Rationality Quotes: December 2010
Every month on the month, Less Wrong has a thread where we post Deep Wisdom from the Masters. I saw that nobody did this yet for December for some reason, so I figured I could do it myself.
* Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
* "Do not quote yourself." --Tiiba
* Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB. That's like shooting fish in a barrel. :)
* No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.
Loading…
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (331)
G.K. Chesterton
Correction: This quote is usually attributed to Andrew Lang. Not sure how I got that wrong.
-Warren E. Buffett
Source: 2002 annual letter to Berkshire shareholders, according to http://research.lifeboat.com/buffett_warns.htm and http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/southcentral/2002/03/25/editorsnote/19139.htm
The 2002 letter can be found here:
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2002pdf.pdf
Dr. E. E. Peacock, Jr., quoted in Medical World News (September 1, 1972), p. 45, as quoted in Tufte's 1974 book Data Analysis for Politics and Policy; http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/12/the-ethics-of-random-clinical-trials.html
I have empirically determined that this quote is excellent for reading aloud. 2/3 of the audience was moved to applause.
Cool! What audience was that?
3 coworkers at lunch. I used it for comparison with the (arguable) equivalent problem with deliberate experiments on law/government/society, which was the topic of discussion.
But my conclusion above is probably mostly due to that the quote is written as a story; it even has text explicitly indicating tone of voice.
A young boy walks into a barber shop and the barber whispers to his customer, “This is the dumbest kid in the world. Watch while I prove it to you.” The barber puts a dollar bill in one hand and two quarters in the other, then calls the boy over and asks, “Which do you want, son?” The boy takes the quarters and leaves. “What did I tell you?” said the barber. “That kid never learns!” Later, when the customer leaves, he sees the same young boy coming out of the ice cream store. “Hey, son! May I ask you a question? Why did you take the quarters instead of the dollar bill?” The boy licked his cone and replied, “Because the day I take the dollar, the game is over!”
Found on /r/funny
Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations.
— John Von Neumann
Incidentally, he was one of the main people behind the invention of Monte Carlo methods for approximating things that were too complicated to calculate exactly.
A little learning is not a dangerous thing to one who does not mistake it for a great deal.
-- William A White
kevinpet at Hacker News
Mitch Hedberg on the distinction between labels and the things to which they are applied:
And more Mitch Hedburg, illustrating how redrawing the map won't alter the territory.
-Confucius
A concurring opinion:
Sophocles, Antigone
I think this is a useful way to think of things, so you don't worry about changing and committing another mistake--it's a good way to make yourself cost-sensitive to mistake duration.
Mark Zuckerberg
And the answer is, "Yes! I run the world's biggest honeypot for teenage idiots who want to post pics of themselves racing on a freeway with a suspended license and a beer in the cupholder."
I suspect the answer is "making as much money as I possibly can", and he's doing much better than all of us. He can convert that to other forms of value later.
Actually, this book, which is where I found the quote, demonstrates how much of a social and political impact Facebook really has. It's definitely an interesting read.
Or no, because someone has to take care of minor stuff too, and some of it has to be done personally. No one manages to do important stuff all the time.
The key is to neglect the minor stuff until it becomes important to do it!
That only works if the effort stays the same and the cost of neglect are acceptable.
I usually shower before it becomes necessary, and brush my teeth from time to time.
I've found that mindset is really bad for meeting deadlines.
Pretty close to Lakein's Question: "What is the best use of my time right now?" (from Alan Lakein's How to Get Control of Your Time and Your Life, 1973).
In the Information Age, the first step to sanity is FILTERING. Filter the information; extract the knowledge.
Filter first for substance. Filter second for significance. These filters protect against advertising.
Filter third for reliability. This filter protects against politicians.
Filter fourth for completeness. This filter protects from the media.
-- Marc Stielger, David's Sling
--Manuel Blum, "Advice to a Beginning Graduate Student"
Good quote, but the last sentence seems misleading - what the brother was saying was something like "there's something obvious you aren't noticing" (thus prompting Shannon to look again with fresh eyes), which isn't always true.
Great, I'd been trying to think of a quote from that show for this thread. Loved it.
