Rationality Quotes: December 2010

6 Post author: Tiiba 03 December 2010 03:23AM

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* "Do not quote yourself."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* Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB.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.

Comments (331)

Comment author: Tesseract 03 December 2010 09:21:13AM 50 points [-]

He uses statistics as a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support, not for illumination.

G.K. Chesterton

Comment author: Tesseract 11 August 2011 08:12:56PM 2 points [-]

Correction: This quote is usually attributed to Andrew Lang. Not sure how I got that wrong.

Comment author: MichaelGR 03 December 2010 05:39:42PM 41 points [-]

The Noah principle: predicting rain doesn’t count, building arks does.

-Warren E. Buffett

Comment author: gwern 03 December 2010 06:46:09PM 3 points [-]
Comment author: MichaelGR 08 December 2010 05:25:15PM 2 points [-]

The 2002 letter can be found here:

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2002pdf.pdf

Comment author: gwern 15 December 2010 08:05:51PM *  35 points [-]

'One day when I was a junior medical student, a very important Boston surgeon visited the school and delivered a great treatise on a large number of patients who had undergone successful operations for vascular reconstruction.

At the end of the lecture, a young student at the back of the room timidly asked, “Do you have any controls?” Well, the great surgeon drew himself up to his full height, hit the desk, and said, “Do you mean did I not operate on half the patients?” The hall grew very quiet then. The voice at the back of the room very hesitantly replied, “Yes, that’s what I had in mind.” Then the visitor’s fist really came down as he thundered, “Of course not. That would have doomed half of them to their death.”

God, it was quiet then, and one could scarcely hear the small voice ask, “Which half?”'

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

Comment author: kpreid 19 August 2011 03:03:44AM 2 points [-]

I have empirically determined that this quote is excellent for reading aloud. 2/3 of the audience was moved to applause.

Comment author: gwern 19 August 2011 03:10:05AM 1 point [-]

Cool! What audience was that?

Comment author: kpreid 19 August 2011 05:00:29PM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: JamesAndrix 09 December 2010 07:28:48AM 30 points [-]

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

Comment author: anonym 03 December 2010 08:36:05AM 30 points [-]

Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations.

— John Von Neumann

Comment author: sketerpot 05 December 2010 06:02:08AM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: billswift 03 December 2010 05:21:36AM 30 points [-]

A little learning is not a dangerous thing to one who does not mistake it for a great deal.

-- William A White

Comment author: Alexandros 11 December 2010 11:03:27AM 29 points [-]

if you're the smartest person in the room, go look for a room with smarter people in it.

kevinpet at Hacker News

Comment author: sketerpot 03 December 2010 10:25:21PM *  27 points [-]

Mitch Hedberg on the distinction between labels and the things to which they are applied:

I just bought a 2-bedroom house, but it's up to me, isn't it, how many bedrooms there are? Fuck you, real estate lady! This bedroom has a oven in it! This bedroom’s got a lot of people sitting around watching TV. This bedroom is A.K.A. a hallway.

Comment author: shokwave 04 December 2010 03:59:14AM *  25 points [-]

This bedroom's over in that guy's house! Sir, you have one of my bedrooms, are you aware? Do not decorate it!

And more Mitch Hedburg, illustrating how redrawing the map won't alter the territory.

Comment author: MichaelGR 03 December 2010 05:40:15PM *  25 points [-]

A man who has committed a mistake and doesn't correct it, is committing another mistake.

-Confucius

Comment author: Tesseract 13 December 2010 08:39:25AM 4 points [-]

A concurring opinion:

All men can make mistakes; but, once mistaken, a man is no longer stupid or accursed who, having fallen on ill, tries to cure that ill, not taking a fine undeviating stand. It is obstinacy that convicts of folly.

Sophocles, Antigone

Comment author: apophenia 03 December 2010 10:32:47PM *  1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 December 2010 05:39:17AM 23 points [-]

The question I ask myself like almost everyday is 'Am I doing the most important thing I could be doing?'

Mark Zuckerberg

Comment author: Tiiba 03 December 2010 06:46:28PM 12 points [-]

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."

Comment author: phob 04 December 2010 04:37:15PM 8 points [-]

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.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 December 2010 04:23:41AM *  4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: MartinB 04 December 2010 03:18:28AM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: ShardPhoenix 05 December 2010 05:25:16AM 3 points [-]

The key is to neglect the minor stuff until it becomes important to do it!

