= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jimrandomh comments on Let's make a deal - 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 (54)
I hope you find funding somewhere, but I really don't think grant requests are appropriate for Less Wrong top-level posts.
I would add that such requests would be more appropriate and have more chance for success if some significant posts had been made on the subjects explaining basics and why more knowledge would be useful.
Yes, an open thread would be more appropriate.
My own thoughts on the matter are that requests for funds on LW are not a problem per se, but should be approached cautiously -- trust but verify very well-specified projects, both to keep honest people honest*, and to prevent the site from being seen as a money pump from the outside. To that end, I would not be opposed to a request along the lines of "I have a bid from XYZ Inc. to {create X software/do a survey on Y and report the results/produce a short documentary of Z, leading to greater exposure of rationality} and I'm trying to raise $NNNN.00 USD." I might do so myself at some point in the future, with appropriate documentation and a reasonable chunk of my own change thrown at the issue. (Escrow, presentation of prototypes or proof-of-concepts, etc. are all relevant here)
*I'm being generous. A good chunk of us in the survey basically said "Moral system? What morals?" and no way was this over-reported. Regardless, incentives matter even when you're the only one around.
You're referring to the 10.9% of LW survey respondents who owned to not believing in morality, right?
Yes.
I think those results were more indicative of people partaking in philosophical foot-shooting than anything else, but your point still stands.
Well, "doesn't believe in a system of morality" and "actually acts like a cross between Snidely Whiplash and Lex Luthor" are different things, of course. Which is to say that I think that most people here, even those who don't have a formal system of morality, probably act in a way that most would regard as moral most of the time. Just a guess, though.
For once, an apropos webcomic link that isn't XKCD.
(Not actually that rare. SMBC links are reasonably common and there are rather a lot of links to other assorted webcomics.)
Why do you think this has anything to do with trustworthiness? Building and maintaining a reputation for trust can be a valuable strategy independently of any beliefs about morality. I trust my bank to hold my money (not blind trust of course) but I don't believe my bank (as an institution) has a moral code or any particular pet theories of ethics.
Moral beliefs are only a small part of why someone may act in a trustworthy manner. However, acting in line with one's sense of ethics would be an additional incentive to deal fairly. No, it's not the primary force that makes your bank give your money back to you, that being a combination of reputation, as you say, and the rule of law. All else equal, however, I would expect that someone who believes they should return money they borrow to be more likely to repay a loan than someone who doesn't.