Katara and Sokka's polar opposite reactions to the fortune teller both seem like good rationalist attitudes. Sokka's the sceptic in the quote. Katara corners her and asks her absolutely everything she can think of, just in case she's for real.
Sokka gets extra points for living in a world where magic undeniably exists, but still looking for rational explanations.
Though my other favourite quote from him when he fails to explain something is "Thats avatar stuff, that doesn't count" (The Swamp) Not sure if that counts as compartmentalising or him acknowledging a lack of necessary expertise in a given area.
“On the mountains of truth you can never climb in vain: either you will reach a point higher up today, or you will be training your powers so that you will be able to climb higher tomorrow.”
--Nietzsche
Isn't this true for any sort of mountains that are difficult to climb, not just the mountains of truth? For example, training makes you better at lying too!
With this in mind, I suppose the difficult part would be correctly identifying the range you're climbing.
But is being able to lie better of intrinsic value?
Plausibly. There are worse goals to have than maxing your stats.
Disregarding cliffs and chasms!
"Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."
-- Charles Darwin
-- Ted Kaczynski
From chapter 4, #25 of The Unabomber Manifesto: Industrial Society And Its Future.
I was actually curious how that quote would be received. The quote itself is insightful and relevant yet the author is a source of negative affect, approximately a terrorist. I was pleasantly surprised with the outcome.
"Imagine being told you were made for a purpose, and that longevity and happiness are not in the list of design objectives." -David Eubanks, Life Artificial
Frankly it wasn't really that bad to be told that. After all, part of ensuring the design objectives were accomplished was making the thought "your purpose is to reproduce as much as possible" seem really really exciting.
-- Laurens Van der Post
-George Bernard Shaw
"When I start to wonder if black swans exist, I put down my copy of Mind and pick up my copy of Nature."
-- Ariadne (former columnist in New Scientist).
I pick up my spraypaint and find a swan. Soon I don't have to wonder anymore.
"When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my yogurt"
I pick up my copy of the Sibley Guide to Birds.
— Lazarus Long (in Time Enough For Love by Robert Heinlein)
Spider Robinsson usually says that in his podcast. And it was posted here a few days ago as a Robinsson quote. How sure are you of your attribution?
I looked it up; it's from Lazarus Long in "Time Enough For Love".
Witching was turning out to be mostly hard work and really short on magic of the zap!-glingle-glingle-glingle variety. There was no school and nothing that was exactly like a lesson. But it wasn’t wise to try to learn witching all by yourself, especially if you had a natural talent. If you got it wrong, you could go from ignorant to cackling in a week ...
When you got right down to it, it was all about cackling. No one ever talked about this, though. Witches said things like “You can never be too old, too skinny, or too warty,” but they never mentioned the cackling. Not properly. They watched out for it, though, all the time.
It was all too easy to become a cackler. Most witches lived by themselves (cat optional) and might go for weeks without ever seeing another witch. In those times when people hated witches, they were often accused of talking to their cats. Of course they talked to their cats. After three weeks without an intelligent conversation that wasn’t about cows, you’d talk to the wall. And that was an early sign of cackling.
“Cackling,” to a witch, didn’t just mean nasty laughter. It meant your mind drifting away from its anchor. It meant you losing your grip. It meant loneliness and hard work and responsibility and other people’s problems driving you crazy a little bit at a time, each bit so small that you’d hardly notice it, until you thought that it was normal to stop washing and wear a kettle on your head. It meant you thinking that the fact you knew more than anyone else in your village made you better than them. It meant thinking that right and wrong were negotiable. And, in the end, it meant you “going to the dark,” as the witches said. That was a bad road. At the end of that road were poisoned spinning wheels and gingerbread cottages.
What stopped this was the habit of visiting. Witches visited other witches all the time, sometimes traveling quite a long way for a cup of tea and a bun. Partly this was for gossip, of course, because witches love gossip, especially if it’s more exciting than truthful. But mostly it was to keep an eye on one another.
Today Tiffany was visiting Granny Weatherwax, who was in the opinion of most witches (including Granny herself) the most powerful witch in the mountains. It was all very polite. No one said, “Not gone bats, then?” or “Certainly not! I’m as sharp as a spoon!” They didn’t need to. They understood what it was all about, so they talked of other things. But when she was in a mood, Granny Weatherwax could be hard work.
As soon as I saw "Witching was turning out to be..." in the "Recent Comments" bar, I said, "Hey, I bet that's a Pratchett quote".
"Empty arguments with words cannot (in any way) compare with a test which will show practical results."
Ma Jun, inventor or reinventor of the South Pointing Chariot and the differential gear.
The word empty spoils the quotation. The point is that
or
I read it as
"When in total ignorance, try anything and you will be less ignorant."
-- G.Harry Stine, A Matter of Metalaw
You can never knowingly follow that advice, because if you knew you were in total ignorance, your ignorance would be less than total ;).
Yes, but you can at least knowingly commit to following the advice. Build a robot that detects whether you are in total ignorance, and takes a random action if so. Then forget about the robot.
(emphasis added)
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." -Oscar Wilde
"Any fool can have an opinion; to know what one needs to know to have an opinion is wisdom; which is another way of saying that wisdom means knowing what questions to ask about knowledge."
--Neil Postman, "Building a Bridge to the 18th Century"
-- Albert Einstein
— Carl E. Linderholm, "Mathematics Made Difficult"
(There are many more good quotes to be found in this book.)
--John Holt
Amusingly, the first time I read this I misread "scared" as "sacred." And it works either way.
And for an added twist I read it as "scarred"...
Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.
— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
God is nowhere treated worse than by the natural scientists who believe in him. Materialists simply explain the facts, without making use of such phrases, they do this first when importunate pious believers try to force God upon them, and then they answer curtly, either like Laplace: Sire, je n’avais pas, etc., or more rudely in the manner of the Dutch merchants who, when German commercial travellers press their shoddy goods on them, are accustomed to turn them away with the words: Ik kan die zaken niet gebruiken [I have no use for the things] and that is the end of the matter: But what God has had to suffer at the hands of his defenders! In the history of modern natural science, God is treated by his defenders as Frederick William III was treated by his generals and officials in the Jena campaign. One division of the army after another lays down its arms, one fortress after another capitulates before the march of science, until at last the whole infinite realm of nature is conquered by science, and there is no place left in it for the Creator. Newton still allowed Him the “first impulse” but forbade Him any further interference ‘in his solar system. Father Secchi bows Him out of the solar system altogether, with all canonical honours it is true, but none the less categorically for all that, and he only allows Him a creative act as regards the primordial nebula. And so in all spheres. In biology, his last great Don Quixote, Agassiz, even ascribes positive nonsense to Him; He is supposed to have created not only the actual animals but also abstract animals, the fish as such! And finally Tyndall totally forbids Him any entry into nature and relegates Him to the world of emotional processes, only admitting Him because, after all, there must be somebody who knows more about all these things (nature) than John Tyndall! What a distance from the old God – the Creator of heaven and earth, the maintainer of all things – without whom not a hair can fall from the head!
~Frederick Engels, Notes and Fragments for Dialectics of Nature
"To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune... to lose both seems like carelessness." - Oscar Wilde (though he didn't mean it to refer to cryonics).
[Edit: correction, thanks ciphergoth]
Cryonics. Cryogenics is the science of making things cold.
[EDIT: Found to be erroneous! Sorry!]
I don't feel frightened, not knowing things; I think it's much more interesting.
-Richard P. Feynman
Nice. Do you have a source for that? Google didn't come up with much.
| Theory and practice sometimes clash. And when that happens, theory loses. Every single time.
-- Linus Torvalds
I felt a desire to argue against this quote, but of course a better idea would be to ask what it means.
I'm guessing that "practice" means "the way people are solving this problem now," while "theory" means "the study of what makes a problem-solving method good."
If theorists invent some method that they think is good, but which has already been rejected by practitioners, then I would guess that the theorists have a wrong notion of "good," and they should update their theory on the evidence. If the theorists invent a new method, then there is a chance that it is an improvement, and it may catch on.
My first reading of this quote was essentially "the map loses to the terrain". I interpreted "theory" as "our beliefs" and "practice" as "reality".
If your beliefs are defeated whenever they clash with reality, then you have attained a mastery of rationality that very few humans achieve. Torvalds' quote looks to me like an "is" statement rather than an "ought" statement, so I can't agree with your interpretation.
Torvalds is an engineer applying engineer's thinking, and here "practice" means engineering. The context was problems with a particularly awful API that just wasn't fit for purpose, but which had twenty years' encrusted usage to work around. He was responding to an ext4 filesystem programmer who was complaining that KDE4 users suffering dataloss on ext4 just weren't using the bad API the way he thought they should, even though other filesystems did not exhibit the dataloss.
I must confess that, reading the email, I don't see how he derives the last line from what he's saying above ... it doesn't seem to follow from taking about a 20-years-encrusted SNAFU. Perhaps it does follow from a programmer demanding people use an API the way he thinks they should, rather than the way everyone conventionally had for two decades. Real-world use winning over abstractions of how things should be:
It is, however, a widely-quoted statement - it resonates with people somehow. This is not, of course, the same as constituting or being about rationality.
It's about rationality on the grounds that the filesystem programmer had lost sight of the necessity of winning; in this case, putting out code that actually works, rather than code that makes the programmer feel good.
It's painful to write clunky APIs, and pleasant to write elegant APIs... but that doesn't mean much if your elegant code would just be thrown away on release because everyone's already using the existing API.
Practitioners can reject an idea for wrong reasons -- for example, because it seems weird and runs contrary to how things were always done.
I don't think so. Many, many common practices would be improved by some properly applied theory.
"properly applied" qualifies it as practice
In my experience, most people who say something like this mean "To hell with your longer-term thinking, look at the short-term success my short-term thinking has got me!"
That's a good point. However, Torvalds specifically has got some solid long-term success as well to his credit.
And in programming in particular, I think there's a lot to be said for avoiding elegance creep.
The brighter you are, the more you have to learn. -- Don Herold
I don't know the context of this, I came across it as a quote, but I can see two totally different interpretations, both true.
ADDED: Make that five interpretations.
The two I had in mind were:
Epistemic responsibility - you have an ethical obligation to learn because you can.
The more you have to learn - I don't know about you, but I am about as likely to stop learning as to stop breathing - I'm not likely to do either voluntarily.
Why? I can see why there is a greater marginal value to putting more time into learning if you are bright, but why is there a higher marginal value of learning more if you are bright especially if, like almost everything else, there is eventually diminishing marginal returns to learning and bright people know more than not bright people.
Bright people have more unanswered questions, maybe? You can't be pondering the Gibbs paradox without knowing much more about thermodynamics than I currently do.
Three interpretations.
(I hadn't noticed #3 until I read James Miller's comment.)
Theories have four stages of acceptance. i) this is worthless nonsense; ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view, iii) this is true, but quite unimportant; iv) I always said so.
-- J.B.S. Haldane
"The second suggestion is to think as well as to read. I know people who read and read, and for all the good it does them they might just as well cut bread-and-butter. They take to reading as better men take to drink. They fly through the shires of literature on a motor-car, their sole object being motion. They will tell you how many books they have read in a year.
Unless you give at least forty-five minutes to careful, fatiguing reflection (it is an awful bore at first) upon what you are reading, your ninety minutes of a night are chiefly wasted. This means that your pace will be slow.
Never mind. " - Arnold Bennett, How to Live on 24 hours per day.
-- Kafka, The Trial
-Benjamin Franklin
That reminds me: when I was little, there was a puzzle in a happy meal that said, "Rearrange these letters to spell something that can make a canoe sink: ELAK." The correct answer, of course, was "leak". I was upset, because my answer was "a elk". (And now that I think about it, if you draw this as a causal diagram, "lake" should be a valid answer too.)
Well, strictly speaking, if you pile KALE high enough on your canoe, it will also cause it to sink due to excess weight. But that doesn't make KALE the best or most likely answer.
I do like your answer, though.
Clearly causality is secondary to grammar; had it been 'ELANK' you would have been right.
For some reason, I really like "a elk".
I'm not sure what to make of the fact that "lake" was the answer that jumped out at me.
That you are given three of the four letters for "lake" in correct, consecutive order.
I don't remember the original order of the letters in the puzzle, but it must have been constructed to make the intended answer not stand out.
Winston Churchhill
Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain.
--J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
I can't help but ask whether you've ever found this advice personally useful, and if so, how.
Actually my first thought upon reading that was "follow the improbability" -- be suspicious of elements of your world-model that seem particularly well optimized in some direction if you can't see the source of the optimization pressure.
A much more concrete example is cloud computing. Granted, computers don't "think," but it's a close enough analogy.
You must always keep in mind that there is no magic "cloud"- only concrete machines that other people own and keep hidden from you. People who might have very different ideas than you on such matters, as for example, privacy rights.
Never trust another computational agent unless you can see its source code?
The reasonable way to interpret this seems to be "don't trust something you don't understand/cannot predict." Not sure how seeing where it keeps its brain helps with that, though.
Telemarketers.
This is the allusion I had in mind, but actually I've had occasion to quote this when talking about corporations and similar institutions. If an organization doesn't keep its brain inside a human skull (and I'm sure some do), it seems guaranteed to make bizarre decisions. Anthropomorphizing corporations can be a dangerous mistake (certainly has been for me more than once).
Never trust other thinking beings if you don't know the location of their intelligence center so that you can destroy it if necessary?
Never trust anyone unless you're talking in person? :p
Montaigne
Strikes a blow against education as the source of reason, but also strikes a blow against reason requiring training. Ambivalent.
I don't know if this quote has already shown up, but it's one of my favorites.
"Consider this: You are the architect of your own imprisonment."
-- Macros the Black (from Raymond E. Feist's Riftwar Saga)
Robert Anton Wilson, The Trick Top Hat
--Albert Camus, The Stranger
| "Why did I do that?" I asked.
-- The Poet Who Is Odd, Knapsack Poems by Elanor Arnason
The mind boggles as to what he has actually done that is so strange on reflection.
-- Dr. Weird, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force*
If you're curious, please read the story; it's short, and interesting! Actually, let me just spoil the premise now because I think it's neat and suspect other people will as well.
Knapsack Poems is about an alien race called the goxhat, in which each "person" consists of around 10 individuals, of varying gender. There's no telepathy or anything cheap like that, it's just a cornerstone cultural meme for the goxhat.
So when The Poet Who Is Odd asks themself "Why did I do that?", it's not rhetorical. Arguing with oneself is not uncommon.
It's not necessarily rhetorical even for actual people in the real world. At least, I often find that when I ask myself questions and answer them out loud (or in writing), I get surprising answers. (Arguing with myself is not uncommon.)
Also, you might enjoy Vinge's Fire Upon the Deep.
--E. M. Forster
(Strongly second the Vinge recommendation.)
Interesting... After reading Three Worlds Collide, I've developed a taste for stories involving aliens that are... well, alien. I skimmed that section of the story, but I apparently didn't pick up on enough. Thanks for the recommendation!
Coping with radical novelty requires an orthogonal method. One must consider one's own past, the experiences collected, and the habits formed in it as an unfortunate accident of history, and one has to approach the radical novelty with a blank mind, consciously refusing to try to link it with what is already familiar, because the familiar is hopelessly inadequate. One has, with initially a kind of split personality, to come to grips with a radical novelty as a dissociated topic in its own right. Coming to grips with a radical novelty amounts to creating and learning a new foreign language that can not be translated into one's mother tongue. (Any one who has learned quantum mechanics knows what I am talking about.) Needless to say, adjusting to radical novelties is not a very popular activity, for it requires hard work. For the same reason, the radical novelties themselves are unwelcome.
"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them." Henry David Thoreau
But be careful of writing your conclusion first!
Wait... I can read that two ways and they are both worth a quote - for entirely different reasons.
"Even though it is a path of 1,000 miles, you walk one step at a time. Consider this well." - Miyamoto Musashi
Max Planck
p(double post | a quote is awesome and relevant) = 0.87
Which way do I need to update?
The quotes idea is pretty much wrong. And sadly sometimes used as an argument against life extension.
It took me a few minutes to see what you meant there. I read 'quotes' as a simple plural. Which leads to a parsing of your first sentence as a position of some merit purely by accident.
Really? Well, I suppose that would actually make sense according to a certain not-outright-insane value system.
It would be bad even if the premise were true. Then the pure idea of 'yeah, we have to let you all die because otherwise all the shiny new ideas would not prosper' is so much out of proportion. Most people do not even work in idea maintaining, but do pretty mundane jobs, or moonlight as grandparents.
Over time I notice the occasional instance of ageism in young people. It is very easy to ignore collected experiences of others, and in some cases bad. It would be awesome to have people still around that lived through history. Instead each generation to some degree forgets what was before.
It hurts me each time someone (my age or younger) claims how he does not care about history at all, because -
And in middle aged people and old people too. :)
The premise is true and generally accepted as such; a slightly more formal treatment was given by Kuhn, but it amounts roughly to "new scientists produce advancements, old scientists stick to dogma, the status of oldies is so powerful they have to die or retire for advancements to prosper."
Shortly after "Structure of Scientific Revolutions", there was a paradigm shift in geology: plate tectonics. Which went from fringe to scientific consensus in, as I understand it, well under a decade thanks to overwhelming evidence. Did unusually many geologists die that decade?
I hope there have been some changes in the way scientists work since the 1960s. Also I hope that it depends on the specific field.
As a conclusion of the initial argument one could add time limits to tenure, but please lets not argue for killing off scientists justs for being to old.
Nice way to put it! To phrase it another way:
To argue in favor of mortality because of fears of entrenched conservatives is to demand capital punishment where term limits would suffice.
Thank you!
Try to get someone to put it in these words. Usually no one demands the killing of professors, or even mentions how he likes to have old people die from neglect.
If someone boldly states that he wants all these old people to die to free up space, or what ever, than you probably found a person you do not actually want to have a discussion with.
I completely forgot about a very important point. When rejuvenation actually works, then it might also make the brain work better, younger and so on. If it is true, that great scientists do their most important work before reaching age X, then after a rejuvenation they might be able to do even more with their good as new brain + more experience. Then it would not be a matter of getting rid of holders of old ideas, but find a way to deal with people that have an unreachable time advantage, that cannot be made up. It would be good for society to keep experienced mind in work.
No real need to kill them off, as long as new ones are being born. Unanimity is nice, but simple majorities can usually get the job done.
As for your time limits idea, I might go further, and send everybody back to school to get a new PhD every 100 years: in a new field, at a different school, in a different language.
You're only going to give me 100 years to study mathematics, uninterrupted?
B-b-but! That's nowhere near enough time!
I am happy to see how it will turn out
This might be the answer you are looking for.
Kuhn did not say that. His notion of paradigm advancement had a lot to do with a lot of other things. His canonical example of paradigm change (the Copernican revolution) had people actively changing their minds even in his narrative. And there are a lot of problems with his story of how things went, see for example this essay.
Furthermore, in many other shifts where new theories came into play, the overall trend happened with many old people accepting the new theory. Thus for example, Einstein's special relativity was accepted by many older physicists.
Yes.
Ooops. To redeem my tarnished honor, I propose an algorithmic solution to the duplicate quote problem: a full list of quotes indexed by author (of the quote). Checking to see if a quote has already been posted would then be a fast operation.
Your honour remains intact! I predicted that the quote had been used, based primarily on how much I like it. Google didn't find it in a quotes thread. I suppose that would mean my honour is tarnished. How much honour does one lose by assigning greater than 0.5 probability to something that turns out to be incorrect. Is there some kind of algorithm for that? ;)
You add the log of the probability you gave for what happened, so add ln(1-0.87) = -2.04 honor. Unfortunately, there's no way to make it go up, and it's pretty much guaranteed to go down a lot.
Just don't assign anything a probability of 0. If you're wrong, you lose infinite honor.
I like it, but that 'no way to make it go up' is a problem. It feels like we should have some sort of logarithmic representation of honour too, allowing for increasing honour if you get something right, mostly when your honour is currently low.
To what extent do we want 'honour' to be a measure of calibration and to what extent a measure of predictive power?
A naive suggestion could be to take log(x) - log(p), where p is the probability given by MAXENT. That is, honor is how much better you do than the "completely uninformed" maximal entropy predictor. This would enable better-than-average predictors to make their honor go up.
This of course has the shortcoming that maximal entropy may not be practical to actually calculate in many situations. It also may or may not produce incentives to strategically make certain predictions and not others. I haven't analysed that very much.
— Yitz Herstein
— Peter Medawar
Up voted, although I think 'wasted' is a bit harsh. I would call lost time to unsuccessful research a necessary cost. If we all knew exactly which problems to study and which approaches to use it wouldn't be research, it would be divination.
I read the quote not as saying that four-fifths of his time had no value at all but that so-called 'wasted' time is a necessary part of the research process and actually does have value.
As seen elsewhere in this thread, Nietzsche disagrees.
"Today I will question my own confusion."
From Today I Will Nourish My Inner Martyr - Affirmations for Cynics by Ann Thornhill & Sarah Wells
I apologize if this is a duplicate, for I cannot find it with the search bar:
Time Enough for Love (1973) or The Notebooks of Lazarus Long (1978), Robert A. Heinlein
---Richard Jeffrey Newman
“Complexity is a symptom of confusion, not a cause.” - Jeff Hawkins
Lies! I use complexity to cause confusion in my opponents all the time!
Montaigne
Seth Godin
Whatever happened to 'fake it till you make it'?
Duelling quotes!
Aristotle
Another translation
How cute. Also, on a related note:
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake
Oh, you better watch out
You better not cry
Better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Clause is coming to town
ie. I think the quote is unhealthily idealistic. An exhortation for good behaviour by means of conveying a false model of reality.
HPMOR demonstrates:
1) People usually don't recognize faked genius as faked when they see it; they don't realize what's missing from "genius" characters in their fiction.
2) However, if you then show them real genius, they can recognize it as new, different, better, and important (though they may not realize what the added ingredient was).
This applies to stereotypical fiction 'genius' when compared to an actually clever fictional character. Yet I'm not so sure it applies to gaining real world reputation. In many fields it can be demonstrated that being recognized as a brilliant expert is not actually strongly correlated with domain performance but instead determined by social factors.
If you want to get a reputation for being brilliant gain a solid baseline proficiency in an area and then actually become brilliant at politics. Or, of course, choose one of the few fields where objective performance is hard to hide from.
"The proper, wise balancing of one's whole life may depend upon the feasibility of a cup of tea at an unusual hour."
--Arnold Bennett, How to Live on 24 Hours Per Day
"they have attained [happiness] by realising that happiness does not spring from the procuring of physical or mental pleasure, but from the development of reason and the adjustment of conduct to principles.
Now, shall I blush, or will you?
Do not fear that I mean to thrust certain principles upon your attention. I care not (in this place) what your principles are. Your principles may induce you to believe in the righteousness of burglary. I don't mind. All I urge is that a life in which conduct does not fairly well accord with principles is a silly life; and that conduct can only be made to accord with principles by means of daily examination, reflection, and resolution. What leads to the permanent sorrowfulness of burglars is that their principles are contrary to burglary. If they genuinely believed in the moral excellence of burglary, penal servitude would simply mean so many happy years for them; all martyrs are happy, because their conduct and their principles agree.
As for reason (which makes conduct, and is not unconnected with the making of principles), it plays a far smaller part in our lives than we fancy. We are supposed to be reasonable but we are much more instinctive than reasonable. And the less we reflect, the less reasonable we shall be. The next time you get cross with the waiter because your steak is over-cooked, ask reason to step into the cabinet-room of your mind, and consult her. She will probably tell you that the waiter did not cook the steak, and had no control over the cooking of the steak; and that even if he alone was to blame, you accomplished nothing good by getting cross; you merely lost your dignity, looked a fool in the eyes of sensible men, and soured the waiter, while producing no effect whatever on the steak. " - Arnold Bennett, How to Live on 24 hours per day.
That sounds all deep and wise... until you observe that it seems to be an arbitrary redefinition of 'happy', redefinition of 'genuinely believe in the moral excellence' or blatantly wrong as a matter of fact. The accuracy of the claim doesn't seem to be an important part of the intent, that is, it is bullshit.