Comment author: MartinB 05 December 2010 03:08:41PM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Snowyowl 05 December 2010 06:04:56AM 2 points [-]

I've found that mindset is really bad for meeting deadlines.

Comment author: billswift 04 December 2010 06:33:42AM 2 points [-]

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).

Comment author: billswift 03 December 2010 05:16:54AM *  20 points [-]

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

Comment author: gwern 24 December 2010 06:08:58PM 19 points [-]

"Claude Shannon once told me that as a kid, he remembered being stuck on a jigsaw puzzle. His brother, who was passing by, said to him: "You know: I could tell you something."

That's all his brother said.

Yet that was enough hint to help Claude solve the puzzle. The great thing about this hint... is that you can always give it to yourself."

--Manuel Blum, "Advice to a Beginning Graduate Student"

Comment author: ShardPhoenix 03 August 2013 03:17:31AM *  1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: Alicorn 12 December 2010 03:31:23AM *  17 points [-]

"Look! Can your fortunetelling explain that?!"

"Ha! Can your science explain why it rains?"

"YES! Yes, it can!"

  • Avatar: the Last Airbender
Comment author: HonoreDB 12 December 2010 06:45:01AM *  3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: FiftyTwo 04 May 2011 08:56:38PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: Automaton 03 December 2010 07:42:32AM 15 points [-]

“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

Comment author: cousin_it 03 December 2010 08:11:09AM *  12 points [-]

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!

Comment author: Nornagest 03 December 2010 08:54:44AM 9 points [-]

With this in mind, I suppose the difficult part would be correctly identifying the range you're climbing.

Comment author: gwern 12 December 2010 03:19:58AM 1 point [-]

But is being able to lie better of intrinsic value?

Comment author: wedrifid 12 December 2010 03:49:22AM 4 points [-]

Plausibly. There are worse goals to have than maxing your stats.

Comment author: Jordan 03 December 2010 09:47:09PM 1 point [-]

Disregarding cliffs and chasms!

Comment author: Lightwave 03 December 2010 09:09:36AM *  14 points [-]

"Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."

-- Charles Darwin

Comment author: wedrifid 23 December 2010 05:55:51AM *  13 points [-]

The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. [...] Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin.

-- Ted Kaczynski

Comment author: gwern 24 December 2010 06:13:00PM 2 points [-]

From chapter 4, #25 of The Unabomber Manifesto: Industrial Society And Its Future.

Comment author: wedrifid 25 December 2010 03:35:19AM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: nazgulnarsil 09 December 2010 04:49:02PM 12 points [-]

"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

Comment author: Broggly 20 December 2010 06:43:44AM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Rain 06 December 2010 03:06:16AM 12 points [-]

Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right.

-- Laurens Van der Post

Comment author: MichaelGR 05 December 2010 09:49:21PM 12 points [-]

Life isn't about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself.

-George Bernard Shaw

Comment author: RichardKennaway 03 December 2010 09:15:01PM 12 points [-]

"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).

Comment author: ata 11 December 2010 01:47:11AM *  10 points [-]

I pick up my spraypaint and find a swan. Soon I don't have to wonder anymore.

Comment author: RyanW 11 December 2010 01:22:42AM 7 points [-]

"When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my yogurt"

Comment author: [deleted] 05 December 2010 04:53:45PM 3 points [-]

I pick up my copy of the Sibley Guide to Birds.

Comment author: ata 28 December 2010 11:38:26PM *  11 points [-]

It's amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired.

— Lazarus Long (in Time Enough For Love by Robert Heinlein)

Comment author: tut 31 December 2010 10:26:45AM 1 point [-]

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?

Comment author: ata 02 January 2011 08:27:07PM 2 points [-]

I looked it up; it's from Lazarus Long in "Time Enough For Love".

Comment author: David_Gerard 11 December 2010 09:30:54PM 11 points [-]

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.

  • Pratchett, "Wintersmith"
Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 11 December 2010 09:37:57PM 1 point [-]

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".

Comment author: topynate 03 December 2010 06:20:06AM *  11 points [-]

"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.

Comment author: AlanCrowe 03 December 2010 03:17:01PM 10 points [-]

The word empty spoils the quotation. The point is that

Powerful arguments with words cannot compete with a test which will show practical results

or

Good arguments with words that lose to a test which shows practical results are reduced thereby to empty arguments.

