can under uncertainty, don't take it personally when something improbably bad happens but also minimize the expected consequences if you roll a zero.
  • Most things boil down to the judgement of the guy in charge. (It's not what you know, it is who you know, and whether you are sleeping with the GM.)
  • It is really hard to do stuff when it is dark.
  • The best way to improve your social skills is to go around killing lots of people and apply what you learn from that to diplomacy, bluff and intimidate...
Comment author: Mass_Driver 18 June 2010 04:33:32AM 1 point [-]

All right, time to beat a strategic retreat. I'm going to stop defending my thesis that JoshuaZ's definition is rigorous.

Comment author: wedrifid 18 June 2010 09:29:15AM *  1 point [-]

:) I haven't followed the conversation closely so I don't have a firm opinion on that. Looking back...

I would accept it as a useful definition up to and including the first two sentences of "4". I would replace the remainder with an acknowledgment that what qualifies as an inferential 'bridge' to another topic and even what qualifies as a topic proper is subject. I, for example, read the counter example and it prompted all sorts of curious and potentially fascinating subjects and even prompted pleasant memories of numerous conversations I have had that have been connected using basic probability as a stepping stone.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 18 June 2010 02:41:53AM *  0 points [-]

Even if the evolution of the infield fly rule has been used as an example of how common law naturally forms? No, I'm not making that up. Not anti-trust law, but still pretty close to legal matters.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit