wedrifid comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 4 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: gjm 07 October 2010 09:12PM

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

Comments (649)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 03 November 2010 03:04:49PM 1 point [-]

Close, but not exactly correct. My interpretation of what Eliezer EMOTED is that there are no adaptations which evolved because they make human society work better. That would be group selection by Eliezer's definition. Eliezer might well accept the existence of adaptations which evolved because they make humans work better and that incidentally also make society work better.

I believe this to be correct representation of Eliezer's meaning and that meaning to be be an astute response to the parent.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 03 November 2010 05:11:34PM -1 points [-]

Even though I wrote the parent, and already told you that's not what I meant?

Claiming that the parent invoked group selection means claiming that human societies can't evolve adaptations that make society work better except via group selection. Claiming that the parent should thus be criticized means claiming both that, and that group selection is not a viable hypothesis. Tim provided a counter example to the first claim; my later post on group selection provided a counterexample to the second.

Comment author: Perplexed 04 November 2010 08:45:02PM *  0 points [-]

FWIW, I agree that a careful reading of your comment suggests the possibility that group selection was not in your mind and therefore that EY jumped to a conclusion. I believe your claim now that group selection was not on your mind. But, I have to say, it certainly appeared to me at first that your point was group-selectionist. I almost responded along those lines even before EY jumped in with both feet.

Comment author: wedrifid 04 November 2010 04:51:29PM *  -1 points [-]

I do not agree. In particular I don't accept your premises.

It is not necessary for you to persuade me because this conversation is not important. I observe that the likelyhood that either of us succeeding in persuading the other of anything here is beyond negligible.