Comment author: Tesseract 03 December 2010 04:41:18PM 4 points [-]

I read it as

Arguments with words are inherently empty, and therefore cannot compare with a test which will show practical results.

Comment author: billswift 03 December 2010 05:15:07AM *  11 points [-]

"When in total ignorance, try anything and you will be less ignorant."

-- G.Harry Stine, A Matter of Metalaw

Comment author: anonym 03 December 2010 08:37:53AM 2 points [-]

You can never knowingly follow that advice, because if you knew you were in total ignorance, your ignorance would be less than total ;).

Comment author: Peter_de_Blanc 03 December 2010 10:52:42AM 8 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 12 December 2010 04:08:44AM *  10 points [-]

That's the thing about power, I think. To some people --those of us who have none-- anyone who has it and uses it is a villain. To those who have it, anyone who tries to stop them from using it is a villain. Because we're all the heroes of our own story, no matter what horrible things we might be doing.

Sometimes people do terrible things with the best of intentions. I don't think that makes them any less guilty. But if you understand their reasons, you might find it more difficult to condemn them out of hand. You might find it more difficult to call them villains.

On the other hand, sometimes people do terrible things with the absolute worst of intentions. But even there, I don't think they're supervillains. I think they're just people.

(emphasis added)

  • David J. Schwartz, "Superpowers"
Comment author: sfb 07 December 2010 05:52:51PM 10 points [-]

"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." -Oscar Wilde

Comment author: Vaniver 06 December 2010 03:04:33AM 10 points [-]

"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"

Comment author: Kazuo_Thow 04 December 2010 06:03:10AM *  10 points [-]

The splitting of the atom has changed everything save the way men think, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.

-- Albert Einstein

Comment author: ata 11 December 2010 01:56:47AM *  9 points [-]

... unfortunately, there is a flaw in the reasoning. ... [T]o say that each of two numbers cannot be bigger than the other is to repeat the statement that is to be proved. It is not correct in logic to prove something by saying it over again; that only works in politics, and even there it is usually considered desirable to repeat the proposition hundreds of times before considering it as definitely established.

— Carl E. Linderholm, "Mathematics Made Difficult"

(There are many more good quotes to be found in this book.)

Comment author: HonoreDB 06 December 2010 05:41:04AM 9 points [-]

The scared fighter may be the best fighter, but the scared learner is always a poor learner.

--John Holt

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 07 December 2010 01:10:04PM 2 points [-]

Amusingly, the first time I read this I misread "scared" as "sacred." And it works either way.

Comment author: wedrifid 07 December 2010 01:23:39PM 1 point [-]

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"...

Comment author: anonym 03 December 2010 08:34:17AM 9 points [-]

Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.

— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Comment author: [deleted] 03 December 2010 10:08:14AM 8 points [-]

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

Comment author: sfb 04 December 2010 06:56:21AM *  7 points [-]

"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]

Comment author: ciphergoth 15 December 2010 10:44:53PM 1 point [-]

Cryonics. Cryogenics is the science of making things cold.

Comment author: AstroCJ 03 December 2010 09:27:03AM *  7 points [-]

[EDIT: Found to be erroneous! Sorry!]

I don't feel frightened, not knowing things; I think it's much more interesting.

-Richard P. Feynman

Comment author: marxus 05 December 2010 06:55:30AM 2 points [-]

Nice. Do you have a source for that? Google didn't come up with much.

Comment author: DSimon 03 December 2010 08:05:15AM 7 points [-]

| Theory and practice sometimes clash. And when that happens, theory loses. Every single time.

-- Linus Torvalds

Comment author: Peter_de_Blanc 03 December 2010 10:48:22AM 6 points [-]

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.

Comment author: gerg 03 December 2010 04:21:35PM 6 points [-]

My first reading of this quote was essentially "the map loses to the terrain". I interpreted "theory" as "our beliefs" and "practice" as "reality".

Comment author: Peter_de_Blanc 03 December 2010 09:45:03PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: David_Gerard 03 December 2010 12:00:51PM *  5 points [-]

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:

So rather than come up with new barriers that nobody will use, filesystem people should aim to make "badly written" code "just work" unless people are really really unlucky. Because like it or not, that's what 99% of all code is.

