lmnop comments on Open Thread: July 2010 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: komponisto 01 July 2010 09:20PM

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

Comments (653)

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

Comment author: lmnop 08 July 2010 11:25:12PM *  3 points [-]

In the case of refusing cryonics, I doubt that fear of social judgment is the largest factor or even close. It's relatively easy to avoid judgment without incurring terrible costs--many people signed up for cryonics have simply never mentioned it to the girls and boys in the office. I'm willing to bet that most people, even if you promised that their decision to choose cryonics would be entirely private, would hardly waver in their refusal.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 09 July 2010 01:30:32AM *  1 point [-]

For what it's worth Steven Kaas emphasized social weirdness as a decent argument against signing up. I'm not sure what his reasoning was, but given that he's Steven Kaas I'm going to update on expected evidence (that there is a significant social cost so signing up that I cannot at the moment see).

Comment author: Wei_Dai 09 July 2010 06:27:04AM 4 points [-]

I don't get why social weirdness is an issue. Can't you just not tell anyone that you've signed up?

Comment author: gwern 09 July 2010 06:45:43AM *  2 points [-]

The NYT article points out that you sometimes want other people to know - your wife's cooperation at the hospital deathbed will make it much easier for the Alcor people to wisk you away.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 09 July 2010 08:19:40AM 2 points [-]

It's not an argument against signing up, unless the expected utility of the decision is borderline positive and it's specifically the increased probability of failure because of lack of additional assistance of your family that tilts the balance to the negative.

Comment author: gwern 10 July 2010 10:12:34AM 0 points [-]

Given that there are examples of children or spouses actively preventing (and succeeding) cryopreservation, that means there's an additional few % chance of complete failure. Given the low chance to begin with (I think another commenter says noone expects cryonics to succeed with more than 1/4 probability?), that damages the expected utility badly.

Comment author: pengvado 10 July 2010 11:09:28AM 3 points [-]

An additional failure mode with a few % chance of happening damages the expected utility by a few %. Unless you have some reason to think that this cause of failure is anticorrelated with other causes of failure?

Comment author: RogerPepitone 11 July 2010 03:49:57PM -1 points [-]

Are you still involved in Remember 11?