= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lessdazed comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (2010-2011) - 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 (796)
"Rationality" is defined a bit differently here than in other places. There is good justification for this. It makes me suspicious any time I hear someone discuss the meaning of a word, as it makes it likely they are invalidly trying to argue by definition, but here "rationality" has a close meaning within and without LW, closer than any other word, and also sufficiently close that it is better to use it than use a new word.
I don't have time to read all of those posts right this second (though I will over the next couple of days), but if you could just briefly explain how I'm misusing the word, that would be cool.
You're not misusing the word.
After the local use of "rationality" was established, a second word actually gained a meaning that is nearly as close to "rationality" (as used here) as "rationality" (as used elsewhere) is.
That word is "winning", used in the broadest and most general way, as popularized by Charlie Sheen. This doesn't imply an endorsement of any particular thing related to him, but the term "winning" did approach what is meant here by "rationality" around New Years, or whenever that media flurry occurred.
Even so, "winning" might be a bit farther from LW "rationality" than standard "rationality".
Others might disagree with my assessment.