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.

Comment author: DSimon 04 December 2010 08:10:04PM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Gabriel 04 December 2010 03:43:46AM 2 points [-]

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.

Practitioners can reject an idea for wrong reasons -- for example, because it seems weird and runs contrary to how things were always done.

Comment author: D_Alex 03 December 2010 09:36:36AM 4 points [-]

I don't think so. Many, many common practices would be improved by some properly applied theory.

Comment author: wiresnips 04 December 2010 02:45:48AM 3 points [-]

"properly applied" qualifies it as practice

Comment author: ciphergoth 15 December 2010 10:43:13PM *  3 points [-]

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!"

Comment author: DSimon 15 December 2010 10:54:06PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: billswift 03 December 2010 05:20:49AM *  7 points [-]

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.

Comment author: James_Miller 03 December 2010 04:26:31PM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Snowyowl 03 December 2010 10:06:21PM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: gjm 03 December 2010 11:21:15PM 1 point [-]

Three interpretations.

  1. The brighter you are, the more there is for you to learn.
  2. The brighter you are, the more there is that you need to learn.
  3. The brighter you are, the more need there is for you to learn.

(I hadn't noticed #3 until I read James Miller's comment.)

Comment author: atucker 08 December 2010 10:46:18PM 6 points [-]

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

Comment author: sfb 04 December 2010 07:15:15AM 6 points [-]

"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.

Comment author: neq1 04 December 2010 03:10:53AM 6 points [-]

You have to realize that a great number of things are discussed in these proceedings that the mind just can't deal with, people are simply too tired and distracted, and by way of compensation they resort to superstition.

-- Kafka, The Trial

Comment author: MichaelGR 03 December 2010 05:38:21PM 6 points [-]

A small leak can sink a great ship.

-Benjamin Franklin

Comment author: SilasBarta 03 December 2010 05:47:34PM 8 points [-]

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.)

Comment author: Benquo 03 December 2010 08:12:07PM *  7 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Larks 03 December 2010 06:25:55PM 6 points [-]

Clearly causality is secondary to grammar; had it been 'ELANK' you would have been right.

Comment author: Tiiba 03 December 2010 06:49:52PM 2 points [-]

For some reason, I really like "a elk".

Comment author: TheOtherDave 03 December 2010 05:53:29PM 2 points [-]

I'm not sure what to make of the fact that "lake" was the answer that jumped out at me.

Comment author: MC_Escherichia 03 December 2010 07:30:04PM 4 points [-]

That you are given three of the four letters for "lake" in correct, consecutive order.

Comment author: SilasBarta 03 December 2010 08:23:53PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: MBlume 26 December 2010 03:14:12AM *  5 points [-]

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.

Winston Churchhill

Comment author: HonoreDB 15 December 2010 09:51:22AM 5 points [-]

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

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 December 2010 10:34:22AM 10 points [-]

I can't help but ask whether you've ever found this advice personally useful, and if so, how.

Comment author: MBlume 15 December 2010 09:53:27PM 13 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Nentuaby 18 December 2010 02:12:32AM 6 points [-]

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.

Comment author: xamdam 15 December 2010 10:50:02AM 4 points [-]

Never trust another computational agent unless you can see its source code?

Comment author: bcoburn 15 December 2010 09:24:39PM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Larks 15 December 2010 04:28:46PM 3 points [-]

Telemarketers.

Comment author: HonoreDB 15 December 2010 10:33:52PM 1 point [-]

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).

Comment author: [deleted] 15 December 2010 01:40:36PM 1 point [-]

Never trust other thinking beings if you don't know the location of their intelligence center so that you can destroy it if necessary?

Comment author: waitingforgodel 15 December 2010 11:33:18AM 1 point [-]

Never trust anyone unless you're talking in person? :p

Comment author: Nic_Smith 11 December 2010 10:15:29PM *  5 points [-]

I swear, if I write a column saying it was a beautiful day yesterday, I'll get at least two letters informing me that it wasn't a nice day for the people starving in Bangladesh, and if I wasn't such a heartless son of a bitch who only thinks about himself, I'd realize that and stop talking about the weather, so I should do everyone a favor and kill myself. -- Tom Naughton

Comment author: RichardKennaway 08 December 2010 10:43:26AM 5 points [-]

I prefer the company of peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly.