Other parts of the excerpt are not bad - that part is just a point that people often try to take too far. The benefits of internal coherence and happiness are not tautological. Not even close.
"I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member." -- Groucho Marx
This may be funny but the actual context makes it a) less rationalist and b) a bit sad. There's some argument that he was actually talking about the standard at the time that Jews couldn't have any access to the trendier clubs.
Interesting -- below I give the wikipedia take on it.
Groucho sent the quote to a club which he was a member of, that was founded by a Jew. I can see how one could infer an ironic reference to antisemitism from that. Interesting that the quote as often paraphrased drops the 'people like me' part.
It's funny, but NO NO NO! This is exactly why rationalists suck at forming socially cohesive groups! :)
That doesn't seem all that likely to me. It would seem somewhat more likely if the quote was 'will not'...
I rather immediately decided to see if this had been posted before. Google indexed this comment within 2 minutes.
This site uses the google custom search (see sidebar), and it provides a feature for on-demand indexing. I suppose it shares the index it makes with google proper.
alongandunlikelystringtotesthypothesis
Imagine my surprise when I once added a reference to a Wikipedia and 20 seconds later googled it to see whether I missed anything - and that WP article was prominent in the hits.
History of science is good stuff -- economists should try it some time. Once you start looking it's usually pretty easy to appreciate the wry maxim that scientific advances are usually named for the last person to "discover" them, not the first.
figleaf
-Nestor
-- Ravel Puzzlewell in Planescape: Torment
Oriana Fallaci as quoted in Rocket Men: The Epic Story of the First Men on the Moon, by Craig Nelson, which cites 'Fallici, Oriana If the Sun Dies. New York. Atheneum, 1967', seen on http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2010/12/11/after-two-days-id-turned-into-an-idiot/
Arthur Schopenhauer
I hate that quote; it's completely backwards and depends entirely on selection effect.
Many ideas accepted as self-evident, both true and false, are first violently opposed. Many ideas violently opposed are first ridiculed. However, most ridiculed ideas stay ridiculed, and most violently opposed ideas stay violently opposed.
Similarly: If you win, before that they probably fought you. If they fight you, before that they probably laughed at you. And if they laugh at you, before that they probably ignored you.
True, but the quote itself doesn't contradict that. (Though, certainly, a lot of people do misuse quotes like that in the wrong direction to claim that (e.g.) they are right because they are being ridiculed, or that they will win because they are being ignored or laughed at.)
The only reason I have ever heard anyone say such a thing is when their ideas are not accepted as being self-evident (they haven't won) and they want to suggest that the opposition they are currently facing is simply one step in a natural progression towards success.
I completely agree. (Good counterquote from Carl Sagan: "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.") I was only pointing out that the quote itself isn't completely backwards, while agreeing that people mainly invoke it to make backwards claims like that.
...but even so, even if it's not taken to also be suggesting the obviously-fallacious converse, it may still not be correct. Not all truth is "violently opposed" before becoming accepted; not all truth is ridiculed before being taken seriously; and some truths never are accepted as self-evident (not that all truths should be; hindsight bias, etc.). So yeah, any way you look at it it's a pretty dumb quote. (It's a good thing Schopenhauer probably never said it anyway!)
With the caveat that P(Truth|observation of one or more stages) < P(observation of one or more stages|Truth)
Dueling Cryonics Relevant Quotes:
Tecumseh
Dylan Thomas
Until I reread the quotes, I thought your dueling should be dualing. I learned both that I was wrong, and that dualing isn't actually a word, even if duel and dual are.
However, I came up with the great idea that you could be dual-wielding cryonics quotes :)
Piercing quote in one hand, bludgeoning logic in the other. Surely nobody has resistance to both?
They may have resistance to both, but as long as it's not 100%, we can manage!
Loads of people have resistance to both. Have you never talked with a religious nut? That's when you pull out the implied threat of being made to look stupid in public and triple-wield them.
It can be tricky to pull off, but the results are very gratifying.
"Fine phrases are the last resource of those who have run out of arguments." -- Peter Singer
Tim Ferriss | The 4 hour body
Tim Ferriss | The 4 hour body