Montaigne

Comment author: shokwave 08 December 2010 03:18:14PM 3 points [-]

Strikes a blow against education as the source of reason, but also strikes a blow against reason requiring training. Ambivalent.

Comment author: Hurt 03 December 2010 05:05:30PM 5 points [-]

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)

Comment author: Jordan 03 December 2010 09:37:30PM 10 points [-]

There is no governor anywhere; you are all absolutely free.

Robert Anton Wilson, The Trick Top Hat

Comment author: gwern 12 December 2010 03:29:57AM *  1 point [-]

"What did other people's deaths or a mother's love matter to me; what did his God or the lives people choose or the fate they think they elect matter to me when we're all elected by the same fate, me and billions of privileged people like him who also called themselves my brothers? Couldn't he see, couldn't he see that?

Everybody was privileged. There were only privileged people. The others would all be condemned one day. And he would be condemned, too."

--Albert Camus, The Stranger

Comment author: DSimon 03 December 2010 08:14:26AM *  5 points [-]

| "Why did I do that?" I asked.

-- The Poet Who Is Odd, Knapsack Poems by Elanor Arnason

Comment author: Snowyowl 03 December 2010 10:00:28PM *  3 points [-]

The mind boggles as to what he has actually done that is so strange on reflection.

Gentlemen, behold! I have made love to this machine! And now, upon retrospect, I ask why?

-- Dr. Weird, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force*

Comment author: DSimon 04 December 2010 08:01:02PM *  4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 04 December 2010 08:48:39PM 7 points [-]

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.

Comment author: gwern 12 December 2010 03:22:41AM 3 points [-]

"How can I know what I think until I see what I say?"

--E. M. Forster

(Strongly second the Vinge recommendation.)

Comment author: Snowyowl 04 December 2010 09:42:43PM *  2 points [-]

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!

Comment author: David_Gerard 20 December 2010 11:00:03AM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: ActaNonVerba 04 December 2010 10:27:43AM 4 points [-]

"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

Comment author: shokwave 04 December 2010 04:39:08PM 5 points [-]

But be careful of writing your conclusion first!

Comment author: wedrifid 04 December 2010 11:31:46AM 1 point [-]

Wait... I can read that two ways and they are both worth a quote - for entirely different reasons.

Comment author: ActaNonVerba 04 December 2010 10:27:25AM 4 points [-]

"Even though it is a path of 1,000 miles, you walk one step at a time. Consider this well." - Miyamoto Musashi

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 03 December 2010 06:06:42PM 4 points [-]

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Max Planck

Comment author: wedrifid 03 December 2010 07:43:00PM 1 point [-]

p(double post | a quote is awesome and relevant) = 0.87

Which way do I need to update?

Comment author: MartinB 04 December 2010 03:06:50AM 5 points [-]

The quotes idea is pretty much wrong. And sadly sometimes used as an argument against life extension.

Comment author: wedrifid 04 December 2010 04:33:16AM 2 points [-]

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.

And sadly sometimes used as an argument against life extension.

Really? Well, I suppose that would actually make sense according to a certain not-outright-insane value system.

Comment author: MartinB 04 December 2010 11:13:00AM 4 points [-]

Really?

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 -

Comment author: wedrifid 04 December 2010 11:34:10AM 4 points [-]

Over time I notice the occasional instance of ageism in young people.

And in middle aged people and old people too. :)

Comment author: shokwave 04 December 2010 04:45:27PM 1 point [-]

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."

Comment author: ciphergoth 15 December 2010 10:47:07PM 4 points [-]

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?

Comment author: MartinB 04 December 2010 05:02:02PM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: soreff 04 December 2010 11:21:03PM 15 points [-]

time limits to tenure

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.

Comment author: MartinB 05 December 2010 02:30:53AM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: MartinB 05 December 2010 02:35:36AM 4 points [-]

I hope there have been some changes in the way scientists work since the 1960s.

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.

Comment author: Perplexed 04 December 2010 06:53:03PM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: [deleted] 05 December 2010 05:18:26PM 6 points [-]

You're only going to give me 100 years to study mathematics, uninterrupted?

B-b-but! That's nowhere near enough time!

Comment author: MartinB 04 December 2010 07:35:14PM 1 point [-]

I am happy to see how it will turn out

Comment author: shokwave 04 December 2010 05:40:17PM 1 point [-]

This might be the answer you are looking for.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 05 December 2010 03:28:52AM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 04 December 2010 07:19:22AM 3 points [-]

And sadly sometimes used as an argument against life extension.

Really?

Yes.

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 03 December 2010 10:59:20PM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: wedrifid 04 December 2010 03:51:02AM *  1 point [-]

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? ;)

Comment author: DanielLC 04 December 2010 04:50:35AM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: wedrifid 04 December 2010 04:54:27AM *  1 point [-]

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?

Comment author: nshepperd 05 December 2010 06:56:09AM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: anonym 03 December 2010 08:25:36AM 4 points [-]

The value of a problem is not so much coming up with the answer as in the ideas and attempted ideas it forces on the would be solver.

— Yitz Herstein

Comment author: anonym 03 December 2010 08:19:46AM 4 points [-]

I reckon that for all the use it has been to science about four-fifths of my time has been wasted, and I believe this to be the common lot of people who are not merely playing follow-my-leader in research.

— Peter Medawar

Comment author: Jordan 03 December 2010 09:45:33PM 9 points [-]

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.

Comment author: anonym 04 December 2010 04:19:56AM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Gabriel 04 December 2010 03:02:49AM 1 point [-]

As seen elsewhere in this thread, Nietzsche disagrees.

Comment author: JamesAndrix 03 December 2010 05:03:27AM 4 points [-]

"Today I will question my own confusion."

From Today I Will Nourish My Inner Martyr - Affirmations for Cynics by Ann Thornhill & Sarah Wells

Comment author: RobinZ 25 December 2010 12:26:32AM 3 points [-]

I apologize if this is a duplicate, for I cannot find it with the search bar:

What are the facts? Again and again and again — what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" — what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!

Time Enough for Love (1973) or The Notebooks of Lazarus Long (1978), Robert A. Heinlein

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 14 December 2010 12:25:42PM 3 points [-]

To learn to write well is to pursue a connection between your facility with language and the content, intellectual and otherwise, of your character. I do not mean by this that people who cannot write well have no character or that writing is the only way in which people can show their character. I mean, simply, that you cannot write well if you do not make this connection, because not to make it is to fail, as a writer, in holding yourself accountable for the quality of your own thinking. Or, to put it another way, it is to fail to take your own intellect seriously. As a teacher, primarily of writing but also of literature, I measure my success not in how many A’s or B’s I give out—since grades reflect the surface of learning, not necessarily its quality—but in whether my students have begun to take on the responsibility not simply of having ideas, but of having the audacity, because we lie to our students if we do not acknowledge that it takes courage, to attempt to communicate those ideas in words compelling enough to command a reader’s attention above and beyond the fact that they were written in response to a classroom assignment…. As writers, we exercise this responsibility—we hold ourselves accountable—most obviously through the process of revision. In order for revision to be meaningful, however, in order for revision even to be possible, a writer must have a sufficient stake in what she or he is attempting to revise that the work of seeing it anew feels both worthwhile and necessary.

---Richard Jeffrey Newman

Comment author: RyanW 11 December 2010 01:19:55AM 3 points [-]

“Complexity is a symptom of confusion, not a cause.” - Jeff Hawkins

Comment author: wedrifid 11 December 2010 02:15:52AM 3 points [-]

Lies! I use complexity to cause confusion in my opponents all the time!

Comment author: RichardKennaway 08 December 2010 10:44:11AM 3 points [-]

So it is with minds. Unless you keep them busy with some definite subject that will bridle and control them, they throw themselves in disorder hither and yon in the vague field of imagination... And there is no mad or idle fancy that they do not bring forth in the agitation.

Montaigne

Comment author: RichardKennaway 06 December 2010 06:55:55AM *  3 points [-]

The key to getting a reputation for being brilliant is actually being brilliant, not just acting like you are.

Seth Godin

Comment author: shokwave 06 December 2010 12:33:43PM 5 points [-]

Whatever happened to 'fake it till you make it'?

Comment author: RichardKennaway 06 December 2010 12:40:04PM *  7 points [-]

Duelling quotes!

For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them.

Aristotle

We learn an art or craft by doing the things that we shall have to do when we have learnt it

Another translation

Comment author: wedrifid 06 December 2010 08:36:00AM *  4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 December 2010 07:44:04AM 7 points [-]

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).

Comment author: wedrifid 20 December 2010 07:53:05AM *  4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: katydee 06 December 2010 01:59:53AM 3 points [-]

"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

Comment author: sfb 04 December 2010 07:18:49AM 3 points [-]

"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.

Comment author: wedrifid 04 December 2010 04:23:00PM 7 points [-]

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.

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.

Comment author: Miller 04 December 2010 04:33:09AM 3 points [-]

"I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member." -- Groucho Marx

Comment author: JoshuaZ 08 December 2010 02:56:30AM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: Miller 11 December 2010 04:59:36PM *  1 point [-]

Interesting -- below I give the wikipedia take on it.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Groucho_Marx

I sent the club a wire stating, "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER".

Telegram to the Friar's Club of Beverly Hills to which he belonged, as recounted in Groucho and Me (1959), p. 321

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.

Comment author: simplicio 08 December 2010 01:44:29AM 1 point [-]

It's funny, but NO NO NO! This is exactly why rationalists suck at forming socially cohesive groups! :)

Comment author: wedrifid 08 December 2010 02:21:33AM 2 points [-]

That doesn't seem all that likely to me. It would seem somewhat more likely if the quote was 'will not'...

Comment author: Miller 04 December 2010 04:37:30AM 1 point [-]

I rather immediately decided to see if this had been posted before. Google indexed this comment within 2 minutes.

Comment author: Tuna-Fish 07 December 2010 01:35:51AM 2 points [-]

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

Comment author: gwern 12 December 2010 03:40:44AM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: AlanCrowe 03 December 2010 08:00:31PM 3 points [-]

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

Comment author: soreff 24 December 2010 11:45:01PM 2 points [-]

the combination of compliant human + distress call is something of a universal tool, all the cat needs to do is identify there is a problem, then meow until the human makes it go away.

-Nestor

Comment author: NihilCredo 18 December 2010 12:44:53AM *  2 points [-]

“No choice. At. All. When you feel instead of think, there is little room for choice.”

-- Ravel Puzzlewell in Planescape: Torment

Comment author: gwern 12 December 2010 03:14:33AM *  2 points [-]

"I thought a little [while in the isolation tank], and then I stopped thinking altogether. … incredible how idleness of body leads to idleness of mind. After two days, I’d turned into an idiot. That’s the reason why, during a flight, astronauts are always kept busy."

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/

Comment author: apophenia 09 December 2010 06:54:18PM *  2 points [-]

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer

Comment author: ciphergoth 15 December 2010 10:53:47PM 7 points [-]

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.

Comment author: ata 15 December 2010 11:36:34PM *  1 point [-]

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.)

Comment author: ciphergoth 16 December 2010 07:45:39AM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: ata 16 December 2010 08:37:56PM 1 point [-]

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!)

Comment author: khafra 11 December 2010 02:56:52AM *  4 points [-]

With the caveat that P(Truth|observation of one or more stages) < P(observation of one or more stages|Truth)

Comment author: James_Miller 03 December 2010 01:53:14PM 2 points [-]

Dueling Cryonics Relevant Quotes:

When it comes time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.

Tecumseh

Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Though wise men at their end know dark is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night. Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight, And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way, Do not go gentle into that good night. Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. And you, my father, there on the sad height, Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray. Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Dylan Thomas

Comment author: [deleted] 04 December 2010 08:17:09AM 1 point [-]

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 :)

Comment author: shokwave 04 December 2010 09:02:24AM 3 points [-]

Piercing quote in one hand, bludgeoning logic in the other. Surely nobody has resistance to both?

Comment author: [deleted] 04 December 2010 04:45:52PM 2 points [-]

They may have resistance to both, but as long as it's not 100%, we can manage!

Comment author: sketerpot 05 December 2010 06:31:22AM *  1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: phaedrus 02 January 2011 03:17:15AM 1 point [-]

‎"Fine phrases are the last resource of those who have run out of arguments." -- Peter Singer

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 December 2010 01:45:27PM 1 point [-]

Be proactively skeptical not defensively skeptical.

Tim Ferriss | The 4 hour body

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 December 2010 01:44:36PM *  1 point [-]

It's important to look for hypotheses worth disproving

Tim Ferriss | The 4 hour body